a ιν τ = = : δον STAN τὶ panes sinses ν “ewes τ WSs een oes maceete τ meen τ - Asien ποτ σφ στο ὭΣ ποτ" omen oop aS ewer ees : ewan hep pencpantnern aoe on ~igevke ame peers vuocewees πος om Same ΠΤ ΞΟ ΞΟΣΞ, ΣΤ Aaeveoea lap -ercevene soseeigare — teney sauen aan “sicaceventnep wenate -etervecmrererre so ieee ae hee gar eee Speeataey “She Sa eet pay eee vooeepeenenee iene ernie seve semen ecaeevenaeaemeae oar Sawer tomes moe we ττν LSet aoe ya enor - Ὁ TS nt See πον = Scare “mee sere - απ τῶ στῶν mone enna mt τ cwngeneme ond sarees πα — _— πος στο σοτν: pe d tek τος το y aneeeetes = = = 15:22... = = φπτος τοῖον ap veenrrnen = πέραν αν οι, ὃν. οοαθνα, Ἀν... ας κα Serre to carne Σ Σ:: :Σ ΣΣ ταασ οι, ave seowe: me wrereneee SS -ΞΦ-Ξ - ~ — == — SS σπρατι πΣε rao meet ἣν ' ἐν co ay eh! δ Ps GRD. erie) ot. ΗΝ ie ἐ πω dade ee ΚῪ Ἂ es tk Ἐπ 6 Hab ay ΩΚα at's Peat are cent: a a ΡΑΜΑ τ RANE Ὁ SE aS ne Abe HES tod DEY ae TRS ὴ ᾿ ᾿ eee ra ἣν Ν Gr. ce ae oe “5 vc chop ik ἴω» : - a eae bye Se ve ᾿ ον ἐν ΤῊΝ πὸ ἃ i Ν ς ’ ὶ ; , % {πὲ ἷ ἐλ 3 a ro ' * τ ney ΡΥ ft yeasts ΚΠ dup δ Ἢ τ ἠδ᾽ cys pee i ae » ; bt > ied λέν Δ παν ves | te ἜΤ᾽ iv} ἜΝ ao 19) ROG: & “hx μ' "ἢ ve ub ethos ot Ὁ iia seed iT Jaden wah, 1} Why (regiepit't : aha ἷ bis Οὐκ ν aki; peers hit ete Ui «ΙΑ: Hib ds π᾿) ΙΝ ; é ἀρ Peon. LEA cone Ba Nitta it ἐμ, ράλκ αν ρὲ pee an i τς Ἀγ: δὰ χρίει fy. ἘΣ nile ‘eth gl tetuicck: edt ιν γοίδηξ,ς, att ὌΝ ie αἰ teil bite ses nhs ey τιον beg oe δ fa ch isthel Sra ibe 3 bgt ἊΜ ‘oe ‘nek y bat ἣ ent ΝΟΣ ; beng i ie a) 6g, Sap Ls δᾷ +42 ἘΝ figs ἐν δε τε ὟΣ ij ed ‘aris ist Pepe ae ey Ney “ὦ Sx 1/7 XD, Co oe ENG fe INTRODUCTION. Ὡς ee rr τ» εν Through a dispensation of grace, no less wonderful than munifi- cent, man has become an agent in his own mysterious purification. To his lips has been committed the Gospel of peace; to his hands, the ministration of the hoiy Sacraments; and, like the Propnets of israel, inspirations which he does not comprehend, give eloquence to his voice, and he wields spiritual influences which too freguent- ly, alas! he but lightly appreciates. Confined no longer to the priests of a special people, the sacred mysteries have forsaken the Urim and Thammim, have burst the veil of the temple, anc come as universal as the waters that cover the earth, or the vege tation that adorns her bosom. The Messiah has come. He hus exalted human nature from its deep depravity. He has instituted @ new system; has established his church, rich as it is tree, and universal as it is perfect. He has left his Word in the air, his pu- rity in the waters. The Author and the Lord of nature, he has sanctified with his ewn flesh and blood, the consecrated prodne- tions of the field and the vineyard. ‘My flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.”?? His blood has fiewed from the cross, his body has reposed in the earth, and the tainted labors of his creative hand are purified from the contamination of Satan. His baptism was the baptism of nature, the regeneration of terres- trial things. Well might he take the bread and the cup, and say to his disciples, “This is my body; this is my blood.”? Well might he enjoin upon his church the sacred obligation of perpeia- ating the mystery, with faith in his name; for he alone could fore- see and appreciate the physical and moral renovation, which would thus reclaim the future generations of men. Such were the views which occupied the thoughts, and engaged the meditations of the primitive church; nor did Christianity in the days of her youthful purity, denounce the profound contempiations of Cyril or Athanasius, of Chrysostom or Eusebius, as the dreams of a visionary idealist. Questions infinite in magnitude, from age to age, recurred to the mind, and pressed upon the heart of devout worshippers.—How could a Divine nature clothe itself in flesh ? On what mission came the Son of God from heaven? What eya- aN fay ζ pea ! (ἢ . V1 INTRODUCTION. ‘tem did he institute? Why does it consist of thtet elements,—the Gcosp2l, Baptism, the Eucharist? In what relation do these stand to each other? What peculiar office does each subserve in the restoration of man from the malignity of the Fall? What need had Christ to be baptized? Why did he change water into wine 7 Why did he select bread and wine for the institution of his Supper 7 ‘hese interrogations, with thousands of similar import, furnished a delightful exercise to reason, and imparted vitality to faith. Such were the deep interrogations,—after the lapse of a thousard years of darkness and ecclesiastical despotism,—which the Greek Paulician, in the twelfth century, brought to the marts of Nar- bonne and Toulouse, to the banks of the Rhone and Garonne, where the beautiful language of Oc was spoken, when he roused the dull eredulity of western Europe, and struck the supremacy of the Roman hierarchy with its frst terrors. But, appraling to the superstition and cupidity of asemi-barbarous age, the power of Rome triumphed, and the Albigensian heresy was repressed. Then two generations passed away, lulling the immortal mind in the lap of supersti= tion, When once again, Uberty and reason dared to struggle for the ascendant. The power of the Papacy was now at its height. Vrederick II., the ablest of a long list of German Cesars, nobly attempted to defend the right of the civil power against the en- eroachments of the Roman pontiff. But the vengeance of Rome pursued his house to the third generation. Manfred perished on the field of battle; Conradin on the scaffold. Another century passed by, and the aspect of society was greatly improved. Thousands were studying the immortal works of Plate and Aristotle, of Cicero and Seneca; the powers of the modern langnages were developed the invention of printing had infinitely extended the intercourse of minds; an increasing thirst for know1- edze and for spiritual freedom, now again revived the same deep interrogations, and the crear Rerormartion began, ‘The sp*‘rit of Luther glowed with invincible ardor, Melanchthon was learned, the Elector of Saxony was faithful, and the supremacy of Rome was set at defiance. In the history of those conflicting opinions, which agitated the Reformers in their struggle for spiritual emancipation, will be found the reasons and the apology for all that follows in the pres- ent volume. Before the reader of our translation suffers himself to take offence at any thought or expression, which he may consider harsh or acrimonious, let him recollect the spirit of the age in which INTRODUCTION. Vil it was uttered, the violence, the momentous interest of the conflict, and the fearful necessities of the times. If he feel solicitous to know why controversial writings, which have slumbered for ages, are now revived, let him reflect that the same deep interrogations are again demanding solution in the freedom of our western world; at a time, too, when men are but little prepared for such inquities, by all the habits, the modes of thought, and the institutions of a purcly utilitarian age. For assuredly men seem to have forgotten, that the Unseen al 6 is permanent and real, and that Truth herself 18 a personified ideality. In the Sermon, the Letter, and the Dissertation which follow, Luther brings under review, and refutes with great ability, vari- ous pernicious opinions, respecting the holy Sacraments, enter- tained and defended by the Anabaptists, by Carlstadt, Zwinglius, and Gicolampadius. From actual comparison we are assured, that not a single new argument bas been added to the controversy, by the perverse diligence of modern incredul.ty; but on the contrary, that many of the most formidable objections of Gcolampadius and the Swiss reformer, have either been entirely overlooked, or left un= appreciated. Inthe writings of more recent theologians, who have attempted to revive and defend-these opinions, we find nothing but a repetition of the same fallacies, and even the very same re- ferences to parallel passages. We tind them indulging the same convenient latitude in the interpretation of Scripture, and exhibit- ing the same efforts to escape the pressure of the literal sense, amid the intricate mazes of figure and allegory. The Sermon and the Letter are directed principally against the Anabaptists, a fanatical sect of reformers, who contended, that Baptism should be administered to adults only—not by sprinkling, but by dipping. They even asserted that the office of magistrate is unnecessary; that all distinctions of birth or rank ought to be abolished; that a community of goods should be established; and that the disciple of Christ may lawfully marry as many wives as he thinks proper. Their first prophet, Mtinzcr, suffered ona scaf- fold at Mulhousen, in 1525. Some time after, a baker of Harlem, named John Matthias, and a journeyman tailor, generally called John of Leyden, assembling their associates, expelled the inhabi- tants of Munster, and established a singular kind of republic, over which they ruled with absolute authority, calling the place Mount Zion. The bishop of Munster collected a considerable army, and invested Munster. Matthias with his associates sallied out of the Vill INTRODUCTION. town, ferced the bishop’s camp, and returned, loaded with spoil and glory. Elated by this success, and thinking nothing impossible to the favorites of heaven, with no more than thirty of his followers, he went out again to meet the enemy, boasting that, like Gideon, he would smite the hosts of the ungodly with a handful of men. The prophet with his thirty attendants was slain. The Anabap- tists, however, far from despairing, rallied under John of Leyden, their other light. Assuming the title of king, in a very short time this enthusiast took no less than’ fourteen wives. In this his brethren followed his example. The city was taken some time after by surprise, most of the Anabaptists were slain, and their king was made prisoner and put to death. The unfortunate controversy, which gave occasion to the Dis- sertation on the Loerd’s Supper, is said to have originated with An- drew Bodenstein, better known under the appellation of Carlstadt, the place of his nativity. In 1501, this man came to Wittemburg, where, after remaining till the year 1510, he became professor Οἱ philosophy. After this he seems to have fallen into various and pe:+ plexing controversies. Perhaps in consequence of this he left Wit- temburg, and in 1524 was made pastorof Orlamtnde. Euthereagain he awakened the spirit of controversy, and excited great asperity of feeling, throwing the images out of the churches, filling the schools with confusion, and publishing several treatises, in which he ad- vised all the young to relinguish their studies. Here, too, his er- roneous opinions in relation to the Eucharist were first made pub- lic. The Elector ef Saxony ordered him to leave the country. After residing some time at Strasburg and Basel, through the in- tercession of Luther, he was suffered to return to Saxony. On his way he stopped at Kemburg, where assuming the dress of a far- mer, he hauled wood to town, and called himself “neighbor An- drew.’? He remained here till 1528, when he left secretly, and returned to Strasburg. Failing of success, he retired into Switzer- land, and in 1530 was made professor of theology at Zurich. From this time up to his death in 1513, he created no disturbance. Zwinglius at the time was canon of Zurich, a man of extensive learning, uncommon sagacity, and heroic intrepidity of spirit. On the doctrine of the real presence, his opinica at first coincided with that of Luther; but a treatise by Cornelius Honnius, a na- tive of Holland, falling in his way, effected an entire change in his views on this subject. For a long time, however, he withheld from the public any declaration of his recent convictions. In INFRODUCTION. IX 1525 he published at Zurich his Commentary on the True and the False Religion, addressed to Francis I., king of France ; and we are told by Hospinianus, in the second part of his History of the Sacra- ments, that Zwinglius wrote this commentary, not with a view to provoke Luther into a controversy, but merely to refute the papistical doctrine of transubstantiation. Nor had Gcolampadius acquired less distinction by his learning and piety, and by his scrupulous fidelity to the principles of the Reformation. Ina work which he published in quarto, A. D. 1521, he makes the following declaration: “We believe simply and with- out the least hesitancy, that the true body is present, and contained under the bread; the blood, under the wine.” Yet this same ex- cellent man, in a sermon delivered at Basel some years afterwards, and published in Latin, professes himself a convert to the figura- tive interpretation of Carlstadt and Zwinglius. In reference to this portion of his sermon, the learned Erasmus observes in one of his letters: “9 A new opinion has lately been advanced,—that there is nothing in the Eucharist except bread and wine. I find this opinion in a sermon of John Gicolampadius; and he has fortified it by arguments and testimonies, not only numerous and difficult to be refuted, but such as would seem capable of deceiving the very elect.”? It is easy to perceive here, that this eminent linguist co= incided with Luther on this subject; though a lengthy controversy afterwards sprung up between them, in quite a different depart- ment of theology. Such were the leading divines of the age, who elicited the tri- umphant refutation compasing the present volume. Nothing con- firms more strongly the remark of Macauley, that ‘* Divinity is - not a progressive science,”’ than the history of this controversy. Upwards of three centuries have passed away, and yet in the per- verse opposition which is 5111] maintained against the literal inter- pretation of the propositions, “This is my body,” “ This is my blood,”’ the very same tropes and figures are still resorted to,—the metaphor, the metonomy, the synecdoche, and even the figure allo- Osts, or more properly alloiesis,—and precisely the same misappli- cations made of every one of them. In the following pages, the reader will find these misapplications detected and exposed with the skill of a master. We should fail in attempting to express our astonishment, that men even of that age as well as of the present; men of high natural endowments, of refined culture, and profoundly skilled in logical and philological principles, should continue to Χ INTRODUCTION. outrage every principle of language in their reasonings on this sub- ject. Let any one of these men, we fear not to assert it, have ta- ken under his consideration an indefinite number of propositions from the common stock of literature, and he would uniformly have pointed out each of these figures, whenever they occurred, with perfect ease and accuracy. Indeed such an exercise is found to be a pleasant amusement to mere tyros of ordinary capacity. But behold the ridiculous contradictions and perplexities, when men suffer themselves to be dazzled by a favorite theory, and persist m supporting that theory at the expense of reason and science! When- ever a word ἐς figurative, a boy can detect the figure with facility ; but it will puzzle a learned doctor to detect a figure where there is none. We entreat the reader to take one connected view of the erroneous interpretations which Carlstadt, Zwinglius, and Cco- lampadius have made on these figures, bearing in mind that the same errors are committed by certain divines and commenta- tors at the present day. In the proposition, “1 am the vine,” one says the metaphor is in the verb am, for which he proposes repre- sents or signifies as its literal equivalent. Now take “1 represent the vine” in its Zéteral sense, and the idea is absurd. The propo- sition then means, “1 exhibit the vine,”? or, “41 show the vine.”’ Take “I signify the vine” in its Ziteral sense, and the proposition means, “1 make known the vine,” or, “41 make a token or sign of the vine.”’ It is plain, then, that these words,—vrepresents and signi fies,—must not be taken in their Z’tzral sense, if the proposition is to convey the idea intended. They must, in truth, be taken in a figurative sense. Hence instead of one being removed, a meta- phor has been introduced into the proposition. Suppose a similar proposition be taken from our common literature, and not only a doctor of Divinity, but many a boy will tell you immediately, that the word vize is the metaphor. Another, while torturing the proposition, ‘* This is my body,” says there is a synecdoche in the word Jody ; that is, the s¢gu is put for the thing signified. ‘To restore the literal sense, he proposes sign of body, instead of body. But if body is a synecdoche, zt must itself be the sign of the literal word or words. How, now, can ody be the sign of the sign of body? Junius has been denominated a xomizis wmbra ; the penumbra is the shadow of a shade; but a sign of the sign of body is assuredly the strangest reduplication of all. We should rather be persuaded, that sign of body is actually the sign af body, and lody the thing signified; so that instead of removing INTRODUCTION. ΧΙ the synecdoche, CEcolampadius has in reality forced one into the proposition. Then again the reader will find them advancing upon a sort of terra incognita, the regions of allotosis, by which they wish to con- vey the idea, that Christ, in using the word lody, really meant his soul,—having put the heman for the divine nature. Now Aristo- tle, in presenting a distinction between yeveous and αλλοιοσις, gives us an express definition of the latter: ‘* Alloiosis takes place when the subject remains the same, while there is a change in its pas- sions. As, for example, the body is healthy, and again is sick, yet remains the same body.’’? According to this, all/ovosts means a change of condition or property, without a change of essence. But these men reverse this definition precisely, and deduce a figure which does not exist in any language. Indeed we may venture the opinion, that allovosts in its true sense, precisely expresses Luther’s idea of the Eucharist, and actually converts the real propositions,—* This is my body,’’ “This is my blood,’’—into essential proposit ons. All these absurd perplexities and fallacious interpretations, Lu- ther unfolds and scatters to the winds, with admirable dexterity ; sometimes in a tone of pious solemnity, accompanied with senti- ments of deep and thrilling significance; sometimes with a playful levity of fancy, amusing himself with the bursting bubbles of learned doctors. Guided by the native vigor of a comprehensive genius, yet restrained and awed at every step by the reverence which he always felt for whatever he read in the Word of God, this great man in all his reasonings will generally be seen far in advance of his age. Possessing a more profound penetration into the nature of things, a more acute and lively perception of the na- tural force of words, than all his learned cotemporaries together, his views of physical substance and property, have ever since been deriving stronger and still stronger confirmation, from the best phil- osophers of subsequent ages. Reid, Stewart, Brown, Harris, Cousin, and Sir William Hamilton, abound with suggestions im re- lation to the physical constitution of things, and the laws of mental perception, which are the very thoughts of Luther, clothed in the technicalities of modern science. And to this we may add, with- out fear of extravagance, that neither Longinus nor Burke, Seneca nor Fowler, can convey to the youthful mind a more precise and accurate conception of figurative language, than the disquisitions which will be found in the present volume. χιὶ INTRODUCTION. Always adhering with reverent tenacity to the authority of Scripture, Luther has portrayed with faithful perspicuity, as it seems to us, that sublime and mysterious ritual which the Re- deemer instituted for his church. According to this, the zzstru- ments or means by which Divine grace is implanted and matured in the human soul, are three: the Gospel, Baptism, and the Eucha- tists The Gospel comprises tiree elements: the Word, the Preach- ex, and the Command to preach. Baptism, in like manner, com- prises three elements: the Word, the Water, and the Command to baptize. And finally, the Eucharist derives its efficacy from three elements: the Bread and Wine, the Words of the Institution, and the Command to cbserve it as a Sacrament. Here, then, is a system which exhibits in miniature the light of all revelation, as to the external manifestations of the soul’s pro- gress in grace; a system which has been very careful in diserimi- nating between causes and effects; which regards the Great Origi- nal Spirit, as an active, intelligent Power, the universe as a mani- festation of that. Power; which beholds the divine nature of Christ, distinct and infinite, reaching down to the depths of depraved hu- manity, and exalting it to the throne of God, by a gracious and sacramental communication of his own inexhaustible attributes. It is a system which demonstrates that bodies possess powers as well as properties ; that they can exist in a Jatent as wel] as ina sensible state; and that they can, by virtue of these powers, mani- fest their presence in vayious places at the same time. Jn the hu- man mind, a mighty conflict is ever progréssing between the rival claims of sensualism and idealism, of mysticism and scepti- cism; and amid the ferment a residuum of truth, perhaps equally indebted to the four, will still perpetuate, from age to age, the harmony of intellectual, moral, and voluntary powers. Our con- victions are not easily to be shaken, that this truth will always be found to accord with the declarations of Holy Writ, and the doc- trines enunciated inthe following pages. And whenever faith embraces the material agencies of the Word, the Water, the Bread and Wine, as the only authorized channels of divine communion, in humble silence it will partake of the szbstance for the sake of the property, and perceive only in the inmost recesses of the soul, the sweetness and power of their consanguinity. ᾿ = > “, . εἶν " ᾿ ν᾽ ν ἧς — ἂν, ' "> β ΜΕΝ ~ ᾿ς ἷ , ~-g « ΄ ω © “Ξ SERMON ON HOLY BAPTISM, BY DR. MARTIN LUTHER, ἘΝ THE GOSPEL FOR THE FESTIVAL COMMEMORATIVE OF TEE LORD'S MANIFESTATION.—MATT. 3, 13-17. Written ia the year 1535. ἂ :." ENS Nae ον ST ee ἔν κά Τα, 6. Ὁ “GRA: ate cag nian Mee eae ᾿ εν »" ἃ te Ἷ τον Μὴ ae ΤῊ ᾿ tee £ & ae adda ; iil ενῆον κα ac a αν il me 2 ΗΝ ty} <)> 2 4, eS tae, Ἢ ἃ “3: (JS > 036, > DR. LUTHER’S PREFACE; - tz » "vy ὃν If I reflect how unpleasant I have been rendering myselt to th’s charming, this devoted spouse of the devil, who in German is called die Welt, (the world,) well indeed might I wish to relinquish my preaching and writing, and rather desire that my name be forgotten or never thought of, than ever to proceed any further, or to write or preach any more. On my own part this would be attended with little difficulty. But since this pleasing bridegroom and his lovely bride desire to be implicitly reverenced, and to devour my Lord Jesus Christ, I must demean myself as if I were alarmed, and as if Christ, my Lord, were dead and had gone to corruption fifteen hundred years ago; yet 1 must act not as if my alarm were unto death, but 1 must show that the death of Christ, my Lord, is not injurious to his life. For moder- ation, I hear it said, is good in every thing: and I know that Christ, my Lord, is not entirely extinct, nor am 1 so dispirited. I have accordingly proposed to myself to publish these sermons of mine in honor to the holy insti- tion of Baptism, which even in our time has to encounter many adversaries, and the devil with his world is fear- fully enraged against it. 2. There again are the Anabaptists, still raging con- tinually with the old antichristian Archanabaptists, who, through their own works have baptized and still bap- tize themselves. Here too, in the third place, the Epi- cureans are intruding, to baptize in their singular mode, so perfectly insignificant. And this blessed, this hoiy 4 PREFACE. baptism is so violently assailed on all sides, that it is necessary for us to provide for and to guard it well. 3. Yet, although it may very possibly not escape without injury, EF still hope that Christ Jesus, apparently so peor and impotent, will maintain the field against the devil and all his mighty, his learned men and councils. Whoever will be a true member of this rejected, glori- ous king, who shall abide forever, let him fervently implore assistance; let him pray that the period of his “justice and the visitation of his kingdom, may soon eome. ‘fo him, as to our righteous, eternal God and Lord, with the Father and Holy Ghost, be everlasting gratitude and praise. Amen. SERMON ΟΑ HOLY BAPTISM, BY DR. MARTIN LUTHER, ON THE GOSPEL FOR THE FESTIVAL COMMEMORATIVE OF ΤῊΝ BORD'S MANIFESTATION.—MATT. 3, 13-17. Written in the year 1535. THE GOSPEL ACCORDING To MATT. 3, 13-I7. Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto Jahn to be baptized of him. But John forbade him. saying, “ [have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou tome?” And Jesus answering said unto him, “ Suffer it to be so now, for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness.” Then he suffered him. Jind Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straight way out of the water; and lo! the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God de- scending like a dove and lighting upon him ; and lo! a voice from heaven saying, ““ Thists my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased.”’ 1. Among the chief Festivals of Christ the Lord, there is this one also which is called, from the Greek, Epiphania Domini, the manifestation or revelation of 0 BAPTISM. the Lord. And it has been thus named and instituted by the ancient holy Fathers for three reasons, namely, that during this Festival we may commemorate, in the first place, that Christ was manifested by means of a star to the heathens from the east, whom we call Magi, Matt.2,2. Secondly, that he performed his first mira- cle when he changed water into wine at the wedding in Cana, and revealed his divinity to his disciples, John 2, il. And thirdly, that he was baptized by John in Jor- dan, and a glorious revelation from heaven appeared above him, Matt. 3, 16,17. And doubtless a particu- iar time in the year has not without reason been ap- pointed throughout the Christian world, for the purpose of preaching about this highly venerable sacrament of holy baptism, in order that it meht be well understood I by Christians, as their most ex- aad properly honored alted treasure upon earth, in which their salvation and paring consist. It is reasonable that this Festival should have this eminent name, from the baptism of Christ; and hence this sermon shal! treat especially ef holy baptism. 2. For indeed it 1s not only reasonable and night, but highly necessary too, that we in a Christian ecm- munity discourse apon this holy sacrament, and instruct the people thoroughly, that they may observe their bap- tism, so dear to them, not with so sheht an interest as hitherto, alas! because no one has preached or taught any thing concerning it ; on account of which baptism ts scarcely regarded at all, but almost entirely neglected and forgotten, and we have set up in its stead our human contrivances and ordinances, wrought out by human in- venuity. To such an extremity have matters arrived, that a loathsome monk’s cow! has become more highly BAPTISM. 7 εἰ valued and esteemed than holy baptism. Such a state -. of things never would have appeared, and doubtless every description of crime and error would haye been effectually restricted, had we presented and inculcated their baptism in a proper manner atnong Christians. 3. But the wretched spirit of evil has so far re- dressed the anguish of his heart, as to remove the righ- teous, pure doctrine from the pulpit, and substitute his own lies and deceptions. Such has always been the fate of the word and work of God in the world, that whatever he declares and does, must pass as nothing; but whatever the devil declares and does, is preserved and esteemed as some invaluable possession. ‘This most assuredly tends to counteract the blessed Lord in all his words and works. Wherefore the blessecl God finds it extremely necessary that we highly extol his word and work, and elucidate them in the best man- ner before Christians, in order that they may learn to regard both his word and his work as great and glori- ous, and that they may not judge according to the opin- ions and delusions of the world. 4, For it is very true that this word and work make an appearance extremely humble and repulsive, because they do not come, they are not paraded hither with great pomp and princely pride. But if they were bedect with gold, with pearls, with velvet and silk, or would cause streams of gold and silver to flow, or were performed by the great, the mighty, by people vf high learning, by lords and princes, then would this word and work too be in so high repute and honor, that all the world would run, and sing and speak about them. . But now, because they are so very insignificant, and administered without any ostentation, only by means 8 | BAPTISM. «ὦ as of one little human mouth and hand, and with so common a sign as water, baptism itself must remain unobserved and rejected. 5. For the world is neither einen nor able to em- brace any thing which does not Soin rte In’ some degree to open the eye and the mouth. “Ὁ what should that import,” say they, ‘‘ that we dip a little child into water, or sprinkle it with a handful of water? What is that more than other water, with which we wash the feet?’ But it might be of some mo- ment, if a priest would advance hither, with expensive malmsey, or balsam, a drop of which would cost one hundred guilders; or if a great prince and bishop should baptize, with immense noise and clamor, as when they baptize their bells. But since this splendor and display are not employed, and God applies exter- nally nothing more than a handful of water in its admin- istration, he must also suffer it to be rejected by the world. For men will have their eyes and ears filled immediately, or else they will attach no importance to it. 6. And he is even served right too, according to their opinion. ‘For how does it happen,” say they, ‘that he acts so strangely in reference to this matter, and does not arrange it in a different manner, if he will have it highly honored and esteemed as something di- vine? If he is so great, so mighty, intelligent,. and wise, he should have constituted this also very differ- ently.” But he does this even for this reason,—that he may reduce the world in its wisdom to foolishness ; and because they wish to criticise and censure the words and works of God, so that they can admit him to be neither right nor good in any thing, he will give the world enough of it. And by no means less effectually ᾿,, BAPTISM. | 9 ΓΙ r through this humble, unobtrusive word, does he execute a work within his Christians which the world can never understand nor attain. And here again he serves it right, since it will reject baptism for the want of display, and will neither hear nor see that, by way of punishment to its obstinate malignity, it robs itself of exalted, divine enjoyment, and is allured by the devil into every sort of error and crime, though un- der the broad splendor of a godly name. 7. We perceive how it has happened to the blessed word and sacraments, and, by our own experience of injuries which have occurred in the Christian world, we learn and must still daily await this danger, especially be- eause the infamous faction of Anabaptists is so prevalent every where already, by which the devil will again darken and extinguish the true doctrine, after it has been re- stored and purified by the grace of God, so that it kin- dles and shines a little. So much the more, then, in opposition to this, should we honor our blessed baptism; we should praise and elucidate it as much as possible, and the more resolutely determine to preach concerning it. Wherefore we desire to discourse of it yet once more, so far as God may vouchsafe his grace, bringing proper instruction for the unsuspecting, by which it can be fully comprehended, and a clear distinction drawn, which may enable him to determine every erroneous doctrine which may arise in opposition. And first let us speak of baptism in itself,—explaining the nature of it; and then of its benefits and effects. THE FIRST PART. 8. We divide Baptism into three distinct parts, which are the Water, the Word, and the Command or 10 BAPTISM. Order of God. Thus, we must not only regard the water, like other water, but the word also, which is the word of God, in or with the water; and thirdly, the will and power of God, or his command and institution. These are the parts which belong to the entire nature, and to a proper definition of baptism. And they should be viewed in immediate connection with each other, and not be severed and separated, since in union with each other they constitute a correct baptism. 9. For in order that it may be, and be called a sa- crament, it is necessary first of all that some external, tangible sign or substance be employed, through which God deals visibly with us, so that we may be assured of his operation. For without some external sign or medi- um, God will not operate upon us, merely by a deeply se- cret inspiration, or a peculiar divine revelation. But the exterual work and sign will effect and accomplish nothing at all, if his word is not added, through which this sign becomes mighty, and we perceive what God is ac- complishing within us by this sign. But the divine command also must be united to both these, in order that we may become assured of his will and work in this sign and word. These three parts, accordingly, I must carefully discriminate. For in opposition to these, three kinds of teachers or masters are found, all of whom pervert and mutilate the ordinance of baptism. 10. In the first place, those are as rude as cattle and swine, who can view it merely as water, and can say no more than ““ Water is water, and remains water.” For such a being is in no respect better than the cattle ‘or swine,—let him be a heathen, a Turk, some factious spirit, or the clumsy animal that carries the Pope. And in reference to the understanding of a beast, this would be , BAPTISM: 11] Ψ΄ correctly asserted. For a tow can know nothing more about it than as she sees, namely water; and whoever does not know the word of God, should not speak otherwise than as a horse or an ass: as the Scripture styles them, Psalm 32, 9. 11. Now, such are our infamous factions of Anabap- tists, servants of the devil, who are perpetually running about the country and preaching against us, with ex- alted intellect representing us and all Christians as wicked, contending that we are grossly ignorant, and that we intend by means of water to be saved. And they are indeed very learned masters, and exceedingly eminent Spirits, who teach us this original, this lofty science, that water is water. Whocould have known or thought such a thing, if these most luminous doctors had not come, unless he had inquired from a child seven years old, or gone to school a session with the oxen and cows, or to swimming with the swine? Yet they are such block- heads and dolts, as to allege nothing else against us but, ‘water is water,” and then they advance their dreamy, visionary fancies. And is it not surprising; since they _ pursue this matter so high, and so shamefully reject water baptism, that they do not observe their own doc- trine, and abolish baptism entirely? For indeed they still baptize themselves and others over again, and contradict themselves with every act. For if they suffer our bap- tism, for which we have the word and command of God, to pass as nothing, their own baptism, which they them- selves regard as mere water, must effect very little in- deed. 12. But this is a delusion of the miserable spirit, (a rude, awkward devil, however,) who mocks and bewilders the people with this continual bawling and 19 BAPTISM. clamor: “Can you not see that water is water? What! should this water, which the cow also drinks, benefit souls and wash away sins?” In this way the mouth of the uninstructed multitude is opened, and they immediately join in and exclaim, ‘“ This is indeed very true! Aye, how has the devil infatuated us, that we have not seen and observed this.”? This they call a rich and well constituted doctrine, and the lofty sci- ence of the spirit, if they can say only so much as ‘Water is water.” And very probably the poor peo ple will be betrayed by all this loquacity, because with many plausible words and great clamor, they contend, they insist that we teach that water, merely as water, cleanses the soul. ‘‘O beloved,’ say they, ‘do not believe this at all; for here you yourself can see how they mislead you, and persuade you to put ΜῊΝ trust in mere water as in a mere substance.” 13. But these may be called desperate traitors and malignant beings, who knowingly mutilate the sacra- ment of baptism, divide and sever the two best elements of it, namely, the word and command of God, and leave us nothing but the empty shell or husk; they will nei- ther hear nor see, how strongly we have always insisted upon these two memorable parts, in immediate connec- tion with water, and then with a mere single part they rise against us, and urge this discovery as an evidence of remarkable wisdom and intelligence. Beloved, I would be as wise and learned too, yes, every peasant at his plough without any art would be as wise, if it were wise to sever witha peculiar malignity, and separate from each other, what belongs together and constitutes one being. For who cannot say as follows: ‘ How should Christ be able to relieve me from sin and death, and the power of * ia BAPTISM. 13 , the devil? Dost thou not say he is a man, like another man? again, why should I be obedient and obsequious to my father, my lord, and my prince? In what are they different from myself?”? &c. But such reasoning is not that of a Christian, nor of any pious man, but of some desperate, malignant being, who wilfully separates what belongs to the whole person; as, Christ is both truly man, and truly God; and father and mother, or prince, are not only ordinary persons, like any other, but peculiar persons who discharge a particular office, according to the word and command ot God. Hence they sustain another relation and name also, and hence are not merely called John or Clara, but father and mother. . 14. Even thus does this faction act in reference to the highly venerable sacrament of baptism, if they regard only the water, as if there were no word or ordinance of God connected with it. And they act in every respect, if 1 may offer a rude example, just as if you would see the elector of Saxony coming hither in a black coat which you had seen some time before in the shop of a tailor, who was beating it and knocking off the dust, and now you also would strike and beat it, saymg at the same time, confidently, “Ὁ what 15 1t more than cloth, like any other cloth!’ Soon would you perceive what you had been doing, as he would immediately take you hy the head, and in return smite your tatters soundly. and very probably knock your buttons off besides, for a mis- chievous traitor against so princely a personage; and it would be of no service that you should loudly exclaim, “J did not strike the prince, but the cloth.”?. For you would have to hear in reply, “ Yes, it is cloth indeed, like other cloth, but do you not perceive that the prince 14 BAPTISM. is in 1} Here it is no longer a mean, insignificant garment or cloth, but both a coat and person together ; yes, a noble, princely coat, since it is worn and honored by a princely personage. 15. Iam obliged to represent this matter in so rude a way, in order that it may be seen and apprehended what shameless spirits those are who sever and separate the word from the water, till nothing but water is re- garded in baptism, which is in consequence abused and calumniated in a manner fearful even to be heard. And they presume that they are performing an immense ser- vice to God, if they can most shamefully pervert and destroy it. But how will they stand the test, when God at some time says to them, ‘ Dost thou hear? Why hast thou so cruelly calumniated my beloved bap- tism, and even dared to call it a dog’s bath ; concerning which I myself have declared that no one shall consider it as mere water, but a peculiar water of my own, that is, of God’s. For my word and command consist really near and in this water. For it stands written: ‘Go ye, therefore, and baptize all nations in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.?. From this shalt thou really behold what kind of person this water hath clothed, which exists by and in it, viz: the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost : so that it is called the water of holy majesty, and must no more be considered such water as the cow drinks.” For God, most assuredly, has not given this water of his, in which his name and majesty exist, that the cow should drink it, or the swine should wallow in it, since neither of these is the creature or the individual which could be baptized and consecrated. This they know perfectly well themselves, and yet they wantonly and wilfully abuse BAPTISM. 12 and desecrate it. Wherefore they will experience ἃ con- demnation the more intolerable. 16. But we should guard ourselves against them, study it well, and be determined on that account that we will not suffer ourselves to abuse and separate this holy baptism in such a manner, and regard it only as per- formed by mere ordinary water. For we know perfectly well, that if it is thus severed, water is no baptism, as with fhem it really is not, since, according to their doc- trine, they regard it as mere water, and baptize without the word and command. But on the contrary we say, because it is associated with the word of God, it can and should no more be called mere water, and it is of no consequence to say, as they do, ‘‘ water is water.”’ For it is not called baptism because it is water, but be- cause it possesses the word and command of God,—the two parts which sever and divide this water from all other water, and constitute out of it a baptism or holy sacrament, as we shall hear more fully hereafter. This is now, in reference to this sacrament, the first error of those who regard only this single part, viz: mere water, and sever and separate the best part from it, so that with them it must be nothing at all but an empty shell. 17. Then there are others, who, by the blessing of God, are not so numerous, and are not all so debased, but who still do not properly view the charac- ter of baptism; admitting so much, however, that the water and the word belong together, and that otherwise there can be no baptism; and a passage from Augustine is produced, ““ Let the word be added to the element, and it becomes a sacrament.’ Yet here there is still how- ever a deficiency, inasmuch as the third part has been omitted, namely, the command and order of God. And. LL --.......ἡΣὕΨ 16 BAPTISM. some pretend that it is quite sufficient, that the word enly be spoken, in the same manner-as a person would pronounce a blessing upon any creature ἢ and it 15 main- tained in support of this opinion, that by means of this address, or by virtue of the word itself, some peculiar benefit results from baptism and renders it a sacrament. fven this is still a barbarous doctrine, to which indeed the Papists strongly adhere, and can see no farther. 18. But some, although they perceive the tw6 parts perfectly well, yet fail in respect to the third, and desiring to be very acute, they attach a sort of corollary upon it. For they see very distinctly that it is not sufficient to constitute baptism, for us to employ water alone, and pronounce the word over it. For this rea- son they say, one thing still must be added, namely, faith, wishing to support this opmion from a passage in Mark 16, 16, “‘ He that believeth and is baptized, sha}! be saved,’? &c. And here again they adduce a passage irom St. Augustine, which stands near the preceding : ‘* This sacrament is constituted of water and the word, not because it is spoken, but because it is believed.” But this also is not properly expressed; for they pre- sume, from a misunderstanding cf this passage, that the word and the water constitute a sacrament, so far as they who receive it have faith; and they found bap- tism itself not upon the ordinance of God, but upon men, as if the word with the water not being suf- ficiently powerfal to constitute baptism, our faith must be superadded; and in this manner must the word and work of God receive their power and influence from us. | 19. This too is a low, degrading error, though in a particular part it is better than the former, (as it does BAPTISM. 17 not calumniate the sacrament of baptism, by viewing it merely as water.) This error, both in times past and at the present, has been widely diffused. Hence arises that extensive, perplexed controversy concerning the bap- ‘tism of children. It first gave origin to the Anabap- tists, and furnishes the strongest foundation on which that faction support themselves: as they say, “ You were baptized when you still were a child, and had not believed, wherefore your baptism is useless,’ &c. This is precisely as much as to say,—if you do not believe, the word and sacrament of God are of no consequence ; but if you believe, they are of great importance. | Conse- quently, he only receives true baptism, who possesses faith; but he who does not believe, receives nothing more than water, and 15 not properly baptized. . Conse- quently we must baptize you again, if you now begin to believe. 