Part 22
Such is the force of the promise given to Abraham concerning his descendants. Therefore, although the Lord's election alone rules in this matter, distinguishing the heirs of the heavenly kingdom from those who have no share in it, this gracious God nevertheless chose to place his mercy particularly upon Abraham's offspring and to testify and seal it by circumcision.
The same principle now applies among Christians. For just as Saint Paul says in that passage that the Jews are sanctified by their root and origin, so elsewhere he affirms that the children of Christians are now sanctified through their parents. They must therefore be separated from others who remain unclean.
From this we may easily judge that their next assertion is false: that the infants who were circumcised merely prefigured the spiritual children regenerated by the Word of God. Saint Paul did not raise the matter to such an allegorical level when he wrote that Jesus Christ became a minister to the Jewish nation in order to confirm the promises made to their fathers. It is as though he had said: Since the promises given to Abraham and the fathers concern their offspring, Jesus Christ came to bring that nation to salvation and thus fulfill the truth of his Father.
Thus, even after the resurrection of Jesus Christ, Saint Paul understands the promise as still requiring literal fulfillment. Saint Peter says the same in the second chapter of Acts, declaring to the Jews that the promise belongs to them and to their children. In the third chapter, he calls them children—that is, heirs—of the covenants, still referring to this same promise.
This is also plainly shown by the passage from Saint Paul cited above. For he presents circumcision, which was given to young infants, as a testimony of spiritual communion with Christ. Indeed, what answer could be given to the promise the Lord makes to his believers in his Law, declaring that for their sake he will show mercy to their children for a thousand generations?
Shall we say that this promise has been abolished? That would be to destroy the Law of God, which is instead established by Christ insofar as it works for our good and salvation.
The other differences they attempt to establish between circumcision and baptism are altogether ridiculous, irrelevant, and even mutually contradictory. For after affirming that baptism belongs to the first
day of the Christian warfare, while circumcision belongs to the eighth day, after mortification has been fully accomplished, they immediately say that circumcision signifies the mortification of sin, whereas baptism is our burial after we have died to it.
Even a madman would not contradict himself so openly. According to the first assertion, baptism ought to precede circumcision; according to the second, one might conclude that it ought to follow it. Yet we should not be surprised at such inconsistency. For when the human mind devotes itself to inventing fables and dreamlike imaginations, it is prone to stumble into such absurdities.
We therefore say that the first of these two supposed distinctions is sheer fantasy. The eighth day must not be allegorized in this manner. It would be far better to explain it with the ancients as signifying that renewal of life depends upon the resurrection of Christ, which occurred on the eighth day; or that this circumcision of the heart must continue throughout the whole course of this life.
Yet it appears more likely that in appointing this day our Lord had regard to the frailty of infants. For since he willed his covenant to be imprinted upon their bodies, it is reasonable to suppose that he appointed this interval so that they might first be sufficiently strengthened and their lives not endangered by it.
Their second distinction is no more certain or substantial. To say that by baptism we are buried after mortification is mere mockery. Rather, we are buried in order to be mortified, as Scripture teaches.
Finally, they allege that if we take circumcision as the foundation for baptism, girls ought not to be baptized, since only males were
circumcised. But if they properly considered the meaning of circumcision, they would abandon this frivolous argument. For since by this sign the Lord demonstrated the sanctification of Israel's offspring, it is certain that it applied to females as well as males. It was not physically administered to females only because their nature did not permit it. Therefore, when the Lord commanded the male to be circumcised, he included the female under him. Since she could not receive circumcision in her own body, she nevertheless shared in the circumcision of the male.
Thus, setting aside and rejecting all these foolish fantasies as they deserve, we still retain the correspondence between baptism and circumcision with respect to the inward mystery, the promises, the use, and the efficacy.
They next contend that baptism ought not to be administered to infants because they are not yet capable of the mystery represented in it. For baptism, as is evident, signifies spiritual regeneration, which they claim cannot exist at such an age. They therefore conclude that infants must be left as children of Adam until they have grown sufficiently to attain the second birth.
All this wickedly contradicts the truth of God. For if they must be left as children of Adam, then they are left in death, since it is said that in Adam we can do nothing but die. On the contrary, Jesus Christ commands that they be allowed to approach him. Why? Because he is life. He therefore wills to make them partakers of himself in order to give them life; yet these men contend against his will, declaring that they must remain in death.
If they attempt to evade the matter by saying that they do not mean infants perish merely because they remain children of Adam, their error is sufficiently refuted by Scripture, which says that in Adam we are all dead and have no hope of life except through Christ. We must therefore have a share in him in order to be made heirs of life.
Likewise, it is said elsewhere that by nature we are all under the wrath of God and conceived in sin, which always carries condemnation with it. It follows that we must pass beyond our natural condition in order to partake of the kingdom of God. Could anything be stated more plainly than this?
"Flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God."
—1 Corinthians 15:50
Therefore, everything that belongs to us by nature must be abolished if we are to be made heirs of God, and this cannot occur without regeneration. In sum, the word of Jesus Christ must remain true when he affirms that he is life. We must therefore be in him if we are to escape the bondage of death.
But they ask: How can infants be regenerated when they have no knowledge of good or evil? We reply that although God's work is hidden and incomprehensible to us, it does not therefore cease to be accomplished. Now it is plainly evident that the Lord regenerates those infants whom he wills to save, since it is certain that he saves some of them. For if they are born in corruption, they must be cleansed from it before entering the heavenly kingdom, into which nothing defiled can enter. If they are born sinners, as David and
Saint Paul testify, they must be justified in order to be acceptable to God.
Why do we question the matter further when our Lord tells us that we must all be born again to enter his kingdom? And to silence those who murmur against this, he demonstrated in Saint John the Baptist what he is able to do in others when he sanctified him from his mother's womb.
Nor should this objection be admitted: that because this occurred once, it does not follow that it always occurs. We do not argue in that manner. We intend only to show that they unjustly restrict the power of God toward infants—a power he has once openly demonstrated.
Their other evasion is equally foolish when they allege that Scripture uses the expression from the mother's womb to mean from youth. For it is clear that the angel, in speaking to Zechariah, intended to affirm that John would be filled with the Holy Spirit while still in his mother's womb. The Lord will therefore sanctify whomever he pleases, just as he sanctified Saint John, since his hand has not been shortened.
