unless the heart be purified within and persevere in piety to the end: and, secondly, by Peter, when he declares the truth of baptism to consist, not in "the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience." (o) It will be objected, that Paul seems in another place utterly to despise "the circumcision made with hands," when he compares it with "the circumcision of Christ." (p) I reply, that that passage derogates nothing from its dignity. Paul is there disputing against those who required it as still necessary, after it had been abrogated. He therefore admonishes the faithful to leave the ancient shadows, and adhere to the truth. These teachers, he says, urge you to be circumcised in your bodies. But you have been spiritually circumcised both in body and soul: you have the substance itself therefore, which is better than the shadow. Some one might object to this, that the figure was not to be despised in consequence of their having the substance; for that the Fathers under the Old Testament had experienced the circumcision of the heart, and the putting off of the old man, of which the apostle was speaking, and yet that external circumcision had not been unnecessary or useless to them. He anticipates and supersedes this objection, by immediately adding, that the Colossians had been "buried with Christ in baptism:" by which he signifies that baptism is to Christians what circumcision was to the ancient believers, and consequently that circumcision cannot be imposed upon Christians without injury to baptism.

XXV. But our objectors proceed to allege, that a still stronger argument in their favour arises from what follows, which I have lately quoted, that all the Jewish ceremonies were "a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ;" (q) and that the strongest argument of all is what is contained in the Epistle to the Hebrews, that the blood of beasts did not reach the conscience, that "the law" had "a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, and that the worshippers could never attain perfection from the Mosaic ceremonies." (r) I repeat what I have already suggested, that Paul called the ceremonies shadows, not as if they had nothing

(o) 1 Peter iii. 21. (p) Col. ii. 11. (q) Col. ii. 17. (r) Heb. ix. 9. x. 1, 2.

solid in them, but because their accomplishment had been deferred till the manifestation of Christ. In the next place, I remark that this is to be understood, not of the efficacy of the ceremonies, but rather of the mode of representation. For till Christ was manifested in the flesh, all the signs prefigured him as absent; however he displayed his power, and consequently himself, as present in the hearts of the faithful. But the principal thing to be observed is, that in all these places Paul is not speaking of the subject, considered simply in itself, but with reference to those against whom he is contending. As he was combating the false apostles, who maintained piety to consist in the ceremonies alone, without any regard to Christ; nothing more was necessary for their confutation, than to discuss what value ceremonies possess of themselves. This also was the object pursued by the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Let us remember therefore, that the question here does not respect ceremonies, taken in their true and natural signification, but as distorted by a false and perverse interpretation; the controversy is not about the legitimate use, but the superstitious abuse of them. What wonder then is it, if ceremonies, separated from Christ, are divested of all their virtue? For all signs are reduced to nothing, when the thing signified is taken away. So when Christ was addressing those who supposed the manna to have been mere food for the body, he accommodated his discourse to their gross notion, and said that he would give them better food, to nourish their souls with the hope of immortality. (s) If a clearer solution be required, all that has been said may be comprised in these three observations: First, that all the ceremonies of the law of Moses, unless they were directed to Christ, were vain and useless: Secondly, that they had referenee to Christ, so that when he was manifested in the flesh, they received their accomplishment: Lastly, that it was necessary for them to be abolished at his advent, as a shadow vanishes in the clear light of the sun. But as I defer the more extended discussion of this subject to the chapter in which I intend to compare baptism with circumcision, I touch the more briefly upon it here.

(8) John vi. 27.