20. Of the same erronecus opinion are those who maintain that baptism cannot be effectual, if it be ad- ministered by heretics or unbelievers. In which error were formerly very eminent individuals, as the holy martyr, St. Cyprian. For a great deal of contro- versy arose on this subject, because extensive heresy and division prevailed in the Christian community, and so many were baptized by heretics that it was reason- ably inquired, whether such baptism should -be valid. So widely and erroneously have they conjectured, even St. Cyprian himself, that they have regarded it as an improper baptism, and have said, ‘‘ Whoever shall be baptized by an evil, unbelieving servant, and especially by a heretic, must be baptized again by some other per- son ;’’ and in support of this opinion, they have adduced and urged the declaration from Sirach 34,4: ‘ What ts BAPTISM. can be made ‘clean by :him that is unclean?’ and, ‘‘ What truth can he speak who is himself a liar ?”’ Again, Levit. 15, 10: “‘ That becomes unclean which the unclean touches.” rom these they wish to infer, that since he who administers the sacrament of baptism, is unclean and without faith himself, that baptism also must be unclean, and the person who shall be thus bap- tized, cannot be rendered clean ‘by it; consequently it would not be an efficacious baptism, though both the water and the word were employed in its ad- ministration, because the individual is deficient who will have administered this baptism. Behold, this is assuming baptism to ourselves, and founding and build- ‘ing it upon men, and yet this heresy is endued with a splendor remarkably dazzling, and, as has been re- marked, has bewildered many eminent individuals, and drawn the multitude after it. 21. Opposed to these errors, we should study bap- tism from the word of God, in order to comprehend and observe it entirely and with accuracy. For all this re- sults from the fact, that men do not observe, but sepa- rate the third part which belongs to baptism, and which night well be called the first, and which is the ordi- nance and command of God. For with this design he has taken baptism entirely to himself, and permits nei- ther yourself nor any man to add to it, in order to make it a baptism. I may be the baptizer, and you the bap- tized, but it is not on that account a baptism of mine or of yours, but of Christ’s. In short, every one can give and receive it, when it has already been formed and in- stituted; but no one should form or institute it, but Christ alone. For this is the purport of his word: ‘“‘Go ye, therefore, and baptize al] nations in the name a idl p BAPTISM. 19 of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved.”’ These are not the words which we pronounce in the administration of baptism, but they are the words of the command which institutes baptism. For the priest or servant does not pronounce them, but he who instituted baptism, who then said, “Go ye, therefore, and bap- tize;”? that is, “Here ye have received my command — and ordinance, what I desire and enjoin upon you, that you shall baptize in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; and whoever shall receive this word and water together, shall receive a perfect baptism, and in addition to this, whoever shall believe, through its agency shall be saved.’ Something more 15 requisite here, besides the two parts, the word and the water ; otherwise it would be utterly insufficient to apply the water and to pronounce the words, “I baptize,” &c., if we do not distinctly include the command connected with it, not even if faith were present. 22. For indeed before every thing else, we must know whence baptism proceeds, or by what means it is a baptism, in order that we may be able to answer the questions, “ Who has instructed you to administer the water and word together? or whence and by what au- thority are you certain that this is a holy sacrament?” For if it were sufficient with only the two parts, I, or any other person, if we please, could make a baptism ; indeed make as many sacraments as we chose. For I might take a creature, which God has created, any one I might please, and pronounce the word of God over it, in the same manner as the Papists do, with their holy water, their salt, fire, chrism, tapers, herbs, bunns, altar, and church consecration, in which τ πε OR ne get - τι τόπων τας - -- -. ---,.-ς..... -.-«-- κ{.-..-- em en —— 20 BAPTISM. they say, “1 bless or consecrate thee, salt, spice, wax, castle, altar, cowl, &c., in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,” and besides read Psalms and other ‘prayers over them. Here indeed are the word of God and his creature too, in immediate connection, so that we might also say cut of St. Augustine, “ Let the word be added to the element, and it becomes a sacrament.’? Why may not this also prevail and effect as much as baptism? Or why do we not make a sacrament out of holy water Ὁ and salt, out of every monk’s and nun’s cap, out of the lamp of St. Blasius and Agatha, indeed out of every blessing and every witchery. ifsome infamous weather- witch and diabolical hag blow in the ear of a cow, and mutter the name of God and of the saints, in order that both the creature or the element, and the word of God, may come together, why then is not this a sacrament also? because you say that a sacrament consists of the two parts, the word and the element. 23. Answer—Indeed it is true the two parts belong to it; but still they are not sufficient by themselves to constitute a sacrament,—one thing more belongs to it, that we may have the trinity in full, namely, a divine injunction and command. If you can establish this, that the divine majesty in heaven says, ‘ I have ordered and enjoined it,” then these two parts are quite sufh- cient and competent to be denominated a sacrament. But if not, every thing which we could possibly imagine, as I have said, might become a sacrament. For no one is so silly that he could not take the word of God in his mouth, apply it to some element, and constitute something out of it, as the wicked witch and hag, who are said to pilfer the milk or exchange the children in the cradle. For itisbelievedthat they employ no evil words, BAPTISM. 21 but pure, good, holy words and names, and use the creature of Godin connection with these names. Hence weare told that thistoo becomes efficient; but the devil assists his ser- yantsin their deeds, for he delightsin propagating thisnon- sense under the name of God, and thereby deceiving the multitude, so that they believe it a holy, righteous thing, because nothing but good words are spoken. But accord- ing to this third part, it is necessary to inquire here, whether God has also commanded that you should grasp a hatchet or axe by the handle, or a towel, so that by this agency the cow might yield her milk; or that you should consecrate palm or spice, and thereby accom- plish what you desire. If you can do this, we shall holdit also asa divine operation. But though youshould conceive a favorable opinion, and should probably say, ‘* Still it is an excellent institution of God, and it is the righteous, holy word and name of God which I employ,” it amounts to nothing after all. For it is not a com- mand of God, nor obedience to his command, but your own presumption, yes, a shameful disobedience, the ser- vice and work of Satan. * 24. But it would be of some importance, if you could show an order or command of God, and say, “1 have not myself conceived and chosen these elements, or con- structed them by my own ingenuity, but God has com- manded me to take this element and word, and thus to use them.’”? Just as we can show in baptism, that he has given us a command, and enjoined it upon us to baptize ; that is, to put the individual in connection with the water, and to pronounce the words, ‘In the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” For neither myself nor any man, have selected this bap- tism by water, like the wizard, or the popish consecra- .- = - 98s BAPTISM. tor of cake; nor have I conceived the word, nor spoken it from my own conception; but I have both the water and the word clearly and distinctly designated to me, contained in his command and preserved in it. For in no matter, however inconsiderable, will he have any thing determined upon by us from peculiar preference or opinion, or whatever it may be called; and he will permit us by no means to confer with him without his word and command distinctly, known; much less will he suffer it in these sublime matters which are peculiarly divine, wherein we may not frame or de- sign any thing at all. For this reason he has em- braced it completely in his command. And in order that we may be certain of this, he himself has secured it so completely in his command, has named every part so particularly, distinctly expressed what he will con- sider as a sign or substance, and prescribed the form and the mode according to which the words should be uttered, that a person must use exactly such and no other sign, these very words and no other. 25. Precisely, therefore, as it would be of no conse- quence for wizards to use the creature of God with the word of God, because the third part is not here associated at all,—that God himself had given a command to use both this creature and this word,—so in this sacrament also, it is of no avail, independent of a distinct, definite command, to deem it a sacrament or proper baptism. As, if you were going to baptize an infant, and pronounce a pater- noster or something else from the Scripture over it, this would not be a valid baptism; and it is not sufficient for you to say, “ Yet the water which belongs to bap- tism and the word of God are present ;’’ for it is still destitute of the third part, as God has not commanded i. BAPTISM, 23 you to pronounce these words. In the same way too should you employ any thing different from the pre- scribed and definite creature, and though you should pronounce the proper words, “1 baptize thee in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,” you could not be said to baptize, but to juggle, to make a mockery of the sacrament, as one who wilfully tran- scends the ordinance and command, in which the crea- ture is distinctly specified. So too in the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, if the command and in- stitution be not observed, it is no sacrament. So, if any one should read over the bread and wine on the altar, the Ten Commandments, the articles of faith, or some passage or Psalm from the Scripture; or else, in- stead of the bread and wine, take something different, as gold, silver, flesh, oil, or water, though he might use the proper words of Christ’s institution, surely this would not be the body and blood of Christ, and though the word and the element of God be present, yet it would be no sacrament. For the ordinance and com- mand are not present, in which the bread and wine are specified, and the words, “ Take, eat, this is my body,” &e., “drink, this is my blood,’ &c., pronounced. In a word, you should neither select nor prescribe any word or element yourself, nor do or suffer out of your own design any thing whatever; but his command and ordinance should prescribe to you both the word and the element, and you should maintain them entire and unchanged. 26. ‘Take heed, and learn in this manner to compre- hend the three parts together. For herein you possess all that baptism is in itself and in its natural essence, and you can conceive and communicate a correct, complete ΑΛ Ὺ ἀξ δι BAPTISM. definition of it, if any one shall ask, “ Friend, tell me what is baptism ;”” namely, thus :—Baptism is water and the word of God, both of them communicated and ordain- ed according tohiscommand. For thus has he command- ed that we shall apply the substance, that is, water, and pronounce the word in his name. Wherefore if these both be administered according to his command, it may be called, and is undoubtedly, a correct baptism; so that these three parts continually remain connected with each other, and one exists not without the others, as they are bound together like a chain; indeed they are embodied together like one link upon an- other. 27. In the same manner as in the holy sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, in which itis thus announced : Qur Lord, Jesus Christ, took both the bread and the cup, blessed them and gave them to his disciples, and said, “ Take, eat;’? and again, “ Drink all of you of this,”’ &c. Here is also one part, which may be here termed the element or creature, which we see and com- prehend, namely, bread and wine; afterwards there is also the word which he spoke, ‘ This is my body which is given for you; this is my blood which is shed for you.” But both these parts would still not constitute a sacrament for us, in order that we might be able and permitted to eat and drink the body and blood of Christ. Accordingly one part sull belongs to it, which he ex- pressly connects with it, and says, “This do,” &c.; that is, “1 command, order, and ordain, and hereby will have it ordered and ordained, that you shall also do this, so often as ye do it, namely, take bread and wine, and pronounce my word upon them, and in this manner eat my body and blood.” This part bmds both BAPTISM. ‘ 25 the others together, and renders us certain that we have the correct sacrament. | 28. According to this definition and sense of the passage, you yourself can proceed farther, and become such a master of the subject, that you will know how to judge with certainty, and controvert, with ease and accuracy, every false doctrine and presumption of the factious opponents of baptism. As, the first slanderers, who pride themselves particularly ‘in re- ference to the first part, and exclaim with loud outcries and plausible words, “ What! should a hand ful of water, as a substance, benefit the soul, or blot cut sins? The Spirit must do this. For think and consider yourself; the soul is surely no. corporeal thing which we can bathe or wash with water. Con- sequently you perceive that they are deceiving and per- verting you, by advising you to place your trust, not upon God, but upon the creature.” Then they talk znd rave a great deal about the spiritual bath of the soul. With such arguments they draw the ilhterate multitude after them, persuading them almost to be- lieve it may be so, and they do not permit themselves to investigate it. And yet in its very foundation it is nothing more than a false and deceptive vociferation and clamor, by which with wicked and perfidious malignity, they abuse our blessed baptism, and with conscious and wilful force sever the best part from it, cast it fram the eyes of men, and then rave about the mere water. 29. Hence you may reasonably say in opposition to those, ‘You malignant spirit of falsehood, you know perfectly well yourself that we do not teach concerning baptism, as of mere water, but you resort to this pre- tence only to injure our ΒΞ ὌΝΟΣ holy sacrament, and 26 BAPTISM. thereby to pervert poor souls. For we have, blessed be God, so much sight, perception, and understanding, so much taste, indeed, and feeling, that we can see and understand what water is, and can say too, ‘ Water is water, —which constitutes your loftiest science. But Satan, your master, your lying father, has com- manded you to preach this concerning baptism,—that it is nothing more than water,—and to sever from it the principal parts, the word and command of God, by which the water is sanctified, and becomes a sacra- ment, as if they avail nothing at all; and you act in this matter as a wicked and base vilifier and blasphemer of the word and work of divine majesty, deceiving the people by false arguments, until they understand no more of this subject than a brute understands.” 30. For you must know without thanks to your- self or your evil adviser, that Christ himself has instituted this baptism, and added his own word or com- mand, where he directs us to baptize in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ; promis- ing moreover, that whoever is thus baptized and be- lieves, shall be saved. This you must not remove out of sight, and cast away from us, as if it could do and avail nothing, and then point us to some Utopia, and present your own dreamy mysteries. For, blessed be God, we know and teach too, more fully and better than they, what the Holy Ghost worksin us. But we will not permit him to be torn away from baptism and the Lord’s Supper in this manner, and ourselves to be directed instead into some obscure corner,—as they gape after the Spirit, and seek a secret revelation apart from the word and or- dinance of God. For we know that he will work with us through the word and sacraments, and by no other means. ‘BAPTISM. 27 31. Consequently we need ask no farther after the Spirit, if we possess this sacrament of baptism ; because we hear from the words and institution of Christ, that the name of the Holy Ghost, together with that of the Father and of the Son, that is, the whole divine ma- jesty, is connected withit. But since the name and word of God are employed in this sacrament, you must not re- gard it as mere, ordinary water, as if it could effect noth- ing more than a water-bath ; but you must consider it as water, by which we are washed from sins, and, as the Scripture calls it, we must consider it a washing of re- generation, by which we are born anew into eternal life. Of this we will hear farther hereafter. Let this suffice in reply to those who hold baptism as a mere bodily water- bath, and regard neither the word nor the divinecommand. 32. In like manner, from the preceding instruction, you can answer those others also, who esteem baptism indeed, but still do not regard it correetly as to the third part, arranging and establishing it, not upon the commandment and ordinance of God, but as some hu- man contrivance, upon our own faith and merit ; as if it were not sufficient that God has thus ordered and com- manded it, but that it must first be confirmed by us, and can- not be valid before our faith comes into connection with it. 33. For in opposition to this, we thus declare :—God grant, be my faith as it may, be it strong or weak, this contributes nothing at all to, or detracts noth- ing at all from, baptism. Indeed, though I never pos- sessed any faith, still baptism would be correct and perfect ; for it does not depend upon my belief or unbelief, but upon the ordinance and institution of God. Just as if at this moment some designing Jew should come to betray us, and conduct himself as if he wished to become 28 BAPTISM. a Christian, and detnanded baptismm, so that the parson or priest would baptize hun in the water before our eyes, and pronounce these words: “61 baptize thee in the name, and according to the command of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ,’’ &c., then would he be really and correctly baptized, although perhaps in his heart he might respect no part of it, but afterwards openly ridi- eule and abuse it. For what is God concerned about it, though you probably may not believe, if he has or- dained and commanded it? Must his ordinance, then, and command be nothing, or be defeated by your unbe- lief and abuse? Far different is the case, as Paul as- serts, Rom. 3,4: Though all men are liars, yet his word and ordinance remain frwe and immovable. If you believe and use it properly, well may it be for your- self; if you believe not, you receive it to your own condemnation. 1, For, like the other sacrament and ordinances of God, we may readily employ baptism to our own detri- ment and destruction ; so that while one is saved, another is condemned, by the very same baptism; but this does not belong to its nature, of which we are now speaking, hut to the efficacy and use of baptism. And it is a far different thing when we declare what baptism is in itself. For, no human act belongs to it, but it is nothing more than an element, or substance, and the word of God, both instituted by him, and comprehended in his com- mand. For, as said above, he has taken it altogether upon himself, so that no man has any part to perform in constituting it; thus it depends upon him alone as upon a sure foundation, and it cannot fail or deceive us as men fail and deceive. Accordingly, if this, namely, the command of God, be connected with the BAPTISM. 29 two parts, it is then most assuredly a sacrament entirely complete, even if it is not properly received or used, 90 that it cannot attain its due power and operation. Pre- cisely as it happens with other ordinances of God, also in material substances; as when the blessed sun daily arises in the sky and pursues his course, still remaining the same sun evermore, he shines and enlightens, as he was created and commanded to do, (Gen. 1, 17,) υὐ- changed and unretarded, although perhaps some indi- vidual may not see nor feel his rays, as he may be blind, or the window and shutters may be closed, so that the sun cannot enlighten and warm him. In a word, all the creatures of God are limited to the range of their own sphere and cperations, even if every individual does not fill his sphere and accomplish his operations. ‘Thus are the holy sacraments, when they are handled and ad- ministered according to the command of God, duly eon- stituted and perfect according to their nature and the salutary work of God; but if they do not contribute a blessing to every man, it is not the fault of the sacraments, but of him who does not use them in such a manner as to become partaker of their eMicacy. 35. Because we now possess this knowledge and this certain information, we should learn to honor and praise this venerable sacrament, in opposition to those peo- ple who reject and abuse it. For after what has so far been delivered, any one will readily conceive that we must not regard water baptism as a matter so inconsiderable as some mere jargon of men, but we should greatly ex- alt and honor it as a holy sacrament and peculiar work of divine majesty, a work which reasonably may be called the baptism with water which is sacred, heavenly, and divine. 30 a BAPTISM, 36. I do not yet speak concerning the efficacy and advantages of baptism, the immense effects which it produces ; of this we shall speak hereafter ; but concern- ing its constitutional nature, as it is in itself. IT remark here, if you observe this particular, how this water is united with the word and the name of God, because in its administration, he himself has commanded us to pro- nounce these words, “1 baptize thee in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,”’ as if he had said, “TJ, God the Father, I, God the Son, and Holy Ghost, sanc- tify this water,’ therefore you cannot say that it is inerely a perishable or earthly water; or, as our adver- suries denominate it, water for the bathing even indeed of dogs; but you must say it is the water of the divine ma- jesty himself, as we mortals do not baptize with it, but God himself through our hands; and he has inserted and incorporated his name with it, that it may be mingled with his name, and may very properly be termed water thoroughly divine. For precisely as when you grasp a piece of iron, which is lying heated in the forge, you wrasp not merely tron, but the fire also which is tn it ; and although you do not see the fire, but only the iron, as we cannot see the fire glowing so well by day as by night, yet it is still not only iron, but both iron and fire ; indeed so thoroughly has the fire penetrated through and through it, that we can feel or experience nothing but the touch of fire; so we should regard the water of baptism, embodying thename of God, and altogether and complete- ly penetrated with it, so that it has become entirely the same essence, and is now a thing far different from other water. Like some precious beverage which we present to a sick man, which, although it is mostly composed of water, yet it is so entirely impregnated with precious BAPTISM. ol spice and sugar, that it has no longer any taste of water in it. But here is by far a more precious water, which is sweetened with the name of God, indeed altogether and entirely divine, though before our eyes we see noth- ing more than water. 37. We must not then suffer ourselves to regard that as insignificant in which the name of God exists ; for it is this very name that makes all things pure and holy, and which creates and executes all things. In a word, the name of God is nothing less than almighty, it is divine power, eternal purity, holiness, and life; and wherever it is employed according to the divine com- mand, there it cannot be without effect and benefit, but must produce some great, unspeakable result, rendering its effects similar to itself. Consequently in baptism also, it must render men pure and holy, heavenly and godlike, as we shall see further hereafter. 38. Since this is certain and incontrovertible, it must also follow that baptism is a truly spiritual bap- tism, indeed that it possesses in itself and brings a pure spirit with it; and vain is the clamor of the factions by which they decoy men from the word, exclaiming with hostile violence, ‘‘’The Spirit must do it; an external substance, such as water, cannot benefit the soul.’’ And although they themselves can describe with no certainty what the Spirit or a spiritual thing is, or how and whereby we come to possess it, they refer the people instead to some vacant corner, where they imagine a spirit for themselves. 39. But the case is really this: if you would teach me where the Spirit is, and where I can find him, you must not point to some Utopia, but seek only according to the word of God. When you have this, you dare not con- ---. ο«- -- οοΦ-ς.- -α..«»--«-’- δ, τ κα 6 - 32 BAPTISM. tend much, nor farther gape and search. For apart from it you will never find him, though you search all your lifetime, and dream and study yourself to death ; but you must seek him here, where he has placed him- self through the word, as he has instituted baptism in his own name. Or how dare you say that the name of divine majesty is any thing but the pure Spirit himself? es- pecially since the name or person of the Holy Ghost is distinctly expressed in this sacrament. Consequently the I{oly Ghost must assuredly be present ; and because he is present, the water must also become spiritual, and he roust operate within it, in order that he may communicate the Spirit or render the individual spiritual. Thus bap- tism may now be very truly called spiritual water, both in regard to itself or in its own essence, and in its oper- ation upon those by whom it is received in faith. 40. Observe, if we thus regard baptism, and mag- nify it accordingly, a result must ensue so great and glorious, that it will be impossible in an adequate man- ner to conceive or express it; more glorious, indeed, than the whole heaven and earth. For, that the divine majesty is present, and performs therein his noblest operation, namely, giving himself to us, and making us entirely regenerate and happy, as you shall hear, all results from the fact that he has infused his name into it, concerning which he has commanded that we must not take it in vain, but esteem it honorable and holy above every thing, as through it we possess God, and all that belongs to our happiness and eternal life, and by which he accomplishes all things in heaven and earth. Wherefore I should not suffer this blessed baptism to be rejected and abused, but esteem and honor it as high as Lam bound to honor the name and majesty of God; and BAPTISM. 30 I should not tolerate those blind, wandering spirits, who know not what the Spirit is, or where he is, even though they make great acclamations about him, and rail against the true Spirit. 41. But you say, “ Why do you indulge all these exultations only about water baptism, and not about any other creature? For since you say, where the name and the word of God are, the Spirit must be also; it must follow then, that where the name or word of God is applied to any substance, the Spirit also must be near, and thus every one can make or find the Spirit every where.”? Answer—Here the third part belongs, of which I have spoken above, in reference to the com- mand and ordinance of God, that it is not sufficient that you yourself select a substance, and pronounce the name of God upon it, though all substances are good; but a command or some word is necessary, which shall di- rect you to apply the name of God to this substance. And you are not granted the liberty of acting with the name and creature of God as you please ; for he has com- manded, ‘ Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy Godin vain ;”’ in which he acknowledges that we can, with- out and in opposition tothe Spirit, misuse hisname, though in itself it is full of the Spirit and of every thing excellent. 42. But that is to misuse his name, if we do not use it in the manner which he has pointed out and com- manded, but seize it, independent of the connection in which it stands, and perform with it whatever we may imagine ; like the sorcerer and hag, as well as the false teacher and faction leader, who pervert that name and word to sin and shame, though the name which they use is righteous and holy, the name and the word being the very same as used in baptism, Let this be sufficient 94 BAPTISM. which we have now spoken concerning the first part, or baptism in itself. THE SECOND PART. 43. Here we will now see why this venerable sacra- ment of baptism was instituted, and what purpose it serves, or what effect it produces,—though some re- marks have already been made upon this subject,— namely, that God has ordered and commanded that his word and baptism be administered in order. that man may be saved, that is, may be freed from sin and death, and brought into the kingdom of God and eternal life. For thus reads the text: ‘‘ He that believeth and is bap- tized, shall be saved.”’ 44, Here you have the reason why, and the pur- pose for which it is a baptism, and what its final design is, namely, a washing for souls, or as St. Paul styles it, ‘a washing of regeneration,’ through which we may be born out of this fleshly, sinful generation and nature, into a new, spiritual life, in which we shall be justified before God, and become heirs of heaven; so that we must not regard it as an empty sign, or a vain and use- less baptism or bath. As was the case in past times under the Old Testament, when the priests, adorned with their beautiful ornaments of gold and silk, offered their sacrifices, and had their numerous washings and purifications, which were only mere signs, and yet im- mense burdens which were of no benefit to them, except that the priests had by this means something to eat and to drink allowed them, so that they might serve in the temple: but to the others it was nothing but a perpetual service or charge, showing that they were the people of God. As the father of a family enjoins daily upon the BAPTISM. 30 servants in his house, to do this or that, that he may be esteemed and recognised as their master, and for their service he gives them bread and wages. 45. But here we find a very different thing. For in baptism all these external washings and purifications are excluded, and no more imposed upon us, nor required of us as a law or work, which we must do; but this sa- crament is ordered with the design to serve us and to give us, not any thing material and transitory, but eternal grace, purity or sanctification, and eternal life. So that it may indeed be termed a washing of re- generation, the true bath of renovated youth, that who- ever shall bathe in it shall become youthful and new born: not as by nature from his mother’s womb, which is the old birth ; but from sin to righteousness ; from guilt and condemnation, to innocence and grace; from death into eternal life. 46. But to exhibit this subject more fully, so that We may See why and by what means baptism possesses this power, how high and how nobly God himself has honored it, and what importance he ascribes to it, we will first cite the text and narrative of the baptism οἵ. our Lord Jesus Christ, alluded to by all the Evangel- ists, but particularly described by St. Matthew, chap. o, V. 19 and sqq., which reads thus: “Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John to be baptized of him. But John forbade him, saying, ‘I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?’ And Jesus answering said unto him, ‘ Suffer it to be so now; for thus it becometh us to ful- fil all righteousness.’ Then he suffered him. And Je- sus, when he was baptized, went up straight way out of the water; and lo! the heavens were opened unto him, \ 36 BAPTISM. and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him; and lo! a voice from heaven saying, ‘This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.’ ”’ 47. This is the text which teaches us duly to praise and highly to honor baptism, and this is that noble reve- lation of which a parallel had never before been seen or heard, and by no words can we describe it in an adequate manner. But this text both the factions, and all who are under the Pope, read; and here this revelation, this beautiful description, stands open and clear before the eye of every man. And all who are called Christians, ought to be so wise at least, or indeed so pious, as not entirely to overlook it, but to open their eyes a little, and consider what is here manifested, and what it must really be, since God revealed himself from heaven visi- bly, and suffered himself to be heard by an audible voice. How far, what a distance would all the world run, had we never heard it before, and would discover that there were a place somewhere at the end of the world where such a sublime revelation might be heard? But it must be so. The world will be blind, and receive no such declaration, though it appear immediately before their eyes and ears, because it does not appear with so much pomp and magnificence as they admire; but it is brought before them with mere, simple words, without the least ostentation; they must, therefore, as a punishment of their rejection, open their mouths and eyes at something else, which they themselves have im- agined or dreamed. But let us at least open our hearts a little, and let us regard and esteem this revelation, this manifestation, as high as we can; for it isso exalted that we shall never be able adequately to conceive it. BAPTISM, 37 48. Here, in the first place, we observe how Christ the Lord himself has honored baptism ; as he came from the land of Galilee to John the Baptist at Jordan, just when he wished to commence, and to enter upon that office for which he had been sent, that he himself might go about and preach; and yet he would not under- take it before he should have been first baptized by John. Now, John appeared both in regard to his preach= ing and baptism, only that he might direct mankind to the coming Christ; and he was to proceed or exercise his office no farther, but to deliver all over to Christ, when that divine personage should come; and thus he was to be recognised as nothing more than the servant of Christ, to admonish the people that they should reform themselves, and receive the approaching Christ as their true Lord and Savior, who would himself properly baptize them, that is, wash and purify them from sins, and make them righteous. And now Christ comes, at the very moment when he is to enter upon his tainistry, John must ter- minate his office and baptism, and first Christ desires to be baptized by bis servant. 49. Why dots he do this, or what need hasheof John’s baptism? If he is the very man to whom John directed the people, he indeed has no necessity for baptism in or- der that he may be washed and become pure by it, and as to such a being it seems altogether in vain; because John himself says that it is a baptism of repentance. For he is already pure and holy, born through the Holy Ghost from the Virgin, free from every sin, he is pure holiness as to body and life entire, and even the oné by whom every man must be sanctified. So that St. John might reasonably pause in his baptism in the presence of sucha man. As he did indeed refuse to bap= 38 BAPTISM. tize Christ, of whom he acknowledged that he himself ought to be baptized, he resigned and retired from his office and baptism, and surrendered it up to Christ only. 50. Now it is easy to perceive that Christ did not do this for his own sake, but for ours. For, as already ebserved, he had no need either of baptism or of preach= ing for his own person, but he did it all that we might thereby be benefitted. Wherefore he honored this min= isterial office so highly, that he did not only give orders and express command to administer baptism, which would have been quite sufficient, but he received it himself also trom his servant, in order that he might thus confirmit, and by his own act and example teach the people highly to esteem and gloriously to extol this blessed institution: For in this way he intimates that there must be some- thing extremely salutary and graciols connected with baptism, because he did not only bestow his Word and authority upon it, but placed himself therein, and touched this water with his own holy body; indeed sanctified and made it full of blessedness. For only observe what a being he isin his person !—the Son of God the Father trom eternity, and of a Virgin, both true, almighty God and Lord of all creatures, and true man; who alone is free from every sin, full of righteousness and salvation, so that he sanctifies all things through himself. 51. Who then are those that dare to reject water baptism, the water which has touched this almighty being, this holy body, as if it wereno better than other water, the ordinary drink of animals? Yes, how can a man be so shameless as not to blush in his very heart, or who would dare to lift up hiseyes, if he should see that this exalted per- son, Christ, to the honor of baptism and for our benefit, came himself to John, and demanded it, and would not BAPTISM. 39 enter upon his ministry unbaptized, as he had the power and the right to do; and nowa sinful mass of corruption dares not only to reject baptism, but even to abuse it with these blasphemous words, ‘ dog’s bath,—water-bath,” expressions which to a Christian are shocking to hear. People who thus wilfully speak against holy baptism, must surely be accursed to the abyss of misery, as God, in punishment of their diabolical wickedness, has surely darkened and blinded them, that they have neither eyes: nor ears which in this case can either see or hear, how Christ himself honors and sanctifies this holy baptism. For even a mere simpleton must undoubtedly remark and observe this, since the man, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, though he had no need of baptism, and was not sanctified by it, but himself indeed sanctified that water, and yet would not remain unbaptized, because he esteemsit nobly and highly, and will have it thus esteemed by us: so that even if it otherwise effected or granted nothing,—a thing, however, which is impossible, and had he not issued the command to baptize all the world,—this example of Christ’s would still have been enough for us to honor and readily to embrace baptism. δῷ. In the second place, this holy baptism was still more highly honored and illustrated by a great and glo- rious sign and wonder from heaven; as if it were not enough that Christ had suffered himself to be baptized by his servant John, but so soon as he came out of the water, the whole heaven unfolded itself, so that the di- vine Majesty came and appeared visibly. And although this is described with great simplicity, yet it is most as-~ suredly the greatest manifestation, the most glorious revelation, that has ever been heard or seen. For here God manifested himself, not as to the Patriarchs, by a eI ES ἐπ ον σοι δδκακθ ξεν δὺτος σον 40 BAPTISM. secret revelation, through an extraneous form, as through an angel, but personally, and in his own majesty, and openly along the whole sky, where there was no dark- ness or cloud, but pure light and clear splendor. It was not by a mere image and a mute sign, but by a liv- ing voice and a glorious declaration; by all the three persons of the Godhead individually; by a triple fizure or shape; so that the entire Majesty poured itself out, and stood present over the baptism of Christ. dd. This should be sufficient to stop the mouths of those wretched spirits who reject the ordinance of baptism, For howshould we, or howcan we, applaud it more highly than we here see it honored and applauded by the divine Majesty, by this preeminently glorious revelation, when the heavens, which had remained closed before, unfold, and the pure light, yes, the door and window of heaven, are opened, and the whole Trinity attend the baptism, and sanctify it by their presence. Of this he himself preaches and testifies, as we shall hear fur- ther hereafter. δά. Now this image and this revelation did not ap- pear for the sake of Christ our Lord, just as he also did. not receive baptism for his own sake. For to what pur- pose did he need that the Father together with the Holy Ghost,should become manifest and speak concerning him, since the Holy Ghost was at all times personally with and in Christ? But it was all exhibited for our sakes, who should believe on him, and in his name be baptized and saved, and it is placed before us as a perpetual image of Christianity, wherein God manifestly exhibited himself, and suffered himself both to be seen and heard, and was so near to us that he cannot display himself nearer ; in a most lavely and friendly form, too, and through BAPTISM. 41 a message the most consolatory, as we shall hear: and doubtless with him there was an innumerable multitude of all the heavenly powers, who were standing in honor of baptism before their Lord and Creator. All this was done, therefore, that we might learn what he intends by baptism, and what we receive by it. 09. For as this glorious display of divine majesty was once visibly exhibited, so it is still manifested spir- itually and invisibly, to every one who is baptized in Christ; it has been prefigured by this revelation as a perpetual evidence, that tae divine Majesty will always be present in baptism; and in erder that we might be certain of this, Christ himself kas expressed it distinctly in the institution of baptism, where he com- mands us to baptize in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: so that these words ex- actly correspond with the character of the event, and they present and prove te or faith that which was visibly represented to the eye. Consequently we may entertain no doubt, that wherever any one is baptized, the heavens are certainly opened, the whole Trin- ity is present, and by its own agency hallows and blesses the individual who 15 baptized. 06. From this you can now at once clearly and most certainly show, contrary to the abusers of baptism, in the first place, that it is not mere ordinary water, such as the cow drinks; but a water which is blessed and hallowed by the divine Majesty, and, as above said, rendered entirely and thoroughly divine; because we distinctly perceive, both, that all three persons are men- tioned in the institution of baptism, and in this descrip- tion they are asserted and represented as having been present with the event. And although we no longer ee ee. eee 42 RAPTISM. behold the Holy Ghost in the form of a dove, bodily and visible to the eye, hovering over Christ, nor hear the voice of the Father; yet that image remains in our hearts, as for our sakes it was once represented, as a sign and witness connected with the words, in which we hear and believe what St. John saw then. For as it was there, in the visible presence, so it is administered here, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. There he manifested himself in a vis- ible form; so here he manifests himself in his word and name. 57. In the second place, we must not deem this im- age vain and ineffectual, like a human figure or form delineated on a table or in a mirror, where there is noth- ing more than some painted color, or a corresponding shape and appearance, which has no life nor power. But here is a living object, in which the divine Ma- jesty has represented and impressed himself, and he is really and personally present, not a mere image, but the essence itself,—~yes indeed, the life and pow- er. For he does not act in this particular, as if he would only show an empty form, as a shadow or a phan- tom, like the conjurer ; but in order that he may execute and manifest his pewer and operation; and this opera- tion is not that which he exerts on ordinary occasions with his creatures, whom he creates and supports, or when he effects something by their instrumentality ; but this is the peculiar, the direct, the most noble operation of di- vine Majesty, which touches our redemption and eternal salvation ; and each person of the heavenly Majesty has his own characteristic, so that there are the Father with his light and majesty, the Son with his blood, and the Holy Ghost with his fire. Consequently we must re- BAPTISM. 43 gard this water or baptism, not*as a mere water-bath, or emblem. For wherever God connects himself so as to be present, there he must also be powerful, and produce some godlike result. Why otherwise should he visibly manifest himself, and make a dispensation so ulustrious and remarkable ? 