Indeed, for this reason Jesus Christ was sanctified in his infancy, so that every stage of life might be sanctified in him according to his gracious purpose. For he assumed our own flesh and a body altogether like ours, except for sin, in order to make satisfaction in the very flesh in which the offense had been committed; to fulfill all righteousness and perfect obedience in the nature he intended to save; and also to be more inclined to bear with us in compassionate tenderness. Likewise, he was fully sanctified in his humanity from
his conception so that, by participation in him, even infants might be sanctified.
Both truths are sufficiently testified in Scripture. As to the first, he is called the offspring of Abraham and the fruit of David's body, and also the Son of both, because he descended from their lineage and posterity. Thus Saint Paul says that according to the flesh he came from the Jews. Elsewhere it is said that he did not take upon himself the nature of angels, but Abraham's offspring. The reason is then given: that he might in every respect be like us, except for sin. There can therefore be no doubt that in our own flesh and true humanity he accomplished everything belonging to our redemption.
As to the second point, we know that he was conceived by the Holy Spirit so that his humanity might be sanctified in all fullness and the fruit of his sanctification poured out upon us. Now, if Jesus is the pattern and model of all the graces the Lord bestows upon his children, he may also be an example to us in this respect: that God's hand is no less powerful toward infants than toward those of any other age.
However that may be, we must necessarily conclude that the Lord removes none of his elect from this world without first sanctifying and regenerating them by his Spirit.
They object that the truth recognizes no regeneration except that which is accomplished by the incorruptible seed, which is the Word of God. We reply that they misunderstand Saint Peter's statement. In saying this, he addresses only those who had been instructed in the gospel. For such persons the Word of God is always the seed of spiritual regeneration. But it cannot be inferred from this that
infants may not be regenerated by the Lord's power—a work hidden and secret from us, but easy and effortless for him.
Furthermore, it is altogether uncertain and unwarranted to affirm that the Lord cannot reveal himself to them in some manner. They ask: How could this occur, since faith comes by hearing, as Saint Paul says, and infants possess no discernment of good and evil? But they fail to observe that Saint Paul is speaking only of the ordinary manner in which the Lord works to give faith to his people, not that he is unable to work by another means. Indeed, he has done so in many whom he inwardly touched and drew to the knowledge of his name without ever causing them to hear any spoken word.
And because they imagine that this contradicts the nature of infants, who, according to Moses, do not yet possess discernment between good and evil, I ask them why they seek to restrict God's power, as though he could not accomplish in infants partly what he will accomplish in them perfectly.
For if the fullness of life consists in the perfect knowledge of God, then, since the Lord preserves unto salvation some who depart this world as infants, it is certain that they will receive the full revelation of God. Since, therefore, they will possess it perfectly in the life to come, why could they not receive some small taste of it here?
We do not mean to affirm that infants possess faith, since we do not know how God works within them. Our purpose is rather to expose the rashness and presumption of these people, who according to their foolish imagination affirm or deny whatever pleases them, without any regard for all the reasons that may be brought against them.
But they press the matter still further, saying that baptism is the sacrament of repentance and faith, as Scripture teaches us. Since repentance and faith cannot exist in an infant, it is therefore inappropriate to administer the sacrament to infants, because by doing so its meaning is rendered empty.
These arguments contend more against God's ordinance than against us. For it is evident from many testimonies of Scripture—especially from the fourth chapter of Jeremiah—that circumcision was a sign of repentance. Saint Paul also calls it the sacrament of the righteousness of faith. Let them ask God why he caused it to be administered to infants. For since the same principle applies to both sacraments, if there was nothing unreasonable in administering circumcision to infants, neither is there anything improper in administering baptism to them.
If they seek refuge in their customary evasion—that infants represented the true children who are regenerated—that defense has already been taken from them. We therefore say this: since our Lord willed circumcision, although it was the sacrament of faith and repentance, to be administered to infants, there is no impropriety in administering baptism to them—unless these slanderers wish to accuse God for having made such an ordinance. But the truth, wisdom, and justice of God shine so clearly in all his works as to confound their folly, falsehood, and wickedness.
For although infants did not then comprehend what circumcision signified, they were nevertheless circumcised in the flesh as a sign of the inward mortification of their corrupt nature, which they were to
meditate upon and pursue when their age permitted, having been instructed in it from their earliest years.
By this same reasoning we may answer the passages they cite concerning the meaning of baptism. For example, from Saint Paul's calling it the washing of regeneration and renewal, they contend that it ought to be administered only to those capable of being regenerated and renewed. But we will always reply: circumcision is a sign of regeneration and renewal; therefore, it ought to be administered only to those who are already partakers of them. Thus, according to their argument, God's ordinance commanding the circumcision of infants would have been foolish and unreasonable.
Therefore, no arguments that apply equally against circumcision should be admitted as objections against baptism. Nor can they evade the matter by alleging that whatever the Lord has instituted must simply be accepted as good and holy without further inquiry, whereas such reverence is not due to things he has not expressly commanded. For we need only answer this question: Did God institute circumcision for infants for good reason, or did he not?
If circumcision was rightly instituted, so that no absurdity can be alleged against it, then the same is true of baptism. We therefore answer their argument in this way.
Infants receive the sign of regeneration and renewal. If they depart this world before reaching the age of understanding, then, if they are among the Lord's elect, they are regenerated and renewed by his Spirit as he sees fit, according to a power hidden and incomprehensible to us. If they live to an age at which they can be instructed in the doctrine of baptism, they will learn that throughout
their whole lives they ought to do nothing but pursue this regeneration, whose mark they have borne from infancy.
In the same way we must understand Saint Paul's teaching in the sixth chapter of Romans and the second chapter of Colossians, that by baptism we are buried with Christ. In saying these things, he does not mean that they must precede baptism. He merely teaches what the doctrine of baptism is, which may be taught and learned after baptism has been received just as well as before. In the same way, Moses and the Prophets taught the people of Israel that circumcision signified the same reality, although they had been circumcised when young.
Therefore, if they wish to conclude that everything represented in baptism must precede baptism itself, their error is exceedingly gross —especially since these things were written to persons who had already been baptized. The same must be said of Saint Paul's words to the Galatians, that all of us who have been baptized have put on Jesus Christ. This is true—but to what end? So that henceforth we may live in him, not because we had already lived in him beforehand.
And although adults must not receive the sign until they first possess some understanding of the reality signified, the case of infants is different, as will be explained elsewhere. All such arguments, therefore, when handled in this manner, are nothing but corruptions of Scripture, as anyone may see.
We will deal briefly with their remaining arguments, which may be resolved without great difficulty. They allege that baptism is the forgiveness of our sins, in which they greatly err. For what then
would become of the blood of Jesus Christ, in which alone we possess full and complete cleansing?