XXVI. It is possible that these miserable sophists have been led into this error by the extravagant encomiums on the sacraments, which are found in the writings of the Fathers. As when Augustine says, that "the sacraments of the old law only promised the Saviour, but ours give salvation." Not observing that these and other similar forms of expression were hyperbolical, they also on their part have promulgated their hyperbolical dogmas, but in a sense altogether foreign from the writings of the Fathers. For the meaning of Augustine in that passage was the same as in another, where he says, "The sacraments of the Mosaic law announced Christ as afterwards to come, ours announce him as already come." Again: "They were promises of things to be fulfilled; these are signs of things accomplished:" as if he had said, that the old sacraments prefigured Christ while he was yet expected, but that ours exhibit him as present, since he has been already come. Besides, he speaks of the mode of representation, as he also shews in another place, where he says, "The law and the prophets had sacraments announcing something future; but what they celebrated as about to come, the sacraments of our time announce as already come." His sentiments respecting their truth and efficacy he declares in several places; as when he says, "The sacraments of the Jews were different from ours in the signs; in the thing signified, they were equal; different in visible form, equal in spiritual efficacy." Again: "In different signs, the same faith; in different signs, just as in different words: because words change their sounds in different times, and words are no other than signs. The Fathers drank the same spiritual drink as we; though their corporeal drink was different. See then, the signs have been varied without any change in the faith. To them the Rock was Christ; to us, that which is placed on the altar, is Christ. And as a great sacrament, they drank the water flowing from the Rock; what we drink, the faithful know. If we consider the visible form, there was a difference; if we regard the intelligible signification, they drank the same spiritual drink." In another place: "In the mystery their meat and drink were the same as ours; but the same in signification, not in form: because the very same Christ was prefigured to them in the Rock, and has been manifested to us in the flesh." Yet in

this respect also we admit that there is some difference between their sacraments and ours. For both testify that the paternal benevolence of God is offered to us in Christ, together with the graces of the Holy Spirit; but ours testify it in a more clear and evident manner. In both there is an exhibition of Christ, but the exhibition of him in ours is richer and fuller, corresponding to the difference between the Old Testament and the New, of which we have already treated. And this is what was intended by Augustine, whom I quote more frequently than any other, as the best and most faithful writer of antiquity; when he states, that after the revelation of Christ, sacraments were instituted, "fewer in number, more noble in signification, and more excellent in efficacy." It is right also just to apprise the readers, that all the jargon of the sophists respecting the work wrought (opus operatum) is not only false, but repugnant to the nature of the sacraments; which God hath instituted, in order that the faithful, being poor and destitute of every good, may come to them simply confessing their wants, and imploring him to supply them. Consequently, in receiving the sacraments, they perform nothing at all meritorious, and the action itself being, as far as they are concerned, merely passive, no work can be attributed to them in it.

CHAPTER XV.

Baptism.

BAPTISM is a sign of initiation, by which we are admitted into the society of the Church, in order that being incorporated into Christ, we may be numbered among the children of God. Now it has been given to us by God for these ends, which I have shewn to be common to all sacraments; first, to promote our faith towards him; secondly, to testify our confession before men. We shall treat of both these ends of its institution in

order. To begin with the first: from baptism our faith derives three advantages which require to be distinctly con idered. The first is, that it is proposed to us by the Lord, as a symbol and token of our purification, or to express my meaning more fully, it resembles a legal instrument prope ly attested, by which he assures us that all our sins are cancell d, effaced, and obliterated, so that they will never appear in hsg t, or come into his remembrance, or be imputed to us. For he commands all who believe to be baptised for the remission of their sins. Therefore those who have imagined that baptism is nothing more than a mark or sign by which we profess our religion before men, as soldiers wear the insignia of the r sovereign as a mark of their profession, have not considered that which was the principal thing in baptism: which is, cha we ought to receive it with this promise; "He that believeth and is baptised, shall be saved." (t)

II. In this sense we are to understand what is said by Paul, that Christ sanctifieth and cleanseth the Church "with the washing of the water by the word:" (u) and in another place, that "according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost:" (v) and by Peter; that "baptism doth save us." (w) For it was not the intention of Paul, to signify that our ablution and salvation are completed by the water, or that water contains in itself the virtue to purify, regenerate, and renew; nor did Peter mean. that it was the cause of salvation, but only that the knowledge and assurancee of it is received in this sacrament: which is sufficiently evident from the words they have used. For Paul connects together the "word of life" and "the baptism of water;" as if he had said that our ablution and sanctification are announced to us by the Gospel, and by baptism this message is confirmed. And Peter, after having said that "baptism doth save us," immediately adds, that it is "not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards God," which proceeds from faith. But on the contrary, baptism promises us no other purification than by the sprinkling of the blood of Christ; which is emblematically represented by water, on account of its resemblance to wash

(t) Mark xvi. 16. (u) Eph. v. 26. (v) Titus iii. 5. (w) 1 Peter iii. 21.