58. But all this took place in order that we might understand by this representation, what God has here in his designs, and what his will and intention are in reference to baptism; designs which he afterwards defines and explains in his declaration: namely, that in it he gives us his majesty, light, and power, and himself with all that he possesses and is able to do. But what is he able todo? ‘To take away death and sin, and all our misery, and substitute for them eternal righteousness, life, and joy. By what means does he do this? By the blood of his beloved Son. This is the ransom which was paid, and by which these blessings have been pro- cured for us, in order that we may obtain favor with him; as Christ says, John 3, 16: ‘God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son.” 59. But in order that we may conceive and feel this through faith, the Holy Ghost with his fire must warm and enlighten us. -Now, because all this takes place in the holy sacrament of baptism, certainly we must not, hike an irrational creature, consider it merely water ; but as the real blood of the Son of God, and the real fire of the Holy Ghost; and that here the Son sanctifies with his blood, the Holy Ghost bathes with his fire, the Father gives vitality with his light and splendor; so that all three persons are present, and alike produce one ~ and the same divine result, and pour out all their power in baptism. . 44 BAPTISM. 60. Now who can fully declare this unspeakable grace and glory, when God has thus manifested himself, when he is willing to be ours, and to give us all? Or, how dare any one contemn baptism, when he sees and hears that God himself has ordained and instituted it, and honored and distinguished it with his presence ; when indeed with his own fingers he administers the ordinance, wherever his command and ordinance prevail and are adopted? so that the sorcerer or the factious spirit takes no part in it; for he commands and declares, ‘Go ye, therefore, and baptize in my name,”’ that is, “ Ye shall neither do it nor regard it otherwise than that I myself, together with the Father and Holy Ghost, baptize.’ How can we speak or think more gloriously and highly concerning baptism? Yet heaven and earth are too contracted fully to comprehend this. 61. In the third place, it is by far the greatest circumstance of all, that God the Father himself speaks, and delivers a discourse over the baptism of Christ the Lord. Here then should all the world re- pair, with all possible speed, to hear the Preacher, God the Father, speaking from heaven; as we should desire to do, if we knew that there were a place even at the end of the world, where God himself might be heard speaking. How happy should we consider those to whom this might happen? But here heispreaching forus before our eyes, and extends so much grace to us, that he did not only proclaim it once on that special occa- sion, in order that those only might glorify it, but causes it to be continually preached to all who were to come _ after that, and who are still to come, till the last day ; so that we may daily hear it, were we only so pious as to open our ears and hearts, and feel willing to under- BAPTISM. 45 stand it. Now let us hear how this annunciation of the Father is expressed. For without doubt it must be a most noble and precious annunciation, which he himself made from heaven. ** This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleas- ed.”’ 62. This isa brief declaration, but so rich and preg- nant, that no man uponearthcan fully comprehend, or ever learn it thoroughly. For in this declaration the heavenly Majesty includesand imparts all divine wisdom and intelli- gence; in addition he pours out all his purposes and his affections, so that indeed all is revealed which he himself isor canbe. But this is boundless and incomprehensible ; and yet it is all embraced in this short proposition, and concentrated in this one person whois called Christ. He directs us to him alone, and knows nothing else to preach but of Christ who was here baptized. By this he consti- tutes and consecrates him Doctor and Priest, and King and Lord over all things, not with foul chrism, but through the life-giving Holy Spirit, that was visibly hovering upon him. 63. Although we are not able, nor have we underta- ken to amplify this declaration, yet in order that we may speak a few things respecting it, it will first be necessary to remark again, that these words were not spoken because Christ needed any such thing ; as indeed this whole reve- lation was not made for his sake;—he himself did not become man for his own sake ;—but we should know that it was declared and written for us; just as for us it hap- pened that he was conceived, was nates suffered, and rose from the dead. 64. Consequently we must not let this declaration remain so far neglected, as if it were useless, futile, and teeta τ ϑττόππ τὖτὖτ.ὝὁἘ8ὥεπτί τοστοτνονυννν τδννννΦοννρΔᾷνϑᾷνννπρννννννμ, νννννν.., - 46 BAPTISM. cold, nor permit this divine testimony to exist in vain, which amply deserves to be inscribed on our hearts in glowing characters, because it is the Majesty of heaven that announces it to us. And it is surely a lamentable evil, that we have passed these words unregarded so long, so cold, and dead, that we do not esteem them nor know how to use them. Every one thinks it an old affair, which can no longer be profitable to us, reading and hearing it as nothing better than a history of some Turk- ish war, or of Dietrich von Bern. But this is not a proper treatment of the word of God, to regard it in so cold and careless a manner, that no one is warmed and improved by it. Wherefore, I say, you should read and hear these words,—‘ This is my beloved Son,”’ &c.,—as if the Father from heaven were still speaking this lesson in my heart and yours, and was saying, “ Let all the world apply their hearts and ears, for thus I proclaim, namely, of nothing else than this Son, and I will have nothing else proclaimed or commanded, heard or re- ceived, as my word and declaration ; so that all eyes and ears may be filled with this proclamation, and so directed as to enable them to fix upon the Son.”? For these words show us what we receive from him. 65. Now of this declaration we have two parts, as he himself divides it. 1. ““ This is my beloved Son.” 2. “In him I am well pleased.”’ And this expression, “‘my Son,” we must not suffer ourselves to pervert as the heretics do, who say, “ It is an expression of grace, and not of nature, or of the real Godhead.”’? For they conceive themselves so wise and acute as to understand it intuitively, and they argue, as the Jews do, ‘‘ That God surely cannot have a wife in heaven, and conse- quently he cannot have a natural Son; for this reason BAPTISM. 47 Christ must be esteemed a Son of God only from grace or by adoption. Just as a man who has no children, may adopt some wandering stranger, and call him his son, and make him heir; this man cannot then be called a son by nature or birth, but only by adoption. And notwithstanding he may become heir of all his benefac- tor’s possessions, yet he is not his son by nature nor of his flesh and blood, but only by his will, through which he has been chosen and adopted.” 66. But we say, according to the Scripture, that Christ is called and really is the Son of God, not only by his will or grace, as we are only chosen and adopted children, but he isa real Son by nature, through a real, na- tural, as well as divine birth, the same divine essence with the Father. For, to speakinthemanner in which he here speaks,—‘‘ This is my Son,’’—we find nowhere in the Scripture, where in the singular number he speaks of one alone, or where he calls one single individual his Son ; but wherever he speaks of other men, he uses always either the plural number, designating many, or a collective noun, as when he means the whole family or nation, by the expression, “my son,” as Hosea 11, 1: “I have brought my son out of Egypt,” that is, the whole peo- ple of Israel. But otherwise he observes this remark- able distinction, and he has never used this expression in designating any single individual, either angel or man: as the Epistle to the Hebrews shows, chap. 1, ν. 5: ‘“¢ Unto which of the angels said he at any time, ‘ Thou art my son?’?”? He uses the same expression again when he speaks to David about Christ alone: ‘ He shall be my Son, and I will be his Father.”’? David himself has introduced this expression again in his Psalms, and proves that he understood it as relating to a true, natural Son; 48 BAPTISM. as where he says, Psalm 89, 28: “I will make him my first begotten Son, highest among the kings of the earth.” Again, Psalm 2, 7, he says: “ The Lord hath said unto me, ‘ Thou art my son; this day have I begotten thee.’ ”’ This expression he uses in reference to no other individ- ual, nor to angels, who notwithstanding are the most ex- alted creatures that God has made, and in a different sense are also called the children of God; yet he has not,—says the same Epistle,—honored them with this high title, “My first begotten Son,” and, ‘“ Thee have I begotten ;’’ no individual, indeed, but Christ alone. 67. Accordingly, by this declaration, we should es- tablish our faith firmly and surely, and conclude that this Son is something more exalted than all creatures both in heaven and upon earth, because God has given this name to no other being ; and most assuredly he must be deemed a true, natural Son, of the same nature and essence or majesty with the Father,—as the son of ἃ. man is called a natural son, because he is of the same nature, or of the same blood and flesh. 68. In this manner was the expression first used in reference to this person, as he here applies and appro- priates it to this particular or individual Christ, who was baptized in Jordan, and distinguishes him particu- larly from every other individual, honoring and applaud- ing him above all creatures, as he calls him by that name through a special revelation. Consequently we must be fully convinced that he is higher than all angels, and really the true God. For besides the creature, there is nothing except God. Wherefore we also should esteem " and honor him, as he has been distinguished and pre- sented by this declaration, as a being who is really na ΄ ͵ BAPTISM. 49 tural man, but not only or merely man, but also in reality by nature and by birth, the Son of God. 69. This we must comprehend and maintain through faith, and let the ignorant go on, who assail it with the pre- sumptuous power of reason, and criticise and cavil accord- ing to their own imaginations,—a thing which I might accomplish as well as they, if imagining and dreaming wouldavail. But how would it stand against these clear and distinct words, and when would my conscience rest with certainty upon the comment and definition of these men? These people would lead me again into Utopia, or adduce some other passages, which they would stretch and pervert as much as they do this; for example, that the Scripture says, ‘‘ There is only one God,” &c. With this they exclaiin against us, exactly as if we did not also | acknowledge it, and as.if it were a strange and unusual thing fer a Christian to say so. 70. For I too know this perfectly well, and it 15 s the very thing we have said, that in contradistinction from the ‘creature we must reckon but one God. But when we ascend above and beyond the creature up to the Supreme Majesty, and wish to know how the Godhead is consti- tuted, there my wisdom ceases, and I must hear what he says, how and wkat he is. Here, then, I hear him- self saying, that there are three persons in one nature and divine essence. Here should I rest satished, and no further criticise, and exclaim: “ Indeed L cannot cempr: hendit.”’ Consequently it avails nothing to introduce in opposition to this fact the declaration, that there isnomore than one God. For on this point Moses and the Scrip- ture will say only so much as we also say, if we speak concerning the essence, that beyond the creature, there is no more than ene God, and no one should seck ane a 5 BAPTISM. other God. If I understand and maintain this, I must then hear how God himself speaks of his own majesty, and how he unfolds and reveals what he is; in this way 1 cannot err or be deceived. Because I now hear out of his own word and testimony from heaven, that Christ is his true Son and the very God, but still a different person; 1 must surely allow it to be true. But how those persons are united, and how they correspond with each other, it does not belong to me to scrutinize, but only to believe and to speak, as | hear him speaking. Hence, because he always calls Christ his Son here be- low, and applies that term to no other being, he must in reality be the true God. 7i, Thus we confess also this article in our Creed : “6 1 beheve in Jesus Christ, his (the Father’s) only-be- gotten Son,” &c. For by the appellation only-begotten Sion, we mean that he is his right, natural Son, born of his nature. This is our Lord, whom we must wor- ship and call upon, as a God, begotten in eternity of the Father, and born in time or according to human nature from the Virgin; so that there are two natures in one person, united together and called Christ. Thus we be- lieve and preach. Whoever will not thus believe, can let it alone, and be exceedingly wise, and counsel God how he should speak. But we desire God to teach and counsel us, and we desire to follow that instruction, though it may not perhaps correspond with our wisdom. 72. The first thing, then, is to learn here who this individual is, namely, the only Son cf God, and how he is constituted by his Father, as his truly born, Lord ever heaven and earth, and all creatures. Thus is he honored and proclaimed by the Father him- self, and crowned as king, not with purple nor gold, nor BAPTISM. ol set upon a golden throne, nor anointed with chrism, as we do to men; but adorned with a different crown and ointment, namely, the voice and declaration of divine Majesty, who here declares,—This is my beloved Son, who is Lord over heaven and earth, King of kings, and Lord of lords. * 73. Essentially he was already, indeed, God and Lord of all creatures, so that he had no need for his own sake thus to be declared and honored; but it was revealed, illustrated, and proclaimed for us, that we also might know in what manner to esteem him; and it was pro- claimed to us, that we might also adore him as a being upon whom, though here exhibited in his humanity, heaven and earth, righteousness, life, sin, death, hell, and all that man can mention which is not God himself, | depend. Over these has this individual been set, and has also been proclaimed that we might regard him as Lord, and be baptized m his name, so that he may be our Lord, may govern, protect, and aid us, that we may have every thing in him, and that nothing may injure nor overpower us. 74. But this exaltation no language can express, nor can gold or precious stones adorn it. For, to be called the natural Son of God and the Lord of all creatures, is surely eminent beyond concep- tion. A single angel is alone more noble and pow- erful than the whole world with all its pomp and power; but he is inconceivably boundless and high above all angels, and whatever can be conceived in the universe; and yet all is here poured out and com- municated to us in that expression, “‘ This is my be- loved Son.’’ All this, as I have said, must be embraced in our faith. For it is very improbable as to appear o2 BAPTISM. ance, that this is said concerning this man. ἀπά how great and wonderful is that exaltation, to be the natural Son and Heir of God, or Lord over all things ? Yet great, and far greater and more wonderful is it, that all this was conferred upon this person who hes there in the lap of the Virgin, and here stands in Jordan and suffers himself to be baptized. Nothing is to. be seen but a poor, impotent, uncovered man, of no impos- ing appearance, entirely destitute of the splendor of any glory and power; and yet he must be believed and called a Lord of lords, King of kings, indeed of ali an- gels besides, who holds in his omnipotent hands the world, the devil, sin, and death, and all things. Who ean discern all this in this man? or who dare say or be- lieve this concerning him, had not God himself from hea- ven revealed it, and proclaimed, ‘‘ Thisishe?”? Here is the first part of this divine, this heavenly declaration. 70. ‘The second part thus declares: ‘In whom 1 am well pleased.’ By this he is consecrated also as pastor or priest; as in Psalm 110, 4, he is called an eternal Priest, as ever standing before God, to reconcile us and to intercede for us. . For we know that we all are born in sin, condemned to death, and always under the wrath of God, from the first man to the last. The devil has effected this, and brought it over the whole expanse of human nature. Whocan now reconcile God again, and take the curse from us? No man, no prophet, no saint has appeared, who would dare to advance before God, and who would be able to avert hiswrath; for in consequence of this wrath, each was him- self exposed to death. Indeed no angel has the power to take this wrath upon himself, and make an adequate compensation, ee BAPTISM. 53 76. And yet, if man should be relieved, if any one should be saved, if sins are to be blotted out, if death is to beovercome, the kingdom ofthe devil destroyed, hellextin- guished, and the grace of God rekindled, observed, and magnified, God must begin himself, must send and substi- tute a mediator, through whom we may return from wrath to grace, from sin and death to virtueand life. Noconehas ability to be this mediator, nor power to do all this, except his own Son; and for.this reason he must visit us himsel/, and assume our nature, our blood and fesh. Yet, as he must relieve us from sins, he must himself be free from sin, and thus as.a mediator between God and us, become both truly Gedandman. Inorder thathe may be received and believed as such, the Father himself has revealed this to us from heaven, and given evidence of him,—* This is my beloved Son, in whom Iam well pleased.”? Asif he had said, “ΤΠ you desire to have this wrath and condemna- tion averted, and to seék and to find grace from me, then you must come hither and put your trust in this man ; he shall be the only true Priest and Mediator, and in no other way can you be reconciled, and find the grace of God.”’ 77. There were under the dispensation of Moses, very many services to God, many priests and sacrifices; and among the people many works and formalities, all per- formed in order that God might say: “In these do I find pleasure.’? But noneof these could secure this decla- ration. For they had not the heavenly testimony that he had said at any time, “In these I find pleasure, and will in consideration of these services, be gracious and forgive your sins.” But here only he says, “In this man is my pleasure, and through him 1 will be gracious, and become reconciled; from him must flow whatever wil! δά BAPTISM. be pleasing and acceptable to me.”? Here then every thing which we may do or bring before him is entirely disregarded and set aside, be they services of God, offer- ings, or works, according to the institution of Moses, or according to any preconceived opinion, intending that we by these may attain the grace of God, and be saved: — and every thing is included in the Son alone, that can please him, so that nothing independent of, and beyond him, can be able to effect a reconciliation. ‘* Whatever shall be spoken er done by or in him, it surely and cer- tainly,”’ says he, ‘‘ will be grateful to my heart. In no other way shall my pleasure and delight be secured, but here alone shall all eyes, ears, and hearts attend; here shall be every thing,—all wrath and displeasure entirely removed, and grace and love take their places.” 73. Behold! by this declaration, God has elevated him to the highest honor, so that he is both a true King and Priest, an Heir and Lord, who independently and powerfully reigns and rules over all things, and besides ‘secures the Father’s grace for us. ~Andn this he shows his paternal affection towards all who believe on Christ, ‘so that they may be assured that God is not their ene- my, but will be a gracious and friendly Father, who is neither willing nor able, if we adhere to Christ, to be angry or to be offended at us. “Though we perhaps may stumble and fall; yet if we turn again and apply to this Son, all shail ‘be entirely forgiven and forgotten; and he will say, “ This is pleasing to me, for the sake of my ‘heloved Son and Priest; thus I may be reconciled and he rendered gracious, for my heart is entirely upon him.” Thus he comprehends in these short but expressive words, nothing but pure grace and consolation, and opens unto us a great heaven, full of light and BAPTISM. δῦ glory, cordial benevolence, and paternal love, so that we should not be terrified before him, as before an an- gry judge; as the devil prefigures him to the timid, the terrified heart, and as the law threatens the obdurate im- penitent. But he earnestly desires that we look to him for love and for every blessing, and wait before him with a joyful heart, and no longer be terrified at any thing that would alarm or injure us. 79. For he has given us this revelation, only with the design that we may be certain and sure, that he will show us grace and paternal love in Christ, his beloved Son, and through him support us against all that would withdraw us from him; .and thus has he set aside all wrath and guilt, still further, all lords, kings, and prin- ces, yes, all angels, and powers, and dominions, all the wisdom, the holiness, the divine service of the world, and, in a word, every thing which would require any thing else from us; that henceforth nothing else may avail, but to cleave to this Lord and Priest alone, who aids us against all enemies, all assaults, terrors, and mala- dies, and who is our Mediator forever,-our eternal surety indeed, adopted by the Father for us, that he may be a gracious and friendly Father to us. But he desires that we may seek his grace in no other way than in his Son, as he has directed us; as those do, for instance, who by the law, or their own self-chosen works, expect to reconcile themselves to God, and to obtain the forgive- ness of sins. 80. And inorder that we may more firmly and cer- tainly comprehend this gracious disposition and will of the Father, he has exhibited them not only in these words, but also in the external signs and manifestations of this revelation. For he has.revealed himself here, not as 56 BAPTISM. of old, when he instituted the Old Testament, and com- municated the law through Moses upon mount Sinai, when the whole heavens were dark and gloomy with thick clouds, and nothing was heard or seen but thunder and lightning, so that the mountain was convulsed, and the earth trembled, and all was terror and consterna- tion; but here are every where splendor and light, and a joyful view, all the sky is clear, all nature smiles upon us, and the divine Majesty himself descends above us; no longer do we find that vast distance be- tween God and ourselves, but he exhibits himself visi- bly in the most friendly and lovely manner: the Son in his human nature, standing at the water with his ser- vant John, like any other innocent man; the Father in a lovely voice and annunciation which speaks of pure grace and love; and the Holy Ghost confirming it all, hovering over Christ in that most pleasing form, the form of an innocent dove, which is free from all resentment or bitterness, and possesses a heart altogether friendly. On the whole, here is nothing but consolatory, affec- tionate love that we behold and hear, as if the sky were streaming with honey and sweetness, and pouring down upon us grace and benevolence. Indeed we may enter- tain no other thought of him, and look to him for noth- ing less. 81. For what heart can conceive, what tongue can express, the sweet comfort which we find in these words, if we believe and feel them as a Christian should be- lieve, that God spoke these words to him, “ This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased?’ For here indeed nothing else is said than if he would say to us, “I give you all my grace, love, and kindness which I possessin my heart and in my power. For, in order that BAPTISM. 57 you may entertain no doubt or uncertainty, I here give you, not Moses, or a prophet, or an angel, or a saint; not some treasure of silver or gold, nor any other great earthly or heavenly gift; but mine own beloved Son, that is, my own heart, and the everlasting fountain, the well of every grace and blessing, which no angel nor creature in heaven or earth can fathom or conceive. This shall be a sign and surety of my grace and love, against your sins and fears; and as he is by birth and by right the eternal Heir and Lord of the universe, so shall you also be my children, heirs in him, and possess all that he possesses, and is able to give.’”’ . For besides giving us his right and inheritance which he possessed by nature,. he has earned and purchased us, as our Priest and Bishop, by his suffering and death, that we may be his chosen children, and theeverlasting co-heirs of all his joys. Behold now! what more should hedo, what more bestow? and what more exalted or more excellent can the heart of man desire or conceive? And still he does all this with- out any labor or service of ours, even before any one had prayed for it, or thought about it ; so that we have no boast to make of this at all, but we must consider it the gift of pure grace, and nothing can be done in return for it, except that we should thank and love him for this unspeakable grace; indeed he desires nothing more. 82. From these views you may judge what those are doing, who teach and preach in opposition to this divine annunciation, their own human works and servi- ces; presuming to. reconcile both themselves and others to God, and to obtain his grace; as if for this purpose they have no need at all of Christ the Lord, and ean please God very well without him, Indeed you oS BAPTISM. may well suppose what our Papists still deserve, who will not hear or regard this declaration concern- ing Christ and baptism, and who persecute and murder those who preach the truth. Because these Papists wil- fully cast away and utterly reject all the grace and love offered and proposed in Christ, what must reasonably happen to them, but to meet instead wrath and dis- pleasure, to be exterminated without any mercy, and be committed, moreover, to burning torments forever? As we see already such wrath and punishment impending over them, that they continually persevere in their ob- stinate wickedness, and al ways increase in impiety, sothat their fall will be the more terrible. But God preserve us who have grace, that we may understand this, and aid us, that we may adhere to it! 83. So much now has been briefly said concerning this beautiful text, in which the true beginning of the New Testament, and the sum of the whole Gospel, have been comprised and given to us by the Father himself; so brief and yet so complete and full that no man can conceive nor express it; so that we must not regard it so coldly and run over it, as if it were the vain talk of men. For we behold here how great and noble a des- cription is written concerning this venerable sacrament ef baptism, and here it is shown to. us how we must es- teem it, namely, that this water is sanctified by Christ, because he touched it with his own body, and that through baptism heaven is opened to us, the whole di- vine Majesty is personally present, and communicates himself fully and entirely to us, the Father mani- fests his grace and geod pleasure in Christ, and testifies that he will bless and assist us, and give us divine righteousness instead of sin, and eter- BAPTISM. 59 nal life in the place of death. For since all this ap- peared in the baptism of Christ, it is clearly shown to us, that this grace is given to us in and through baptism; whereas it was all thus revealed not for the sake of Christ, but for our sake. And it was done even in a place, where John was baptizing, where there was a wilderness, that we might see how he honors baptism, and he there shows us what he considers it to be. Other- wise he might have made this revelation in some con- spicuous place, as in Jerusalem, the capital of the nation, and in the temple. St. You have now what is to be said concerning the power and advantages of baptism; all which as repre- sented above, Christ has comprised in his own words, where he says, “Πρ that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved.”? For by this he gives us to understand, that his will and ordinance are, that we receive baptism, not in order that the body may be washed, and remain out- wardly pure and clean, like the daily purifications of the ancient Jews; nor that it might be a mere empty sign, by which people might know us, as the Jews, with their circumcision ; but exclusively with the design, that we - may be saved by it, that is, be freed from sin, death, and hell, and every evil, to be eternally righteous, holy, and vigorous, the heirs of heaven. For all this must result from this expression. For, if man be saved, his freedom from sin and justification must precede; as no one will be saved, except him who is righteous and holy beforehand. Again, if he shall be saved, he must also be freed from death, and possess life: besides, he must be secured from hell and condem- nation, and finally every calamity, unhappiness, and sor- row, fear and terror, must be taken away, and he must 00 BAPTISM. be brought to everlasting tranquillity and joy. ΑἸ] this, I say, baptism brings to us; not because it is water, but because the name and power of God is in it, who has ordained that it shall be a heavenly, divine water; and he will give us these blessings by means both of this water and his word. or he has power and strength abundantly sufficient to produce this effect, whenever he wills or determines, even through a substance much 655 considerable than water. 85. Thus you have now, I think, been told enough, why we applaud and hold this blessed institution so high over all other things upon earth. For, from all this you may clearly perceive, that we must not in this mat- ter, esteem our own works, however great and precious they may be, but the work and power of God alone, as it is reasonable to esteem and applaud them. A work and a power which other teachers and preachers,— neither the recent factions, nor the old Pope’s po- nies,—do not embrace or understand; although they also have these excellent texts and testimonies of the Scrip> ture concerning baptism lying before their eyes; but they stumble over them as if they were mere trifies, and they can muster nothing against us but something from their jargon and their dreams. According to their opinion, “We forbid good works, and do not live as we should.” Consequently they think they have acquitted themselves well, and entirely subverted us. But Jet them foam and disgorge themselves; for they are not worthy to know or to speak otherwise. If, indeed, they were so pious as to be able or willing to turn their attention to Serip* ture, then they would suffer our doctrine to go unas* sailed. For why is it that they boast so much of their works? And what have we here to do with works, HAPTISM. 61 wither to command or to forbid? Why do they not speak with Christ about it, and order him to make it differently? Yet we neither devised nor framed this ex- pression, “He that believeth and is baptized.” Is it the expression of a Lutheran ora Papist? I think in- deed it is the declaration of the Holy Ghost and of Christ himself, and stands in the same Bible which they as well as we have; and it is true that we do not here speak nor should we speak of our works. 86. For you yourself will say,—What is in baptisin that we should boast of it as ours? Or what have we contributed to it? I do not think, indeed, that any man - is so rude and presumptuous as to say, that at gi 1S his or any person’s. For no baptism takes place in my name or yours, or the name of any saint, but in th name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. This is the authority which can perform, and whic! should perform it. Of this should we boast, if we would talk of works; for he is doing the proper kind cf werks, which may reasonably be esteemed divine; which are, to blot out sins, to avert death, to extinguish heil. 87. These are, 1 think, different δε τ from those indefinite things Ghieh they have been teaching; as, their monkish ‘and self-constituted works,—to Last, to walk barefoot, to hold and establish mass, which they per- form, not only without the word of God, but even to the rejection and disgrace of precious baptism,—to cruel b)as- phemy indeed upon the name of God, and his works; since they exalt and hold them equal with baptism, as their doctors shamefully write, “ He who goes into a cleister and takes orders, does as much as if ed came immediately from baptism.”” This is the unholy bigness and real malignity of the wretched Antichrist, with ae ith he 6 i 03 BAPTISM: has tainted all Christianity, so that he has drawn the people from baptism to his own works ; yes, he has torn them away from it by force, and set these works in the place of Christ and his baptism ; so that none had power to retain it, except those whom God has wonderfully preserved. For so soon as we have removed the child’s shoes, and have just brought it again from the holy laver, they subvert the whole by such preaching, “Ὁ you have lost your baptism long ago, and this chrism-cloth has been tainted with your sins; you must now consider that you must atone for your sins, and fast often, must pray, perform pilgrimages, erect churches, until you can be reconciled to God, and thus again obtain his grace.” 88. ‘This is at once to subvert and nullify all that we have derived from baptism; and it is, alas! fulfilled, as St. Peter has prophesied concerning them, 2 Epis. 2, 20, that by their doctrine they, having just narrowly es- caped from error, and become purified from sins through baptism, again plunge and wallow in the same filth, and drown themselves in it; and it happens to them as to the filthy animal, which has just come from swimming, and wallows herself again in the next marsh. Thus has it happened to us also by the doctrines of the Pope and of all the books and writings of his theologians and decretists, all of whom have done nothing else but pervert and abuse Christ and his baptism, so that in it no one could find peace or comfort: | 39. For I myself was a monk fifteen years, be- sides the time I had lived before, ard I diligently read all their books, and did all that was in my power; yet I never was able to console myself with my baptism, but always thought, “Ὁ when wilt thou become pious, and have done enough to receive the grace of God?” ες, να..- "5" BAPTISM. 63 And with these reflections, I devoted myself to monkery, and I tortured and punished myself with fasting, cold, and an austere life; and yet I accomplished nothing more by all this, than only to lose my beloved baptism, indeed to deny its efficacy. ‘This is the fruit and the reward for which we have to thank these teachers of works, which they still defend, and they know of nothing else to exclaim about but works, contrary to the decla- ration concerning Christ and his baptism, which God himself made from heaven, and thus they really and in- deed hurl-away the baptism of Christ, and substitute another baptism of works; so that they are even as per- nicious in consequence of their doctrine as the Anabap- tists ; indeed they make nothing else but Jews and Turks out of us, as if we had never been baptized. 90. Wherefore in order that we may not be per- verted by such doctrine, let us maintain this pure doc- trine, as we here see and understand it, that baptism is not our work or deed, and that a great and wide dis- tinction must be made between the works of God and our own. For there are some works which the divine Majesty performs upon us, for instance, creating us with body and soul, and giving us ail that is in heaven and on earth. These are his general works towards al] men upon earth, and all are very precious and excellent. But besides these works, he performs others, upon those who become Christians and his children. Tor after we had fallen and become corrupted through sin, still he takes us once more in his divine hands, gives us his word and baptism with which he washes and cleanses us from sin. These are works, I say, which belong to the divine Majesty alone, in which we do, and are able to do, nothing more than to receive them from him. Of 6. BAPTISM. these works should we boast, if we talk of great divine works. For he is the true Operator, who with his fin- eer can obliterate our sins, subdue death, conquer Satan, and destroy hell. 91. But since we enjoy and understand these works of God, we may now speak of those works which we ean do and ought to do, namely, to thank God for these his works towards us, and praise him before all the world, so that other people also may under- stand and obtain them, and thus to live to the honor of God, and the benefit of our neighbor, to aid and serve every man, with labor or with charity, or by any means we can. In this practice we do not teach and praise our own works as if we could attain heaven by them. For this should be the object for which they ought to appear; not that they should enable to blot out sins, to free from death, and to attain heaven, but to advance the interest and relieve the necessity of our neighbor. 92. Thus they are both properly distinguished, that we may make as high and wide a difference between them, as heaven is from earth. For the works of God come hither from above, and give us pure, heavenly, eternal blessings ; but our works remain here below, and affect only what belongs to this terrestrial life and be- ing. Of this distinction, though so correct and clear, the gross Papists know nothing: they clamor a great deal about works, and know not what teaching or pro- hibiting good works is; they brew and mingle them up together, so that we cannot know what the works of God or our own are ; indeed the former are entirely dar- kened and unobserved, and human works are established in their place, while the true doctrine is every where perverted and mutilated. is BAPTISM. 65 THE THIRD PART. 93. Quite enough has now been said, both as to whnt is baptism, and as to its power and benefit. It remains to say something in reference to its use, and those whc receive it. For here there is a manifest distinc- tion, because all do not enjoy the same power and benefit of baptism, although they may have received the same baptism. For two kinds of people there are who receive it,—some with faith, some without faith. Consequently, although baptism is right mm itself, and the same to one as to another,—as goad, as holy, as divine tothe unbeliever as to him who believes: yet there is between these a great difference, for the unbehever can- not enjoy its power and benefit. ‘This is not the fault of baptism, but his own fault who did not receive and use it as he should. Ife is not a subject qualified or rtted to receive this secrement; for his heart is οἰοβοί. so that the efficacy of — να cannot enter it, and oper ate therem ; for he does rot desire or wish to have it. 94, Just as it takes place among material objects. The blessed sun shines and gives light every where ; ard though every one does not see it, nor enjoy Hs warmth, yet it is the rea!, glorious sun, with its splendor and hght, its heat and its power, over him as much as over all others. Why then does he continue cold and dark? Certainly because he has shut the doors and windows, and he is neither able nor willing to see the sun. Thus is it also with the unbelieving heart. Though the true baptism has been duly received, the divine, the heavenly bath, and all that God has con- nected with it; yet because that heart did not believe nor wish to receive it, no benefit will be derived from i; not on account of its impotence or imperfection, but fe- 66 BAPTISM. cause the recipient turns his back, and prevents its in- fluence from operating on his heart. 95. So again, whoever believes that for him God has instituted in baptism a washing of regeneration, by which he is washed from sins, and becomes the child of (τος, receives it and finds it as he believed. For his heart 1s open, and the influence of baptism enters it with all its force, enlightens and warms him, and consti- tutes out of the old, inanimate man, a saint with a new principle of life. 86. To this distinction Christ has also borne testi- mony tn these words: ‘ He that believeth and is bap- tized, shall be saved, but he that believeth not, shall be damned.’ For here he has expressed what benefit bap- tism affords, or what result it produces; and to this he adds how those should be qualified in whom it should accomplish its work, or what necessarily belongs to it, namely, faith, in order that it may be received beneficially. 97. But it has already been remarked frequently, how we should use baptism, and how our faith should rest upon it incessantly, and be exercised as long as we live. Let it be sufficient at this time that we learn how to observe a proper distinction,—to which we have al- luded above, against those mistaken spinits,—that it is one thing to receive the right baptism, and another to enjoy its power and benefits; so that we may not deny and contemn baptism in itself, even if it is not received properly. As the Anabaptists do, who pretend that the baptism of Papists is altogether ineffectual, because it is both administered and received without faith; and that whoever is baptized by them must be baptized again. This error formerly disturbed many excellent Chris- tians, as I before remarked concerning St. Cyprian. BAPTISM. 67 98. For, although we contend against the Papists about baptism and the Eucharist, yet we do not by this wish to assert that their baptism and Eucharist, which they administer according to the ordinance of God, are wrong and without efficacy ; but we censure their doc- trine, which is contrary to faith and the proper use of baptism, by which they strip it of all its efficacy, and pervert those who have been very properly bap- tized ; and so far as they are able, they suffer no one to hold it in its purity, since they always keep saying, “It is no longer beneficial after the chrism-cloth is soiled and the innocence is lost, but we must expiate our sins after receiving baptism, by our works of penitence and expiation ;’’ and thus they substitute our good works in the room of holy baptism, and create another bap- tism, not by water, but by works. And in this way, as said above, they have shamelessly assimilated bap- tism with their monkery and monastic life. 99. Against this blasphemous and detestable doc- trine we preach and contend. But in doing this, we will not deny that baptism which we have received from them; but we pursue precisely a contrary course: in opposition to their adventitious doctrine of baptism by works, by which they nullify the baptism of Christ, we must bring again to its proper use this blessed baptism, which they received through the Apostles in the name of Christianity from Christ, so that its efficacy may again be understood and maintained. Like the Gospel and the holy Scripture, which they have duly received, but have darkened, falsified, and adulterated by their human opinions, we must cleanse and purify them again, and bring them to the light. This distinction the Ana- baptists do not observe, nor can they distinguish that 68 BAPTISM. baptism which the Papists administer in the name of Christ, from their doctrine which they have conceived against baptism: but they condemn both the doctrine and baptism as nothing, and perfectly ineffectual, as if it were a mere human conception of their own, like their own opinions are; and thus they have removed baptism entirely from us. 100. Now in order that we may defend baptism and the true doctrine, both against the Papists and the per- version of the Anabaptists, we must continually teach and support this distinction between the two,—that which is the work of God, and that which is ours. For when we speak about what baptism is, and about its benefits, then we are not speaking about our works. - For who will assert that he would have made or con- ceived, or even have known baptism, had net God him- self instituted it, and enjoined it upon us, much less that he could give it power and effect? Consequently what- ever there may be of its power or its nature, that is altogether and entirely the work of God, and we have nothing to do in it at all in this respect. And here we should not consider or enquire what we do, or do not do; but wherever we see it administered according to his word and command, we should by no means enter- tain a doubt, that he who is thus baptized, has received the proper baptism. But afterwards, if you have thus received it, you are bound to observe well how you be- lieve, and that you use your baptism rightly. This then may properly be spoken in reference to our own actions. In a word, these two, I say, baptism and faith, we should distinguish as far from each other as hea- ven is separated from earth; as far as God is exalted above man. ὡ; BAPTISM. 