CHAPTER V.

OF THE PROMISE OF ETERNAL LIFE.

You have explained to me the perfect precepts of Christ, I wish you to explain his promises also?

The

Lord's Supper in the sacred scriptures (1 Cor. xi. 20), and every where among Christians to this day: for this ceremony was observed by our Lord in the evening, or at night. And it is plainly to be gathered from the writings of the ancients that it used to be celebrated at this season in the primitive churches and we have an instance of this, Acts xx. 7, &c.

There is a difference of opinion among Christians as to the kind of bread which ought to be used in the holy communion. That Christ himself used unleavened bread appears from Matth. xxvi. 17, compared with Ex. xii. 18; and the apostle seems to allude to this, 1 Cor. v. 7, 8. Christians therefore would act most safely if in these things also they were to follow the example of their Lord.

But it is of more consequence to consider whether that holy act of humility, the washing of feet, which our Lord instituted at the time of this his last supper, and sanctioned by his example and command,-adding that happy were they who should do these things (John xiii. 17),-ought not still to be practised in the Christian Church? That it should, seems evident from the cited passage: and it is dangerous to depart from the literal import of the words, or assert that the command does not extend to all countries and times. That this holy custom was held in esteem and observed by the ancients appears from the writings of some of them. See Tertullian, lib. ii. ad Uxorem; Cyprian de Lotione pedum. Ambrose (lib. iii. de Sacram.) affirms that this holy custom was retained in the church of Milan down to his time: which Grotius likewise notices under John xiii. 15. So also Bernard, like those writers already named, regarded the washing of feet as a sacrament; Sermo de Cana. Moreover, the 17th Council of Toledo, held in the year 694, commands (c. iii.) that bishops and priests should wash the feet of the faithful at the celebration of the Lord's Supper, after the example of Christ,"-adding," in order that this neglected custom may be again introduced." See also on this

subject

The greatest of all is eternal life, wherein is comprehended at the same time the remission of sins. But

subject Danhawerus, Arist. rediv. dial. ii. Thus likewise Zacharias bishop of Rome, in reply to the inquiry of Boniface, bishop of Mentz,-whether it were allowable for holy women, as was the custom among the men, to wash one another's feet at the Lord's Supper and at other times,-states, "This is a command of our Lord," &c. See Baronius, an. 751, § 11. See also to the same purpose Augustine, Epist. 119; and Rupertus, lib. v. de Div. Ofic. cap. 20 et 21, and also Polydore Vergil de Inv. Rer. lib. 4, cap. 13; and Bellarmine de Sacr. lib. ii. cap. 24, &c. In the Unitarian churches of Poland also, the great Schlichtingius particularly asserts that this command is obligatory upon us-Comm in Johan. xiii. And Wolzogenius on this passage writes, that it would be a praiseworthy act to ordain the washing of feet in Christian churches-by this means the practice of humility might be perpetual among Christians.

It ought to be inquired here, besides, whether, and at what time, the command given by the apostle James (chap. v. ver. 14), to anoint the sick with oil in the name of the Lord, have ceased to be obligatory upon Christians? Most Protestants think, that it ceased with the gift of healing which existed in the primitive church; for if this were now practised, it would have no effect. But it ought to be observed. that these miraculous healings were chiefly applied to unbelievers ; for had they possessed this gift, no Christian would have died in consequence of natural disorders: the contrary of which appears from I Cor. xi. 30. (See also Phil. ii. 27, and 2 Tim. iv. 20.) That the power of healing had not then ceased appears from what follows, chap. xii. 28, 30. It is also plain from the same place, that all presbyters were not endued with this gift of healing the sick but James speaks here without limitation. It is dangerous to argue from the event: for in like manner it might be proved that even baptism and faith had ceased, because the signs which were to follow these (Mark xvi. 17, 18) are not now to be seen. Nor indeed would prayers be now to be offered up for the sick, because these also do not always succeed. It is therefore to be ascertained in such cases (and also in all other practices), whether it be the will of

the

But there is another, besides, exceedingly conducive to the obtaining of the first, namely the gift of the Holy Spirit.

What

the Lord; which rule is discussed by many theologians, and in reference to this place. But, in the meantime, it is sufficient if by this medium the disorders of the mind can be removed, and the remission of sins be obtained: for that the relief of the mind is spoken of here may be plainly inferred from ver. 13, 16, 19, 20. which also D. Brenius observes.