But let us pardon this error, which is common among them, and give their argument a stronger appearance by framing it according to Scripture: baptism is a testimony of the forgiveness of our sins. This we grant. But we say that for this very reason it belongs to infants. For since they are sinners, they need pardon and the forgiveness of their defilements. Now, since the Lord testifies that he wills to show mercy to those of this age, why should we refuse them the sign, which is less than the reality itself? We therefore turn their argument back against them.
Baptism is the sign of the forgiveness of sins. Infants receive the forgiveness of their sins. Therefore, the sign, which ought to follow the reality, is rightly administered to them.
They bring forward what is written in the fifth chapter of Ephesians: that our Lord cleansed his Church by the washing of water with the Word of life. Yet this passage also works against them. For from it we reason as follows: if our Lord wills the cleansing of his Church to be testified and confirmed by the sign of baptism, and infants belong to the Church—since they are numbered among God's people and belong to the kingdom of heaven—it follows that they ought to receive the testimony of their cleansing along with the rest of the Church. For when Saint Paul says that our Lord cleansed his Church by baptism, he comprehends the whole Church generally, without exception.
We may draw the same conclusion from their appeal to the twelfth chapter of Saint Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians, that through
baptism we are incorporated into Christ. For if infants belong to the body of Christ, as is evident from what has been said, it is fitting that they should be baptized and thereby joined to the other members of his body.
See how vigorously they fight against us with so many passages heaped together without sense, relevance, or understanding!
They next attempt to show from the practice recorded in Scripture that only adults are capable of receiving baptism. Saint Peter, they say, when asked by those who wished to turn to our Lord what they ought to do, replied:
"Repent, and let every one of you be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins."
—Acts 2:38
Likewise, when the eunuch asked Saint Philip whether he might be baptized, Philip answered that he might, provided that he believed with all his heart. From this they conclude that baptism is ordained only for those who possess faith and repentance.
But if we are to reason in this manner, the first passage would show that repentance alone is sufficient, since it makes no mention of faith; and the second would show that faith alone is sufficient, since repentance is not required there. They will tell me that the one passage supplements the other and that the two must therefore be joined together in order to understand them properly. Likewise, we say that to reconcile everything properly, the other relevant passages
must also be brought together, since the true meaning of Scripture often depends upon the context.
We see, then, that these persons who ask what they must do in order to turn to the Lord are old enough to understand. We do not say that such persons ought to be baptized unless there is first evidence of their faith and repentance, insofar as these can be discerned by men. But infants born to Christians must be placed in a different category.
We do not invent this distinction according to the fancy of our own minds, but possess the certain authority of Scripture for making it. We see that if anyone in former times joined the people of Israel in order to serve the living God, before receiving circumcision he first had to receive the Law and be instructed concerning the covenant our Lord had made with his people. This was because he did not by nature belong to the Jewish nation to which that sacrament belonged.
Indeed, even in dealing with Abraham, the Lord did not begin by commanding him to be circumcised without knowing why. Rather, he instructed him concerning the covenant he intended to confirm by circumcision; and after Abraham believed the promise, the Lord then ordained the sacrament for him.
Why, then, does Abraham receive the sign only after faith, while his son Isaac receives it before understanding anything? Because an adult who does not yet partake of the Lord's covenant must first know what that covenant is before entering it. But the infant born to him, being heir to the covenant by succession according to the promise made to his father, is rightly capable of receiving the sign without understanding its meaning.
Or, to state it more briefly and clearly: since the child of a believer partakes of God's covenant without understanding it, he must not be excluded from the sign, but is capable of receiving it without such understanding being required.
For this reason our Lord says that the children born of Israel's lineage were begotten to him as his own children. He regards himself as the Father of all the children of those to whom he promised that he would be their God and the God of their offspring.
But an unbeliever born of unbelievers remains a stranger to the covenant until he comes to the knowledge of God. It is therefore no wonder that he has no share in the sign, for otherwise he would receive it under false pretenses. Thus Saint Paul says that during the time of their idolatry the Gentiles were without covenant or testament.
The matter now appears sufficiently clear. Adults who wish to turn to our Lord must not be received into baptism without faith and repentance, since this is their only entrance into the covenant that baptism signifies. But the children of Christians, to whom the covenant belongs by inheritance through the power of the promise, are for this reason alone fit to be admitted to baptism.
The same must be said of those who confessed their faults and offenses in order to be baptized by John, since in them we see no other example than the one we ourselves would observe. For if a Jew, Turk, or pagan came to us, we would not administer baptism to him before properly instructing him and receiving such a confession as we considered satisfactory. Yet although Abraham was circumcised only after being instructed, this does not prevent his children after
him from being circumcised without instruction until they are capable of receiving it.
But to show further that the nature of baptism is such that it requires a present regeneration, they appeal to the testimony of the third chapter of Saint John:
"Unless a man is born again of water and of the Spirit, he shall not enter the kingdom of heaven."
—John 3:5
See, they say, how our Lord calls baptism regeneration. If, therefore, infants are incapable of being regenerated, how can they be fit to receive baptism, which cannot exist without regeneration?
First, we will not permit them thus to overturn Scripture by their false interpretations. For in this passage the Lord Jesus Christ makes no mention of baptism. Rather, he employs a metaphor and comparison drawn from bodily things in order to represent spiritual and heavenly things under such a figure.
That this is so appears from what he shortly afterward says to Nicodemus, to whom he was speaking: that he had so far spoken to him only of earthly things. For although his subject concerned high and spiritual realities, he nevertheless handled and explained them in a bodily manner, accommodating himself to the other man's dullness and limited capacity.
Having therefore shown how the natural man, because of what he is, tends toward the earth without aspiring to heaven, Christ means by
this regeneration of water and the Spirit that man must lay aside his heaviness and be reformed into a lighter and more refined nature.
Furthermore, it is evident for another reason that their interpretation must not be admitted: it would exclude from the kingdom of God everyone who had not been baptized. Now, suppose their opinion prevailed and infants were not baptized. What would they say about a young child who had been properly instructed in our faith but died before there was an opportunity to baptize him?
Our Lord says:
"Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life and shall not come into condemnation, but has already passed from death to life."
—John 5:24
Nowhere does he condemn those who have not been baptized. We do not say this in contempt of baptism, as though it might be neglected. We mean only to show that baptism is not so absolutely necessary that a person who was legitimately prevented from receiving it cannot be excused.
According to their interpretation, however, all such persons would be condemned without exception, even though they possessed the faith by which we possess Jesus Christ. Moreover, apart from this, they condemn all infants, since they deny them baptism while declaring baptism necessary to salvation. Let them now reconcile their teaching with Christ's word, by which the kingdom of heaven is assigned to infants.