69 101. For whatever he makes and does are works which are as steadfast, determinate, unchangeable, and eternal as himself. Consequently they stand and endure firmandimmovable, and will not change, although we may probably misuse them ineveryrespect. But whatever we do, is infirm and uncertain, as we ourselves are, so that we can ground or establish nothing upon 11. In order, therefore, that baptism may be permanent and certain to us, he has not established it upon our faith, because that itself is uncertain, and can very readily be false ; but he has established it upon his own word and ordi- nance, in order that it might be correct and might en- dure, and not become enfeebled and contemptible, even if faith do not attend it. 102. According to this distinction every one can judge and confute every error which may spring up against baptism; as those who have been represented above as saying, ‘‘ Baptism is of no advantage, if it is administered by one who does not believe.” For this pretence has a very imposing appearance, and here- tofore has spread extensively, so as even to infest the great bishop and martyr, St. Cyprian. For here they have adduced that remark from Sirach: ‘ Whoever has an impure hand, what can he make clean? Whatever he touches becomes impure. Now whenever baptism is administered by a guilty priest or unbeliever, how can it cleanse him who receives it ?”’ 103. But this is to establish baptism on the works ef men, and to render it entirely uncertain and vain. For had I to wait so long, until I became certain that he who was about to baptize was pure, neither I nor any man would ever be baptized ; indeed I must entirely 70 ᾿ς BAPTISM. give up the Lord’s Prayer, where we are all taught to say, ““ Forgive us our trespasses.”’ 104. Accordingly we may say, that we must not be so far deluded as to allow ourselves to look to, and to depend upon, our own worthiness or the purity of our own hands in this matter. For here we have another hand besides ours, namely, Christ’s, which is entirely pure and holy, and every thing that he touches, he makes holy and pure. He it is that makes and administers baptism; and all that is done in baptism is his work. Now because he, whose bap- tism it is, and who himself baptizes, continues ever pure, what then shall I enquire, if I and you and all men are impure? By this, Christ my Lord, and his blessed baptism, shall not be polluted for me. Just as the blessed sun does not become obscured or impure, because he shines upon the filth and the swamps as well as upon gold, but his beams fall as brilliant upon the heap of or- dure as they do upon the white veil; nor do they con- tract any impurity therefrom, notwithstanding they may penetrate even within the mass; so likewise, although baptism may be administered by an impure servant, nei- ther baptism nor we can receive any injury at all on that account, inasmuch as baptism and the office are not of man, but of Christ. 105. And if we should be persuaded that the ordi- nance and command of God, cannot prevail, unless the person by whom it is administered be pure and without sins, no one must any longer preach or teach, or confide in or submit to, the word of God; for never yet did any one appear who was entirely pure, and who did not feel a necessity to pray in the language of the Lord’s Prayer. Indeed even children must be taught thus: “ Why will BAPTISM, 71 you be obedient to your fatherand mother? are they either holyorpure?”’ And thusall lordsand princes would have ~ to relinquish their offices, annul the lawsof civil obedience, or regard their own authority and jurisdiction as impure, because they, for the most part, are not pious men. Here would result a lovely government indeed! 106. Hence you perceive that this is a very perni- cious error, and God must have supported the holy mar- tyr, St. Cyprian, in a most especial manner, and must have cleansed him from this error, through the blood of Christ the Lord. But still an injurious evil resulted from this false opinion. For thence the Anabaptists first arose, and now again they are becoming prevalent, so that countries and towns are infected with this evil, through its dangerous and delusive pretensions; as they insist, ‘‘ You did not believe when you were baptized ; and notwithstanding you may possibly have believed, yet the persons who administered baptism for you, were impure and godless ; consequently you must be baptized again.” .. 107. Whoever, therefore, does not wish to be mis- led, let him adhere to this doctrine of ours; and then he shall be able to speak distinctly about it, and to say: “That I have been baptized is not my work, nor his who administered it; for it is not my baptism, nor that of the priest’s, nor of any man’s, but of Christ’s my Lord, and it does not need either my or your purity at all; for neither I nor any man can sanctify baptism and render it pure, but we shall all be sanctified and rendered pure by baptism. Wherefore I will not ground baptism upon my faith, but on the contrary, my faith shall 65- tablish and build itself upon baptism.”’ 108, And I will suppose that the recipient, be he iF ᾿ ' 72 BAPTISM. young or old, do not believe at all; as it may easily happen, that a Jew, to deceive us Christians, may suffer himself to be baptized; in this instance I should not assert, that his baptism is of no effect because he is an impostor and abuses baptism; but on the contrary I must maintain, that he has received the right baptism, though to his own injury and condemnation. In the same manner as I dare not say, whenever an unbeliever has blasphemed the name of God, that he has not blas- phemed the true God. So also, I dare not say, that the Gospel is not the true word of God, because he who preaches or hears 1t may happen to be an impostor? so even the truly venerable sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, was as really received by the traitor Judas as by St. Peter. For God does not change on account of us, and he will not suffer his word and work to be changed or enervated by our belief or unbelief. For this is certainly true that we, as for ourselves, are not pure, nor can we endure; so that if baptism would depend on our purity or faith, it would surely be a desperate case, and Satan would soon drag away our faith, and rum our baptism, and no one could ever be certain of it, or dare to put his confidence in ifs 109. -And I would gladly hear from these Anabap=’ tists, what they would reply if one should ask, why they themselves baptize, since they reject our baptiin, and baptize the people over again who were baptized before, as they say, improperly ; and how they make themselves certain that their baptism ts correct? If they can establish this, ] will suffer myself to be bap- tized again, not once only, but as often as they please. ““Yes,”’ say they, “formerly you were baptized, and knew not whether you had believed ; but now I baptize BAPTISM. 73 you because you believe and know what you are doing.” 110. But how do you know whether the person about to be baptized does believe now or not? ‘“ Be- cause,” say they, ‘‘he asserts his belief, and desires baptism.”’? ‘This is even building upon the former sandy foundation. For how are you certain that he does not deceive you by his acknowledgment? [5 it all sufficient merely that he assert it? In the same way any villain might easily assert it, and pretend that he believes; and if you depend upon this, I conclude against you by re- ference to the Scripture, where you read, that all men are false and deceptive, and that it is frequently forbid- den to trust man. Consequently your Anabaptism is not only uncertain to you, but is also forbidden and con- demned, because you would be basing a work, which belongs to the divine Majesty, upon men, and di- verting our faith and trust from God to a creature. But we would not build at all upon men, but upon the work of God, which is not only certain, infal- lible, and true, but, when it once takes place, endures and prevails forever; so that we dare not alter or re- new it, like the mutable works and characters of men. 111. Of this take an example. The Patriarchs in the Old Testament had a baptism also. This was the Ten Commandments; as St. Paul says, 1 Cor. 10, 2, “They were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud,” that is, upon the Ten Commandments. On this God made a coyenant with them through Moses, and still among them there were thousands who did not believe, but committed idolatry, blasphemed God, and excited seditions. Should people therefore have said: ‘“‘ Now the Ten Commandments are annulled, God must make others?” Or, when meat so abominably both into 71 BAPTISM. adultery and murder, should he have said, “ The fifth and sixth commandments are repealed ; God must insti- tute others in their stead?” ‘Thus every hour he would have to institute a new Decalogue for the world. But in reality the commandments of God exist and endure forever, even if we fail, and do not observe them, and though all the world rush over them heedlessly to their ruin; yet these Commandments would not fail on that account; but the binding force and obligation to observe them would still remain. No matter how often and desperately by the permission of God, we may fall from them, we are under obligation always to adhere to them again; just as in his other ordinances. In the same way, the jurisdiction, authority, and lawful dominion of princes, are not impaired because a prince may happen to have many faithless and disobedient subjects in his dominions. 112. Thus is it too with baptism, by which, when we have once received it, we are included and enrolled in the number of those who are to be saved, and God makes an eternal covenant of grace with us. This blessed baptism is not in vain because we may after- wards fall and commit errors; but just as grace endures and rules forever,—as remarked in the 117th Psalm, verse 2, that even if we do fal], we may always return to it again, if only we do not reject it or strive against it,—- so baptism also endures evermore; and you cannot so far and fully depart from it, that you are neither able nor obliged to embrace it again. And there is no need for him to make you a new baptism, though you may not have believed. For it is, as observed, an eternal bath, wherein being once placed, we must forever re- main, or be eternally condemned. BAPTISM. 2 Φ 113. Thus you perceive that the Anabaptists are blind, ignorant seducers, who understand nothing about the word and works of God, and doubly offend against holy baptism. In the first place, because they abuse and condemn true baptism by their doctrine; and in the second place, because they give no one any cer- tain baptism, and therefore in reality have no baptism, but their baptism is indeed rather a deceptive affair. Now so heinous and inveterate are their sins, that they deny and abuse the true baptism, and thereby draw upon themselves a terrible condemnation, for they are wilfully striving against the ordinance and work of God; and thus they rob themselves and others of this very baptism, and all the grace which 1s communicated by it. 114. Let what has now been said be sufficient con- cerning this venerable sacrament of holy baptism, for the purpose of defending this true Christian doctrine and rational view of it, against the host of Satan, which he has set in hostile array against it, in order that he may banish baptism entirely, or rather indeed that he may rob people of its power and benefits. We have need now (since, by the grace of God, we possess the doctrine and use of baptism pure and unadulterated,) of a discourse treating especially of the fruits and re- sults of baptism. For of something of this kind a great necessity may be traced among us. 115. I have often said that we must make a dis- tinction between the two, doctrine and course of life. For the parties, both of Anabaptists and Papists, fall off from the doctrine, and pervert either the natural char- acter of baptism, or indeed the proper use of it. But we who possess the Gospel, esteem and honor baptism as the work and ordinance of God, and, by the grace of 70 BAPTISM., God, we do not sin against his doctrine and word. For it proceeds pure and unadulterated from the pulpit, and even in- practice, and accordingly we do baptize and suffer others to baptize. But we are censurable in this, that we do not follow the doctrine in our deportment. lor wherever doctrine and faith are correct, there the proper fruits of these should always follow, showing that we live worthy of our baptism, and thus proving that we have not received it in vain. For what advan- tage is it, if you possess the word and command of God, with a correct, clear understanding, and do nothing ac- cording to them? Hence, although we may not rail against baptism, yet if we do not show our faith, and live after the manner of one who has been baptized, it will be of no advantage to us. 116. Yet these errors of life are widely different from those sins committed against doctrine. For here a remedy still remains, and our life may become better; but where the principles of doctrine are false,. there is neither help nor remedy for the improvement of life, but both are lost and desperate. For it happens in this as with a citizen, who may commit two kinds of offences against his government,—as, he may be disobedient to his superior, and act contrary to his com- mands, and in consequence incur the punishment due to disobedience ; but still he may acknowledge that he has acted improperly in this particular. By this it so hap- pens, that we can draw a distinction between the two, Jus et Factum, authority and obedience to authority, or as we here call them, doctrmme and life. For still this insubordinate or disobedient subject acknowl- edges the law, and allows the command. But if he should proceed farther, oppose the command, resist ee ΒΟ BAPTISM. ΨῚ the law, and deny that he had done wrong, and should, moreover, even defend his error; this wouid be entirely a different thing, and would constitute, not merely an act of disobedience or of insubordination to law, but a sedition and a violation of injured majesty ; as one who audaciously sets himself up against supreme authority, and disregarding existing law, would make his-own judgment the law. ‘To this crime would be- long no ordinary punishment indeed,—it would even seem that the earth should open under such a being, and swallow him as it did Korah, Dathan, and Ab:iraz, Num. 16, 32. 117. For the world cannot bear that sins should be called sins, but it would have them called rectitude 1:- self, to pass unpunished, and to be approved and admired. As our pious Papists are acting at this very time, who knowingly persecute the acknowledged truth of the Gos- pel, and by force wish to defend their godless conduct, as they presumptuously assail God in his declarations, and say, ‘* What he says shall not prevail, but what we say and do, should be called right; that his word and com- mand must not prevail until they please us.” This is τὸ thrust God from his throne, and to set themselves in the place of Supreme Majesty itself. ‘The faction of Ana- baptists act thus also in reference to holy baptism, since they strive obstinately against the ordimance of God, and contrive something else of their own inits stead. Surely no moderate or temporary punishment awaits this crime, but Satan himself and the fires of hell. 118. From such guilt may God continue to defend us, even as he is now doing. For with them there can be no grace or pardon, since they obstinately resist ir. But because we have the privilege of enjoying a true Goc- 78 BAPTISM. trine among us, we should therefore pay strict atten- tion, and direct our life according to its precepts, and not abuse tis grace, nor let it pass in vain: but since we have died unto sin by baptism, and have become new men, we should henceforth as new-born individeals walk in newness of life, as St. Peter observes, 1 Epis. 2, 1, and Paul, Rom. 6, 4, by which people may trace in our lives that we have received bap- tism usefully and to our salvation. 119. For here we may perceive how Satan who is among us, struggles, not to prevent baptism from being duly administered, but to prevent its being attended with any good result. For, though we have at- tained grace without our own works and rectitude of life, having obtained true baptism, yet we should henceforth so conduct ourselves as to our words and actions and our whole course of life, that we may honor and adorn this sacrament. For the baptismal font, the altar, and the pulpit, are intended always to remind us of this, and to afford a lasting memorial that we are baptized and are Christians; and that we may re- fiect, honor the blessed font, and live in such a man- ner as always to dare to look upon it joyfully; and not let it stand as a witness against us. 120. But now very many, alas! conduct themselves as if they might always remain under the same old char- acter, living just as they desire, and thus render this most excellent baptism of theirs a mere cover for shame and disgrace, as if they had been called to the kingdom of grace in order that they should have the privilege of doing whatever they wish; and they console themselves, however, with believing that God will be gracious, and excuse themselves thus: “I am a frai! man; God will BAPTISM. 79 continue to overlook it, and to forgive me,’ &c. No, not so, beloved brother; I have not pointed out that course to you, that baptism would confer upon you a li- cense to sin; but the leaf must now be turned; on this account your sins are absolved, and you are now come to grace,—you who were before without grace in conse- quence of sin,—in order that you may now lead a diifer- ent life and cease from sin. ‘These do not correspond with each other,—to be baptized and to remain in sin. For baptism is administered with the very design of tak- ing away sins, in order that man may become virtucus, and increase in good works; that whereas, before this time, he was disobedient, revengeful, envious, faithless, and incontinent, he may repress these feelings, and re- cur to the Lord’s Prayer, and henceforth repent and earnestly strive that he may be obedient, patient, and virtuous. If you do not act thus, think not that your situation is secure, and think not to boast much of the grace of Christ, and by it to excuse your sins. 121. This would be an excellent test: if you find yourself so much improved, that, in a year or two, or some indefinite period, and not so frequently as before, you have failed but once or twice, or indulged some feeling of anger or revenge through error or infirmity, thischange may be viewed as a token of good in you, and you may again be reinstated. But always to remain and persist in the old course, with anger, impatience, and envy, proves that youhave received your baptism to great disadvantage. 122. So, if you had been an adulterer, a libertine, a miser, baptism would show you that you must no longer commit violence, adultery, indulge your avarice, steal orrob. Your former offences are forgiven and extinct, and in future you must become a different being, a pious, a ——— μος 80 BAPTISM. righteous, beneficent, and continent man. If you find this kind of life and feeling attending you a considerable time, it is a sign that baptism has exerted a proper in- fluence upon you. And if it should happen that you would err in one instance or two, it might be deemed merely a failure or inadvertence, you may hope for grace and forgiveness; but not that you should con- tinue and persist in such errors, and always be say- ing, ‘* What can I make of it? I cannot abandon it ; there is still some grace and pardon,” ὅς. This he will not suffer. For in this way you do nothing but kindle the wrath of God, and always keep departing farther from grace, until you have entirely lost it, and at last, as a punishment, commit the enormous crime of rejecting and defaming baptism, like the miserable rabble of Satan. 123. Accordingly keep your actions always before you, and observe how they correspond with baptism ; and be assured that, although you have been called and placed into the kingdom of grace, and have been made by Christ a partaker of all that Christians possess ; yet if you remain as you were before, it will all be of no advantage to you, because you do not honor your bap- tism, and keep it in purity; and you may be called a ‘Christian indeed, but you have assuredly forsaken Christ’; sin is your lord; you are serving the devil, and you possess nothing more than the name and appearance of Christianity, by which you are deceiving yourself, and accomplishing your own ruin. For, as I have ob- served, he has given this blessed baptism and the Eucha- rist, not only in order that he may forgive and wash away sins by it, but he intends by this means daily to keep expelling and blotting those out which may still con- BAPTISM. 81 tinue to linger behind, that the disposition and nature of man may become entirely changed, fitted, and adapted to every good work. And wherever it has been pro- perly received, it will assuredly be found, that the sins of that individual are daily departing and becoming less. In him who has not properly received it, the contrary will appear: that he has assumed this wedding garment, but keeps unseemly filth beneath it, by which he stains and destroys its purity and beauty. 124. For it is our duty, if we would enjoy divine grace, that we esteem and honor baptism as a most pre- cious treasure. Now this is the beauty and the orna- ment, that we live irreproachable ; as St. Paul teaches, Tit. 2, 10, that servants and those of other condition, should live in such a manner, as to honor the divine doctrine inevery thing. In what manner? In this: ΠΕΙ- ther to be faithless nor dishonest, but obedient. ‘This is. the beautiful garland which adorns baptism, and ren- ders it a most excellent honor and praise to every one, and furnishes an evidence to us, that we have received ‘it profitably, and are true Christians. On the contrary whoever does not conduct himself in his station as he should, abuses and dishonors both his own doctrine and his baptism, and furnishes an evidence against himself that he is not worthy of grace, and is nothing more than a blemish and stain among Christians, as St. Peter calls such a man, 1 Peter 2. 125. Wherefore let us endeavor with sincerity and ardor, that we also may be found among those who adorn and honor this exalted treasure by their lives and actions. Let us cheerfully boast of it before God and all the world, and never be ashamed, or else it may happen to us as to others, who have lost their 89 BAPTISM. blessed baptism, and found every thing which they have taught or done, or which they are still teaching or doing, to be vain, and indeed even pernicious; so that it is seven times more deplorable with them than before. And be- cause they have failed to secure this treasure, it is justly imposed upon them as a punishment, that they must now bedeluded by every false doctrine; and as they have deter- mined not to honor this blessed baptism by real good works, they must now exert and plague themselves with pretended good works, and do every thing that the devil by his delusions will have done. ‘Thus it may happen with us also, if we do not be prayerful and vigilant, that we may not lose this precious treasure of the word and of this salutary institution. For he who has given it can easily permit it to be taken away again, as this is a result which the devil desires and strives with all dili- gence to accomplish. 126. This we have briefly said by way of admoni- tion. For we must urge two kinds of argument, to controvert false doctrine and to punish sins, that both our doctrine and our conduct may proceed in harmony* together. Amen. A LETTER ANABAPTISM, BY DR. MARTIN LUTHER. A. Ὁ. 1528. A LETTER : eh - ON i τὰ | τ ANABAPTIS 4H, το TWO CLERGYMEN, EY _ DR. MARTIN LUTHER. ~ Martin Luther to the esteemed and reverend N. and N. Grace and peace be unto you, my beloved friends, in Christ our Lord! ῳῷ 1. Beloved Sirs: I am not unaware, alas! that Bal- thesaur Htibmohr, in his blasphemous book on Anabap- tism, has introduced my name among others, as if 1 also had adopted his absurd opinions. But I have consoled my -self with the reflection, that no one, whether friend or foe, will credit his notorious falsehoods; because ποῖ only my conscience is secure on this point, but the re- port also concerning me is sufficiently invalidated by numerous sermons, and more especially by the last Pos- tils, from Epiphany to Easter, in which I have made a full declaration of my belief concerning infant baptism. 2. Ideemed it unnecessary, AS ης to answer such | a book ashis. For who can stop the mouths ofall men? — 80 ON ANABAPTISM. yea, we may say, of all devils? I have long been con- vinced by experience, that when I stop one mouth for the devil, ten others will be opened in its stead, and the longer he exercises his malignity, the more it increases ; so that, after I have spoken the truth, I must, willing or unwil- ling, commit it to God, who is a true judge, and knows very well how to terminate these difficulties ; as we may easily perceive in his daily dispensations. Here, in the territory of our prince, we are as yet free from the pol- lutions of such ministers,—honor and praise be to God forever !—and likewise from the enemies of the sacra- ment, and remain quite undisturbed and harmonious in doctrine, faith, and life. May God, in future, thus graciously protect us! Amen. ὁ. For my own part, indeed, I have, therefore, spent few thoughts concerning the Anabaptists, because it was unnecessary. But you Papists, (I must call you SO, since you will remain under your tyrant,) it is ser- ving you perfectly right; inasmuch as you will not tol- erate the Gospel, you are necessarily involved with these satanic sects, as Christ declares, John 5, 43: “1 am come in my Father’s name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name,”’ that is, one like yourselves, “ him ye will receive.” Yet it is not right, and I am truly sorry, that any one should so miserably murder, burn, and cruelly destroy people so distressed } yea, every one should be permitted to believe what he desires to believe. If he believe wrong, he will have sufficient punishment in the everlasting fire of hell. Why then should he endure temporal torture also, pro- vided he errs in faith only, and is not otherwise rebel- lious, or in other respects resists government? Gracious God! how easily may any one err, and fall into the ON ANABAPTISM. 97 snares of the devil! With the Scriptures and the word of God, they should be opposed and restrained ; with fire, httle will be accomplished. 4. Ido not yet, however, rightly know what reason or ground they have for their faith; neither have you informed me, and yet you desire advice how a person should act in such perplexities. Consequently on this I can give no positive answer. Moreover, you your- selves are in part also Anabaptists. For many of you baptize those in Latin again, who have been baptized in German, while at the same.time your Pope himself neither adopts nor teaches this practice. For we are well assured that the Pope sanctions baptism, when, in cases of neces- sity, it has been administered by women, even if they bap- tizein German. Yet you baptize those again who were baptized by us in German; as if the administration of bap- tism in German by our ministers were not as good as the baptism of womenin German; evenasthat bigotted super- intendent of Letpsic has lately done at Muhlhausen, not- withstanding the Pope has nowhere commanded that we should baptize in Latin only, and not in other languages. Therefore again it is serving youright. If you will re- baptize, you will have Anabaptistsenough. These yeu will not tolerate, and yet wish to be such yourselves, in opposition to your own teacher and master, the Pope. 5. But I shall now desist from mentioning how in- consistently some of your ministers act by rebaptizing ; for your shame is the greater because you strive directly © against your idol, the Pope himself, by your practice of anabaptism: and thus teachers and pupils do not coincide. I shall, therefore, not treat this subject more fully at pres- ent, but shall, for the purpose of serving you, become a Papist again, and quietly act the hypocrite with the Pope. eae ee ee —— lite taal . ὗς ON ANABAPTISM. For my beloved enthusiasts will certainly not interpret if otherwise for me, (as they are prompt in doing,) but to say I am acting the sycophant towards the Pope, and seeking his favor; since whoever does not follow their foolish fanaticism, must be called a new pope. 6. In the first place, Γ hear and see that this practice of anabaptism is designed by some for the purpose of insult- ing the Pope, as if they would have nothing of Antichrist ; precisely as the enemies of the Eucharist wish also to believe in mere bread and wine, in order to displease the Pope, and expect by this means they will completely overthrow Popery. This is indeed a loose foundation, on which they will build nothing good. In this manner they must also deny all the holy Scripture, and the office of the ministry. For certainly we have all this from the Pope, and we would also have to make a new holy Scripture. Thus we must, in like manner, abandon the Old Testament, so as to receive nothing from the unbelieving Jews. Why then do they daily take money and property, which, however, wicked people,— the Pope and the Turks, or heretics,—have had? ‘This likewise they should not do, if they would have nothing that is good from wicked people. 7. This is all foolishness. Christ also discovered among the Jews the abuses of the Pharisees and Scribes; but he did not, therefore, reject all that they held and taught, Matt. 23, 3. But we confess, that in Popery there is much Christian good, yes, all Christian good ; and we confess also that from thence it has descended to us: we acknowledge, namely, that the true holy Scripture, the true baptism, the true Sacrament of the Altar, the true keys of the forgiveness of sins, the true office of the ministry, the true catechism, as the Ten Commandments, ON ANABAPTISM. Ὁ 89 the articles of the Creed, the Lord’s Prayer, exist in Popery. Even as the Pore also, on the other hand, ac- knowledges that the Scripture, baptism, the keys, the catechism, are among us (although he condemns us as heretics) and all heretics. O how hypocritically you act here! How then do I act the hypocrite? 1 assert what the Pope has in common with us. So m return he acts the hypocrite equally as much with us and the heretics, in acknowledging what we have in common with him. I shall dissemble more still, and yet it will bene- ft me nothing. I say that true Christianity, yes, the true prince of Christianity, and many pious and eminert saints, are under the dominion of the Pope. Shall 1 cease dissembling ? 8. Hear for yourselves what St. Paul says, 2 Thes. 2,4: Antichrist will © sit in the temple of God.” Now if the Pope be, as I verily believe, the true Antichrist, then he must not δὲ or rule in the devil’s stall, but ἐπ the temple of God. No, he will not sit where there is nothing but devils and infidels, or where there is neither Christ nor Christianity; for he is to be an Antichrist. He must, therefore, be among Christians. And since he is to sit and to rule there, he must have Christians under him. The temple of God, indeed, is not a pile of stones, but the holy Christian church, 1 Cor. 3, 17, over which he shall rule. 9. Now, if Christianity is under the dominion of the Pope, it must in truth be the body and members of Christ. If it is his body, it has the right spirit, Gospel, faith, baptism, Eucharist, keys, office of the ministry, prayer, holy Scripture, and all that Christianity should have. We are in like manner all under Popery still, and derive these Christian blessings from it. For he tne ΘΌ ON ANABAPTISM. persecutes us, he curses us, he excommunicate? us, he banishes us, burns us, murders us, and reats us poor’ Christians as a real Antichrist would treat the Christian church. Now, certainly such Christians must be rightly baptized, and be true members of Christ, else they σοῦ not achieve such a victory against Antichrist in death. 10. We donot act so fanatically as those factious spir- its; we do not reject al] that is under the dominion of the Pope ; for thus we should also have to reject the Chris- tian church, the temple of Christ, with all that it de- rives from him. But we assail and reject the fact, that the Pope will not rest satisfied with those blessings of the Christian church, which he has inherited from the Apostles; but he presumes to add to them his diabolical innovations, and empley these blessings, not to the im- provement of the temple of God, but to its destruction, causing his own authority to be esteemed more highly than theinjunctionof Christ. From this destruction, however, Christ still preserves his church, even as he protected Lot at Sodom; as St. Peter declares concerning this matter, 2 Pet. 2,6,7. So that both remain,—Antichrist sitting in the temple of God through the working of Satan, 2 Thes. 2, 4, 9, and the temple of Ged still bemg and continuing to be the temple ef God, through the preser- vation of Christ. If the Pope can tolerate and receive this dissimulation, I am certainly a submissive son and a pious Papist, I will truly be so with a joyful heart, and cheerfully revoke all that I have otherwise done to injure him. 11. The assertions, therefore, of these Anabaptists and enthusiasts, amount to nothing, when they say that whatever the Pope maintains is wrong; or, that hecause this or that practice is indulged in Popery, we ON ANABAPTISM. 91 must have it changed. Precisely as if they wished by this means to approve themselves great enemies to Anti- christ ; but they do not perceive that in this way they are giving him strength in the highest degree, seriously weakening the Christian religion, and deceiving them- selves. ‘Ihey should help us in putting down these abuses and innovations; but in doing this, they would reap but little honor, as they conceive, because they could not be the leaders in this enterprize. Hence they begin something which had not been attempted by any one else, in order that they may also perhaps be leaders, and receive honor. But their honor must be brought te shame; for they assail the temple of God, and miss the Antichrist enthroned there; like blind men, who, in groping after water, thrust their hands in the fire. 12. Yes, they act as a man once acted towards his brother, in the torest of ‘Thuringia. While passing to- gether through this forest, they were assailed by a bear ; one of them being overpowered, the other endeavored to afford assistance, and stabbed at the bear, but missing his object, miserabiy wounded his prostrate brother. Precisely such is the conduct of these enthusiasts. It is their duty to assist the poor Christian church which Antichrist has under him, and which he tortures; and they set themselves feartully in opposition tu the Pope, but miss him, and lacerate the Christian church, which is under the Pope, still more cruelly. For if they would leave baptism and the tucharist unimpaired, Christians under the Pope might still escape with their souls, and be saved, as hitherto has been the case. But now, since the sacraments are withdrawn from these Christians, they must be lost indeed, because Christ himself is thus also taken away. Beloved, we should not assail 92 ON ANABAPTISM. the Pope in so rash and inconsiderate a manner, be- cause there are saints of Christ under his jurisdiction. A cautious and discreet spirit is required for this pur- pose, which can allow the temple of God to remain under the Pope, and only restrain the innovations by which he destroys that temple. 13. In the second place, they are said to sus- tain themselves on the assumption, that they remember nothing in reference to their baptism, and demand: ‘‘ How do you know that you are baptized? You be- lieve men who tell you that you are baptized; but you must believe God himself and not men, and thus be cer- tain of your baptism.’ This is, in my estimation, a loose and futile assuinption indeed. For if I would re- ject all that [ have not seen or heard myself, I should retain little indeed,—neither faith nor love, spiritual or temporal. With the same propriety I might also say: “ Beloved, how do you know that this man is your fa- ther, and this woman your mother? You must not be- lieve men, but be certain of your birth.’”’ In this way all children would henceforth be at liberty to violate, at least they would be under no obligation to keep, the com- mandment of God, when he says: ‘‘ Thou shalt honor thy father and thy mother.” For I would immediately say: ‘* HowdoI know which are my father and mother? I do not believe men; I must therefore be born afresh, so that I may see it for myself, or I will not honor them.” Thus the commandment of God would be wholly and lit- erally abolished by such reasoning. 14. In like manner, I would own no brother, sister, uncle, or other relative; I would always contend that I did not know whether they are related to me or not, be- cause 1 would be uncertain who might be my parents, ON ANABAPTISM. 93 But an individual of such a disposition, I would, if I were lord of the land, treat in return according to his sceptical spirit. I would prohibit him from expecting, receiving, or holding any legacy, house, residence, or receiving a single farthing from his parents; and in this manner I would retort upon him in his own belief, until this spirit would be softened again. For if he would be disposed not to know or believe his parents, he should also not know or believe any thing ahout their possessions. Ὁ what a fine, what an admirable government there would be here in the world, where no one would be the child, brother, sister, uncle, friend, heir, or neighbor of another. There is no more virtue among such Christians, than among the wild wolves. 15. And besides, in this way, I would be subject to no prince or lord; I would pretend that I did not know whether he was born a prince or not, because I hap- pened not to have witnessed the fact with my own eyes, but have only heard it from the people. And conse- quently, I would again be in the liberty of nature; I would abolish the command of God, and have no government, but 20 from the people among the wolves, where the com- mand of God to honor parentsand government, has no in- fluence. And indeed, it seems plain, that this is what the devil desires in these Anabaptists, from the fact that they already, as it is said, forsake wife and children, house and residence, and simply wish to go to heaves alone. More of this hereafter. : 16. Yes, I would in like manner assert, that the holy Scriptures are a fiction, that Christ is a fiction, that the Apostles have never preached ; for I have not witnessed the giving of the Scriptures, or seen Christ, or heard the Apostles preach; I have only heard of these things from νυν ΑΝ ΝΣ ΨΥ 94 ON ANABAPTISM. men. Therefore, I will not believe them, unless they are given, exhibited, and proclaimed afresh before my eyes. Thus I would be entirely and perfectly free, even from all the cominandments of God. ‘To this extent I would go, says the devil, if I could. This is the foun- dation of Anabaptism, upon which no institution either . in heaven or on earth could continue to exist. 17. But you say: “ Did you yourself not teach that we should believe God alone, and not men?’ Surely, in this manner, you might easily smite me with my own sword. But since you are so captious indeed, I will ask you again, whether we should be obedient to God, when he commands us to honor our parents and superiors ? If you answer in the affirmative, I reply, how do you know which they are, if you will not believe men at all? How stand you now? Your difficulty, I perceive, con- sists in the fact that you will not understand what is meant by believing men, and thus you rush thought lessly along, as the enthusiasts are accustomed to do. Hearken therefore: 18. When we teach that we should not believe men, we certainly mean men alone, in and of themselves, and not in connection with God ; that is, when they declare on their own authority, as men, independent of the word and authority of God, whatever they conceive, and when they cannot prove their declarations, either by the words or institutions of God. For who would call that the doctrine of men, which God has revealed through men? And who would assert, that to believe in such a doctrine would be believing in menand notin God? For St. Paul, Col. 2, 23, censures the doctrine of men, be- cause they teach what they have never seen; that is, what they assert is only imagined, and cannot be proved ON ANABAPTISM. 95 by any divine declaration or work. Therefore when you hear, that we should not believe men, you must understand that in this case there is no divine word, no divine authority accompanying the declaration, but that it is a mere human figment; so that you can easily distin- guish, agreeably to the words, between the act of be- heving men and that of believing God. 19. Now observe; your birth is an event which does not take place in a secret manner; nor has it originated from the arrangement of men, but it is the arrangement of God, a work openly manifested, which can be contradict- ed by noone. And if anyone should undertake to contra- dict it, as the Jews did the miracles of Christ, his objection would be unavailing. For the veracity of those who see and witness this divine, this public event, would gain the ascendency any how, and stop his mouth with the fact and the truth. For here the declaration of God finds a strong application, ‘“‘ That at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established,’? Deut. 19, 15. Such persons we must undoubtedly believe; for they bear testimony to the power of God, namely, your birth, and prove that it comes from your parents. Moreover, no one takes care of you except your parents; nor does any one defend and labor for you, but your parents only. And thus the providence of God is so openly displayed, that no one can contradict it; not even a devil, but every one knows and confesses it with as much certainty, as he ac- knowledges that you live. 20. This, you perceive, is not believing men, but it is believing God ; for the providence of God is testified to you. And in short, wherever this providence is shown and proved to you, and not imagined by men, and where it - 96 ON ANABAPTISM, is contradicted, moreover, neither by men nor devils; there you believe God and not men. For it is the power of God, which he exerts so openly, that even the devil cannot oppose it. 21. But the fact that some children are at times con- cealed and sent away, and do not with certainty know their parents during life, does not in any way conflict with this view of the subject ; for here we speak of the common public providence of God. But such children are begot- ten dishonorably, in secret, and in opposition to the di- vine arrangement of Providence: it is no wonder, then, if they find themselves in a different condition. And as they are begotten in secrecy, so they may likewise be ignorant of their secret parents. What the devil does, is done in darkness, and in darkness it may remain: but the providence of God proceeds in the light of day. 22. Now, if you ask me, why I believe that this man and this woman are my parents, I answer, first, that I feela conscious conviction that Iam a manandacreature of God, and that I must undoubtedly have a father and a mother, for I did not spring out of a rock, since God said toman: ‘ Be fruitful and multiply,”’ Gen. 1, 28. Hence we must conclude, that all mankind come from man and woman ; that is, have father and mother. ‘This he also confirms by his commandment, where he says to every person: “‘ Honor thy father and mother,’”? Exodus 20, 12. Christ as the Son of God, is reasonably excepted in these cases. Since, then, it is certain that I have human parents, and that I did not grow on a tree, I am constrained, secondly, to believe further, that the man and the woman who are pointed out to me by men, are really my parents, by the declaration, Deut.19,15: “At the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three wit- ON ANABAPTISM. OF nesses, Shall the matter be established.”’ By this decla- ration God compels me to believe these people. 23. Thirdly, this too depends upon the providence of God, that no one in all the world takes care of me in his own name, as of a natural child, except those two per- sons, or, if they be dead, their friends or pious individuals iatheirname. And all this remains secure from the con- tradiction of devils and of men, like any other public insti- tution of God. For neither the world nor the devil ean oppose the public institutions of God; nor would it avail, if they would undertake it. But the word of God, the effect of which is not yet manifest, he may oppose successfully. 24. So my reason for believing a certain individual to be my prince and lord, is because, in the first place, the word of God says: ‘‘ Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers,’ Rom. 13, 1. From this I fnfer that I must have a sovereign, fue be a subject. in the second place, because all the world testify and say that this individual is the prince; because they all regard hin as such, and no one denies his authority to be one of the ar- rangemients of God, I must believe their testimony. And ifit were contradictéd by any one, that contradiction σου] have no lasting force; for all would ultimately say, “Itis false.”