It ought above all to be considered, whether the words ours, which literally signifies to serve (commonly to save), and you, which properly signifies to awaken, refer not to the future rather than the present? Some conceive that oil was at that time the natural remedy for curing diseases. But in this case the physicians rather than the elders of the church would be commanded to be sent for. Besides, this could not be the case in all disorders and in all the countries through which believers were dispersed (James i. 1; 1 Peter i. 1). But the apostle speaks in general terms. Nor would this have been then noticed as any thing extraordinary (Mark vi. 13). Some imagine that by oil the Holy Spirit is here intended. But there is no necessity to oblige us to depart from the literal import of the words. Besides, it were absurd to ascribe to presbyters the power of anointing with the Holy Spirit. But the most copious explanation of this opinion is given (among other writers) by G. Estius in his observations on this place, as also by Maldonatus on Mark vi. 13, &c. Estius asserts that this rite was observed among the primitive Christians after the time of the apostles; and, although, as we have seen in respect to other things, somewhat changed, prevails even yet in many churches. In ancient authors, but above all in Tertullian, we find this unction joined with other sacred rites. It is regarded as a command of our Lord by Innocent, 1 Epist. ad Decentium Episcopum; Cyril, Catech. Myst. 5; et lib. de ador. in Spir. Augustin in Psalm. 44; et de Temp. scr. 215; Chry sostom, lib. iii. de Sacerd.; Beda and Theophylact on Mark vi. 13, &c., all of whom testify that this rite was in their time observed in the Church. Polydore Vergil (de Inv. Rer. lib. 5, cap. 3) also intimates that it prevailed under Felix IV. bishop of Rome. Further information respecting this sacrament may be found in the proceedings of the general council of Flo

rence.

What is the remission of sins?

The free deliverance from the guilt and penalties of sins. As the penalties are of two kinds, some temporal and some eternal, an exemption from both is promised through Christ, but principally from those which are eternal.

Is the remission of all sins promised to us through Christ?

Yes, of all; including those which were committed by us before we had believed in Christ, whatever were their kind or measure; those which through any ignorance or human infirmity are committed by us, while we believe in him, and are walking in newness of life; and those heavier trespasses committed after faith, provided they be followed by true and sincere. penitence, and amendment of life.

rence. It is well known that in the Church of Rome, and the churches subject to that see, this rite is to this day held in esteem. That it has been observed to this time in the Greek and Russian Churches appears from the censure of Cyril of Berrhoea, patriarch of Constantinople, passed at a synod in that city in 1638, and sanctioned by the patriarchs of Alexandria and Jerusalem, and by most of the Eastern bishops; and also from another decree of a synod of Constantinople, held in 1642 under the patriarch Parthenius, sanctioned by the metropolitan of Kiow, and other Russian bishops. It is said that the same custom obtains in the rest of the East. Grotius likewise observes the same thing on James v. 14; whose annotations on this passage, as also on Mar. vi. 13, may be added. Consult likewise Baronius, tom. 1, an. 63, § 13, 14, 15, 16. Nor is it foreign to the purpose to observe that this external rite is suited to those who derive their name from CHRIST-i.e. the ANOINTED: and especially in respect to those who are infirm either in body or in mind; for oil is the symbol of gladness. But more cannot be said here on this subject.-B. WISSOWA

TIUS

But

But the Lord Jesus asserts (Matth. xii. 32), that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit shall not be forgiven, either in this world or the next?

He does indeed so assert; but for this reason, which he tacitly assumes, that God will close against a person of this kind, who knowingly and purposely dares to rail against the Holy Spirit with contumelous language, the avenue to faith and penitence, without which he cannot obtain the remission of sins 54. Was not the same promise of the remission of sins comprised in the Old Covenant?

You shall hear concerning this when I come to treat of the expiation made for sins by Christ.

I have heard you concerning the remission of sins; I wish you now to explain to me the promise of eternal life?

By the eternal life promised to us by Christ, according to the meaning of holy writ, I understand not that only which the words of themselves signify, namely, a life never to terminate, or immortality, but also an existence the most replete with joy and pleasure wholly divine, passed in heaven with God and Christ, and the holy angels.

Was not eternal life promised also in the Law of Moses?

If by the word promise you understand, as you

54 It was proper to take this occasion to explain in what sense it is to be understood that sins are remitted in this world, and in that which is to come; since the notion of purgatory furnishes but an awkward exposition of the subject. On this point may be consulted Socinus on 1 John v. Op. tom. i. p. 231.

M. RUARUS. [And Brenius on Matth. xii. 32. F. C.]

ought