And even if we granted everything they demand, their inference would still be false, because it proceeds from the false and foolish assumption that infants cannot be regenerated. The extensive argument already given makes the contrary evident: without regeneration there is no entrance into the kingdom of God, either for infants or adults. Now, since some who die as infants are heirs of the kingdom of God, it necessarily follows that they are first regenerated.
They arm themselves for the same purpose with Saint Peter's statement:
"Baptism, corresponding to the figure of Noah's ark, is given for our salvation—not the outward washing away of the defilements of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God, which comes through faith in the resurrection of Christ."
—1 Peter 3:21
If the reality of baptism is a good testimony of the conscience before God, then when this is separated from it, what remains but something empty and worthless? Therefore, if infants cannot possess this good conscience, their baptism is nothing but vanity and smoke.
Here they fall into their constant error of insisting absolutely, without exception, that the reality must precede the sign. We have already refuted this error abundantly. For circumcision, though administered to infants, did not cease to be the sacrament of the righteousness of faith and the sign of repentance and regeneration. If these things had been incompatible, God would not have made such an ordinance. But by teaching us that the substance of circumcision
is such, while nevertheless assigning it to infants, he sufficiently shows that, with respect to these things, it was given to them for the future.
Therefore, the present reality we must consider when baptism is given to infants is that it testifies to their salvation by sealing and confirming God's covenant upon them. The remaining realities signified take effect in them at the time appointed by the Lord for giving them knowledge of these things.
Above all, as their great shield and the principal stronghold of their position, they appeal to what they call the original institution of baptism, which they say was established by the words written at the end of Saint Matthew:
"Go, instruct all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe everything I have commanded you."
—Matthew 28:19–20
To this they join the passage from the end of Saint Mark:
"Whoever believes and is baptized shall be saved."
—Mark 16:16
See, they say, how our Lord commands people to be instructed before they are baptized and shows that faith must precede baptism. Indeed, our Lord demonstrated this by his own example, since he was not baptized until he was thirty years old.
At this point they err in many ways. It is an exceedingly evident error to say that baptism was first instituted at that time, since it had been practiced throughout the whole period of Jesus Christ's preaching. Since baptism must have been instituted before it could be practiced, how can we say that its first institution occurred so long afterward? They therefore strive in vain to take this passage as the original ordinance and thereby restrict the whole doctrine of baptism precisely to it.
But leaving aside this error, let us consider how strong their arguments are. They are not so formidable that we could not easily escape them if we wished to resort to evasions. For they rely so strictly upon the order and arrangement of the words, arguing that instruction must come before baptism and belief before receiving baptism because it is said, "Instruct and baptize," and, "Whoever believes and is baptized."
By the same reasoning, we might reply that baptism must come before teaching people to observe what Jesus commanded, since it is said, "Baptizing them, teaching them to observe everything I have commanded you."
And what if their interpretation of the previously cited passage from Saint John were accepted, so that what is said concerning regeneration by water must be understood of baptism? Could we not then prove by the same reasoning that baptism ought to precede spiritual regeneration, since it is named first? For it does not say, "Whoever is regenerated by the Spirit and water," but "by water and the Spirit."
Their argument already appears somewhat weakened. Nevertheless, we do not rest our case there, since we have a much more certain and substantial answer with which to defend the truth. The principal command our Lord gives his apostles here is to proclaim the gospel. To this he adds the ministry of baptism as something dependent upon their proper commission and principal charge. Therefore, baptism is discussed here only insofar as it is joined to teaching and preaching, as may be better understood through a fuller explanation.
The Lord, then, sends his apostles to instruct men from every nation upon the earth.
And which men does he mean? It is certain that he means only those capable of receiving instruction. He then says that such persons, after being instructed, ought to be baptized. Continuing his discourse, he says that such persons, believing and being baptized, shall be saved. Is any mention made here of infants, in either passage?
What kind of reasoning, then, is this which they employ? Adults must be instructed and believe before being baptized; therefore, baptism does not belong to infants. Let them strain themselves as much as they please; they can draw nothing more from this passage than that the gospel must be preached to those capable of hearing it before they are baptized, since such persons alone are under discussion. It is therefore a gross perversion of the Lord's words to use this as a pretext for excluding infants from baptism.
And so that everyone may plainly perceive where their ignorance lies, I will demonstrate it by a comparison. Saint Paul says:
"If anyone will not work, neither let him eat."
—2 Thessalonians 3:10
If someone inferred from this that infants should not be fed, would he not deserve the ridicule of the whole world? Why? Because he would be applying universally to everyone what was said only of a particular class of people. Yet these worthy men do nothing less in this matter. For what is said specifically of adults they apply to infants in order to establish a universal rule.
As for the example of our Lord, it cannot support them in any way. He was not baptized until he was thirty years old, but that was because he then intended to begin his preaching and through it to establish baptism, which John had already begun to administer. Wishing, therefore, to institute baptism within his doctrine, he first sanctified it in his own body at the beginning of his ministry in order to give it greater authority.
They likewise attempt to support themselves with the example recorded in the nineteenth chapter of Acts: that Saint Paul rebaptized certain disciples at Ephesus who had already received John's baptism because they had not been sufficiently instructed concerning the Holy Spirit. From this they attempt to show that if the first baptism of those disciples was invalid because of their ignorance, then much more must the baptism of infants, who lack all understanding, be regarded as void.
But if their interpretation were correct, each of us would require a river in which to be rebaptized. For who among us does not recognize within himself, from day to day, gross and grievous ignorance? At
every such discovery we would have to run to receive a new baptism, as though the first were of no importance.
Setting aside these thoroughly ridiculous absurdities, let us seek the true meaning of the passage. Some explain the statement that Saint Paul baptized them in the name of Jesus as signifying nothing more than instruction. Although this interpretation accords with Scriptural usage, I will offer another more fitting one, which I trust may be clearly established to everyone.
It is nothing new in Scripture for the reception of the visible graces of the Holy Spirit, such as were given at that time, to be called baptism. Thus it is said that the Lord baptized his apostles when he sent his Spirit upon them and conferred these graces.
According to the account, Saint Paul asks these disciples whether they have received the graces of the Spirit, and they reply that they do not know what these are. He then baptizes them in the name of Jesus—not with water, but in the manner in which the apostles had been baptized on the day of Pentecost.