? In the third place, the ordinary providence of God attends me here, because no one else receivesmeas hissub- ject; I live in peace under his care, protection, and laws, as ourcondition should be ina wholesomegovernment. And all other governments permit me to live under that gov- ernment, without interrupting me or saying any thing against it, if I dwell there publicly, by right and by divine arrangement. For robbers and murderers may dwell in a foreign dominion, sécretl¥ andclandestinely ; but certainly they are not recognised as une of that governmcst. 9S ON ANABAPTISM. 25. ‘Stop,’ yousay, “ how will you reconcile this 7 Why, then, do you not believe that the Pope is your lord, but make Antichrist of him, when indeed the whole world testify that he is the head of the Christian church, and even prove it to you by the fact; for he undoubtedly sits in power??? Well, indeed, this does look like a con- tradiction. But let me tell you,—whenever you can show me these three points in Popery, which I show you in reference to parents and government, I will acknow]l- edge Popery an institution of God, willingly submit, and believe this institution of God. But if you cannot do this, then, beloved, let us consider it a human fiction, which is not sanctioned by the word and authority of God, and by no means to be believed. But the fact that it is a human fiction, I will prove very forcibly. 26. First, the word of God tells me that there are parents, and that there is a government ; that i must necessarily have parents, and tnust live under govern= ment; as we have already said. But there is no word of God, which says there is a pope, and that I must havea pope, or be subject to a pope. Now since the Scriptures sive no command in reference to the Pope or his govern- ment, there can be no Popery which is a divine institu- tion; for the Scriptures bear testimony of the institutions of God. Hence I have previously said, that we should believe men, if they testify and show, not their own fic- tions and institutions, but the words and institutions of God. For ante questionem, quid est, oportet ques- tionem, st est, definere. Before any one teaches me who the Pope is, he must first convince me that there is a Pope by divine appointment. But if there can be no Pope, no one will inquire who he 15. 27. Secondly, although many persons testify of him, ΟΝ ANABAPTISM. 99 yet their testimony is not only vain, because it cannot inake an institution of God out of Popery, or prove it to be divine, but it is also insufficient and imperfect. For hitherto Popery has been protested and exclaimed against, not only by the whole Christian community in the East, but also by many of the Pope’s own subjects; some of whom have. already been burned on that account, and others still are. daily subjected to capital punishment ; so that his government has never been universally ac- knowledged and left unmolested; it never has attained a peaceable position, as we have shown to be the case with parental authority and civil government. 28. Thirdly, there is lixewise no institution of God under the Pope; for he performs no duty to benefit his subjects; nay, he persecutes the Gospel and the Chris- tians; nog te. mention that he ought to teach them, and administer to their spiritual welfare. He teaches in- deed his own infectious abominations, namely, the doc- trines of men; he permits the Gospel to lie neglected, yes, he. suppresses. it, even while he finds this suppres- sion of no, benefit to him. Out of the Eucharist, he makes, a sacrifice ; out of works, faith; and out of faith, works. He forhids marriage, meats, times, places, and apparel; he perverts and abuses every Christian blessing, to the injury of souls. All these facts we have else- where sufficiently proved. Since, then, all these three points cannot be found in Popery, we must regard it as a mere human device, which is by no means to be trusted, and in no way to be compared with the parental and civil relations. 29. First, baptism is a work of God, which no man has devised, but God has commanded and tes- tified it in the Gospel. Secondly, there are indi- Υ σσρσρσΠσΠτρ»ττσ---ῤ-ρ- ὌἝΝΦήἭοστο τ) ὔΉΌ ΙΝ ΙΝ 100 ON ANABAPTISM. viduals who testify that you are baptized, and no one contradicts it, or attempts to prove the contrary. Thirdly, you have a further evidence, in being reck- oned among the number of Christians, and permitted to approach the Eucharist, and to use and enjoy every Christian privilege,— privileges which would not be gran- ted, if you had not been baptized, or if there were any un- certainty of your baptism. All this is pure evidence of your baptism; and all the world knows and sees that we baptize every one while yet a child. Now, who- ever would not believe all this testimony, would act as if he did not believe God himself, since God says that we shall believe two witnesses. And these witnesses he never punishes, while he permits no false witness to pass with impunity and without disgrace. 30. Hence I consider our proof abundantly strong, that no one can entertain a doubt in reference to his baptism, as if he knew not whether he 15 baptized or not, and that he who will not believe this fact, sins against God. For the evidence of Christians affords him more certainty with respect to his baptism, than his own observation could, because Satan might easily so confuse his mind, as to cause him to think that it was only a dream or an apparition,—that he was not really baptized,—and he would nevertheless have to depend on the evidence of Christians to satisfy himself; which evi- dence the devil cannot thus confound or render dubious. 31. In the third place, it issaid and 1 have also read it, that the Anabaptists ground themselves upon this dec- laration: ‘He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved,’ Mark 16, 16. From these words they wish to conclude, that we must baptize no one, unless he first believes. Here, I say, they take upon themsel,es a very ON ANABAPTISM. 101 great presumption. For if they would follow that con- clusion, they must not baptize before they know with certainty, that the individual to be baptized believes. But how and when will they ever know this? Have they become gods, that they can look into the heart, to ascertain whether men believe or not? Now, if they do not know whether men believe or not, why then do they baptize, since they contend so earnestly that faith must exist previous to baptism? In this matter do they not act directly in opposition to themselves, by baptiz- ing When they do not know whether the person to be baptized believes or not? For he who suspends baptism on faith, and baptizes at a venture, not being certain whether faith exists, does no better than he who baptizes without faith; for unbelief and uncertain faith are much alike, and both are contrary to this passage, “ He that believeth,’ which speaks of the implicit taith that the person to be baptized should have. 32. Yes, you say, he confesses that -he Sethe Beloved, let him confess again and again; the text does not say, “‘ He that confesses,”’ but “ He that believeth.” It is true, you have his confession, yet you do not know whether he believes or not ; and in this way you cannot, according to your view, fully satisfy this passage, unless you are fully assured that he bel:eves; because, ‘‘ Al! men are liars,’ Psalm 116, 11; and God only knows their hearts, 1 Kings8,39. Whoever, therefore, wishes to ground baptism upon the faith of the individual to be baptized, must never baptize any person ; for even if ycu baptize a person a hundred times in a day, you stil] do not know at any time whether he believes or not. What then do you effect by your anabaptism, since you act in opposition to yourself, baptizing when you do not 109 Σ ON ANABAPTISM. know with certainty that the individual believes; and yet you teach that faith must undoubtedly exist. Consequently, this passage, ‘‘ He that believeth,” stands directly in opposition to their anabaptism, because the passage speaks of faith which is certain, but they ground their anabaptism upon a faith which is uncertain, and do not conform with the passage in a single letter. 3d. ‘The same may likewise be said in reference to the subject of baptism, if he receives baptism or makes it depend upon his own faith; because he is uncertain with respect also to his faith. For, suppose an individual permits himself to be rebaptized to-day; .ane, for in- stance, who allows himself to be disturbed with the persuasion that he did not believe in his infancy 5 if then the devil comes to-morrow, and disturbs him in his mind, causing him to exclaim: ‘ Alas, now I feel true faith for the first time; yesterday I verily did not believe rightly! Well, I must be baptized the third time, and consequently the former baptism must also be ineffec- tual.”? Do you think the devil cannot do this? Yes; Jearn to know him better; he.can indeed, beloved friend, eecompksh eauch more. 34. If, moreover, the devil assail in the same man- ner, the third baptism alse, and the fourth, and so on, without ceasing, (for such is his intention,) as he did my confession and that of many others, when wecould never eafficiently confess one and the same sin, and when we continually sought absolution after absolution, and con- fessor after confessor, without any rest and without ceasing, because we wished to save ourselves by our confession ; precisely as these subjects of baptism now expect to sustain themselves upon their faith. What in- deed would result frem this? A perpetual baptizing. ON ANABAPTISM. 103 35. Wherefore it can avail nothing. Neither the baptizer nor the subject can with certainty ground bap- tism on faith; and consequently this passage of Scrip- ture is far more unfavorable to them than to us. ‘These, now, are the persons unwilling to believe the men who are witnesses of their baptism; while they believe themselves, notwithstanding they are men, that they are baptized ; precisely as if they were not men, or asif there were more © certainty in their faith, than in the evidence of the whole Christian church. 36. Therefore I conclude in opposition to them, that if they wish to do justice to the declaration, ‘He that believeth,” they must, according to their view, condemn rebaptism much more than the first baptism. And nei- ther the baptizer nor the subject of baptism, can sustain himself by his opinion; because they are both uncer- tain as to the existence of the faith which they require, or stand at least in doubt and perplexity. For such is the precarious nature of faith, that frequently he who thinks he believes, does not believe at all; and on the contrary, he who thinks he does not believe but despairs, believes the most. Hence the passage, ‘ He that be- lieveth,’’? does not compel us to know who believes, or who does not believe, but it brings the matter home to the conscience of every man, that if he wishes to be saved, he must believe, and not act the hypocrite, as if he had received enough in baptism to be a Christian. For it does not say, “‘ He that knows that he believes, or if you know that this individual believes ; but ‘‘ He that believeth.’ He that has this faith, has it. Be- eve we must; but we neither should nor can know it with certainty. 37. Since this baptism of ours, namely, the baptism of 3 ὰ PFs a 104 ON ANABAPTISM. _ children, has been practised from the beginning of the Christian church, and since no one can prove with good and substantial reasons, that there was no faith then, we should by no means alter this practice, and build on a foundation so insecure. For, whatever men wish to alter or to abolish, if it has been practised for ages, they should and must substantially prove to be contrary to the word of God. Otherwise, that which is not against us, is for us, says Christ, Mark 9, 40, and Luke 9, 50. Even as we opposed monasteries, masses, and the ce- libacy of the priests; but we did it so as to show the clear, indubitable scripture, to which they are contrary. For if we had not done this, we would indeed have been compelled to let them be as they hitherto were. 38. From what source will they establish their as- sertion, that children cannot believe? Where is the scripture, by which they can prove it, and upon which they may ground themselves? They imagine so indeed; because children neither speak nor have their powers of reason improved ; but this imagination is uncertain ; yes, wholly false ; we are not to depend on our imagination. 39. But we have scripture to establish the fact that children may and ean believe, even if they have neither language nor cultivated reason. As the Scripture says, the Jews “ Sacrificed their sons and their daughters unto devils, and shed innocent blood,”? Psalm 106, 37,38. If it were znnocent blood, as the text says, they were certain- ly pure and holy children, and such children they could not be, without the Spirit and without faith. Again, the innocent little children which Herod slew, Matt. 2, 16, were not over two years old, and undoubtedly destitute of language and cultivated reason ; yet they are now holy andhappy. And Christ, Matt.19,14,saysinreference to ON ANABAPTISM. 105 little children: “Of such is the kingdom of heaven ;” and St. John in his mother’s womb was a child, Luke 1, 41, and Ἐ am of opinion indeed, that he could believe. 40, “Yes,” you say, “ the circumstance relative to John, was extraordinary, and it does not prove that all baptized children can believe.” But keep quiet a httle; pass this over for the present; it is not yet my object to prove the faith of children, but to show how false and uncertain the foundation of your Anabaptism ts, Since it cannot be proved that children may not have faith. For as John had faith without having language and cultivated reason, your argument cannot stand, when you say that children may not believe. The fact indeed, that a child believes, is not contrary to the Scripture, as the example of St. John shows. If, then, the fact that children believe, is not contrary to the Scripture, but in accordance with it, your position that children cannot believe, must be contrary to the Scripture. This I wish to prove in the first place. 41. Who then has assured you, that baptized chil- dren do not believe, when I thus prove that they may believe? But if you are uncertain, why are you so presumptuous as to invalidate the first baptism, when you neither do nor can know that it is unavailing ? How, if all children at the time of baptism, not only could believe, but if they did believe, as well as John in his mother’s womb? For we cannot in truth deny, that even the same Christ who came to John in his mother’s womb, is with and in baptism; nay, he is the baptizer himself; hence he also speaks through the mouth of the minister, as well in baptism as he there speaks through the mouth of his mother. 42, Now, since he himself is present here, and speaks 106 ON ANABAPTISM. and, baptizes, why should not faith also. and the Spirit enter into the child through his speaking and baptizing, as well as they did into John? since the speaker and the performer are the same in both instances; and espeei= ally, since he says through Isaiah, that his word shall not return void, tsa.55, 11. Now youalso should pro- duce some passage of Scripture, which proves that chil- dren, in baptism, cannot believe, since I produce so many declarmg that they can believe, and that it is reasonable to maintain that they do believe; although it is unknown to us how they believe, or how faith is wrought m them Σ and yet after all, this is of little importance. 49. He commands us, moreover, to bring the little children unto him; he embraces and kisses them, and says, ‘‘ Of such is the kingdom of heaven,” Matt. 19, 14. In opposition to this, however, these fanatical spirits furiously array themselves, saying that Christ does not speak of /ittle. children, but of the humble. But this is mere equivocation, because the text says very clearly, that they brought little children unto him, not the humble. And Christ does not say, suffer the hum- ble, but the little children to come unto me; and he rebukes the disciples, not because they forbade the hum- ble, but the lttle children to be brought ; nor does he. embrace or bless the. Awmble, but the little children. Therefore when he says, ‘‘ Of such is the kingdom of heaven,” and, Matt. 18, 10, “ Their angels do always behold the face of my Father,’’ it must be understood in reference to these same little children. For he after= wards teaches that we shall likewise become as these little children. If, however, such little children were not holy, he would undoubtedly have given us a bad example to. imitate ;, and he should not have said, “ Ye ON ANABAPTISM: 107 must become as little children,’’? but much rather, “ Ye must become superior to little children.”? In short, the enthusiast cannot so pervert the word children as to make it mean the humble in this text, unless he follows his own imagination ; the word stands here too forcibly and clearly before our eyes. 44. But some wish to impair this text, by alleging that the Jewish children. were circumcised, and that therefore they might well be holy, and be brought to Christ, but that our children are Gentiles. 45. But Laskin reply,—How can that affirmation be sustained, if there were also females among the little chil- dren that were brought unto Christ? These certainly were not circumcised; and they did bring all kinds of chil- dren unto him. Now since the male children are not ex- clusively mentioned there, we cannot exclude the female children, but we must allow them to have been little: children of both sexes ; and that they are called blessed, not on account of circumcision alone, but also because they now come unto Christ out of the Old into the New Testament, as his words declare: “Suffer the little children to come unto me ;—for of such is the kingdom of God.”? Such children, he says, as come unto me, are the kingdom of God. For by being brought and by coming to Christ, they become so fortunate as to enjoy his embraces, and his blessing, and the gift of his king- dom. 46. Object therefore who will, I still maintain, as I have maintained in the Postil, that the surest baptism is infant baptism. For an old person may deceive, come to Christ like Judas, and permit himself to be baptized ; but a child cannot deceive; it comes to Christ in bap- tism, as John came to Aim, and as the little children 108 ON ANABAPTISM. were brought unto him, so that his word and institution might pass over them, touch them, and thus make them holy; for his word and work cannot pass in vain: and yet in this case they are directed upon the child alone. If they should fail in this, they must fail en- tirely, and be in vain, which is impossible. 47. Neither éan it be denied that these children were female and uncircumcised, concerning which the 106th Psalm, verse 37, says, that they satrificed their daugh- ters unto the idols of Canaan, and yet it calls them in- nocent blood. Thus Moses, Levit. 12, 5, doubtless commanded also the female children to be presented to God, to be purified, and to be redeemed} and it is ap- parent indeed, that only the male children suffered cir- cumc¢ision, but the female were also partakers of the same covenant, in virtue of the declaration which God made to Abraham: I will be the God of thy seed, and circumcision shall be a covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee, Gen. 17, 7. Now the female children are indeed also the seed of Abraham, and by that declaration God is even as well their God, though they are not circumcised, as he is the God of the male. 48. Now, if they believe that through the covenant _ of circumcision, God receives both male and female children, and is their God, why then should he not also receive our children through the covenant of baptism ? since he has even promised us, that he will not be the God of the Jews only, but of the Gentiles also, Rom. 3, 29, of Christians especially and of believers. If the circumcision of the male childrenibe so beneficial in this in- stance both to the male and the female children, as tomake them the people of God, for the sake of Abraham’s faith, ON ANABAPTISM, {09 from whom they descend, how much more should baptism profit each one in particular, so that they become the chil- dren of God, for the sake of Christ’s merit, to whom they are brought, and by whom theyare blessed. All this I say to show that the foundation of the Anabaptists is uncer- tain, and that they build upon it very unreasonably. 49, “Yes,” say you, “he did not command that children should be baptized; nor do we find any ex- ample of it in the writings or Epistles of the Apostles.’’ He likewise commanded no adult, I reply, nor man, nor woman, nor any one in particular, to be baptized 3 hence we must not baptize any one. But he has commanded us to baptize ad/ natzons, none excluded, where he says: “ Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing ther in the name,” &c. Now, children constitute a large portion of any nation. j 60. So we read in the Acts of the Apostles, eh. 2, ,» 39, ch. 16, v. 15, and in the Epistles of St. Paul, that they baptized whole families; but surely chil- dren also form a considerable portion of families} hence it appears that precisely as Christ commanded them #o teach and to baptize ali nations, so they did, anid, with- out distinction, they baptized al! that dwelt in the house. They did not expect that the factious spirits would en- déavor to make a difference between the young and the old,——for in all their Epistles they have written abund- antly distinct that there is no respect cr difference of per- sons among Christians, Rom. 10, 12,—otherwise they . would have been explicit, and have openly declared 41} these things. For St. John, in his first Epistle, ch.2, v. 13, writes unto the little children also, because they have Anown the Father. And undoubtedly infant baptism came from the Apostles, as St. Augustine also writes. 110 ON ANABAPTISM; 51. Therefore these rebaptizers act dangerously it deed, not only because they are uncertain respecting their position, but also because they act in opposition to those passages of Scripture which we have adduced, and devise out of their own heads a difference of person, where God has made no difference. For even if they im- agined that they are not sufficiently overcome by these passages, they must nevertheless, contentious as they are, find themselves checked at least, and fearful that they are doing wrong, and rebaptizing upon uncertain grounds. But if they are uncertain, it is already con=— cluded that they do wrons; for in divine matters we should net trifle with uncertainties, but act upon cer- tainties: 52. Wer if an Anabaptist, who is disposed not to be obstinate, but to receive instruction, hears that as John received faith and became holy, when Christ came and spake through the mouth of his mother, so the child also receives faith, when Christ speaks to it in baptism, through the mouth of the baptizer, because it is the word, the command of. Christ; anid his word cannot be spoken in ¥ain, he mst acknowiedge that this might traly be; he cannot deny it entirely and with truth; nor ad- duce any passages of Scripture in opposition to it. But if he cannot deny it truly and with good reasons, he cannot maintain his rebaptism indubitably ; for he must first prove substantially, that children are baptized with- out faith, if he shall establish the necessity of anabaptism. Thus, I think, it is sufficiently proved, that their position is uncertain and wholly presumptuous. : 53. Well, I will even suppose that they could prove undeniably, thatchildren are destitute of faith when caused to be baptized, still I would desire to know from what ON ANABAPTISM. 111 source they could prove that they must, on that account, be baptized again, when afterwards they believe or pro- fesstobelieve. Forthe assertion, “ Childrenare baptized without faith, therefore they must be baptized again,” is surely insufficient; they must assign some reason. You say itisa wrong baptism. What does that matter? it is nevertheless a baptism ; yes, it is even a right baptism in itself, only it was improperly received. For the words are pronounced, and all is done that belongs to baptism, as completely as if the subject of baptism had believed at the time of its administration. 54. Now, if a thing is right in itself, it need not be renewed, even if it has been wrongfully received: re- move that which is wrong, and all will be right, with- out any repetition. Adusus non follit substantiam, imo confirmat substantiam. 'The abuse of a thing does not change its reality; yea, it establishes the reality. ff then faith were experienced ten years after bap- tis, why should we still rebaptize, if every thing that belongs to baptism has been already duly performed, and all has become right? For the individual now believes as baptism requires. faith indeed is not for the promo- tion of baptism, but baptism for the promotion of faith. Now, when faith comes, baptism has what it requires, and rebaptism is useless. 55. Precisely as if a woman were to marry a man contrary to her will, and altogether without matrimonial affection for him, there would certainly be no conjugal tie between them in the sight of God. But if in two years afterwards she should feel connubial tenderness towards him, must we here, then, make new espousals, a new afhance, and a new marriage, pretending that she became his wife without the affection natural in such a D> a 119 ON ANABAPTISM. case, and hence pretend that the previous espousals and marriage are void? We should indeed be regarded as tools, since all would be right now, because her affections have been awakened, and she can now consent to dwell with the man, whom she had reluctantly taken. 50. Again, were-an old person, with sinister mo- tives, to permit himself to be baptized, and were he in the course of a year to become a believer, do you think, beloved, that he also should be baptized again? He re- evived the right baptism unworthily, and I hear, indeed, that his impiety or unworthiness should render baptism wrong ; and shall human abuse and wickedness be stron- ver than the good and immutable ordinance of God? 57. God made a covenant with the children of Israel on Mount Sinai, Ex. 34,10. There some of them re- ceived that covenant unworthily through unbelief. Now when they afterwards became believers, must that cove- nant also, beloved, have become wrong, and must God come to each one again on Mount Sinai, and renew the covenant ? 58. Moreover, God permits his Ten Commandments to be proclaimed ; but, because some persons hear them with their ears only, and not with due reverence, then ac- cording to this course of reasoning, the Ten Command- inents are void, and of no effect; God must afterwards furnish another new Decalogue in the place of the for- mer; and it is not enough for the people to turn with sincerity and observe the former Commandments. This would be a strange affair indeed, if the word of God, which abides forever, must be changed and renewed as often as the people change and are renewed; when at the same time, it remains firm and eternal, and those who now do not adhere to it, or who fall from it, may ON ANABAPTISM. 113 have a certain, a permanent rock to which they may return, and upon which they can secure themselves. 59. If subjects would swear allegiance to their lord with the intention of killing him, repent of this evil design in the course of three days, and cordially submit themselves to due obedience; would it also be necessary here, beloved, to take another oath in a differ- ent manner? Certainly not; because they would now act in strict conformity with the oath which they had treacherously made. 60. If this is the principle upon which they wish to act, then we shall have enough to baptize every hour. For I will take up the declaration, “ He that believeth,” and if I find a Christian who is fallen or destitute of faith, I shall say: ‘“‘ This individual has no faith; his baptism must, therefore, be void; I shall baptize him again.” If he afterwards fall, I shall again say: ‘* Behold, he is destitute of faith; his former baptism must, therefore, be of no consequence ; he must be baptized even a third time.”? And as often as he falls, or there is doubt of his belief, I shall continue to say: “ He does not be- lieve, therefore his baptism is of no value;” in a word, he must permit himself to be baptized until he can never fall or cease to believe ; so that he may satisfy the dec- laration, ‘‘ He that believeth.””’ Tell me, what Chris- tian then shall ever be baptized enough, or arrive at an indubitable consummation of his baptism ? 61. Now, if baptism can remain right and complete, though the Christian fall from faith or commit sin a thous- and times in a year; and if it is sufficient for him to re- form himself again in a proper manner and believe, and it be unnecessary for him to be rebaptized; why should not the first baptism also be sufficient and right, if the Chris- . ἧς 114 ON ANABAPTISM. | »- tian afterwards becomes right and believes? For there is no difference in a baptism without faith, since iti equally void of faith, whether there be no experience 0 faith before or after the administration. If it is without faith, it must, as the Anabaptists foolishly pretend, be altered according to the expression, “ He that believeth.” 62. I assert, therefore, that even if these baptizers could prove their position, that children are destitute of faith, which we have shown to be false, they would still have established nothing more by their contention, than > ~ that the true baptism, which God has instituted, —_ not received rightfully, but in the spirit of abuse. Yet he who proves nothing more than abuse, proves no more indeed than that the abuse must be remedied, and not that the ceremony must be repeated. For abuse alters the nature ofnothing. Gold does not become straw, if a thief steals and abuses it. Silver does not become papers [ἃ usurer unjustly gains it. 63. Since, then, the Anabaptists show only the abuse of baptism, they act in opposition to God, to nature, and to reason, by changing and renewing the baptism together with the abuse; precisely as all heretics do in reference to the Gospel. ‘They presume to change it, and consti- tute out of it a new gospel, because they understand it erroneously, and consequently hear it in the spirit of abuse. Thus, no matter in what aspect you place the - Anabaptists, they act unjustly, defame, and calumniate this institution of God, calling it an improper baptism, on account of the unworthiness and abuse of men; when at the same time, they are unable to show this unworthi- ness and abuse. : 64. But there isa diabolical work-spirit (Werkteu- Jel) among them, which exclaims faith, and all the time ON ΑΝΑΒΑΡΤΙΒΜῸ, 115 means works ; which, under the name and appearance of faith, leads poor souls to rely upon works. Just as it happened with us under the Papacy, where we were forced to the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, as to a work of obedience, and no one approached it for the purpose of nourishing his faith: but when we had re- ceived this sacrament, all was done, and the work con- summated. 65. Thus this work is so much insisted on by these τ abaptists, that the people rely upon it: if they are us baptized, it is right and well performed ; in reality Bhi make no inquiry after faith, but they boast of it e™ the sake of appearance only. For, as we have al- ready said, if they must be certain of the existence of faith in the individual before he is baptized, they must never baptize any person. And if they did not rely upon it as a work, or if they sought faith with sincerity, they would not dare to rebaptize ; as the same words of God, once pronouncedin the first baptism, endure forever, sothat they can afterwards rely on these words if they desire ; and the water is poured over them, to enable them also afterwards to comprehend it in faith, if they wish. For even if the words are repeated a hundred times, they are the same words still, which were pronounced in the first baptism, and they derive their efficacy, not from their frequent repetition, but from the command to pronounce them once. 66. For it is the actual, the chief device of the devil, to divert Christians from that righteousness which is by faith, to the righteousness which is by works; as he forced the Galatians and Corinthians, who, as St. Paul writes, Gal. 5, 7, believed so devoutly, and so cheerfully pursued the Christian race, even in the same manner te 116 ON ANABAPTISM. rely upon works. So now, when he perceives that, through the Gospel, the Germans properly acknowledge Christ and truly believe in him, by means of which they also are justified in the sight of God, he advances and tears them from this righteousness, as if it were of no consequence at all, and leads them on to this anabaptism, as to a better righteousness. By this means he causes them to deny their former righteousness as inadequate, and to seek after a false righteousness. 67. What shall I say? We Germans are Galatians indeed, and continue Galatians. For he who suffers himself to be rebaptized, recalls by that act his former faith and righteousness, and brings them into sin and condemnation,—a thing which is shocking to hear,—as St. Paul says the Galatians are fallen from Christ, yes, have made Christ the minister of sin, if they be cerewm- cised, Gal. 5, 2, and 2, 17. 68. But Satan is the author of all this, striving to render our doctrine suspicious, to prove that we have not the true Spirit or doctrine, because we are not rightly baptized, as they pretend. But the tree can be known by tts fruits, Matt.7,17,18. For we have not as yet discovered in Popery, or in all the sects, men who can handle and explain the Scriptures as ably as some of those whom, by the grace of God, we find in our midst. This is not one of the smallest gifts of the Spirit, 1 Cor. 12, 10. 69. Thus indeed we see performed in their midst the very works of Satan; for some of them, in promotion of Anabaptism, leaving their wives and children, their houses-and homes, desire to have no government, ἕο. ; when at the same time St. Paul teaches that, “If any provide not for his own, and especially for those of his ON ANABAPTISM. 117 own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel,” 1 Tim. 5,8; and, Ὁ Cor. 7, 13, he is un- willing that the believing husband should leave the un- believing wife. And Christ also does not allow the bonds of matrimony to be severed, except it be for fornication, Matt. 19, 9. But the spirit of our doc- trine allows, yes, commands, all ranks of men to be cherished and held in honor, and faith to be exercised through love, in peace; hence no tumult can rise, nor jast accusation be brought against our doctrine: although . _ the Papists ascribe to us, in their invidious abuse, the cause of every calamity. But this has its judge, even their own conscience, in this world and im that which is to come. | 70. By this means also are overthrown their pre- tensions, that baptism is of no effect, if the priest or baptizer, who administered it, did not believe. For though St. Peter should baptize some individual, no one could know whether St. Peter believed or doubted in that hour ; for no one indeed could see his heart. Ina word, this view in former times induced the Donatists to separate and rebaptize themselves, when they saw that some ministers and baptizers were unholy ; and they began to ground baptism upon the holiness of men, when at the same. time Christ grounds it upon his word and command. 71. This our enthusiasts, the enemies of the sacra- ment of the Lord’s Supper, have likewise commenced. Though they pretend that the truth and the Scriptures compel them to do so, yet they are deluded. It seems, however, to be difficult for them to determine, (as they express themselvesat certain places,) whether every impi- ous individual can cause Christ to be present in the bread; τὶ μά, 118 ΟΝ ANABAPTISM. precisely as if the whole world were certain and sure that they themselves believe and are full of purity and holix ness, and not so great sinners in the sight of God, as those whom they judge so maliciously, and reproach as knaves, forgetting the beam in their-own eye, Matt. 7,3. 72. But we maintain, that if St. John was not ashamed to hear the word of God from Caiaphas, and if he regarded it besides as a prediction, John 11, 49; if Moses, with the children of Israel, received the pro- phecy of the ungodly Balaam, and regarded it as the word of God, Num. 24, 17; again, if St. Paul received the heathen poets, Aratus and Epimenides, and ap- plauded these passages as the word of God, Acts 17, 28; Tit. 1, 12; andif Christ desires the impious Phari- sees upon the seat of Moses, to be heard, who are un- godly teachers, Matt. 25, 2; we indeed should much fess be over scrupulous, but let God judge their evil conduct, and we should be satisfied nevertheless with the divine word which they proclaim. For if they are wicked, they are wicked for themselves; but if their instructions be right, they instruct us rightly. 73. Thus did the pious Magz also; they heard the word of God out of the prophecy of Micah, through the mouth of Herod, the cruel king, who heard it further from the ungodly High-priests and Scribes, Matt. 2,.4, 5,9. Yet upon the authority of this word, they went to Bethlehem and found Christ ; and it did not in any way hinder them, because they did not hear the word of God, except through Herod only, the murderer of Christ. 74. We must confess, however, that with respect to some other articles, these enthusiasts entertain views which are in accordance with the word of God; and although they are impious. heretics and blasphemers. ᾿ ree! ht ; ON ANABAPTISM. 119 of Christ, yet whoever hears this word from them and believes it, shall be saved. It is by no means an insig- nificant blessing, that God communicates his word through the wicked also and the ungodly; yea, in some respects it would be more dangerous, should he communicate it through holy men, than through unholy men, because, then, the illiterate fall into error, by at- taching more importance to the holiness of men than to the word of God. In this way more honor is attributed to men than to God and his word. But there is no dan- ger of falling into this error, when such men as Judas, Caiaphas, and Herod preach. Yet no one is ex- cused for his evil conduct, if God tan employ it to a good purpose. — 75. If then an impious man can possess and teach the trué word of G'od, he can likewise much rather ad-— minister truly the sacrament of baptism and of the Lord’s Supper; as it is morenoble to teach the word of God, than it is to baptize, as St. Paul intimates, 1 Cor. 1, 17. And, as we have already said, he that will not ap- preciate baptism unless he knows that the one who ad- ininistered it believed, must never appreciate any baptism. For if I ask: “ Are you rebaptized? Yes. How do you know that you are now rightly baptized?” If you reply, “‘ My baptizer believed ;” I ask, how do you know it? did you see into his heart? Your proud con- fidence would fall. 76. Consequently, the position which we occupy in reference to baptism, is the most permanent and indubi- table, because God made a covenant with man, to be the God of the heathen throughout the world, as the Scrip- ture says, Christ has commanded the Gospel to be preach- ed in all the world, and as the Prophets have predicted ts £20 ON ANABAPTISM. in many passages. And for a sign of this covenant, he has instituted, commanded, and enjoined baptism among all nations, as it is written, Matt. 28, 19: “Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father,” &c. Precisely as he made a cove- nant with Abraham and his seed, to be their God, and, for a sign of that covenant, he gave circumcision, Gen. 17549 dh. 77. This is our sure foundation and fortress: namely, that we permit ourselves to be baptized, not because we are certain of faith, but because it is the will and com= mand of God. For even if we should never be certain of any faith, we are still sure of the command, that God enjoins baptism, since he caused it to be proclaimed pub- licly to all the world. In this We cannot err, for the command of God cannot deceive. But concerning our faith he has given no order, declaration or command. 78. It is true, we should believe in baptism; but we must not be baptized in consequence of this faith. To have faith, and to rely upon this faith and thus to be baptized in virtue of it, are things very far different. Whoever permits himself to be baptized in consequence of his faith, not only falls into uncertainty, but is an idolatrous denier of Christ. For he relies and depends upon that which is his own; that is, upon a gift which God has presented to him, and not upon the word of God alone; as much so as if a person would rely and depend upon his own strength, wealth, power, wisdom, or holiness, which are also gifts that God has given him. 79. But whoever is baptized in virtue of the word and command of God, even if no faith attend his bap- tism, receives the right and the true baptism neverthe- less; for it is administered as God has commanded it to be, ON ΑΝΑΒΑΡΤΙΞΝ. 191 It is, however, of no benefit to the unbelieving subject, on account of his unbelief; but it is not, for this reason, wrong or uncertain, or visionary. If all that is of no benefit to the unbeliever, should be wrong and vision- ary, nothing could remain night and true. For it js also commanded to preach the Gospel to all the world: the unbeliever hears it, and it is of no benefit to him; but must it therefore be no Gospel, or a wrong Gospel? God himself is of no benefit to the ungodly; shall he therefore cease to be God? , 80. Now, were even an old person to be baptized, _ and should he say, “ Sir, I desire to be baptized,” you would ask, “ Do you also believe?”’ as Philip did the Eunuch, Acts 8, 37, and as we daily do subjects for baptism; he would not exclaim boastfully, « Yes, I can remove mountains by my faith;”’ but thus: “ Yes, sir, ἴ believe, but I do not depend on this faith; it might be too infirm and uncertain: I desire to be baptized, be- cause the command of God requires it of me; upon this command I venture, Jet my faith be as it may in the course of time. If I am baptized in obedience to his command, I know that Yam baptized. ΤΥ 1 should be baptized in the vanity of my faith, I meght indeed be found unbaptized eae v, if my faith should fail, ot f might be tempted, as if I had not believed rightly yes- terday.. What! assail God and bis command, upon which I am baptized! these are sufficiently certain for me. It isa see adventure between my self and my ἢ faith. {ΠῚ believe, baptism is profitable to me; ΓΤ be- heve not, it is unprofitable. But my baptism is not therefore wrong or uncertain; nor does it rest on con- tingencies, but upon the indubitable word and command of God.” : 11 ger 199 ON ANABAPTISM. 81. Thus he would also say concerning the bap= tism which he received in his infancy: “I thank God and rejoice, that I was baptized in my childhood, for it stands as a proof of my obedience to the command of zod. Whether I believed then or not, I was nevertheless baptized in conformity with the command of God. The baptism is right and true, be my faith true or untrue at the present day. JI may hope yet to believe and obtain full assurance. ‘There is no imperfection i in the baptism which we receive; the defect is always in our faith; for as long as we live, we have enough to learn concerning faith, and it is possible for faith to fail; so that it may be said: € Behold, there faith has been, but it is no longer there.’ But concerning baptism it cannot be said: * Behold, there baptismhas been administered, but itisnow no longer baptism.’ No, it is yet standing; for the com- mand of Goi i is still standing; and what is eH according to his command, must be permanent and imperishable.” 82. So far, in my estimation, we have proved for- cibly enough, thatthe Anabaptists do wrong by invali- dating infant baptism, were they even certain that children are baptized withont faith,—a propesition, how+ ever, which they cannot prove. On the other hand, that children do believe, we are likewise unable to prove by a passage of Scripture which says clearly and expressly in language hke the following: “Ye shall baptize children ; fer they also believe.””? To an individual who would insist upon us to produce such a declaration, we must submit and be silent: we find it nowhere written: But pious, rational Christians do not require this; it is demanded only by the contentious, obstinate enthusiasts, in order that they may appear wise. Neither can they produce any declaration which says: “ Ye shall baptize , ς ON ANABAPTISM. 123 adults, and not children.” Yet we are persuaded by many strong reasons, that infant baptism is right, and that they believe. 