Schaff - History of the Christian Church Vol. 8 - Media Sabda Org

601
But while on this point he went further than the most fanatical Anabaptists,
he did not belong to their society, and rejected the revolutionary opinions
concerning obedience to government, and holding civil and military offices.
Children are unfit to perform the office of priests which is given to us in
baptism. They have no faith, they cannot repent, and cannot enter into a
covenant. Moreover, they do not need the bath of regeneration for the
remission of sins, as they have not yet committed actual transgression.
But children are not lost if they die without baptism. Adam’s sin is remitted
to all by the merits of Christ. They are excluded from the Church on earth;
they must die and go to Sheol; but Christ will raise them up on the
resurrection day and save them in heaven. The Scripture does not condemn
the Ismaelites or the Ninevites or other barbarians. Christ gives his blessing
to unbaptized children. How could the most merciful Lord, who bore the
sins of a guilty world, condemn those who have not committed an
impiety? f1134
Servetus agreed with Zwingli, the Anabaptists, and the Second Scotch
Confession, in rejecting the cruel Roman dogma, which excludes all
unbaptized infants, even of Christian parents, from the kingdom of heaven.
(c) In the doctrine of the LORD’S SUPPER, Servetus differs from the
Roman Catholic, the Lutheran, and the Zwinglian theories, and
approaches, strange to say, the doctrine of his great antagonist,
Calvin. f1135 Baptism and the Lord’s Supper represent the birth and the
nourishment of the new man. By the former we receive the spirit of
Christ; by the latter we receive the body of Christ, but in a spiritual and
mystical manner. Baptism kindles and strengthens faith; the eucharist
strengthens love and unites us more and more to Christ. By neglecting
this ordinance the spiritual man famishes and dies away. The heavenly
man needs heavenly food, which nourishes him to life eternal (John
6:53). f1136
Servetus distinguishes three false theories on the Lord’s Supper, and calls
their advocates transubstantiatores (Romanists), impanatores (Lutherans),
and tropistae (Zwinglians). f1137
Against the first two theories, which agree in teaching a carnal presence
and manducation of Christ’s body and blood by all communicants, he urges
that spiritual food cannot be received by the mouth and stomach, but only
by the spiritual organs of faith and love. He refers, like Zwingli, to the