This is further confirmed by the course of the narrative. What immediately follows—
"And when he had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came upon them"
—Acts 19:6
—is a clearer explanation of this baptism. Such is the customary manner of Scripture: first to state something briefly and then to
explain it through a fuller narration.
Otherwise, Saint Paul would have acted unreasonably in rebaptizing them because of their ignorance, since the apostles themselves remained so ignorant and untaught after their baptism that they knew very little of the power of Jesus Christ. But there is no need to labor over this matter any longer, since this baptism must plainly be understood as the laying on of hands through which the Holy Spirit was imparted.
They object that, by the same reasoning, the Supper ought to be administered to infants, whom we refuse to admit to it—as though the difference were not sufficiently and explicitly marked in Scripture in every possible way.
For if we consider the nature and purpose of baptism, we shall find that it is our first entrance by which we are recognized as members of the Church and given a place among the people of God. It is therefore the sign of our regeneration and spiritual birth, by which we are made children of God. The Supper, by contrast, was ordained for those who, having passed beyond infancy, are capable of receiving solid food.
On this point we possess the very clear Word of the Lord. With respect to baptism, it makes no distinction of age. But it does not permit the Supper to be administered except to those who can discern the Lord's body, examine and prove themselves, and proclaim the Lord's death. Could we desire anything clearer than this?
"Let each person examine himself, and so let him eat of this bread and drink of this cup."
—1 Corinthians 11:28
Self-examination must therefore precede, and this cannot occur in infants.
Again:
"Whoever eats unworthily receives condemnation upon himself, because he does not discern the Lord's body."
—1 Corinthians 11:29
If they cannot partake worthily except with self-examination, it would not be right to present infants with their judgment and condemnation by administering the Supper to them.
Again:
"Do this in remembrance of me. For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death."
—1 Corinthians 11:24–26
How could infants, who cannot yet speak, proclaim the Lord's death?
None of these things is required for baptism. There is therefore a great difference between these two signs—a difference also observed under the Old Testament in the signs corresponding to them. For circumcision, which occupied the place of baptism, was administered to infants. But the Passover lamb, in whose place we now have the
Supper, was given among children only to those capable of asking what it signified.
If these poor people possessed even the slightest taste of the Lord's Word, they would not be so blind as to overlook things which display themselves plainly before their very eyes.
What we have said is plainly sufficient to show how unreasonably and improperly those men trouble the Lord's Church who stir up questions and disputes in order to condemn the holy practice which believers have diligently observed ever since the apostles. We have clearly proved that it has a firm and certain foundation in Holy Scripture, while abundantly refuting all the objections commonly raised against it.
We therefore do not doubt that all good servants of God, after reading this discussion, will be fully satisfied and will plainly perceive that every assault made to overthrow and abolish this holy ordinance is a deceitful device of the Devil. His purpose is to diminish the consolation the Lord intended to give us through his promise and thereby to obscure the glory of his name—a glory magnified all the more as the riches of his mercy are abundantly poured out upon men.
For when the Lord visibly testifies to us by the sign of baptism that, for our sake, he wills to regard our posterity and to be the God of our children, do we not have good reason to rejoice after the example of David? We may consider that the Lord assumes toward us the role of a gracious head of the household, extending his providence not only over us, but also over those who belong to us after our death. In this rejoicing God is especially glorified.
This is why Satan strives to deprive our children of participation in baptism: so that when the testimony ordained by the Lord to confirm to us the graces he wills to bestow upon them has been removed from our sight, we may gradually forget the promise he has given concerning them. From this would follow not only ingratitude and failure to recognize the Lord's mercy toward us, but also negligence in instructing our children in the fear and discipline of his Law and in the knowledge of his gospel.
For it is no small incentive to nurture them in true piety and obedience to God when we understand that from their birth the Lord has received them among his people as members of his Church.
Therefore, let us not reject the great kindness of our Lord, but confidently present to him our children, to whom by his promise he has granted entrance into the fellowship of those whom he acknowledges as members of his own household—which is the Christian Church.
CHAPTER TWELVE
Of the Lord's Supper
The other sacrament given and instituted for the Christian Church is bread sanctified as the body of our Lord Jesus Christ, and wine
sanctified as his blood, as the Ancients customarily spoke. We call it either the Lord's Supper or the Eucharist, because in it we are spiritually fed and nourished by the kindness of our Lord, and on our part give thanks to him for his goodness. The promise given to us in it clearly shows the purpose for which it was instituted and the end toward which it tends. It is intended to assure and confirm us that the body of our Lord Jesus Christ was once delivered for us in such a way that it is now ours and shall remain ours forever; and likewise that his blood was once shed for us in such a way that it is and always shall be ours.
Thus the error of those who have dared to deny that the sacraments are exercises of faith, given to preserve, sustain, strengthen, and increase it, is once again refuted and overthrown. For these are the Lord's words:
"This cup is the new covenant in my blood."
—Luke 22:20; 1 Corinthians 11:25
That is, it is a sign and testimony of the promise. Wherever there is a promise, faith has something upon which to rest, in which to find consolation, and by which to be strengthened.
Our souls may draw from this sacrament great sweetness and abundant consolation: we recognize that Jesus Christ is so incorporated into us, and we into him, that everything belonging to him we may call ours, and everything belonging to us we may call his. Therefore we may confidently assure ourselves that eternal life is ours and that the kingdom of heaven can no more fail us than it can fail Jesus Christ himself. On the other hand, we cannot be
condemned for our sins any more than he can, because they are no longer ours but his—not because any guilt for them may be imputed to him, but because he has made himself our debtor for them and has fully discharged the debt.
This is the exchange that, in his infinite goodness, he was pleased to make with us: by receiving our poverty, he transferred his riches to us; by bearing our weakness upon himself, he strengthened us with his power; by taking our mortality, he made his immortality ours; by descending to earth, he opened the way to heaven; and by becoming the Son of Man, he made us children of God.
All these things are so fully promised to us by God in this sacrament that we must be certain and assured that they are as truly set before us there as if Jesus Christ himself were visibly presented before our eyes and tangibly placed within our reach. For this word can neither fail us nor deceive us:
"Take, eat, and drink. This is my body, which is delivered for you. This is my blood, which is shed for the forgiveness of your sins."
—Matthew 26:26–28; Mark 14:22–24; Luke 22:19–20; 1 Corinthians 11:24–25
By commanding us to take, he signifies that it is ours. By commanding us to eat and drink, he shows that it is made one substance with us. When he says, "This is my body, which is delivered for you," and, "This is my blood, which is shed for you," he declares and teaches us that they are not so much his as ours, since
he took them and laid them down, not for his own benefit, but out of love for us and for our good.