83. First, because infant baptism has descended from the Apostles, and the practice has continued ever since the Apostolic age, we should not abolish it, but allow it thus to be observed, since no one has yet been able to prove that children do not believe when they are baptized, or that this kind of baptism is wrong. | For even if I were not certain that they believe, I must still for the sake of my conscience allow them to be baptized; as it is far ἡ ποι οι for baptism to be administered to children, than for me to abolish it. For if this baptism be right and beneficial, and confer salvation upon children, as we be- heve, and were I to abolish it, I should be account- able for all the children that might be lost for the want of baptism: this would be a fearful responsibility indeed. But if it were wrong, that is, useless and unprofitable to children, there could be no other sin committed by it, except that the word of God would be pronounced in vain, and his sign ziven to no purpose ; I would be guilty of no lost soul in consequence of it, but only of the use of God’s word and sign in vain. 84. But God would readily forgive this error, be- cause I would commit it through igncrance, and besides I would be constrained to commit it through fear of devia- ting from an established custom, as a thing which I did not devise, but which descended to me from the origin of the church, and which I could not prove to be wrong by any passage of Scripture, and which I would have done un- willingly, had I been convinced of any impropriety in it. It would be almost similar indeed to preaching the word of God among unbelievers in vain, or as he says, Cast« 194 ON ANABAPTISM. ing pearls before swine, and giving that which is holy unto dogs, Matt. 7, 6; which word I must preach ac- cording to his command. But what could I do in this respect? Here also I would rather commit sin by preach- ing In vain, than by not preaching at all; for by vain preaching, I would not become guilty of the loss of any soul; but by not preaching, I night become guilty of losing many souls; and this responsibility even for one would be too much. 85. This I say, then, were it even true that the faith of children is doubtful, m order that no one might omit baptism which is certain, for the sake of an uncertain Ὁ faith, because we did not devise it, but received it thus from the Apostolic age. For we should not alter or in- validate any thing which cannot be altered or invalidated hy the clear authority of Scripture. God is wonderful in his works; that which is contrary to his will, he in- dicates perspicuously in the Scripture. That which he does not thus indicate, we leave to his providence. We are excused ; he will not mislead. It would truly bea wicked deed, if we knew or believed that infant baptism were improper, and would still baptize them, as the Waldenses do; for in this way God and his word would be mocked. 86. Secondly, there is one strong indication of the divine authority for infant baptism. No heresy has ever yet endured permanently, but it has always, and in a short time too, as St. Peter says, been exposed, and brought to shame; as St. Paul refers to Jannes and Jambres, and persons similar to them, saying that their folly became manifest unto all men, 2 Tim. ὁ, 8, 9. Now, if infant baptism were wrong, God undoubtedly would not have suffered it to continue so long, or to ΟΝ ANABAPTISM. 195 be so universally observed throughout the whole Chris- -tian community ; nor could it have escaped from being at last brought into disrepute before all men. For al- though the Anabaptists now defame it, yet their at- | tempts are ineffectual, and it is not yet brought into disgrace. 87. Now, as God has provided that the Bible be re- garded as the Bible, the Lord’s Prayer as the Lord’s Prayer, the Creed as the Creed, in the Christian church throughout the world, so he has preserved infant δαρ- tism trom being suppressed ; and yet, at the same time, - all heresies have been suppressed, which were later and more recent than infant baptism. ‘This marvellous work of God shows that infant baptism must be right. For he has not acted thus towards the Papacy, which is also a new institution; it has never yet been re- ceived by all Christians throughout the world, like in- fant baptism, the Bible, the Creed, the Lord’s Prayer, &c. 83. “This,”’ you say, ‘does not show conclusively that infant baptism is true; for it is no declaration of Scripture.” ‘True, it 1s not established so ccnclu- sively and forcibly by passages of Scripture, that zn- fant baptism should have been introduced ameng the primitive Christians after the Apostles: but this much is proven conclusively, that no one at our day dares with good conscience to reject or abolish infant baptism, which descends from so great an antiquity ; because God not only tolerates it, bat has also supported it from the beginning, so that it has never yet been destroyed. For if we observe the providence of God, we must as willingly submit to it and believe, as if we hear his word; unless express Scripture declarations direct us to avoid it. As, for instance, the Papacy I would willingly let pass, 126 ON ANABAPTISM. and stand as an institution of God, but since the Scrip- ture is aguinst it, I regard it indeed as an institution of God,—not, however, an institution of his grace, but of his wrath, from which we should flee; as all other plagues belong to the works of God also, but in his wrath and displeasure. 89. Thirdly, this is likewisean instance of God’spro- vidence, that he has always conferred great and holy gifts upon many who were baptized im their infancy, enhight- ened and strengthened them with the Holy Spirit, and with the power of understanding the Scripture, and great things have been accomplished in the Christian church through them ; as, John Huss and his companions at that day, and many other saints before him: as he also does at the present day with very many excellent persons, and yet he urges none of them previously to rebaptism; which he would undoubtedly do, if he considered his command concerning baptism improperly observed. For he performs nothing inconsistent with himself; nor does he encourage by his gifts one act of disobedience to his commands. 90. Since, then, he confers these gifts, which we must acknowledge to be the holy gifts of God, he cer- tainly by this act confirms infant baptism, and regards us as rightfully baptized. Thus we prove by this display of his providence, that the first baptism is right, and ana- baptism wrong; precisely as St. Peter and Paul, Acts 15, 8, 9, proved by a miracle, when God imparted the Holy Spirit to the Gentiles, that it was the will of hea- ven for the Gentiles not to be under obligation to ob- serve the law of Moses. 91. Fourthly, if the first or infant baptism were wrong, it would follow, that for more than a thousand ON ANABAPTISM. _ 127 years there was no baptism, no Christian church ; which is not possible. For if so, the following article of the Creed would be false: “1 believe in a holy Christian church.” For during more than a thousand years, in- fant baptism was almost exclusively practised. Now if this baptism is wrong, the Christian church was without baptism for that length of time. If she was destitute of baptism, she was not the Christian church; for the Christian church is the bride of Christ, subject and obe- - dient to him, possessing his spirit, his word, his baptism, his Eucharist, and all that he possesses. 92. And indeed, if enfant baptism were received, not generally throughout the world, but by some only, like the Papacy, the Anabaptists might claim some plau- sibility in rebuking those who receive it ; as we rebuked the ecclesiastics, because they degraded the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper into a sxcrifice, which nevertheless remains a sacrament among the laity. But since infant baptism has universally prevailed throughout the Chris- tian community unto this day, we have no shadow of probability that it is wrong, but the strongest indication that it is right. | 93. Fifthly, now with this view that passage of Scripture also agrees, in which St. Paul says of Anti- christ, 2 Thes. 2, 4, that he shall sit in the temple of God, concerning which we have already heard. If it is the temple of God, it is not a den of heretics, but the true Christian church, which must surely have the true baptism ; of this there can be no doubt. Now we see indeed and hear of no other, but infant baptism practised under the Pope, among the Turks, and in all the world. Again, the facts, that Christ commands lit- tle children to come and be brought unto him, Matt. 19, 128ϑ : ON ANABAPTISM. . 14, saying, “‘ Of such is the kingdom of God;”’ that the Apostles baptized whole households, Acts 16, 15; 1 Cor. 1, 16; that John writes to the little children, 1 John 2, 14; that St. John in his mother’s womb be- lieved, Luke 1, 41, as we have stated above, all go to establish our position. 94. If some of these passages of Scripture do not satisfy the enthusiasts, it matters little to me; it is enough for me, thus to stop the mouths of all, so that they can- not say, ‘Infant baptism is insignificant.” Even if they entertain doubts about it, I am satisfied they cannot henceforth destroy its force; but they must permit it to prevail among them amidst their doubts. But in our view it is abundantly certain, since it is in no respect contrary to the Scriptures, but conformable with them. 95. Siaxthly, since God makes his covenant with all Gentiles through the Gospel, and institutes baptism asa sign, who can here exclude little children? Now, if the old covenant and the sign of circumcision, caused Abra- ham’s children to believe, so that they were, and were called, the people of God, as he says that he will be a God unto the seed of Abraham, Gen. 17, 7; this new covenant and sign must be much more efficacious, and constitute those who receive it the people of God. Now,- he commands all the world to receiveit. Upon this com- mand, as no one is excluded, we baptize every one with confidence and security, prohibiting none, except those who oppose it with obstinacy and will not receive it. If we baptize every one according to the command of Christ, we leave Christ to provide the manner in which the subjects of baptism shall believe. We have done enough when we have preached and baptized. If then we have no special passages of Scripture which speak of ON ANABAPTISM. © 129 baptizing children, they also have none which enjoins the baptism of old persons; yet we have the common Gospel and the common baptism given with a command that it be administered to every one, wherein children must also be included. We plant and water, and God will give the increase, 1 Cor. 3, 6. 96. In a word, the Anabaptists are too vindictive and insolent. For they do not regard baptism as a di- vine ordinance or command, but as if it were a human device ; like many of the church usages under the Pope; as, the consecration of salt, of water, and herbs. If they held it as a divine ordinance and command, they would not speak of it with so much irreverence and scorn, even if it were improperly applied. But since they have fallen into this foolish opinion, that baptism is a thing like the consecration of water and salt, or wearing hoods and veils, they exclaim and abuse it as a dog-bath, a handful of water, and many other expres- sions equally insulting. 97. Precisely as he, who holds the Gospel as the true word of God, does surely not blaspheme it, even if there are many who neither believe nor accept it, or use it falsely. But he who does not regard it as the word οἵ God, might readily come out and blaspheme, saying, it is a fable, a tale, a mass of nonsense, and the like; and he might easily find followers who would believe these blasphemous words. $8. For this you should observe well, that, if the Anabaptists should first have had to prove their position by good arguments, they could not have deceived so many people, nor have drawn so many to unite with them. For they can adduce no positive argument to estab- ish their presumptions, But they decoy many people 190 ON ANABAPTISM. among them by employing loud and vociferous invec= tives against baptism. For Satan well knows, that if the unthinking populace hear high-sounding invectives, they become bewildered, and instantly believe, without making any further inquiry after reasons or arguments. As, when they hear it said, ‘ Baptism is a dog-bath, and the baptizers are false and knavish bath-servants,”’ they exclaim: “ Heigh! then Jet the devil baptize, and God rebuke the false bath-servants.” This art of abuse is their dependence, upon this they rely, and they have no other weapon by which they can assail baptism. For all whom I have heard express themselves, yes, all who have conversed with me, concerning these matters, were perfectly exhausted when they had given vent to these harsh invectives,—dog-bath, bath-servant, handful of water, &c.,—and they stood like a shorn boy, without any thing left to shelter their imbecility. 99. In the very same way Satan deceives those who slander the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. For since he very plainly perceives, that he can adduce noth- ing permanent to sustain his falsehoods, he proceeds to fill, in the first place, the ears of the infatuated popu- lace with false and revolting charges, that our Sacra- ment of the Altar is a flesh-eating and blood-drinking sacrament. When these vociferous words have been uttered, all their skill is exhausted ; and then they begin to speak of Christ’s ascension to heaven. 100. This same course is pursued by the Jews at the present day. For the purpose of preserving their chil- dren in their faith, they slander Christ shamefully, call- ing him Thola, and they tell audacious falsehoods about him. This oppresses the innocent and simple heart, and deceives it, as St. Paul, Rom, 16, 18, says. Hence they ON ANABAPTISM. 131 have been making some progress, because they can lead the people as they please, by their egregious calumnies, and need not show any plausible reason for their error. For if they were under the necessity of establishing their po- sition with firm security in the first place, their falsehoods might easily be delineated in their true colors, and refuted. 101. But inasmuch as we know that baptism is a divine institution, which God himself has appointed and confirmed, we pay no attention to the abuse which it re- ceives from ungodly men, but simply attend to the ordi- nance of God; and thus we find that baptism is a thing holy, blessed, glorious, and heavenly in itself, which is to be held in the highest reverence with fear and trembling, like every other ordinance and command of God, as it is just and right. But the fact that many individuals abuse it, does not result from any fault in baptism; for we might in the same manner regard the Gospel as an idle tale, because there are many who abuse it. 102. Since the Anabaptists, then, have no argu- ments, that we have yet seen or heard, by which they can establish their doctrine, except egregious calumnies, every one should justly shun them, and guard against them, as the true messengers of the devil, sent into the world to slander and pervert the word and ordinance of God; so that people’may not believe on them and be saved. For they are the birds which devour the seeds sown on the way side, Matt. 13, 4. 103. And in conclusion I say, that even if a person were never baptized, and still knew no better, or firmly believed that he had been truly and correctly baptized, this faith would nevertheless be sufficient for him. Be- cause as he believed, so it would be with him in the sight of God, and “ All things,” says Christ, Mark 9, 23, ὌΝ 132 ON ANABAPTISM. “are possible to him that believeth.”” Such a person we could not baptize without violence to his faith. How much less then should we rebaptize those who are cer- tain that they have been baptized? Leave it to God, whether they believed or not when they were baptized. For the Anabaptists are unable to know with certainty that their anabaptism is right, because they make it de- pend on faith which they cannot ascertain, and conse- quently they practice their anabaptism in uncertainty. 104. Now it is sinful and a tempta ation against God to create doubts and uncertainties in divine things} and he who teaches an uncertain presumption for indubitable truth, lies as well as he who speaks openly against the truth ; for he speaks that which he does not know him- self, and still wishes it to be regarded as truth. But if they would cause anabantism to depend on the author- ity and command of God, they would soon be convinced that it is useless and unnecessary, because the divine command would have been complied with already in the first baptism. 105. Thus they calumniate, moreover, and deny the command and authority of God. For though he has authorized th's first baptism, which has been duly per- formed, they assert nevertheless that it 1s wrong, and call it a dog-bath ; what else is this but asserting that the command and authority of God are futile; what is it but blasphemy? And for these expressions they have no other reason, except that they wish to have faith mani- fest in baptism, and yet they cannot have it so. This is denying and slandering im a malicious and shameful manner, the indubitable command and authority of God, for the sake of an uncertain presumption. 106. But suppose the first baptism be υὐαύςἀδιμοημά ON ANABAPTISM. 433 ‘by faith, tell me then which of the two is the greater and more excellent, the word of God or faith? Is it not true that the word of God is greater and more ex- ‘cellent than faith; seeing that the word of God 15 not based and built upon faith, but faith upon the word of God; in addition to this, faith is wavering and change~ ‘able, but the word of God is immutable. 107. Tell me, further, if one of these two should ‘change, which should the more reasonably change, the immutable word or mutable faith? Is it not undeniable, - that faith rather should change, and not the word of God? It is more reasonable mdeed that the word of God should prodace a different faith, (where no genuine ‘one had previously existed,) than that faith should change the word. Since then, they must confess, that in the first baptism there was no imperfection in the word of God, but the imperfection consisted in the want of faith, and that ne other word is necessary, but a better faith, why do they not much rather endeavor to produce a stronger faith, and leave the word unrepeated? Now if the word and ordinance of Ged must be wrong, because we do not sincerely believe on them, the word will scarcely ever be right. 108. Even if they wished to do justice to their own presumption, they should institute, not a practice of re- baptizing, but of rebelieving ; for maha is the word and ordinance of God, and needs no repetition or renewal; but faith, if it has ceased to exist, neq ures renovation. Therefore with consistency they might be reproducers of faith, (Wiedergléubler,) but not rebaptizers, even if they were in the right, which however is not the fact. 109. Now these Anabaptists are unable to sustain their doctrine with any watt of certainty at all, and they 134 ΟΝ ANABAPTISM. are found to be insincere in their attempt, denying and tals umniating the order of God, through a false and rash’ _ presumption. ‘They pervert the order of things, bas- ing the word and ordinance of God upon the work and faith of men; they seek baptism when they should seek faith, and thus they are proved to be false, erring, perverted spirits. For these reasons every pious Chris- tian, at the peril of his soul, should carefully guard against them. In doing this, may Christ our Lord as- sist and bless us! Amen. | 110. Thus much in haste and brevity, you will ac- cept for the present ; fur at this time I am otherwise en- gaged, and cannot devote myself entirely to this matter ; nor do I yet know, as I have already said, their position altogether. For the devil is raging, he is transforming hundreds into thousands, and bringing about so great a confusion, that scarcely any one knows what he believes. 111. The Anabaptists hold, with the enemies of the Sacrament of the Altar, that there is nothing but bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper. Again, these Sacramen- tarians differ with the Anabaptists in their opinions con- cerning baptism. Neither are the Sacramentarians uni= ted among themselves; nor are the Anabaptists, except only in their hostility against us. Preciselyas the Papacy is divided into innumerable factions of priests and monks, who heretofore have been lacerating each other, and now all at once have become united against us. It is equally so with political princes and lords. Pilate and Herod; who in other respects are deadly enemies to each other, must it seems unite against Christ. 112. Yet the error of the Anabaptists in peference to this subject, may be tolerated rather than that of the Sacramentarians. For the latter destroy baptism en- ON ANABAPTISM. 135 tirely, but the former renew it. Here there is still a ehance for aid and admonition, which may enable them to-arrive at the truth. Well, we have succeeded so far at least, as to show that the Anabaptists hold an erroneous opinion, an uncertain faith, and are unable to establish their views. 113. For Satan does no more through all the en- thusiasts now, than to bring about things which are altogether doubtful, thinking that it is enough if he can talk arrogantly and contemptuously about us; asthe factious Sacramentarians do. Here no one will investi- gate and prove his opinions; but all their efforts are con- centrated for the purpose of making our doctrine appear suspicious and doubtful. Swspictones docent, non fi- dem,—they teach suspicions, not faith,—and then call them Seripture and word of God. For the devil per- ceives that he can do nothing in opposition to the clear hight of truth ; he therefore stirs in the dust, ardently de- siring to. Σ νοις a fog before our eyes, in order to prevent us τ seeing the light; and in this obscurity, he presents before us nothing but false lights, in order to mislead us. That is, since they have framed their opinions, they en- deayor to reconcile the Scripture with them, and make violent distortions to suit their preconceived notions. 114. May Christ, who has heretofore faithfully stood by us, more completely subject Satan under our feet, pre- serve you all against the deception of your tyrant and Antichrist, and graciously lead you into his libe erty. Amen. | ἢ lal: sling νὐδλλανίαι eis Fis, χ ἱ ee Υ pe »- ᾿ ᾿ cx fe ἣ y » τ ΘΝ geht Fit τἀ a aR AE sen m4) Ξ ΕΝ ἈΠ ΤῊΝ a es τε eis seater Ὦ κρλμέρύε: " = Ἔν A i ‘ ~ 4 -» ΟὟ Νὰ " τὸ Ὁ» te oot ἀν ¢ en ate ᾿ oy wbens a . 1 ΣΡ 5 ; wea τ by + . ν ~ Γ ΠΤ" ᾿ CoH δας Ἢ ΡΟ Beaks) ρὲ fe ST Hae? » y ah x “ἀμ Ry r eae won i 3 4 ag a r . i ee ᾿ ἴοι: γῇ A J oe 4) £3 ; Ι a —-_ * ) εἶ ἘΠ Μ.2..0 ΚΣ τὸἢ y τ Ἄν, αν ΤΉ 2-3) 4? Deh τς ces θὲ» απο ἄν Ὄ mat "Ἢ oh eb, ) τ bey 7 3 ἜΤ west " τ εἱόλιῥε δα salen Kiel τ oH ay AUR) ine ων rep unt a" ἐπὰν v4 a) δ . - »»ὐὖνο ey sue his { See t ν᾽ eee en δῶ il | i yas 4 - τς ρον ᾿ς * ? 7 ᾿ 1 Ἷ ? Α DISSERTATION OR FHE LOBD’S SUPPER, BY DR. MARTIN LUTHER. A. D. 1528. Let integrity and uprightness preserve me.—Ps. 25. 1. Praise and gratitude forever be to God, through Jesus Christ our Lord ; for the book which I have pub- lished this year against the Enthusiasts and the enemies of the holy Sacrament, has been attended with results of no slight importance. In the first place, many pious hearts, which had been perverted, which had been filled with anxiety, by the unprofitable instructions of the En- thusiasts, now find themselves restered to peace, and with great joy they thank God, as they confess to me in their writings. In the second place, because I have charged Satan so exactly in the right point, and have followed up my assault with so much determination, that now for the first time, he has become altogether furious and unrelenting against me. This is amply tes- tified by the last answer of the Enthusiasts against my ]i#tle book,—an answer which has been long in circula- 140 THE LORD’S SUPPER. tion, and now at last on this day of St. Martin, has been sent to me here at Wittemburg ; for it is highly probable that fears have all along been entertained of its total extinction. 2. God defend us! for those heroes are so full of wrath, that they not only forget their usual moderation, which they have been accustomed to laud to the skies against me, and which they would now quite willingly maintain, though no adder is so poisonous as they are in their writings; but through their excessive rage and mortification, they cannot perceive what answer they should make, or against what point they should direct it. And this unwonted frenzy has seized more especi- ally the mind of Zwinglius, who mixes up a mass of con- fusion about Images, Purgatory, Saints, Honor, Keys, Original Sin,—and seems perfectly at a loss to know how better to play the madman with his new doctrine, than to disgorge a vast deal where there is no necessity, and to skip over where an answer would be required,— as I intend to prove. 3. In reference to this, however, I have said enough, and I will write no more about it just,now, in order that Satan may not become still more frantic, and disgorge still more falsehoods and follies, as he has been doing, befouling the paper with useless verbosity, and pervert- ing the time of the reader from better instructions. For, if I have not, through the instrumentality of my book, elicited a correct answer,motwithstanding I have so fre- quently and in large characters, indicated the particular point to which I desired an answer, I have no hope of obtaining an answer at all, though I should write a thousand books. And in this I can hardly think that Satan is to blame; for, it is not pleasant for a liar te \ THE LORD’S SUPPER. 141 have to deal with the truth. May the mercy of God convert them and free their minds from the shackles of Satan’s importunity; more than this I cannot do. I have fears, alas! that Ε must have been a true prophet, when I wrote, that no heretical leader could be converted. And therefore, I will now let them alone, according to the instruction of St. Paul, Tit. 3, 10, “A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject.” For in future they can accomplish nothing more; they have done all they are able to do; and 1 will turn to our own adherents, to whom I wish to give further mstructions in this article,sofaras I can through the grace of our Lord. 4, And although m my two little books,—one against the heavenly Prophets, the other against the Enthusiasts,—I have done quite enough for all intelli- gent Christians ; so that every one who does not wish to go astray, can secure himself successfully against the seducer ; and up to this time our adherents have escaped uninjured by the mordacity of the Enthusiasts, though they have loudly boasted of their victory. Yet I wish to. publish this little book finally on this subject, m order. to give greater strength to the weak, and to elucidate that article more fully. For 1 can see, mdeed I can even feel, that, because Satan has given so clumsy an answer, and has disgorged so many unprofitable words, he has a design to obstruct me in other things, perhaps of much greater importance to him. Hence it will no longer become me to consume my time over his nonsense, and suffer the Scriptures to be misrepresented. He may rage hereafter as much as he pleases. 5. In this little book, | propose three divisions. First, to convince our adherents, by examples, that these Enthusiasis have not yet by any means made out an an- 142 THE LORD’S SUPPER. swer upon my principles of reasoning : second, to exam~ -ine the passages which have reference to the holy ‘Sacrament: third, to acknowledge every article of my faith, in opposition to this and every other new heresy, so that, neither during my lifetime, nor after my death, they may be able (Ὁ boast that Luther coincided with them on this subject, as they have already done in, some particulars, . . PART I. 6. First of all, let every pious Christian be on his cuard in reference to the enemies of the Sacrament, from the circumstance, that from their very origin they have had so many factions and ringleaders, and their principal teachers were so much divided among themselves in their interpretation of the text, “‘ This is my body given for you.” For such diversity and contradiction cannot pro- ceed fromthe Holy Ghost. Satan, thatimportunate spirit of contention, is assuredly the author of it, as I have proved in the little book which I lately published. For, if it is to support a lucid, incontrovertible article, the text must be identical and simple, and must receive one mvariable interpretation. But now, since these teachers have so great a variety of textsand interpretations; where every interpretation is directly opposed to some other ; where not one is assured of his interpretation ; where not one has been able to prove his interpretation and dis- prove the others, it follows of course, that they all have gone astray, that not one among them up to this day has the genuine text in this passage, and that they all thus have to keep this sacrament without a text. For an unsettled text is fully as bad as no text. What kind of a sacrament then may that be, in which there is no THE LORD’S SUPPER. 143 text or fixed expression of Scripture. For the language of Christ must be precise and perspicuous, or else people would know absolutely nothing about it. But we in- — deed have an invariable text, an invariable interpretation, we have the plain words just as they stand there, yet even we are divided in our opinion ‘about them. 7. Should they reply in answer to this, that no in- jury results from their employing a variety of words and interpretations, because they do not differ as to the prin- cipal objects, namely, the “ bread’ and the “ wine,””— producing these examples of similitude, where Christ within the compass of the Gospel represents the sub- stance of that Gospel, by numerous forms of expression, in John 4, 13, by the drinking of water, in John 6, 51, by eating his flesh and dr inking his blood, by the house- holder who hires laborers in his vineyard, Matt. 20, 1; and so too by a great variety of similitudes is the king- dom of God represented in the Gospel,—hence that it is not unreasonable for these Enthusiasts to have a vari- ety of interpretations and forms of expression for the very same subject in the Scripture. 8, What think you? Is not this most admirable consistency ? Who does not perceive that this miser-_ able faction, on account of their excessive vanity, will either not answer, pretending to scorn our question, or they are so completely blinded, as to discern neither what is demanded, nor what they should answer? Who, I pray, has made such an inquiry? Who has asked them to inform us how a single object may be represented by a variety of terms, definitions, similitudes, and forms ? Surely we all knew this before much better than they can ever teach us. I am fully aware, from general ob- servation, that Christ, the only Savior, not only has nu- on ἂς. 144 THE LORD’S SUPPER. merous epithets, but all indeed which are to be found in the Scriptures. He is called a lamb, a rock, a corner- stone, the sun, the morning-star,a fountain, a bridegroom, a householder, ‘a teacher, a father ; yes every appellation is given to him, or used in reference to him, each one havi ing direct application to his character. Such are the refer- ences to which they have recourse, precisely as if we were inquiring how one thing might have many names and rep- resentations, or as if there were any one who doubted it. 9. But the object and aim of our inquiry is this: “ How does it happen among the Enthusiasts, that a particular name, term, or definition, applied to a parti- cular subject, should disagree with itself? how should one say yes,—another say no? For instance, Carl- stadt says “ zovro refers to the sitting body ;?? Zwin- glius says, that the same word zovro refers to the bread. Now, both cannot speak the truth. One must be guilty of falsehood, and a teacher under the guidance of Satan. For in a single proposition it cannot occur, that a cer- tain name or term shall have alike two opposite senses and interpretations. In reference to a particular pas- sage,—as John 1, 29, “ Behold this is the Lamb of God,’’—I cannot say that Lamb here should equally signify a sheep or a wolf; or probably, a sheep and not a sheep. But in this very manner do Carlstadt, Gico- lampadius, and Zwinglius differ about the single word τουτο, and one says it means this, another says it means a different thing. Again, Zwinglius says, ‘ Is means signifies.’ No, says Qicolampadius, “It simply means ἐ5.) Again, says Gicolampadius, “ My body means the sign of my body.’ No, says Zwinglius, “It simply means my body.” Here, here indeed should an answer be given, and this contradictién ἄς, * 4 * TYE LORD’S SUPPER. 185 put at rest, in miles that Satan may not have to stand in his bleak deformity, with his falsehoods so openly, ‘> exposed; but in all probability this will forever remain unanswered by him. rat ‘sor 10. For grant that the Scripture denominates Christ ᾿ς a lamb in one ἍΝ and that its language is such as ‘would be proper in speaking of a lamb, yet in another place it_ does not speak in opposition to this, contradicting its ow n terms, and giving the negative to its own declarations. For if Christ 1 is called a leah in one passage, it is no con- tradiction, that in another passage he is called a rock or a stone, and thereisno want of harmony inthis. But the Enthusiast smites himself on the cheek, and gives contra~ dictory explanations to a variety of words, and frequently to a single word in the samé passage. ‘These contradic tions, however, would not be so awkward, nor the in- famy 50. great, if they would -give dissimilar and incongruous explanations to a single word in different * paces, or to various words in the same passage ; but t give a contrary and contradictory explanation toasingle word, in a single passage, indeed ina single sentence, τς in common phrase, to make a free use of your licence, and to subject Satan in his nakedness to the pillory ; for no sentence will admit this, and a child must say that at cannot be so. When I say, ‘Christ is the Lamb of God,’’ it is impossible that one shall understan: me to say a wolf, another understand me to say a sh 20). One of them must have a false impression oft my meanings and the convictions of both cannot be frou the Holy Ghost. Now, the Enthusiasts have ar mong them some ten diffeér- ent interpretations of the words in the Eucharist, and not one agrees with the others in signification. These interpretations must, therefore, necessarily be 13 , ὦ τ 146 THE LORD’S sure false, and they must have their source from Satan, and not from any good spirit. 11. But the false Enthusiast charges us with not ad- hering to the words and to a single interpretation, be- cause we say, ‘‘ The words,—‘* This is my body,’— should be understood thus, ‘under the bread-is my body ;᾽ or, ‘in the bread is my body,’ asserting. that we too are at variance.” I answer him as follows: “The spirit of falsehood knows full well that he does us injustice by this accusation, only uttering it in order to defame us, and smirk over his own palpable falsehoods in the eyes of his followers. For he certainly knows from the whole tenor of our writings, that we have used our hest exertions to have these words, “ This is my body,” understood in their utmost simplicity, just as they stand and as they read, and that we have not made various and discordant texts out of a single one, as they have done. 12. I have said in my little book, that those who, in familiar discourse, make this affirmation, ‘* Under the bread is the body of Christ,” or, “In the bread is the body of Christ,’’—are not to be censured, because by these expressions they declare their belief, that the body of Christ is actually present in the Eucharist. But in doing this, they do not substitute a new text. They do not even wish these words of theirs to be viewed as a text; but they adhere to the original text. St. Paul, however, says, ‘* Christ is God,’? Rom. 9, 5; but in Cor. 5, 29, he says, “(οὐ was in Christ,” and yet the meaning of these phrases or propositions is plain and indubitable, and consequently they are not opposed ἰδ each other. But the text-of the Enthusiasts disagrees in every passage, in every word, . THE LORD’S SUPPER. | 147 13. And should any one demand of us so much pre- cision, should he lay so much stress upon the expres- sion, or should it be proved, that the text, “ This is my_ body,’ cannot allow me to say in another place, ‘ In the Eucharist is the body of Christ,” we are prepared and willing to retract the expression, and not have it to read in this manner, but simply and unchanged as the wards stand in the text, ‘“‘ Thisis my body.’’ Let them do the same, and agree in their text. No Christian, however, will impose upon us the necessity, in all our sermons and discourses, whenever we are speaking on the subject of the Eucharist, of saying continually, « This is my body,”’ provided we suffer the text, in the administration of this sacrament, to retain its original phraseology. On other occasions and in other proposi- tions, surely we may be permitted to say, “ Under the bread, or in the bread is the body of Christ ;’’ “In the Eucharist the body of Christ is really present,”’ or else we should not be permitted to declare or speak about our belief. 14. But the Enthusiasts strive to amuse us in this way, as the most effectual means for diverting our at- tention from their secret lurking-places. ‘They are fully sensible that such is the case with their own falsehoods in every passage and every sentence, and they contrive in this way to confirm their incongruity, and do not wish to reform it. It proves, however, of little service to them. We are quite willing to permit them to speak of this sacrament in their discourses, as they like or as they are able. But the text of the Eucharist, we de- sire to maintain simple, invariable, settled, and un- ambiguous, in every word, syllable, and letter. While they do not manifest this disposition, I am free to Re 148 THE LORD’S SUPPER. conclude, that Satan, the father of all confusion, 1s their teacher. For St. Paul says, “ God is not the au- thor of confusion,”? 1 Cor. 14,33. So all Christians are required to be unanimous, Ephes. 4,3; and to make no divisions, b Cor. 1, 10. Thus you can recognize this faction from the earliest result of their incongruities. 15. Besides, if the Scriptures assign various names or denominations to a single object, those names are not only of like substantial import and unopposed to each other, but they are fixed and furnish a solid foundation on which we may rely. For example, when Christ is declared to be a Jamb, I am able to conclude with cer- tainty, that he is with the strictest propriety called a lamb. But no Enthusiast can ever render his definition determinate.. For Carlstadt, even to this day, has never been able to show conclusively that the word ovo has the very application which he assigns to it, as the En- thusiasts themselves acknowledge. ZAwingliusand Cico- lampadius have never yet undertaken bya single letter, to show that zs can be as much as signifies; body as mutch as the sign of body; but it is made to depend entirely on the authority of their own words and opinions, concerning which they themselves are unde- termined; and they respect no one so much as to fix its signification, even if they were able. 16. Hence the Enthusiast should not be solicitous to apprize us, that the expression in the Scriptures, “ the kingdom of God,” has a variety of equivalents, but be should rather endeavor to prove that these equivalents are indeterminate and in direct opposition to each other ; as we make our complaint; and prove that their false and erroneous interpretations are not only numer- ous, but indeterminate and opposed to each other. Now THE LORD’S SUPPER. 149 here is a glorious answer indeed! When I com- plained of their confusion and instability, their leader made his reply in reference to variety, precisely as if variety and confusion meant the same thing. inquired how it happened that their views and interpretations were not only various, but also at variance and opposed to each other. ‘ They are not zncorrect,”’ replied he, “because they are vartous.’’ Hence, he says, we should be satisfied, acknowledge our errors, and confess their belief to be right. 17. If they are required, however, to explain how this confusion in the midst of variety, can spring from the Holy Ghost, no one is at home. ‘They must aban- don in reality this offensive contrariety, and become united and fixed in their texts and views, before we ean unite with them ; if they will not do this, reasonably we should avoid them, and say, “‘ ‘The devil is in the bush.” For it would be more important to remove this offence, than to assail the images. ‘The images would not mo- lest us ; but-confusion ise αρδν ἀν and of terms, that is eon 18. For had they gained their cause triumphantly, and stopped our mouths, they still would have aeccom- plished no more as yet, nor have brought their cause to any greater advancement, than to have deprived us of this text,—‘* This is my body,’’—according to cur sense. but by this they would not yet have established their interpretation, nor will they ever be able to establish it. Now, if they possessed a righteous spirit, they would not only remove the false interpretation, but they would produce and establish in its stead another inter- pretation true and intelligible. Had St. Paul, with creat power of argument, rejected the righteousness of the ον & 150 THE LORD’S SUPPER. law or of works, so far indeed he would have accom- plished nothing. But in its stead he has taught and brought to our knowledge a different righteousness. God did not abrogate the Old Testament, until he in- troduced the New Testament in its stead, and rendered it much more secure than the Old. 19. That is not an amiable spirit which teaches and declares, that a thing is false, and yet in its stead replaces no infallible system of truth. It 15 little benefit indeed to combat and expose a system of falsehoods, without searching and establishing the truth in its stead. Whoever wishes to assail falsehood effec- tually, must always supply its place with the open, sure, permanent truth. For a falsehood neither trembles nor flies, until the clear and lucid truth approaches. False- hood finds her chief delight in the darkness and absence of truth. If our interpretation of these words,—“ This is my body,’’—be erroneous, then Zwinglius is bound to establish and render intelligible his own text and in- terpretation, namely, “ Tis signifies my body.” Cico- lampadius is bound to do the same, and all the rest of them are bound to establish their own interpretations. But when will they do this? 20. Yea, with good reason I may say to you still further, because they have not been able to establish or to prove their text and interpretation, it is certain that they should not represent our text and interpretation as false. For, as remarked already, who can combat false- hood with certainty and success, unless he can elicit the truth which is opposed to that falsehood. Who can charge any thing as being wrong, who does not, on the other hand, point out that which is right? In the na- ture of things light must dispel darkness; darkness can- THE LORD’S SUPPER. 151 not dispel darkness; and so too Beelzebub never drives out Satan. The Enthusiast knows and feels this pro- -foundly; hence he steals around, like the cat around the hot panada, and contends with savage fury, that our text and interpretation cannot be right; and he shuns and flies from the word of God, like Satan himself, that he may not be forced to prove his own text and interpretation right, for he feels in his conscience that he is not able to prove it. | 21. For this reason he intends that the subject shall be left at rest, after having removed the text of the Eucharist according to our interpretation, and supplied in its stead no other that can be relied upon. But no, this will not do. If you destroy, you must build up again; if you point out an error or a falsehood, and caution us against it, you must teach in the place of that error some determinate truth, or put an end to your cav- illing and your teaching. For by acting in the manner you are acting, you admit the charge, that you are a spirit— of error and falsehood, because you assert a thing to be false, and then cannot prove your assertion to be true, nor are you willing to prove it. But the Holy Spirit knows perfectly well how to prove the opposite, and to establish it, when he has contested a falsehood or an error. 22. Let this which I have written, stand as a warn- ing to you, my beloved friends and brethren; for you can, by the circumstance that he shuns the light, detect this spirit,—an idle prattler where there is no needs—who skulks and steals away, when it would be necessary to speak. And, as I have said, in my former little book, do not presume to think that he will stand up manly before your eyes, in an argument or a contro- 152 THE LORD’s SUPPER. versy ; but just as he did in the first controversy, he will continue to do in every other controversy, as we shall hear. 23. Hence you must guard against these Enthusiasts, or assail them afresh in reference to this incongruity and uncertainty of their expressions and interpretations ; and demand of them with confidence, that they shall produce a correct, determinate, unanimous text from these words, “This is my body.”’ If they do this, join them with confidence; I also will confess myself subdued. But so long as they will not do this, they must be viewed as unrighteous ; they must be denominated heretics, enthu- siasts, seducers, and finally regarded as discomfited, did they possess twice as much pedantry and pride. For though the principal points of their theory were correct and true, yet it would still be necessary to have a stmple, true, intelligible, accordant text; because no superstructure can be sustained upon an uncertain, a discordant, contradictory text. And thus my first ob- jection remains unshaken, that these Enthusiasts have numerous, conflicting leaders among them, which is an evidence, that Satan is their ruling spirit. and their master. - 24. Inthe next place, I have required it to be proved to us out of the Scriptures, how this little word, zs, should be equivalent to s¢gnifies, in the Eucharist. For, in my former little book, I had shown that the Enthusiast in his previous writings, had ingeniously introduced some expressions from the Scriptures, in which he presumes the word ἐδ may be equivalent to s¢gnifies, but this was only his own dark opinion, and no proof has yet been giv- en. For this reason I demanded, that he should still per form so necessary a duty, and prove its figurative import. THE LORD’S SUPPER. 153 For it is not very essential to us, for him to introduce passages from the Scriptures. We knew these passages perfectly well,—‘‘ Christ is a rock,” Rom. 9, 33,— without the necessity of his introducing them here. But we cannot perceive, we cannot understand, that they are figurative; and we demand that the proof of this may also be presented in his arguments. 25. But he still goes on, still introducing other simi- lar passages, such as, “ John is Elias,”? Matt. 11, 17; * Christ is a vine,” John 15, 21. “After he has intro- duced all these expressions, he sounds the charges long and loud with his own words, and altogether without the authority of Scripture, he declares, ‘Here is a figure. For Johnzs not Elias, but signifies Elias.” Hence you can see perfectly well, that he will not prove how 7s can be equivalent to signifies. He only con- tinues to say, ‘it has been explained by signifies,”’ but who made this the point or object of his inquiry, whether he had explained it thus or not? We knew perfectly well that he had done so, but he ought to prove from the Scripture that he had explained it correctly. 26. And here he labors very industriously indeed to - imitate corrupt German, while his German would be cor- rupt enough in all conscience, without so much effort. Although he is very sensible, that his quibbling is noth- ing but mere gossip, and although he acknowledges that it is not his intention to insist, that because the word ¢s must in some places be understood in the sense of sig- nifies, it must necessarily be thus understood in the words of the Eucharist, yet because other passages in the Scriptures and the Creed coincide in showing that the words of the Eucharist cannot admit our inter- pretation, among them the word ἐδ is understood in the: ———— 154 THE LORD’S SUPPER. sense of signifies. ‘For,’ says he, “ the interpreta- tion is absurd even to the candid reader.”? Yes, absurd to the carnal reader. Now, they have never proved how our interpretation of the words in the Eucharist does not correspond with the Scriptures and the Creed ; and this shall more fully appear hereafter. 27. But they will reap no advantage from rendering the text of the Eucharist unintelligible in this manner, and stealing about secretly like the thieves. They ought to stand their ground; and because they have taught that zs is equivalent to signifies, they ought to establish their interpretation, and replace a new intelli- gible interpretation for us, in the room of the old well known text, which they desire to mutilate and render unsettled in its meaning, in the manner in which I have already said they are bound to do. But now, since they shun this, and will have nothing to do with such a course, it is plainly to be understood, what kind of a spirit they have,—one that tears down, and will not build up; one that wounds, and does not desire to heal. Such is the spirit of Evil. Wherefore it is necessary to guard against this coy spirit, that flits and flutters about in this way so as not to give a correct answer, and only to let him go on. 28. But as further instruction to you, our own adherents, you may be assured that any one is a teacher of fiction, who says that the little word és is equivalent to signifies. No man can ever prove it from a single passage of Scripture. Indeed, I will say further, if the Enthusiasts can produce one expression in all the lan- guages in the world, in which the word 15 is equivalent to signifies, they may consider themselves victorious. But they will quite willingly let it alone.” It is a defect THE LORD’S SUPPER. 15d in these lofty intelligences not to have a proper view of the science of words, grammatical figures, or tropes, as they are called, which we learn in our primary schools. 29. This science teaches, how a child should make two or three words out of one, or how he may give a new sense and wider application to a single term. As, (in order to introduce some examples,) the word flower, according to its primitive and original signification, may stand for a rose, a lily, a violet, and the like, which grow up and bloom out of the earth. Now when I wish to praise Christ, with reference to his personal character, seeing him descended from the Virgin Mary, a very beau- tiful child, 1 may take this word flower, and make a trope, that 15, give it a new sense and application, and I may say, “ Christ isa flower.”’ Here all the grammarians, all the rhetoricians say the word flower has become a new word, has a new signification, and means no longer a flower from the field, but the child Jesus, and not that the word is has become figurative; for Christ does not signify a flower, but he is a flower, though a different flower from a natural one. 30. This exactly coincides with the instruction of the poet Horace, in his Art of Pcetry, who says, Dizxeris egregie, notum st callida verbum, Reddidertt junctura novum. That is, “You will speak elegantly, if your happy expression shall render a well known word new.”’ Hence we learn that a single word can become two or more words, if it receive in addition to its own literal sense, some new signification different from its own. As flower is one word when it signifies Christ, and an- other when it signifies a natural rose or the like, and still 156 THE LORD’S SUPPER. different when it signifies a golden, silver, or wooden rose. Thus if we say of a miser, “ He is a dog ;” here . . - . . . the word dog signifies a stingy miser, and from being an old word, it has become a new one, according to the . ὰ . . . maxim of Horace. The word zs here is not equiva- lent to s¢gnifies, for miser does not signify a dog.. 31. In every language men speak in this manner, | and give a new meaning to their words; as when we say, “« Mary is the daughter of the morning ;”’ “ Christ is the fruit of the body ;”’ “The devil is the god of this world;” “The Pope is a Judas;” “St. Augustine is a Paul ;” “St. Bernard is a dove;’”’ “David is a little wood- worm :”’ and similar expressions, of which the Scriptures are full. And in our grammars these are called tropes or metaphors, when we give one name to two different things, in consequence of perceiving some similitude be- tween them; and though in regard to the letters, the name is the same, the word is but one, yet it is manifold in force and signification ; im respect to power, use, sig- nification, there are two wards, one old, the other new, as Horace says, and the children all know. 2. In giving such words a new application, we Ger- mans are in the habit of prefixing the word reché, or an Wer, or neu, (real, another, new,) and we say, “ You are a real dog;” ‘‘'The monks are real Pharisees ;”’ ‘‘’ The nuns are real daughters of Moab;” “ Christ is a real Solomon.”” So again, ‘ Luther is another Huss ;”’ “ Zwinelius is another Korah;” Cicolampadius is a new Abiram.” Every German example will bear me testimony, and render it evident that such expressions are new words; and the import is precisely the same if I gay, “ Luther is Huss;” “ Luther is another Huss;” “Luther is a new Huss;” “ Luther is a real Huss.” ~ye THE LORD'S SUPPER. 157 And thus one can readily feel how in such expressions, according to the remark of Horace, a new word is formed out of one already existing. It is inconsistent with taste and judgment to say, ‘ Luther signifies Huss ;”’ but we say, “‘ He is a Huss.’’ In such expres- sions we have reference to the character; we indicate what a person is, not what he signifies; and for each new character we make a new word. This you will find to be the case in all languages, I am perfectly well assured 5 all the grammarians teach it, and tle children in school are acquainted with it; and you will never dis- cover that 7s can have the force of stgnzfes or r2precents. 33; Now, when Christ says, “ John is Eliss,” it is impossible for any one to prove that John re; resents Elias ; for it woald even be ndiculous, that John should represent Elias; far more reasonably, Ehas should rep- resent John. And according to the reasoning of Zwin- glius, Christ ought to have inserted the words,—he ought to have said, “ Elias is John, that is, he represents John.” But Christ wishes to say what kind of a man John is, not what he represents; he wishes to tell what kind of a character or office he held, and he says, ‘* He is Elias.” Here Elias has become a new word, and does not mean the o/d Ehas, but a new Elias; as we Germans say. ‘John is a real Ehias;’? “John is another Flias;” “‘ John isa new Flias.??. And equally so is it often said, “ Christ is a rock,”? which means that he has the pro- perty of a rock; he is in reality a rock, a new rock, however; a real rock; and so too, with the sentence, “ Christ 1s a true vine.”’ 34. How does it sound, beloved, if you attempt to explain this expression, “Christ represents the true vine,” according to the obscure principle of Zwinglius ? τῦϑ THE LORD’S SUPPER. For who then is the true vine which Christ represents ? Do I hear indeed that Christ is to be the sign or repre- sentative of the wood in the vineyard? Alas! that would be a fine thing! Why did not Christ more rea- sonably say, ‘* The true vine is Christ ?”’ that is, “the wooden vine represents Christ.’’? It is more reasonable indeed that Christ should be represented, than for him first to represent, since that which represents is always inferior to that whick is represented; and every sign is less glorious than the thing signified, as ‘even the chil- dren and illiterate people know full well. 39. But Zwinglius entirely overlooks the word true in the expression, ‘Christ is the true vine.” Had he noticed it, he never would have made a figure out of the word zs. For neither language nor reason will allow us to say, “Christ signifies the true vine,” or “ Christ represents the true vine.’” Nobody van assert that in such an expression the true vine is the wood in the vineyard. And thus the text itself forcibly proves, that vine in this example is a new word, which means a new vine, a different vine, a érue vine, and not that which grows in the vineyard. Hence the word zs cannot be figurative here, but Christ is really a vine, and possesses the nature of a true, new vine. Evenif the text would have stood thus, ‘* Christ > isa vine,’”’ still it would not have read in such a man- _ ner as to warrant me in saying, “ Christ represents ἃ vine :᾽ but I would say much rather, “ the vine repre- sents Christ.” 36. So too the following expression, ‘‘ Christ is the lamb of God,” Jolin 6, 29, cannot be understood as mean- ing that Christ represents the lamb of God} for if so, ‘Christ must be inferior to the sign, to the bisa of God. IEE LORD’s SUPPER. 159 But what will be the lamb of God which Christ repre- sents? Can it be the paschal lamb? Why then did he not transpose it and say, with greater plausibility, that the Lamb of God is Christ? that is, the paschal lamb signifies Christ,as Zwinglius explainsit? Butnow, because these little words, of God, stand in connection with the word lamb, it is a powerful demonstration, that Lamb here is a different word, a new word; that it means a different lamb, the new and true lamb which Christ really is, and not the old paschal lamb. 97. And the same reasoning will apply to all the ex- amples which they produce; as, ‘ The seed is the word of God,”? Luke 8, 11, seq. ‘“ The field is the world,”’ Matt. 33,38. In these they are utterly unable to make it appear that 7s is figurative, with any color of reason. But even children in school will say that the words seed and field are tropes, or words with a new application, according to the nature of a metaphor. For a liter- al word is not the same with a metaphorical; but they are really equivalent to two distinct words. Thus seed in this example does not mean the grain nor the wheat, but the word of God, and the field means the world; for Christ (says the text itself) speaks in parables, and not in reference to natural grain or wheat. But who- ever speaks in parables, makes out of ordinary words certain tropical, new, and different words, for were this not the case, the language would not be that peculiar to the parable, if the ordinary words were employed im their original sense. Void indeed must that man be of good sense or common intelligence, who would take the words in a parable in their ordinary signification, con- trary to the nature and design ofa parable, which requires for its composition the ornament of figure and imagery, Ὡς 100 THE LORD’S SUPPER. 38. In the same manner too, may we explain the passage from the first book of Moses, “" The seven good kine are seven years, and the seven good ears are seven years,” Gen. 41, 26. Pecause the text itself says that the words are used in reference to a dream, and in re- ference to the sinilitudes or signs of seven years, the > must be regarded as metaphors and equivalent to new words, which signify the same thing as the words, “ seven words “seven good kine,” “seven good ears, years ;”’ that these words, “seven vears,” according to their ordinary signification, and these, “seven kine,”’ according to their new signification, express exactly the same idea. For the seven kine do not represent seven years, but they are essentially and really seven years ; they are not natural kine which eat grass in the pas~ ture, although the oll, ordinary words seven kine have been assumed. But here is a new expression, and they are seven kine of famine and of plenty, that is, seven years of famine and of plenty. In ἃ word, our En- thusiasts may introduce passages, and say, ‘ Here, and here is a figure.” But they never will prove it ina single expression; for as yet they have not dared to undertake the proof in reference to such expressions. They conceive it to be quite enough for them to intro- duce passages, and say, ‘‘ Here is a figure.”? But this is not sufficient for us; we yield not our implicit confi- dence to Zwinglius or to any man; we must have rea- son and demonstration. 39. But here perhaps, the other factions will start up with arrogance, and exclaim, ‘ By this reasoning you will confirm the figurative interpretation of Gicolampa- dius; because he too, according to this remark of Ho-~ race, makes a new word, a tvope, out of an ordinary Νά THE LORD’S SUPPER. 161 word, and says, ‘ The expression, my body, means here, the sign of my body.’”’ 'This can soon be answered. For the grammarians, and equally so all Christian teach- ers, forbid us to depart from an old, and customary sig- nification, and adopt a new signification, unless the text and the sense require it, or from a comparison with other passages of Scripture. Should this course not be pursued, we should never retain any determinate sense of text, of interpretation, of expression, or = Janguage. As when Christ says, “John is Ehias;’ here the text and the Creed agree that Elias ibd necessarily be regarded as a new word, because it 15. certain that John is ποῖ, and cannot be the old Elias. So too with the proposition, “ Christ is a rock.” The text and the Creed mutually agree, that rock _ here is a mew word; because Christ is not, nor can he be a natural rock. 7 40. Now, we cannot allow Cicolampadius to make “sion of the body,” out of the word bedy, because *he does it with a sinister motive, and he is unable to prove that the text or the Creed will admit it. It is equally as irrelevant as if some one should contend, that the pro- position, “‘ The Gospel is the power of God,” Rom. 1, 16, is equivalent to ‘“ The Gospel is the sword of Ro- Jand.”? According to this mode of interpretation, some one mightsay that Belial signifies or denotes Christ, Judas denotes Paul; who would be able tocheck sucha licentious mode of interpretation? ~But unless he prove his inter- pretation, no one will admit it, and he must sustain his proof from the text. Qicolampadius goes not a step farther in his objection than simply to admit some bread and wine in the Eucharist. But though he should sustain this opinion, a thing which he cannot 109 THE LORD’S SUPPER: do, still he would not be able to sustain nor to prove the opinion, that body means the sign of body, as I have formerly shown in my little book, and Cico- Jampadius must also continue without any determinate text or interpretation of the Eucharist. Now, there must be a determinate text and interpretation of the Eu- charist, even were there nothing in this sacrament but straw and chaff. But who will furnish such a text? ‘They must not do it; they do not wish to do it, they are not even able to do it. 41. Well! So we shall abide by our own interpre- tation; and we admonish all, who will allow themselves to be admonished, to guard against these indetermi- nate, unintelligible tropes and figures. For it is not enough that I say, Bread is bread and wine is wine; but 1 must, I should show how the text should read, and how it should be. understood ; whether it shall be written thus, “ This s¢gnifies my bedy ;᾽ or, “ This is the sign of my body ;”’ or, ‘ This is my body.” We suffer ourselves to make no child’s- play or trifling toy out of this text, as they seem quite willing to do. ‘These are the words of Christ. We must Anow what they contain, and what they give. In a word, it is just as I have said: they do not wish to answer, where an answer should be given, and they chatter all the time about their own visionary opinions. 42. In the third place, although the leader of the Enthusiasts is most assuredly aware, that, by the grace of God, I understand how we must explain one passage of Scripture by comparison with other pas- sages,—how, before the name of Zwinglius became popular, I have exhibited this rule before all the world, in numerous publications ; yet he must teach me still in THE LORD’S SUPPER. 163 this particular, over so many leaves, for no other reason in the world, but to induce people to believe that he wishes to give an answer once at least. Now God knows,I have desired an answer to my proposition, and not this machi- nery from him, a machinery for which no thanks are due to him. But this I dowish earnestly still to this day, that he teach himself this mode of explication and those of his per- suasion who need it more than 1; and that he employ it on the text of the Eucharist, which is still necessary for him. 43. Now he censures me severely for introducing ihis clause only,—‘ This is my body,’’—and for omit- ting the following,—‘‘ which is given for you,”’—and he runs on with his gossip to the most vicious extent, show- _ ing how the latter clause explains the preceding. Well! I understand pretty well, that one passage explains an- other; I have just been in the bath, and washed out my ears, in order that I might hear distinctly, how in the text of the Eucharist, the latter clause,—‘‘ which was given for you,’”’—should explain the former,—* This is my body.”? But I ask,—How can the explanation be ~ proved or established? Now hear for once the lecture of a master: perhaps you never heard one before. 44, “The body of Christ,” says he, ‘‘ was visibly eiven for us on the cross ; and because it stands written in the text of the Eucharist,—‘ This is my body which is given for you;’ it must be visible also in the Eucharist, if it is to be regarded as the same body which was given for us.” This is the way in which the succeeding clause explains the foregoing,—that, because the body of Christ is not visible at the administration of the Eu- charist, the word zs must contain a figure. Now tell re, beloved brethren, whether this mystic has an earnest 164 THE LORD’S SUPPER. desire to answer us, or whether he does not much rather make a mockery of the subject. But I thank thee, Christ Jesus my Lord, because thou art able, in so mas- terly a way, to entrap thine enemies in their own words, to put them to shame, and thus to confirm our be- hef in thine infallible words. This consideration alone should induce every one to avoid this sect, when he beholds a blindness so grossly profound, in this sublime and cultivated genius. ‘The children in school know that ‘“‘ which” relates to the substance, and this genius says that “‘which”’ relates to the property,—yes indeed, to a property the most ordinary and mutable! 45. In whatever time or place, I can say of the body of Christ, —‘‘ This is the body of Christ, which was given for us,’’—that body must be visible there, because it _ was not given otherwise than visibly ; but if it is not visibly present, therefore it is not there at all. Now I point with my finger to heaven, and repeat these words, “ There sits the body at the right hand of God, which is given for us,” then it must in reality be visibly sitting there, or else it is not there at all. For the suc- ceeding words, “ which is given for you,” explain it thus, according to the reasoning of this genius. Again, when Christ hid himself and went out of the temple, John 8, 59, I might say, “‘ There goes the body which was given for us;” but he was visibly given for us. Theretore he goes out of the temple visibly, and the Evangelist tells a falsehood, when he says that Christ went out Azdden ; or else he was not there at all. And, in a word, let the body of Christ be where it may, it is the body which was given for us. Since then it was visibly given for us, it cannot be at any place without being visible there. What do you think? THE LORD’S SUPPER. 165 Have you heard a master once? Here you have for once a Scripture and a Creed, which cannot ad- mit our interpretation. Now confide henceforth in this mystic; he can instruct you correctly in the Eucharist. But Satan is always obliged in this way to deck his wis- dom with ornaments, and he always emits his odor, to let people know that he is about. 46. So imprisoned, restricted now is the poor body of Christ, because it was once visibly given for us, that it can either be present at no place invisibly, or if it is invisible, it is not there. For if the mere circumstance that it was visibly given for us, prevents it from being present in the Eucharist ; and it cannot be present in any other than a visible state, because the words stand writ- ten, “This is my body which is given for you;” it cannot be present at any place, except in a visible state: for these words,—“ which is given for you,’’— give this explanation. What does “which” mean? “ and wife are one flesh,”’ it is perfectly equivalent to, “ A man and a wife are one flesh ;”’ indeed it is more ele- gantly said, “* Man and wife are one flesh,” than, “A man and a wife are one flesh.” Again, “ Peter has house and farm, wife and child at Bethsaida,” is pre- eisely the same as, “‘ Peter has a house and a farm, a wife and a child at Bethsaida.”” Again, “ Lord and lad are a medley,” is exactly equal to, “The lord and the jad area medley.”” Again, “ He gave me dog for dog, horse for horse,”’ are the same as, ‘‘ He gave me a dog for a dog, a horse for a horse.” Again, “ Woman should not be lord in the house,” 15 equivalent to, ‘ A woman,” or, “‘ The woman should not be the lerd”’ or ἐᾷ lord in the house.” 202. And so, many examples of this kind will be found in the German language. And this little word which may thus be omitted or employed, the learned have called the article. In the Latin language there is no article; and no one in any language can lay down a determinate limit or rule, when this little word should be omitted, or when inserted, but its use or omission must be learned from the ordinary custom of the lan- guage. For it sometimes happens, that the style be- comes more elegant by omitting the article; as when 1 speak concerning two objects which are equal: ‘ Man is opposed to man.” This is more elegant than if I say, « A man is opposed to a man.”” And this again is the case if we say, “ Member for member; eye for eye; hand for hand; money for money; body for body.”? In these expressions it is better to omit the article than to insert it. 203. On the other hand, it is sometimes a great deal _— THE LORD’S SUPPER. 249 more elegant to prefix the article than to omit it} as when I say, “ A man is stronger than a woman ;’’ or, “The man is stronger than the woman.” Though it would be equivalent in sense, if should say, ‘ Man is stronger than woman,” it does not, however, read so well. “An apostle is a more exalted character than a prophet,”’ reads better than, ““ Apostle is more exalted character than prophet.” 204. Indeed it frequently happens, that we must in- sert these articles in other languages, when the Greek article is omitted, as, in Matt. 1, 1, the original stands, Βιβλος γενεθεως, that is, “ Book of the birth of Jesus Christ ;”’ which does not read well at all. Consequently i must translate it, “The book of the birth,’’ or still better thus, “‘ This is the book concerning the birth of Jesus Christ.” Again, “ Joseph did as the angel of the Lord commanded him,”’ when in Greek there is no arti- cle standing before Lord (xvpos), but merely, “ the an- gel of Lord.” In our language, however, it must be inserted. Again, Matt. 3, 3, and Mark 1, 3, Luke 3, 4, we must say, “A voice,” or, “" The voice of one crying in the wilderness,” though in Greek it stands merely, “ voice of one crying.” 205. On the other hand, we sometimes need not apply an article in our language, though it must be ap- plied in Greek; as in Matt. 1, 2, 23, “ Abraham. begat Isaac,’ where it stands in Greek, ‘“‘ Abraham begat the fsaac.”* Again, “ Emmanuel, which being inter- preted, is, God with us,” stands in Greek, “the God with us.” Take up a Greek Testament, and hold one in the German language opposite ; you will discover, as I have said, that very often the article stands there in the Greek, when it must not stand in the German; and ὡς τς Θόας ἐξ σα. ἐς ον ον. ἴδ ῶς 250 THE LORD’S SUPFER.. on the other hand, you will frequently observe it omit= ted in the Greek, when it must be inserted in German. 206. I have said this in order that people may un- derstand how Zwinglius deals out his sophistry, and lays down this loose loquacity as the foundation of his errors. For if the article were so indispensable, or something particular or dependent were to be said requiring the ar ticle,as he insists, with season it ought tostand in Mark f,. &, where Mark says, “ Voice of one crying,” (as it stands in theoriginal,) inasmuchas this was a particular voice and a particular cryer, such as never at any other time appeared upon the earth. Again, it ought reasonably to stand in John 1, 6, where he writes, ‘“‘ There was a man sent from God.” Now it stands in Greek, not, “‘ There was aman,” but, “ there was man sent from God.’ And so on without end, so that Zwingtius raust still study reek full five years, before he.can prove his dream con-. cerning the article, or before he can show when and where it must be omitted or inserted. I know no other proof than the fact, that the same identical idea may be. expressed, as I have said, with the article and without it, conveying also the same impression; but the one 15 merely more full and elegant than the other, which we. must learn trom the custom and usage of the language. 207. So in this passage, “ Flesh profiteth nothing,”’ in Greek it reads well with the article, ‘“‘ The flesh pro- fiteth nothing ;”’ but because one is precisely equivalent to the other, as [ have proved from examples above, and each one for himself may find similar passages abundant in Greek, I have translated also,in both ways, and hence-. forth I will use both modes of translation, because both are correct ; and: should the caul of this Enthusiast burst, still it reads better in German to say, FVeisch ist 5s SUPPER. 951 THE LORD kein ntitze, than to say, Das Fleisch ist kein niitze. The meaning of Christ is the same as if I should say, ‘‘ There.is nothing profitable, however, in flesh Ἢ or, “Flesh is ἃ useless thing.’ This meaning you may now express thus: “Flesh profiteth nothing,” or, “The flesh profiteth nothing.’ One conveys the same idea as the other. Were this not the case, the Latin language never could have received or ren* dered this text, because it is obliged to say without the article, “Flesh profiteth nothing }” and still we have a correct translation in Latin. But for Zwinglius to have recourse to certain teachers, who give such in- struction concerning the article, will be of no avail to him; for these men do not teach as Zwinglius does in this passage ; the translation of the passage does not dis+ agree with ¢hetr arguments. Besides Zwinglius is not altogether in earnest; for he does not consider;them so learned, that they should counsel or assist him in these matters. 208. Now he is not content merely with his sophis- try in reference to the article, but proceeds and ren- ders the article the in this passage,— The flesh profiteth nothing,’’—thus: “Even that flesh profiteth nothing,”’—proving that the and even that are of equal force. He will construe the meaning of Christ thus: τ Keven that flesh, (understand the flesh of which I spoke above, saying, ‘My flesh is meat indeed’).” Now every body knows, that in our Jancuage; that or even that is not an article, but a good, forcible pronoun, which is at ihe same time a relative and demonstrative, like the word idem. Here all the learned well understand, what an egregious blunder it is to make a demonstrative and re- lative pronoun out of an article. This is the manner in ἋΥ 959 THE LORD'S SUPPER. which Luther must be taught to translate the texts What beginning, however, must a person make with these frantic Enthusiasts, who take substance for quality, article for pronoun, flesh for divinity, and who make all assumptions in the Scripture, which they dare only to imagine? If he has learned this spectlation about the artiéle from Cyril, Chrysostom, and Erasmus, he has certainly read those authors in a dream, or in some smoky garret, for not ὁπὸ of them teach him thus; δὲ really misrepresents them. , 209. Beloved, there is a vast difference between this expression, “The flesh profiteth nothing,” and this: “This flesh profiteth nothing ;”’ or, τς Even that flesh,” or, “the same flesh.”? For even that, or this, or the same, cannot be omitted like the article, without alter- ing thesense. If{ say, ‘‘ The man should be master in the house, and not the woman,” by this expression I point out no definite man or woman actually present, but I speak only in general terms concernmg women and men. But if I say, “ This,” or, “Even that man should be master, and not this or even that woman,” I here point out one particular man and woman distin- guished from all others, as being actually present. For the word das is called a pronoun, if it points out a par- ticular person or object, as if it were present, and sepa- rates it from all others. | 210. But an article does not distinguish a particular or present object from others, but only limits its signifi- cation without pointing out or specifying. As when it is said, ‘* This man is pious; this woman is chaste; this bread is beautiful;”? here the expressions refer to par- ticular persons and objects, as being present ; and if this hittle word or pronoun should be omitted, and we should ΤῊ LORD'S SUPPER. 5a say, “‘ Man is pious; woman is chaste,”’ the sense would si be altogether different from the preceding. But if ἵ say, “ The man should be a man; the woman should be a woman,”’ I can omit the arijole with propriety » and still retain the sense; as, “‘ Man should be man; woman should be woman ;”’ i the article does not point them out as present, or asif they were present, as the pronoun does. 211. Now since our Enthusiast must acknowledge, that in this passage—“ The flesh profiteth nothing’? — there is no pronoun, but an article, and since he still makes a pronoun out of it, not only in the translation, where he says, the word das is equivalent to even that (eben das), but also in the annotation, where he says that in the passage the same flesh is meant, concerning which Christ had spoken above, John 6, 55, “My flesh is meat indeed,’”’ he evidently here himse!f demonstrates that he misrepresents the word of God, and trifles dis honestly with the simple. For an article never refers to preceding or specified objects, like the pronoun; but it merely indicates their general classification, so that we can understand equally as well, if those objects are spo- ken of without an article, though sometimes the style would not be so neat and elegant. Consequently it is impossible, in strict grammatical propriety, that flesh can here mean the flesh particularly of Christ, concerning which he had just been speaking ; but it must mean flesh in general, so that we can speak of it with perfect pro= priety without an article; namely, thus: “Flesh profit eth nothing.” * *In further confirmation of his argument, Luther. here presents a lucid exposition of the very disingenuous advantage which Zwin- glius has attempted to derive from the ambiguity in the German 22 254. ΟΣ SUPPER: ΝΣ wv, 212. After this he proceeds in earnest to the subject in hand, and wishes to prove from the text, John 6, 63, that Christ is speaking of his own flesh, when he says, ‘The flesh profiteth nothing.””? Here let us listen to his logic. ‘In the first place,”’ says he, “ the disciples murmured because Christ taught them that they must eat his flesh. Now they did not murmur against the spiritual sense, bat against the bodily, eating ; look at the passage.’ Beloved, tell me, is this a proof that the flesh of Christ profiteth nothing? Or is ita proof that this passage must be understood concerning word Das: this word being sometimes used as a proneun demon- strative, and sometimes merely as an article. Or rather, the neuter demonstrative pronoun das, and the neuter article das conforming so exactly in appearance and orthography, though differing widely in oral pronunciation, offer a tempting advantage to the uncandid expositor. Luther here points out at some length, and with great ~ precision, the difference which results in German, from giving the — 4 vowel @ in this word ἃ long-sound or a short one; as in the eee case it would be a pronoun, and signify tkés, while in the latter, it would be an article, and signify the. Consequently, the different pronunciatiens of this word in German, would convey to a German ear the same difference of impression, which we feel on hearing the expressions, ‘the flesh,” and, “ ἐψὲς flesh;’? the former giving us the idéa of Hesh iz general, and the latter, of the flesh of Christ. And he corroborates this statement by appealing to the fact, that the word das, when an article, is frequently so much con- tracted by German speakers, as to suppress the vowel entirely; as we often hear with regard to our article the, since the most of speakers would say, “ th’ flesh,”’ and not, “the flesh,” a contrac- tion which occurs repeatedly in our poetry. It only remains to add, that in the original Greek, the word n, my caps, is evidently an article, and consequently in ‘attempting to represent its German expression das as a pronoun, Zwinglius is guilty of a sophism. It was deemed unnecessary to translate the reasoning of Luther in his three paragraphs on this word; since the English, being provided with the distinct words ἔλα and ¢iis, can admit no such ambiguity of Tari THE LORD’S SUPPER. ἡ 255 the flesh of Christ? For certainly in the logic of Zwin- glius, every kind of consequence follows just as he wishes. Oh! it isa most vexatious thing, to treat upon the words of God with such a knave. 213. We say that the disciples murmured both against the spiritual meaning, and against the bodily eating of the flesh of Christ ; for they understood neither aright, because they thought they must tear his flesh with their teeth, as they did other perishable flesh. But from this it does not follow still, that the flesh of Christ, as an imperishable, a spiritual flesh, may not be eaten bodily by faith in the Eucharist. This our Enthu- siast should confute, instead of which he teaches us how the disciples understood the bodily eating of the flesh of Christ, precisely as 1f we would not have known it without the aid of his master-spirit; but he avoids an answer whenever he can. | 214. In the second place, he teaches us that the disciples were offended at this expression of Christ, concerning this bodily eating of his flesh; therefore it should follow that Christ speaks in his reply concern- ing his own flesh. Beloved, why doesit follow? Why, it is sufficient, because Zwinglius says so! Precisely as if Christ was unable to speak of other flesh, if he wishes to convey a spiritual idea concerning the eating of his flesh. Although he could not have spoken more ele- gantly than to indicate two kinds of flesh, and to teach two kinds of eating, and in substance to speak thus: * Flesh and blood will not permit you to understand this to mean eating my flesh; for that flesh profit- eth nothing, but this flesh is life.” Because, to dis- tinguish and to define well, is the genuine and best kind of instruction, Consequently it follows with ᾿ νὰν" * ay 206," ‘THE LORD’S SUPPER. ereater certainty, that this expression—“ The flesh prox fiteth nothing’’—must be understood as having reference to other flesh, which Christ discriminates and opposes to his own, as all correct teachers strive to do, whenever they give their best instruction. 215. Yn the third place, Christ says, “If ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before.’ Unless eyery thing which this Enthnsiast chooses to prate about, must contribute to his falsehoods, Ε cannot conceive what he means. Perhaps he wishes to sing their common old song, Christ has ascended into heaven, therefore his body cannot be eaten in the Eucharist. But we have shown above sufficiently what this gossip amounts to. But for him to wish to prove by this, that the expression—‘‘ The flesh profiteth noth- - ing’’—has reference to the flesh of Christ, is indeed a — lofty logic,—a most beautiful consequence! Asif Fshould ~ say, ‘ Christ has ascended to heaven; therefore this ex- pression must be understood concerning his body,— All men are liars, Rom. 3, 4,—does it not follow and cor- respond beautifully? This, in the Swiss dialect, is called a defeat of Luther, so that not a soldier remains, as the mystic boastfully pretends. 216. Inthe fourth place, “Itis the Spirit that quick- eneth ;”—“ Here, here,”’ says he, “this is brief and ex= cellent; this expression shows that since the Spirit alone quickeneth, the flesh of Christ profiteth nothing, for it is not spirit. So, upon this point we must say, ** Because the flesh of Christ is not spirit, and on this account is unprofitable, sinee the spirit only ἢ is profita- ble, how can it be profitable when it was given for us? How can it be profitable, ifit is in heavenand we believeon it. For if the reasoning is correct and complete, that be- ee - THE LORD’S SUPPER. ἃ» wae cause the flesh of Christis not spirit,it cannot be profitable, it can then not be profitable either onthe crossor in heaven; for it is quite as far from being spirit on the cross and in heaven, as in the Eucharist. Now because no spirit was crucified for us, the flesh of Christ was unprofitably cru- cified for us; and because no spirit, but the flesh of Christ has ascended into heaven, we therefore believe on a use- less flesh in heayen; for the flesh of Christ, be it wher- ever it may, is no spirit. it is not spirit, therefore it is not profitable, and does not confer life, as Zwin- elius here contends. Behold where the devil wishes to creep out; this is to drive the mist from the eyes neatly. 217. Inthe fifth place, <‘Thewordsthat I speak unto you, they arespirit, and they are life.” From thishe infers that Christ speaks concerning /zs flesh, where he says, 3 “The flesh profiteth nothing.” Oh, what a beautifal consequence! just like the last above! I believe this Enthusiast, through his egregious arrogance thinks there is no man upon the earth, or regards all men as mere geese and jackdaws; as it would be impossible, in any other view, for him to be so passionate and impudent as to expose to the light of day folly so gross as this. 218. Well do we know, that the words of Christ are spirit and they are life; but that it should follow from this, that the flesh of Christ is unprofitable, no man will assert, unless he is frantic and distracted, or proudly despises the sense and convictions of all the world. This Enthusiast says it follows; but when will he prove such a consequence? Certainly even these words also of Christ—“‘ The flesh profiteth nothing’”’—are spirit and life ; for by this he enlightens us, and turns us from flesh to spirit—a salutary spiritual doctrine, which confers life. Now it is indeed a notorious blasphemy, if any t — © 258 THE LORD’S SUPPER. one would say, that Christ wishes to turn us from his flesh, to which he still turns us, however, and says, _ “My flesh is meat indeed,” vy. 55; unless madam .4/- loésis once again is allowed to make for usa divinity of flesh. But let us not listen to the sorceress. 219. In the sixth place, Christ says, ‘‘ There are some of you that believe not,” y. 64. Again, Peter says, v. 68, “Τὸ whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.” Out of these two passages, our Enthusiast again draws his inferences, and spins out his arguments, that because these expressions relate to faith and the life-giving word, the flesh of Christ must be understood in the passage—‘ The flesh profiteth nothing,’’—and Christ does not begin anew to speak of some other flesh. I have heard many insane conclusions or consequences in the eourse of my life, but a conclusion more insane or presumptuous I have never heard, than this which our Enthusiast draws, that, because Christ speaks of faith and the word, it must follow, that the proposition, “The flesh profiteth nothing,” has reference to his flesh. I hold it as a truth, that this Enthusiast has no other thoughts in his heart but the following: ““We, Gwinglius, by the grace of God, a giant and a Roland, a hero and warrior in Italy and Germany, in France and Spain; apostle of all apostles; pro- phet of all prophets; teacher of all teachers; master of all masters; scholar of all scholars; lord of all lords; genius of all genii,—say so and so; and thus only roust it be.”? Fer how could it be possible, for him to run on so presumptuously, to draw conclusions and to argue upon the Scriptures and the word of God every where, if he were not bewildered by human pride and presumption ? a ol THE LORD’S SUPPER. 209 Ὁ 220. We poor sinners and eaters of flesh have no- where indeed and never said, that Christ commenced anew where he said, ‘“ The flesh profiteth nothing,” as this mystic has charged us; but we confess even to this day, that Christ, where he begins to speak concerning his own flesh, speaks throughout, incessantly, to the end of the chapter, John 6, 51, concerning the spir- itual eating of his flesh; because in consequence of his expressions, there arose two classes of his hearers,— some who were offended, who murmured, and forsook him ; some who believed, who praised, and remained with him; so, from this difference of opinion, without any new commencement, he might say, “It is the Spirit that quick- eneth; the flesh prefiteth nothing ;”’ which wehave not un- derstood otherwise than as follows: “ My doctrine is spir- itual; whoever understands it in a fleshly manner, must fail, and this mode of understanding it profiteth nothing ; but whoever understands it spiritually, shall live.’ Here nothing new is said concerning the eating of his flesh; but he points out a distinction among those who listened to him, and we have always been ready to learn it differ- ently, if any one would show a good reason. 221. As if I should declare in Pe ‘* Good works profit nothing to righteousness.”” Here I would createtwoclassesof men. Some would be offended, would murmur, fly from my instruction, and say, ‘ How! Does this man forbid all good works?”’ But otherswould believe, would praise me, and adhere to my doctrine. Here then 1 might say also, “ My doctrine concerning good works is spiritual, and there is a distinction made, namely, Good works for righteousness, and Good works for the honor of God. Whoever conceives them necessary for righteousness, must fail; but whoever believes them 260 THE LORD’S SUPPER. necessary for the honor of God, must succeed. By this I intend to show that I have here commenced no new discourse, but I have been speaking throughout, in- cessantly, concerning good works, though I have been speaking of two classes of hearers. 