We must carefully observe that the principal and almost the entire power and savor of the sacrament lies in these words: "Which is delivered for you," and, "Which is shed for you." Otherwise, it would profit us very little for the body and blood of Jesus Christ to be distributed to us now if they had not once been delivered for our redemption and salvation. Therefore they are represented to us under bread and wine to teach and show us not only that they are ours, but also that they are given to us for life and nourishment.
This is what we said above: that through the bodily things presented to us in the sacraments, we must be led, according to a certain correspondence and likeness, to spiritual things. For when we see bread presented to us as the sign and sacrament of the body of Jesus Christ, we must immediately grasp this likeness
—just as bread nourishes, sustains, and preserves the life of our bodies, so the body of Jesus Christ is the food, nourishment, and preservation of our spiritual life. And when we see wine offered to us as the sign of his blood, we must consider all that wine does for and contributes to the human body, so that we may understand that the blood of Jesus Christ does as much for us spiritually: it strengthens, comforts, refreshes, and gladdens us. For if we carefully consider what benefit we receive from the delivery of Christ's most sacred body and the shedding of his blood for us, we shall clearly see that, according to this analogy and likeness, what is attributed to bread and wine corresponds perfectly to them.
The chief purpose of the sacrament, therefore, is not simply to present the body of Jesus Christ to us, but rather to seal and confirm the promise by which Jesus Christ tells us that his flesh is truly food and his blood truly drink, by which we are nourished unto eternal life. For he declares himself to be the bread of life, of which whoever eats shall live forever.
"I am the bread of life. Whoever eats of this bread shall live forever."
—John 6:48, 51
To accomplish this—that is, to seal the promise just mentioned—the sacrament directs us to the cross of Jesus Christ, where that promise was fully verified and entirely fulfilled. For Jesus Christ called himself the bread of life, not because of the sacrament, as many have falsely interpreted it, but because he had been given to us as such by the Father and revealed himself as such when, having become a participant in our human mortality, he also made us participants in his divine immortality; when, offering himself as a sacrifice, he took our curse upon himself in order to fill us with his blessing; when in his death he devoured and swallowed up death; and when in his resurrection he raised to glory and incorruption our corruptible flesh, which he had assumed.
This teaching is clearly proved by the words he speaks in Saint John:
"The bread that I shall give is my flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world."
—John 6:51
There he undoubtedly showed that his body would be bread for the spiritual life of our souls because he was to deliver it to death for our salvation. For he gave it once as bread when he delivered it to be crucified for the redemption of the world. He gives it daily when, through the word of his gospel, he offers it to us so that we may partake of it insofar as it was crucified for us.
The sacrament, therefore, does not make Jesus Christ the bread of life by which we live and are continually nourished, but it gives us a certain taste and savor of that bread. In sum, it promises us that everything Jesus Christ did and suffered, he did and suffered to give us life, and that this life-giving power is eternal, so that by it we may always and without end be nourished, sustained, and preserved in life. For just as Jesus Christ would not have been the bread of life for us if he had not been born and died for us, and if he had not risen again for us, so he would not now be the bread of life if the fruit and efficacy of his birth, death, and resurrection were not eternal and immortal.
If this power of the sacrament had been sought and considered as it ought, it would have been sufficient to satisfy us, and the dreadful controversies by which the Church has been so grievously tormented, both in ancient times and even now within our own memory, would never have arisen. These disputes began when inquisitive men sought to define how the body of Jesus Christ is present in the bread, as though this were a matter worthy of being contested with such great strife, both in words and in minds.
It is commonly regarded as such, certainly, but those who do so fail to perceive that they ought first to have sought how the body of Jesus
Christ becomes ours insofar as it was delivered for us, and how his blood becomes ours insofar as it was shed for us. For to know that his body and blood have become ours in this manner is to possess the whole crucified Christ and to partake of all his benefits. Yet these matters, though of such great weight and consequence, have now been neglected—or rather despised and virtually buried—while this one thorny question is debated: How is the body swallowed and consumed by us?
Nevertheless, so that amid such a multitude and diversity of opinions the one sure truth of God may remain with us, let us first remember that the sacrament is a spiritual thing, by which our Lord intended to feed not our stomachs but our souls. Let us seek Jesus Christ in it, not for our bodies, nor as though he could be comprehended by our bodily senses, but in such a way that the soul recognizes him as presently given and offered to it. In sum, let us be content to possess him spiritually, for in this way we shall possess him unto life—which is to receive the entire benefit that may be received from the sacrament. Whoever has carefully considered and understood this will easily comprehend how the body of Jesus Christ is presented to us in the sacrament.
But in order to free ourselves from every scruple by which simple minds can scarcely avoid being perplexed amid such a diversity of opinions, let us first explain in what sense the bread is called the body of Christ and the wine his blood. Afterward, let us consider what communion in his body and blood our Lord gives to his believers in the Supper.
Before all else, we must reject as a monstrous invention the notion imagined by the Sophists concerning what they call transubstantiation. For if anyone, out of reverence for Christ's words, insists that the bread placed into the hand is the body delivered for us, their fantasy is very far removed from the plain meaning of those words. They interpret the word "is" to mean "is transubstantiated," adding that this transubstantiation does not occur through the conversion of one substance into another, but because the body takes the place of the bread, which they imagine vanishes.
Our Lord plainly testifies that what he breaks and places into the hands of his Apostles is his body. Who can fail to understand that by this he points to the bread? They cannot therefore claim that reverence for the words of Jesus Christ compels them to adopt this interpretation, for it is a forced gloss, contrary to the letter and doing violence to it. Never in any language in the world has the verb called substantive—namely, "to be"—been understood in this sense.
There are also many other arguments by which their opinion may easily be refuted. For by this means the mystery that the Lord intended to represent in his Supper would be taken away. What is the Supper but a visible and manifest testimony to the promise found in the sixth chapter of Saint John?
"Christ is the bread of life who came down from heaven."
—John 6:35, 41
The visible bread must therefore remain as a sign by which the spiritual bread is represented to us, unless we wish to destroy the entire benefit of the sacrament and the consolation our Lord has
given here to sustain our weakness. For just as the inward cleansing of the soul is more firmly assured to the hearts of believers when it is represented in Baptism by the outward washing with water, so the bread is of no small importance in the Supper as a testimony to us of the spiritual nourishment we have in the flesh of Christ.
Indeed, to what purpose would Saint Paul conclude:
"We are one bread and one body, because we all partake of one bread,"
—1 Corinthians 10:17
if there were nothing but a false appearance of bread and its true natural substance had been taken away? I pass over the many passages in Scripture where the bread and wine, even after they have been made signs of the body and blood, nevertheless retain their names.