222. Christ also speaks thus, John 6,51. Heteaches concerning the eating of his flesh, and afterwards speaks of the distinction among those who hear his doctrine. Some he discovers to be fleshly, some spiritual, and he ‘pronounces judgement in reference to them, v.63, ‘‘ The flesh profiteth nothing, the spirit giveth hfe ;”’ besides he explains this himself, by adding, ** My words are spirit, and they are life.’ And certainly this can mean - nothing less than as follows: “I must have spiritual hearers to my words; fleshly hearers will not do; they are of the flesh, and are not the hearers of my word. The flesh profiteth nothing, but it misleads them.”? For as the spirit is h¢s word and doctrine, so must flesh also be the words and doctrines of flesh. ‘Thus the spirit, that is, his word and doctrine, gives life; but the flesh, ‘that is, the word and doctrine of flesh, profiteth nothing, of which I have written abundantly on a different occa- sion. 223. The third offence which I have given in refer- ence to this passage, is, that my rude is false, when I write, ‘‘ Wherever spirit and flesh are set in con- trast to each other in the Scriptures, there flesh never signifies the flesh of Christ, but the Old Adam.” O here the great Christopher from Zurich pulls down the trees, and hurls the hills and the dales together. if I understand his querulous, indecent German aright, which is truly unpleasant to me, he makes a distinction between the Spirit of God and our spirit, which 15 about PHE LORD’S SUPPER. 216, — as necessary to the subject as the fifth wheel to a wagon, except that it enables him to persuade the poor rabble, that the great giant from Zurich has given an answer, and that there is concealed within him a mass of science, though it is vain and groundless. ‘ 224. But it is of little consequence to us, whether it be the Spirit of God or our spirit; my rule stands se- cure, that wherever in the Scripture, flesh and spirit are brought gn contrast with each other, there the word flesh cannot mean the fiesh of Chrést; for his flesh is not opposed to spirit, but much rather it is born of the Holy Ghost, and besides it is full of the Holy Ghost. But since Christ says in this passage, ‘The Spirit quick= eneth, the flesh profiteth nothing,” it is abundantly clear that he means such flesh as is not spirit, nor possesses spirit, but is opposed to spirit. For making alive and profiting nothing are as mach opposed to each other as life and death, as 1 have explained more fully in my former book. | 225, But as to Zwinglius teaching me afterwards, how flesh and spirit accord perfectly with each other, as in John 1, 14, «Τῆς Word was made flesh;”’ and 1 Peter 3, 18, ‘ Christ was put to death in the flesh, bué quickened by the spirit ;”’ great thanks to him, gracious God! Far who would have beenableto find this, without his assistance?. Myrulestands thus: “ Where spirit and flesh are contrasted with each other in the Scripture.” By this I have confessed sufficiently clear, that spirit and flesh are not in every sense opposed to each other. For here the question is not, whether flesh and spirit agree with each other any where in the Scripture; but this. is the question: “ Where flesh and spirit are opposed to each other, as occurs in this passage, ‘“ The flesh profit= 202 THE LORD’S SUPPER. eth nothing, the Spirit quickeneth,”’ in such passage, ἢ say, flesh does not mean the flesh of Christ. Here is the point upon which the dauntless hero should give an answer. But he flutters over this, and in the mean time foolishly prates about something else, teaching us, that flesh and spirit in some passages of Scripture are not opposed to each other, still all this is answered ; just as that question: ‘ Which way does the road lead hence ?”’ and this man answers, “1 cut a woodpecker out.”’ Sa- tan is the master of gabble, whenever he is unable to answer. 226. I deduce also from the little word mea, that ᾿ Christ does not here say, “ My flesh profiteth nothing,” as he does, however, just above, where he says, ‘‘ My flesh is meat indeed.”’? Here he gives me this answer: *‘ Just as Christ does not say, ‘ My spirit quickeneth,’ though it is his spirit that quickeneth, so he does not say here, ‘ My flesh,’ though it is his flesh.”” Distort your- self once again, little spirit! but Christ does not speak here concerning his own spirit, which he possesses per- sonally, but, as the text reads, concerning spirit which makes alive, that is, concerning the common spirit which is in all the faithful. Although Christ gives this spirit, and it is the spirit of Christ, yet it is here a common spirit, existing wherever he gives life; for it does not only make Christ alive. Thus flesh here must also be that common flesh, which is without spirit, and profiteth nothing.” 227. Accordingly Zwinglius has employed here a real sophistry and deceptive argument in the little word my, which is called the fallacy of figurative language. For above, where Christ says, John 6, 55, “ My flesh. ἴδ meat indeed,” there the word my signifies his owa EO rere ὥὰ «Ὁ. τ THE LORD’S SUPPER: 263 personal flesh, which is common tono one. But though spirit here is his own spirit, it is not his own personal spirit, existing in him only, but the common spirit in all to whom he givesit. Hence flesh cannot mean here his own flesh, as spirit means his spirit; for his flesh is not the common flesh in all. But any one who does not know hew to give an answer, must help himself out in this way. 228. Let this be sufficient upon the second principal division, by which every ene may see that the Enthusi- ast cannot force this expression: ‘‘ The flesh profiteth nothing,’ to mean the fiesh of Christ,;—may see how this man stands abashed over it, and is altogether unable to give an answer. For as to his deferring all examples, and keeping silent where J have so abundantly proved, how the flesh was profitable even to Abraham, to Sarah, to Isaac, and to other saints, in faith, and showed with great force from these examples, that the flesh of Christ must be vastly more profitable, 1 must regard as good in him; it is better he would be silent and rush over the difficulty, than to suffocate there, and publicly be obliged to submit. He feels sensibly, that it 1s of no advantage here to be angry and to abuse. 229. Then again, as to his not answering the quota- tions from the Fathers, but merely saying that Luther did not understand them rightly, adding that it were of very little consequence to him if they did not coincide with kim, all this is admirably done indeed. What answer should this exalted genius give upon such patch-work ? Well, let him go on thus, and be learned; but my master or assistant he shall never be, if God be pleased; unless he turn from his abominable doctrines, not only on these points, but in all others in which he “γα νῦν ᾿ 96}. TIE LORD’S SUPPER: | aa _“4y “has so egregiously perverted himself and the people. May Christ, our Lord, help him and all! Amen. 230. Let us now attend to Gcolampadius, and hear also how he will answer; for I still hope that he doe’ not coincide with Zwinglius in all points, but only in refer- ence to the Eucharist and to Baptism. May God rescue .him out of these errors! Amen. Indeed I have proved above, that the figure of Oicolampadius cannot and must not be admitted in the Eucharist; for he cannot prove it. fn addition to this, it 15 even a perverted, unscientific figure, opposed to all the figures in the Scriptures, so that any one must conclude, that it is an arbitrary fabs rication. ‘This 1 must make clear. 231. Wherever a trope or word with a new sense occurs in the Scripture, there also will be two interpre+ tations: one new, besides the first old and foregoing in- terpretation, as Said above. As the word vine in the Scripture has two interpretations, one old and one new. According to the first or primitive interpretation, it means the stock or plant in the vineyard; according to the new it means Christ, John 15, 5, “Iam the vine.”? Or it means a mother, Psalm 128, 3, “ Thy wife shall be as a vine ;” or whatever may be of a similar nature, because it has a resemblance to the vine in consequence of the fruit, as the rhetoricians teach: ‘* Words which are transformed in their meaning, are transformed according to the laws of resemblance.” 232. Now the figures in the Scriptures have this power: the words express their object according to their primitive or original signification, which is an image of that object, and according to their new signification, they point out the new real object or substance itself, and not the object of reference again. As in this expression: “I THE LORD’S SUPPER: 265 am the true vine.”” Tere the word vine has become a figurative or new word, which cannot be referred back to the original vine, which is merely an image of the new, but it expresses in itself the true new vine, which is not an image. For Christ is not an image or repre- sentation of the vine; but on the contrary, the vine is an image or representation of Christ. Again, “ The seed is the word of God,”? Luke 5,11. Here the word. seed does not signify the graix, which is an image of the Gospel; but, as a new word or figure ought to do, it signifies the Gospel, the real new seed, itself, which is not the image. And so on, all figures in the Scrip- tures, express the real, new substance, and not the image er representation of this new substance. 233. But Cicolampadius reverses this, and makes such a figure or new word, as refers back, expressing _ the image of the new substance, and he says, body should mean the sign or the image of body, in the passage, “This is my body ;’’ although, wherever he wishes to follow the Scripture, he must still more change this word body, so as to signify a real new body, of which the natural body of Christ would be an image. For the Seripture does net thus refer back, and it will not read so, if I wish to. refer it back, thus: * Christ is a vine,’’ John 15, 5; that is, the segn of a vine. ‘'The Gospel is. seed ;”? that is, te representation of seed. “* Christ is ἃ lamb,’? John 1, 29; that is, the sign of a lamb. “‘ Christ is a rock,’? Matt. 16, 18; that is, the sign of a rock. “Christ is our passover,”’ that is, the sign of our passover. . “ John is Elias,’? Matt. 11, 14; that is, ithe sign of Elias. The sum of all is, that there are no such figures in the Scriptures, and not one of them is right. Accordingly the figure of Gicolam;adius can be 266 THE LORD’S SUPPER, of no avail, where he says, ““ The bread is my body,” that is, the sign of nvy body ; for it is an inverted figure; it makes out of the true substance an image or sign, and this is not consistent with the character of the holy Scrip- ture; consequently it is a mere vision. 234. But were the text to stand thus: “ Take, eat; this is my true bread,”’ we might make an elegant trope, and neatly express ourselves thus: ‘* Bread is here a new word, which according to its original signification means merely bread, which is an emblem of the body of Christ; and according to its new signification, it means the true new bread itself, which is the body of Christ.” But now the text stands thus: “ This is my body ;”” and whoever will contend for a figure in this, must according to the Scripture say thus: “ This word, bread, accord- ing to its original signification, means the natural body of Christ, but according to its new or figurative signifi- eation, it must mean another new body of Christ, which is an emblem of his natural body.” According to the — Scripture, this would be the way to give the word pro- perly and truly a new signification ; so that the new text might stand thus: “ This is my true new body, which is not an emblem;”’ just as I say in reference to Christ, ‘‘ This is our vine,”’ that is, “a new, true vine, of which the old vine in the vineyard is an emblem. 235. Now if any one would here pretend, that we find this figure of icolampadius in ordinary expressions; as when we say of pictures, “ This is St. Peter,” “ This is St. Paul ;” “ This is pope Julius ;” “ This is the em- peror Nero,” and so on;—in which expressions, the words Peter, Paul, Julius, Nero, are employed instead of picture,—I answer first, “ Cicolampadius had not undertaken to produce figurative expressions from ordi ἐν THE LORD’S SUPPER. 267 nary expressions, after which I make no inquiry, but from the Scriptures, to which he must adhere, and pur- sue the style and composition of the Scripture. But if he can show me a single example of his trope in the Scripture, he then shall have gained the argument, and f will follow him in every particular. But if he pro- duces no example, he wil have lost the argument, and his trope will be nothing but a mere faney.” 236. For the Holy Scriptures are consistent in their expressions, as God is consistent in his works. Now God always causes the representation or emblem to ap- pear beforehand, and afterwards follows the reality or accomplishment of the emblem. The Old Testament proceeds thus, appearing as a type or emblem before, and then the New Testament, as-the-reality, follows after. Just so with the language of the Scriptures; if a figure or a new word is made, the old word, which is _ the similitude, is taken, and a new sense is given to it, which is the real object itself 237. For how would it read, if I should say, ‘* The Gospel is a New Testament, that is, an emblem of the New Testament?” This would be as much as to say, **'The Gospel is the Old Testament.” Again, “ Christ is the Lamb of God, that is, an image or an emblem of the Lamb of God ;” which would be as much as to say, “ς Christ is the old Paschal Lamb of Moses.” Precisely in this way Cécolampadius produces his retrospective trope, where he makes-an old word out of the new word, body, and says,. “It should mean, this is the sign of my body,” which is as much as to say, ‘ This is bread.”’ Now should bread here with reason be the old word, and the body the new, and the word, bread, represent the body, and not the word, body, represent the bread ? Ἢ» 268 THE LORD’S SUPPER. Thus his trope is reduced to nought, and it cannot be maintained by Scripture. 238. In the second place, it is even untrue that this trope of Cicolampadius 3 is to be found in any dialect or language in the whole world; and whoever will bring me one infalhble example of this, to him I will surrender my neck. ‘They may say indeed, that this trope is em- ployed in the following expression: “ Here is St. Peter, that is, a picture of St. Peter ;᾽ but 1 give the nega- tive to it, and they cannot prove it; it is their own false conception. For this is an infallible rule in all languages: Whenever the httle word ἐδ is employed in any expres- sion, undoubtedly the essence of that object is expressed, and not its representation. Observe this meanwhile: { take up a wooden or silver rose, and ask, what is this? Some body answers me, “It is a rose.” Here I do not ask what it signifies or represents, but according to its essence or nature, I ask what it is; and so the answer tells me what it 7s, and not what it signifies. For it is quite a different question, when I say, ‘‘ What does this — signify,’ and when I say, ‘‘ What is this.” Is always has reference to the nature of ‘the ii so itself, and this rule is infallible. 239. Yes,”? say you, ‘it is indeed not a rose, but a piece of wood.”’ I answer, “ It is well; however, it 38 a rose, though not a vegetating, natural rose in the garden; and yet it is essentially a rose of its kind.” For there are many kinds of roses, as of silver, gold, cloth, paper, stone, wood; still each one for itself is es- sentially a rose in its nature, and cannot be a mere rep- resentation; yes, how would that be a representation, which never had an essence before? That is nothing, which represents nothing. But that which represents, ee it THE LORD’S SUPPER. 269 must have beforehand a nature and a similitude of the reality. 240. Wherefore it is necessary in a wooden rose, to distinguish from each other, both the nature and the re- presentation ; like a first and second act,—a substantive and an active verb. According to its nature, it 15 in re- ality a rose, namely, a wooden rose, according to which, though the nature remained unchanged, one might say, ‘‘ This represents or is made after another rose.’’? For these are two distinct expressions or propositions: “This is a rose,’ and, “ This represents a rose.”? And who- ever makes but one proposition out of both, in reality takes a hypothetical or categorical proposition, for a general proposition; which is absurd. How awkward a thing this would be, the learned know perfectly well. 241. Now as the material elements of a rose may be manifold, wooden, silver, golden, &c., and still each one in reality for itself is and is called a rose, so also will the word rose, so often as it becomes a new word, though the letters all remain unchanged, according to its signi- fication, as often will the nature of the rose become dif- ferent and still different. So that one has no where any need of using the figure of Gicolampaduus, or of saying, “6 This is the picture of a rose.’? For it is even untrue, that whoever says, ‘‘ This is a rose,’’ wishes to say and to be understood, that it is the representation of a rose; but he wishes to say what itis in its nature. And if he wishes to tell further what it signifies or represents, he makes two distinct propositions, and says, “ This is a rose, and represents a rose.” And every one must ac- knowledge, that these two expressions are not of equal force, nor spoken concerning the same rose, but each one for itself expresses a different thing from the other. Ἢ 270 THE LORD’S SUPPER. This I know with:certainty, that.all this is as here rep- resented, and no one can deny i. 242. Wherefore Cicolampadius-cannot maintain ‘by his figure, that these two expressions, “This is my body,” and, “ this is the sign of my body,” are equiva- lent in force ; for no dialect or language admits it. Just as it is not of equal force, when 1 say concerning a pic- ture of St. Paul, “ This is St. Paul,” and, “ This rep- resents St. Paul.”’? For the first expression will declare, what the picture is, that it is St. Paul, mamely, a-wooden St. Paul; a silver St. Paul; a golden St. Paul; a pic- tured St. Paul. In short, the little word 7s has reference to the nature; no matter what kind of ἃ nature.it.is; and St. Paul here has become a new word, not meaning the living St. Paul. Therefore if I ask further, ‘“ What does it represent ?”’ that moment does it become a differ~ ent question, which now has reference not:to the nature, but to the representation. ‘So that, since the nature and the representation are:not the same thing, so they can- not be expressed by the same words:or phrases. Each _ must have its own appropriate expression. 243. Now should CAicolampadiusinsist:on his trope, he must prepare two different expressions for the admin- istration of the Eucharist: one concerning the nature, thus,—‘‘ This is my body ;”’ for there stands an 7s there, which must and will have reference to the reality. Now ‘since not more than one proposition stands in the Eucha- rist, having reference to the reality, namely, “ This is my body,” it must speak of the essential body of Christ, under every supposition, whether that body be of wood or of silver. For it contains an 7s, which demands the body of Christ, which is there and is called the body of Christ, as the genius of common language requires that 4 THE LORD’S SUPPER, ~—s 988 a Paul be present, if one says of a picture, “ This is Paul.””?. And so, G@icolampadius must admit a body of Christ to be present in the Eucharist, though he might reflect, however, that it was made of bread, wood, clay, orstone. The fioure requires a body of Christ, because the other proposition does not stand in connection with it,—that ἐξ represents, or that it is the sign of my body; but thus: ‘This is my body.” 244. The sum of all is, as 1 have said ef the rose, that wherever in any sentence the word rose is to be a new word ora trope, two roses must there be understood together, both of them having the name rose with strict propriety ; one which represents, and one which is rep- resented ; and each one of the two roses must actually » be, and be called, a rose, though the one in its nature may be wooden, the other natural. So too, if the words ἡ my body in the language of the Eucharist, are to become new words, or a figure, so also must two bodies of Christ be present, both of which with propriety receive the same name my body ; one, that which represents.; the other, that which is represented. So that each one of the twe bodies of Christ, in reality and truly is called a body of | Christ, and essentially is so, be it of wood, silver, or “— bread. 245. Now if Gicolampadius can prove that ‘bread is in reality a body of Christ, and if he may say it is a body of Christ composed of bread, which is here a represertta- tion of the natural body of Christ, as the wooden rose is in reality a rose, and a representation of a natural rose, he will have accomplished so ‘much by this reasoning, that examples of his trope may be found, and his trope be similar to that which occurs in common language con- £erning pictures.: “ This.is Peter ;’’ Thisis Paul,” &c.. ~— ἧ: ποτ ον 272 THE LORD’S SUPPER. Although it would not be a trope according to the style of the Scripture. But ifhe is not able, then his trope, foreign to the Scripture, amounts to nothing. Now how will he make this appear, that bread is, and is called, the body of Christ, or that Christ has a body of bread, as the St. Paul has a body of wood? Now he must do this, or suffer defeat. And should he chance to find the exam- ple, what avail would it be, when, at the same time, this trope has no force im Scripture? Since then his trope has no example either in the Scripture or out of the Scripture, contrary indeed to the Scripture and the ge- nlus of every language, we may with propriety contend, that it is merely a useless whim of fancy. 246. QOécolampadius has betrayed himself, in a quo- tation from Tertullian: ‘ This is the figure of my body,” that is, the form of my body, where he regards the ex- pression figure or form as a trope. For it is well to observe that Gicolampadius has not discovered this fig- ure of himself, nor has he adopted it from the Scripture, because neither does the Scripture nor any dialect speak thus; but he has stumbled here upon the language of Tertullian, which has only served to lead him into error. But Tertullian does not insist upon a trope here; he only gives an exposition or explanation how the bread is the body of Christ, namely, that it is the form under which ™the body of Christ is; and he does not speak of words, but of things, when he says, “This is a figure of my body, because bread is not a figure of speech in gram- mar, but the figure of an object in nature ;”’ and Ter- tullian cannot be so dull, as to intend to say, ‘“ Christ has made out of the bread a figure in grammar,”’ as would follow from the language of Cicolampadius: “ ‘Thus, he made bread his body, that is, the figure of his body, THE LORD’S SUPPER. 273 which is a figure in grammar; because such figure does not exist in nature, nor in the language of Scripture, that bread can become a figure of Christ’s body.” 247. Here I imagine, that the trope and imagery of C&colampadius, are as successfully refuted, as the figure of Zwinglius, and the Tovro of Carlstadt; so that they have no text, nor can they have any; and thus they sit naked and bare in the Eucharist without a text altogether. Now if they have no text, they can have no perception or understanding or interpretation. If they have no interpretation, they cannot know whether they have mere bread and wine or not. For they must indeed first of all arrive at a knowledge of what they have in the Eucharist. But this they can never arrive at, unless they obtain a determinate text and interpreta- tion; but they can never obtain these, as we have al- ready proved. Consequently, we make this conclusion : «The Enthusiasts themselves do not know what they have in the Eucharist.” © these fine spirits! O beau- tiful Eucharist! With truth is this truly said to be sit- ting in darkness, and eating, when one does not know what he eats, or where he is sitting. O beloved! for God’s sake, give this poor spirit a penny to procure him a light. 248. Not that I would mock the Enthusiasts and their God, unless I do it with words. For I am not Elias, who dared to mock the most holy prophets of Baal, especially because they themselves show, and though they sit completely in the dark, yet they have seen, that Luther has lost his mind, and has become a Saul, and cannot understand that bread is bread, which, however, the dogs and the hogs understand. For if I wished to mock them, J] would advise them in their B74 THE LORD'S SUPPER, sorrow and extremity, to follow one of their own disci ples, who fell into a controversy with one of ours on the subject of the Eucharist, and at last, when his arguments were exhausted, he said, ‘‘ Oh my beloved brother, it is. truly, very truly said, however, that it stands in the Greek, hoc est corpus meus, and not, hos est corpus meum.?’ So they might still obtain an invariable text, and make figures until they had hit it once,—Hoc est tropus meus!!! 249. But if this is unpleasant, they might well act as that clergyman did, who accidentally coming up to two other clergymen, found them greatly perplexed on this very subject of the Eucharist, about the text hoc est corpus meum. One of them said, it must be foc est corpus meus ; the other said, it must be hoc est cor- pus meum, in order that the words may agree. Now when they referred the matter to the third, for his deci- sion: ‘ Truly,” says he, “ this text has often perplexed me; but I settle the matter in this way,— Whenever ἢ come to this text, I always repeat an Avemary instead of it.” Now here is a great question: “ Which one of these consecrated the elements properly??? This we shall pass by for the present. For since our Enthusiasts do not consecrate them, and keep sitting still in the dark, doubtful, astray, disunited, as to the text, it would be well that they, followmg the example of this man, in- stead of an uncertain text, repeat an Avemary also in its place; or if they would avoid that, unwilling to seem either old or new Papists, and if they are exceedingly afraid of the name of Mary, of the saints, or the images, they might sing instead of this, ‘‘ Christ has risen ;” or, ‘¢ Christ to heaven hasgone;”’ especially since these hymns. and words seem to be opposed to the text in the Eucha~: HE LORD’S SUPPER. 275 rist, and render it so uncertain. For, should not a stone 8 moved with compassion, that these high, enlightened spirits, who on other subjects have as much sunshine in their minds, as hair on their heads, on this subject only, should sit in the darkness, so that they cannot even see a little star! Ὁ 250. If any one supposes, that I here press the En- thusiasts too severely, and scorn them too deeply, I would beg him also to consider, that, although I am an obscure Christian, yet it causes me vexation not without reason, at the evil one, who makes nothing else out of my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, than a frivolous trifler, and spouts his mockery, as if he were a churl or a drunk- ard in the Eucharist. In the first place, because they represent Christ and his works and words, so that in the Eucharist there is nothing more to be received, than mere bread and wine, in remembrance of the death of the Lord; so, they would no where be in need of this text, This is my body,” &c., and, “This is my blood,’’ &c.; and it is entirely a vain, unnecessary, use- less text, without which the Eucharist could be admin« istered properly and complete. For they have text more than enough, if they read thus: “Take, eat; take, drink ; this do in remembrance of me.’’ In these words they have their Eucharist full and complete. Conse- quently Christ must be a real trifler, who just at his end becomes so useless a babbler, and lays down so unnec- essary a text,—< This is my body,”—“This is my blood,’ &c.,—which these lofty spirits can well con- strue, to which they are opposed, and would have entirely away from the Eucharist. For let them tell of what use this text would be, if bread and wine serve well enough without this text, te make us 276 THE LORD’S SUPPER: ‘think of the Lord’s death,—which ought to be the prin= ΕΠ ‘< cipal and only reason for the Eucharist. | L 251. In the second place, if bread and wine represent. the body and blood of Christ, where was the necessity for Christ even for once to teach us this figure? For, though it ought not to be asked, why God does any thing, yet because he would here appear as a fop, I may here ask not unreasonably. Or why is it necessary, if I know that bread represents the body of the Lord? What assistance is this allegory to our faith, which even Satan and the impious can also discover? On the other hand, what msk or injury should I sustain, if I never knew that bread represents the body of Christ, but that bread merely contains bread? Had Christ nothing else to teach, than that which is utterly useless? and which might have readily been discovered afterwards by us without his teaching, and even the devil and his follow- ers can do the same? And especially because there is no analogy of faith in it. For all the words of Christ must contribute to faith and to love, and be like to faith, Rom. 12,7. No; he must show his folly, and not only burden us with a vain, useless text, but also teach us an unnecessary, useless science, which without his teaching, and at every table of the godless we could have. 252. Besides this, if he has taught this science in words so obscure, that assuredly the Apostles themselves at that time did not understand,—as we read that they never or seldom understood his expressions when he spoke to them im parables, and he had always to be giv- ing them an explanation of these parables, how does he happen now to be so sparing in the last most noble werk of his love, and gives no explanation to the ignorant, illiterate disciples, but suffers them to remain in these > ον ἐς ait A κὰν πλῷ 5 - ὙΠῈ LORD’S SUPPER. OnY obscure words, which they could not understand without an explanation, in any other sense than that in which they read, and yet he is so lideral with his explanations in other places? The answer is brief. Christ for once before necessity required, has encumbered and stultified his disciples with unnecessary and obscure words, with= out which they might have completely ‘celebrated the Eucharist with him. 253. in the third place, it is with the most excessrve folly that he asserts, “'The bread represents, or is an emblem of his body which was given for us, and the cup or the wine is an emblem of his blood which was shed for us.” Beloved, where is this similitude in bread ‘or ina cupof wine? For if there must be a figure, a sym= bol, or similitude, where one thing is to represent an- other, something similar indeed in both objects must be shown, on which the similitude depends. The vine is a similitude or figure of Christ, because, as he says him- self, John 15, 4, “The branch cannot bear fruit of it self, except it abide in the vine.” Again, Elias is a figure or image of John, because, as the angel Gabriel says, Luke 1, 17, “‘ And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias.” The paschal lamb is a si- muilitude of Christ, because, as the Acts of the Apostles say, [le was slaughtered and offered up for us. And so on in all figures and similitudes, there must be some- thing, in which the similitude consists, and which main- tains a relation to each object. ‘But here in the bread and the wine-cup, nothing ts discovered, which is similar or equal to the body and blood of Christ. 254. Now if Christ says, “ This bread is an emblem of my body which was given for you; this cup of wine is an emblem of my blood hil was shed for yeu,” it 38. THE LORD’S SUPPER: is fully as much as if he would say, “ This bread, hav ing no resemblance whatever to my body which is given for you, 15, however, an emblem of my body which 15 given for you.” Precisely as if I should say from St. Piaf 2 Cor. 6, 14, 15, “ Belial, who has no resemblance at all to Christ, is yet an embtels of Christ.” “ This light, which corresponds in no respect with darkness, still corresponds very well with darkness.” ~ Any man knows perfectly well what kind of people they are who talk in this manner, namely, silly, senseless gossips, who talk at table about iron birds flying over the sea; or about black snow fallmg in summer, exciting thereby the laughter of their guests. So silly, so ‘ignorant a gossip do the Enthusiasts represent Christ to. be, in falsely making him say, ““ This bread is the em- blem of my body, which is given for you, though there is no similitude at all in the bread.” 255. But should they here pretend, that the simili= tude consists in this circumstance, that, as the bread*is > eaten and the wine is drunk, so the body of Christ is likewise spiritually eaten, and his blood is spiritually drunk, beloved, this amounts to nothing. For the En+ thusiasts locate their figure, not in these Words, Take, ext, or give thanks, but in these words, © This is my body, which is given for you ;” wherefore there is no inquiry made here for a similitude in taking, eating, giving thanks. Here, Tsay, a similittide must be shown in the bread, how he was given, Slain, martyred, and offered up for us, for the remission of sins, in order that it may be a ΠΣ or an emblem of the body of Christ, which was given for us for the remission of sins, as the words read, or else Christ must be silly in calling the bread an emblem, which, however, is no such emblem, THE LORD’S SUPPER. 279 nor can it be. So too must the cup of wine be shown to be an emblem, that, as it would some time be shed for us for the remission of sins, so the blood of Christ was shed for the remission of sins. 256. For in this manner Moses introduces his similitudes ; he describes how the oxen and the calves Should be slaughtered and offered up, and their blood shed on the altar, and sprinkled for the remission of sins, and for the purification of the people, and their tents, and all their vessels, as the Epistle to the Hebrews shows us in a very masterly manner, chap. 9, 12, and especially the paschal lamb has a very elegant resemblance to the body of Christ given for us for the remission of sins, in this respect, as it was slain and offered up, its blood shed. and sprinkled on the door, as a propitiation to the destroyer. This correspondence must be pointed out in the bread and wine also, or we must say that he is a fool, who says they are equal to the body and blood which were given and shed for us, for the forgiveness of sins, notwithstanding no such similarity at all is dis- covered in them. For if they are to be emblems, some similarity must be in them, or it is vain and fictitious for one to call them emblems, 257. Nowif Christ desired to-institute a Eucharist, at which his body and blood should not be present, but in which there should be emblems of his bod y and blood, he might with propriety have left us the old Supper of. Moses with the paschal lamb, which, corresponding in every circumstance, in every essential property, rep- resents, in the most minute similarity, his body which was given for us, and his blood which was shed for us, for the remission of sins, and it is a figure, a type or emblem, as all the world knows full well, Why then Se ee oe - ΣΡ στα ΡΣ. οὐ. δου χε τ, Ως, ZR THE LORD’S SUPPER. should he act so silly, as to abolish this elegant institution ot the Old Testament, and substitute for it a Eucha- vist, which would be altogether insignificant in compari~ son to that, either in its application or its essential char-~ acter.. 258. One might say with propriety to this man, that the New Testament should be an accomplishment and a hight to the Old Testament, but thou pervertest it, so that the New Testament is aetually an abrogation, an obscuration of the Old. For im that, there is still a lamb, a living body, which is offered for the people, and which represents the body of Christ far more naturally and distinctly than this common bread, which is even a dark emblem in comparison to the lamb. And there 15 the blood of the lamb, whieh far more naturally and clearly represents the blood of Christ, than the com- mon wine. In a word, this Eucharist would be in no. respect equal to that as to its import and similitude.. Accordingly, if in the New Testament every thing should he more complete thanin the Qld,—even the similitudes,— Christ with propriety would have suffered us to retain that Supper, or else it is not true, that there are merely bread and wine in our Eucharist; for with certainty it ought very far to excel the institution of Moses, other- wise Christ would not have abrogated that institution: 259. But here the Enthusiasts will resort to a sub- terfuge, and pretend that St. Paul says in his text, 1 Cor. 11, 24, “ This is my body, which is broken for you.’ Here the similitude and import consist in the circumstance of breaking ; that, as the bread is broken over the table, so was Christ also broken for us on the cross. Oh! whoever had not forbidden the saints to be honored, and the images to be preserved, might THE LORD’S SUPPER. 281 now fall down before the picture of St. Paul, and ex- ports; superintendents, stewards, or elders. 531. And this Christian church exists not only under the Romian church or the Pope, but in all the world, as the Prophets have predicted that the Gospel of Christ should spread throughout the world, Psalm 19,6. So that among Papists; Turks, Persians; Tartars, this Christian church is visibly diffused in the world, but collected spiritually; under one Gospel and faith, under one head which is Jesus Christ. For the papal suprem- acy is undoubtedly the real government of Antichrist; or antichristian tyranny; which sttteth in the temple of God, and reigns with human authority; as Christ, Matt: 22, 24; and Paul, 2 Thes. 2, 4, predict. -Although the Turks and all heretics; whéréver they may be, are in- cluded in this abominable throng, who are spoken of as sitting in the holy seat, but not similarly to the Papacy. 532. In this Christian church, and wherever it ex- ists, there is forgiveness of sins, that is, the kingdom of erace and of true absolution... For there the Gospel ex- ists, baptism, and the Sacrament of the Altar, in which is offered and received the forgiveness of sins, and Christ,, his Spirit, and God, are present there. And apart from this Christian church, there is no salvation nor forgiveness 3490 THE LORD'S SUPPERS of sins, but everlasting death and condemnation} although there is great ostentation of holiness and of many good works, yet it is all unavailing. But this remission of sins is to be expected not once only, as in baptism, as taught by the Novatians, but as frequently as we feel ' the need of it till death. bi 533. But those indulgences which the Romish church professes to have and to confer, is a detestable imposi- tion, not only because they are special devices fancied. and framed, apart from the general remission of sins, which is bestowed through the Gospel and the sacra- ments in all the Christian church, and in consequence of this, thus impairs and nullifies the general remission ; but also because they ground and establish the satisfac- tion for sins upon human works and the merit of saints, though Christ only can do eneugh for us, and though he has done quite sufficient: 534. As to the dead, because the Scripture gives no account of their condition, I believe that it is no sin with free devotion to pray in the following or a similar man- ner: ““ Blessed God, if the soul is in a condition acces- sible to mercy, be thou gracrous unto 11. And when this is done once or twice, let it be enough. For vigils and masses for souls, and yearly solemnities, are of no avail, but the annual fair of Satan. 5385, Nor have we any thing in the Scripture con® cerning purgatory, and this is also the mere fabrication of visionaries; therefore I maintain that it is not neces= sary to’believe in it. Although all things are possible to God, he can very readily cause souls to be tortured after death fora limited time ; but he has not permitted it to-be spoken or written about. Consequently he does not wish to have it believed. And though I were assured of THE LORD’S SUPPER. 421 a pargatory, it would not be proper to teach it in the congregation, or to practice vigils, or read portions of Scriptnre against it. f 036. Others have assailed the invocation of the saints, before myself, with which I am pleased; and 1 believe it too, that Christ alone should be invoked as our Mediator,—a truth which the Scripture teach- es, and which is certain. Respecting invocation of saints, there is nothing said in Scripture; therefore it must be indeterminate, and a thing not to be believed. 537. In reference to unction, if it were maintaine:l according to the Gosnel, Mark 6, 15, and James 5, 14, I would have nothing to say; but to make a sacra- ment out of it, is all nugatory. For just as a persor, instead of vigils and masses for souls, might with great propriety deli er a sermon concerning death and eter- nal life, and also pray during the cbsequies, and call to mind our approaching end, is it appears the ancients were in the habit of doing ; so it would also be a Jauda- ble thing to visit the sick, to pray for and ai!monish them, and if any one cesired to be anointed with oil in the name of God, he should be permitted. 3c. Phere is no need of making sacraments out cf matrimony and the ministry, since these orders are sufficiently holy in themselves. So indeed repentance is nothing else but the effect and power of baptism. And thus the two sacraments reinain,—baptism and the Sap- per of the Lord in connection with the Gospel, through which the Holy Ghost abundantly offers, bestows, aud accomplishes the remission of sins. 539. As the greatest abonunation | regard the mass pesiigtiod or soul as a sin-olfering or goo! work, upon which all convents and monasteries ere now founded ; oy? “Ὁ _—————— ---- στα 490 THE LORD’S SUPPER. but, if it be the will of God, they shall soon be subver- ted. For though I was a great, reckless, scandalous sinner, and wasted my youthful days in a thoughtless and unprofitable manner, yet my greatest sin consisted in | being so illustrious a monk, and with so many masses, for more than fifteen years, shamelessly offending, cru- ) cifying, and torturing my beloved Lord. But glory and praise forever be to his unspeakable grace, that he has snatched me out of this abomination, and still continues to uphold and strengthen me daily in the true faith, al- though I am altogether ungrateful. 540. Accordingly I have advised, and still advise people to leave the convents and monasteries, and come out into the true Christian order, so as to escape from the abominations of the mass and affected sanctity,—as chastity, poverty, obedience,—by which they hope to be saved. ‘For as laudable as it was in the infancy of the Christian church, to persist in a state of celibacy, it is equally worthy of detestation now, by these institutions, to deny the aid and grace of Christ ; it is possible indeed to live in a state of celibacy and widowhood with chas- tity, independent of these detestable institutions. 541. Images, bells, robes for the mass, church orna- ments, altars, candles, and the like, I regard as things indifferent ; whoever wishes can omit them. Drawings, however, from the Scripture and from good histories, I consider useful; yet these should be left to the choive or option of every one; for I do not coincide with those who strip churches of such ornaments. 544. Finally, I believe in the resurrection of all the dead on the last day, both of the pious and the wicked, so that each one may receive in his body a retribution according to his deeds; and thus the righteous shall live THE LORD’S SUPPER. 423 forever with Christ, but the wicked shall perish eter- nally with Satan and his angels. For I do not agree with those who teach, that the devils will finally be re- stored to happiness. 043. This is my creed; for thus all true Christians believe, and thus the holy Scriptures teach us. But of that which I have not fully treated here, my other wri- tings will bear sufficient testimony, especially those which have been issued within the last four or five years. 1 pray that all pious hearts will bear me witness, and unite their prayers with mine, that I may persist in this faith, and conclude my life in its maintenance. For though, in consequence of persecution or the pangs of death, I might say something different,—which God, I hope, may pre- vent,—yet let such expressions be disregarded; and by this declaration I wish to have it publicly known, that any such expression will be incorrect, resulting from the influence of Satan. In this determination may my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ assist me: Blessed be his name forever. Amen. OT. 205. te ΝΥ νοϊμκερίοαίλοι ‘ sie a PAR: ἐ Ἢ bie aay ᾿ ᾿ otal ie $e ec hid = ἢ ᾿ ᾿ δι} ὌΝ γ Σ ie iris 7 } MM 5) ' sane 4 4 we a πο νος πω arama nA ote Reve mmm hee ag a τὸ died bs WELT or remetmrmmmne omen ney NNT! eam ners eee κυ ρυνθξνω ἧς ὑπο τὐοανονισανοναααννονὐδμουι ας Mudd | ill TH = ceaacaacncageep er aa ET | 1 ἣϊ HEH ΠΠῚΠΠΠΠΠΠΠΠ| ATT — -