It is a frivolous quibble when they say that Moses' rod was still called a rod after it had been turned into a serpent. For even if I pass over the fact that there was good reason for it to be called by that name, since it was shortly afterward to return to its own nature, there is nevertheless another, more evident reason. It is said there that the magicians' rods were swallowed up by Moses' rod. To speak properly, it was necessary to use the same name on both sides.
To call the magicians' rods serpents would not have been fitting, for it would have seemed that they had truly been changed into serpents, whereas it was only an illusion. It was therefore necessary to say that Moses' rod had swallowed up all the others.
What resemblance is there between this and the following expressions?
"The bread that we break."
—1 Corinthians 10:16
"As often as you eat this bread."
—1 Corinthians 11:26
"They continued in the breaking of bread."
—Acts 2:42
Moreover, the authority of antiquity, which they customarily set against the evident word of God, does nothing to support this article. For it was only recently invented—or at least was unknown in ancient times, when the doctrine of the gospel still retained some purity— since there is not one of the ancient Fathers who does not plainly confess that the signs of the Supper are truly bread and wine, although they often adorn them with various titles to honor the excellence of the mystery.
The opinion of those who obstinately insist upon holding to the words down to the final syllable, refusing to admit any figure of speech, is no more credible. Whatever absurdity is brought against them, they pay no attention to it. They insist that it must be settled that the bread is truly the body, contenting themselves with this single argument: that Christ pointed to the bread when he said:
"This is my body."
—Matthew 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:24
Now, although they protest that their reverence for Christ's words prevents them from accepting any interpretation of so plain a statement, this is not a sufficient pretext for rejecting all the arguments presented against them. Yet I do not think that many arguments are needed to refute them, since they cannot open their mouths without revealing the absurdity of their doctrine. For when they say that the body is so mingled with the bread that the two become one thing in substance, this is not only contrary to the common judgment of all mankind but wholly opposed to faith.
"But," they say, "it is not lawful to interpret rashly those things that are plainly expressed in Scripture." Who denies it? But that this argument, which is continually on their lips, is irrelevant and improperly applied to the present matter will become clear once we have set forth the true interpretation.
Some, therefore, have judged rightly that, because of the affinity and close relationship between the things represented and their signs, the name of the thing is here attributed to the sign itself. It is true that this is a figurative expression, yet it is entirely fitting. For although the sign differs in essence from the thing signified—the latter being spiritual and heavenly, while the former is bodily and visible— nevertheless, since the sign does not merely portray the thing it represents as an empty image but truly delivers it, why should it not take its name?
For if human signs, which are representations of absent things rather than tokens and marks of things present, and which most often
deceive us in what they signify, nevertheless take the names of those things, then with far greater reason may the signs instituted by God borrow the titles of the things they represent, whose meaning they contain with certainty and without deception, and whose truth is always joined to them.
Therefore, whenever you encounter expressions such as "the bread is the body," "the breaking of bread is the communion of the body," and others like them, remember that the name of the higher and more excellent thing is transferred to the lower thing, according to the ordinary usage of Scripture.
I leave aside allegories and parables, lest anyone say that I am wandering beyond the proper bounds in search of evasions. But this figure of speech is especially common in connection with the sacraments. For otherwise we could not understand why circumcision is called the covenant, the lamb the Passover, the Mosaic sacrifices cleansings from sin, and the rock from which water flowed in the wilderness Christ, unless we understood these expressions as instances of transferred language.
Such is the likeness and close relationship between the sign and the thing signified that the passage from one to the other is easy. And since the sacraments bear a great resemblance to one another, they especially agree in this transference of names. Thus the Apostle teaches:
"The rock from which the Israelites received spiritual drink was Christ."
—1 Corinthians 10:4
It was Christ insofar as it was a symbol under which that spiritual drink was truly received, though not visibly perceived by the eye. In the same manner, the bread is now called the body of Christ because it is a symbol under which our Lord offers us the true eating of his body.
If some troublesome and importunate person stubbornly fastens upon the words, "This is my body," closing his eyes to every other consideration, there is enough in that very saying of Christ to overcome such obstinacy.
For the Lord does not say that the bread is his body in any other sense than he says that the wine is his blood. Now, where Saint Matthew and Saint Mark report that the Lord called the cup his blood of the new covenant, Saint Paul and Saint Luke say:
"This cup is the new covenant in my blood."
—Luke 22:20; 1 Corinthians 11:25
Therefore, whoever is so obstinate as to insist upon the former expression may cry as loudly as he pleases that the bread is the body and the wine is the blood; I shall maintain, on the contrary, that it is the covenant in the body and blood. For what will he say? Will he claim to be a more certain or faithful interpreter than Saint Paul or Saint Luke, who understand by the blood the new covenant confirmed in the blood?
It is now necessary to explain what this covenant in the body and blood of Jesus Christ is. For when we deny that the bread eaten in the Supper is the body of Christ, we do not intend in the least to
diminish the communion in his body that is there offered to believers. We wish only to teach that the thing represented must be distinguished from its sign. Experience shows us that this distinction is of far greater consequence than we would wish, and this to our great harm. For the human heart is so inclined to fall into superstition that, as soon as men forsake the truth, they become wholly absorbed in the sign unless they are loudly and clearly called away from it.
Yet here we must guard against two errors. The first is that, by diminishing the signs too greatly, we separate them from the mysteries with which they are in some measure joined and thereby lessen their efficacy. The second is that, by magnifying them beyond measure, we obscure the inward power.
No one, unless he is entirely without religion, refuses to confess that Christ is the bread of life by which believers are nourished unto eternal salvation. But there is no agreement among all concerning the manner in which we partake of him. For some define eating the flesh of Christ and drinking his blood simply as believing in him. Yet it seems to me that Christ himself intended to express something higher in that remarkable discourse in which he commends to us the eating of his body: namely, that we are given life through the true participation in himself that he grants us. He signified this by the words "drinking" and "eating," so that no one might suppose that it consists merely in knowledge.
For just as eating bread, rather than looking at it, supplies nourishment to the body, so the soul must truly be made a participant in Christ in order to be sustained by him unto eternal life.
Meanwhile, we readily confess that this eating takes place only through faith, since no other means can be imagined. But the difference between us and those whose interpretation I oppose is this: they consider eating to be nothing other than believing, whereas I say that by believing we eat the flesh of Christ and that this eating is a fruit of faith. Or, to state it more plainly, for them the eating is faith itself, whereas I say that it proceeds from faith. The difference in words is slight, but in substance it is great.
For although the Apostle teaches:
"Christ dwells in our hearts through faith,"
—Ephesians 3:17
no one will interpret this indwelling as faith itself. Rather, everyone recognizes that he intended to express a singular benefit of faith: that through it believers obtain Christ dwelling within them. In the same manner, when the Lord called himself the bread of life, he intended to signify not only that our salvation rests upon trust in his death and resurrection, but also that, through the true communion we have in him, his life is transferred to us and made ours, just as bread, when taken as food, gives strength to the body.
Saint Augustine, whom they bring forward as their advocate, wrote that we eat the body of Christ by believing in him only to signify that this eating proceeds from faith. I do not deny this, but I add that we receive Christ not as appearing from afar, but as giving and communicating himself to us.
Nor do those satisfy the matter who, after confessing that we have some communion in the body of Christ, explain it by making us participants only in his Spirit, leaving behind all mention of his flesh and blood—as though these words had been spoken in vain:
"My flesh is truly food, and my blood is truly drink."
—John 6:55
And again:
"Unless you eat this flesh and drink this blood, you shall have no life."
—John 6:53
The same applies to other similar statements. Therefore, since it is evident that the communion in question extends beyond what they say of it, let us explain briefly how far it extends—if indeed it is possible to express in words so great a mystery, which I plainly see that I cannot comprehend even in my mind.
I readily confess this, so that no one may measure the greatness of this mystery by my words, which are so feeble that they fall far beneath it. On the contrary, I urge my readers not to confine their understanding within such narrow bounds and limits, but to strive to rise higher than I am able to lead them. For whenever I myself consider this subject, after attempting to say everything, I plainly see how far I remain from attaining to its excellence. And although the understanding has greater power to conceive and comprehend than
the tongue has to express, even the understanding itself is overcome and overwhelmed by such greatness.
In the end, therefore, nothing remains for me but to fall into wonder before this mystery, which the understanding is incapable of comprehending fully, just as the tongue is incapable of explaining it. Nevertheless, I shall present here the substance of my doctrine, which I no more doubt to be true than I doubt that it will be approved by every upright and God-fearing heart.
First, Scripture teaches us that from the beginning Christ has been the life-giving Word of the Father, the fountain and source of life, from whom all things have received the power to exist. Saint John therefore sometimes calls him the Word of life and elsewhere says that life has always been in him, intending to signify that he has continually diffused his power throughout all creatures to give them life and strength.
Yet Saint John immediately adds that life was manifested when the Son of God, having assumed our flesh, gave himself to be seen and touched. For although he had previously diffused his powers throughout creation, man, having been alienated from God by sin, had lost communion with life and was besieged on every side by death. He therefore needed to be received anew into communion with this Word in order to recover any hope of immortality.
For how little ground for hope would we have if we understood that the Word of God contains within himself the entire fullness of life, while we remained far removed from him and saw nothing but death both within and around us? But since that fountain of life began to dwell in our flesh, it is no longer hidden far from us but gives and
presents itself to us so that we may enjoy it. In this way Jesus Christ has brought near to us the benefit of life, of which he is the source.
Moreover, he made the flesh that he assumed and clothed himself with life-giving, so that by participating in it we might be nourished unto immortality. For he says:
"I am the bread of life who came down from heaven."
—John 6:35, 51
And again:
"The bread that I shall give is my flesh, which I shall offer for the life of the world."
—John 6:51
By these words he shows that he is life insofar as he is the eternal Word of God who descended from heaven to us. But he also shows that, in descending, he poured this power into the flesh he assumed so that communion in it might reach even to us. From this follow these statements:
"My flesh is truly food, and my blood is truly drink."
—John 6:55
Thus both are nourishment by which believers are sustained unto eternal life. We therefore have a singular consolation in this: that we find life in our own flesh. For in this way we not only ascend to life,
but life comes forth to meet us and present itself to us. Let us only open our hearts to receive it, and we shall possess it.
Now, although the flesh of Christ does not possess so much power in itself that it could give us life—since in its original condition it was subject to mortality, and when made immortal received its power from elsewhere—nevertheless, it is rightly called life-giving because it was filled with the perfection of life in order to communicate that life to us. In this sense we must understand our Lord's words:
"As the Father has life in himself, so he has appointed the Son to have life in himself."
—John 5:26
For in that passage he speaks not of the attributes he eternally possessed in his divinity, but of those given to him in the flesh in which he appeared to us. He therefore shows that the fullness of life dwells even in his humanity, so that whoever partakes of his flesh and blood shall obtain the enjoyment of that life.
We may explain this more clearly by a familiar example. The water in a fountain is sufficient for drinking, irrigation, and other uses. Yet the fountain does not possess such abundance from itself, but receives it from the spring that continually flows into it and fills it, so that it never runs dry. In the same way, the flesh of Christ is like a fountain insofar as it receives the life flowing from his divinity in order to communicate it to us.
Who, then, does not see that communion in the body and blood of Christ is necessary for all who aspire to heavenly life? To this end
tend all these statements of the Apostle:
"The Church is the body of Christ and his fullness."
—Ephesians 1:22–23
"He is the Head, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by its bonds and joints, grows."
—Ephesians 4:15–16
"Our bodies are members of Christ."
—1 Corinthians 6:15
These things cannot be fulfilled unless he adheres to us wholly in body and Spirit.
But the Apostle sheds still greater light upon this fellowship by which we are united to Christ's flesh when he says:
"We are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones."
—Ephesians 5:30
Finally, to signify that the matter surpasses all words, he concludes in wonder:
"This is a great mystery."
—Ephesians 5:32
It would therefore be desperate folly to acknowledge no communion in the Lord's flesh and blood when Saint Paul declares it to be so great that he prefers to marvel at it rather than attempt to explain it in words.
Nevertheless, we must not imagine this communion as the Sophists have dreamed it: as though Christ's body descended upon the table and were placed there in a local presence to be touched with the hands, chewed with the teeth, and swallowed down the throat. For just as we do not doubt that his body possesses the dimensions required by the nature of a human body and is contained in heaven, where it was received until he comes for judgment, so we regard it as unlawful to bring it down among corruptible elements or to imagine that it is present everywhere.
Indeed, none of this is necessary for us to partake of him, since the Lord Jesus grants us this benefit through his Spirit: that we are made one with him in body, spirit, and soul. The bond of this union, therefore, is the Holy Spirit, by whom we are joined together with him. He is like a channel or conduit through which all that Christ is and possesses descends to us.