(Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion 4, part 15)
Chapter 14. Of the sacraments.
This chapter consists of two principal parts, - I. Of
sacraments in general. The sum of the doctrine stated, sec. 1-6. Two
classes of opponents to be guarded against, viz., those who
undervalue the power of the sacraments, sec. 7-13; and those who
attribute too much to the sacraments, sec. 14-17. II. Of the
sacraments in particular, both of the Old and the New Testament.
Their scope and meaning. Refutation of those who have either too
high or too low ideas of the sacraments.
Sections.
1. Of the sacraments in general. A sacrament defined.
2. Meaning of the word sacrament.
3. Definition explained. Why God seals his promises to us by
sacraments.
4. The word which ought to accompany the element, that the sacrament
may be complete.
5. Error of those who attempt to separate the word, or promise of
God, from the element.
6. Why sacraments are called Signs of the Covenant.
7. They are such signs, though the wicked should receive them, but
are signs of grace only to believers.
8. Objections to this view answered.
9. No secret virtue in the sacraments. Their whole efficacy depends
on the inward operation of the Spirit.
10. Objections answered. Illustrated by a simile.
11. Of the increase of faith by the preaching of the word.
12. In what way, and how far, the sacraments are confirmations of
our faith.
13. Some regard the sacraments as mere signs. This view refuted.
14. Some again attribute too much to the sacraments. Refutation.
15. Refutation confirmed by a passage from Augustine.
16. Previous views more fully explained.
17. The matter of the sacrament always present when the sacrament is
duly administered.
18. Extensive meaning of the term sacrament.
19. The ordinary sacraments in the Church. How necessary they are.
20. The sacraments of the Old and of the New Testament. The end of
both the same, viz., to lead us to Christ.
21. This apparent in the Sacraments of the Old Testament.
22. Apparent also in the Sacraments of the New Testament.
23. Impious doctrine of the Schoolmen as to the difference between
the Old and the New Testaments.
24. Scholastic objection answered.
25. Another objection answered.
26. Sacraments of the New Testament sometimes excessively extolled
by early Theologians. Their meaning explained.
1. Akin to the preaching of the gospel, we have another help to
our faith in the sacraments in regard to which, it greatly concerns
us that some sure doctrine should be delivered, informing us both of
the end for which they were instituted, and of their present use.
First, we must attend to what a sacrament is. It seems to me, then,
a simple and appropriate definition to say, that it is an external
sign, by which the Lord seals on our consciences his promises of
good-will toward us, in order to sustain the weakness of our faith,
and we in our turn testify our piety towards him, both before
himself and before angels as well as men. We may also define more
briefly by calling it a testimony of the divine favour toward us,
confirmed by an external sign, with a corresponding attestation of
our faith towards Him. You may make your choice of these
definitions, which, in meaning, differ not from that of Augustine,
which defines a sacrament to be a visible sign of a sacred thing, or
a visible form of an invisible grace, but does not contain a better
or surer explanation. As its brevity makes it somewhat obscure, and
thereby misleads the more illiterate, I wished to remove all doubt,
and make the definition fuller by stating it at greater length.
2. The reason why the ancients used the term in this sense is
not obscure. The old interpreter, whenever he wished to render the
Greek term "musterion" into Latin, especially when it was used with
reference to divine things, used the word sacramentum. Thus in
Ephesians, "Having made known unto us the mystery (sacramentum) of
his will;" and again, "If ye have heard of the dispensation of the
grace of God, which is given me to you-wards, how that by revelation
he made known unto me the mystery" (sacramentum,) (Eph. 1: 9; 3: 2.)
In the Colossians, "Even the mystery which has been hid from ages
and from generations, but is now made manifest to his saints, to
whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this
mystery," (sacramentum,) (Col. 1: 26.) Also in the First Epistle to
Timothy, "Without controversy, great is the mystery (sacramentum) of
godliness: God was manifest in the flesh," (1 Tim. 3: 16.) He was
unwilling to use the word arcanum, (secret,) lest the word should
seem beneath the magnitude of the thing meant. When the thing,
therefore, was sacred and secret, he used the term sacramentum. In
this sense it frequently occurs in ecclesiastical writers. And it is
well known, that what the Latins call sacramental the Greeks call
"musteria" (mysteries.) The sameness of meaning removes all dispute.
Hence it is that the term was applied to those signs which gave an
august representation of things spiritual and sublime. This is also
observed by Augustine, "It were tedious to discourse of the variety
of signs; those which relate to divine things are called
sacraments," (August. Ep. 5. ad Marcell.)
3. From the definition which we have given, we perceive that
there never is a sacrament without an antecedent promise, the
sacrament being added as a kind of appendix, with the view of
confirming and sealing the promise, and giving a better attestation,
or rather, in a manner, confirming it. In this way God provides
first for our ignorance and sluggishness and, secondly, for our
infirmity; and yet, properly speaking, it does not so much confirm
his word as establish us in the faith of it. For the truth of God is
in itself sufficiently stable and certain, and cannot receive a
better confirmation from any other quarter than from itself. But as
our faith is slender and weak, so if it be not propped up on every
side, and supported by all kinds of means, it is forthwith shaken
and tossed to and fro, wavers, and even falls. And here, indeed, our
merciful Lord, with boundless condescension, so accommodates himself
to our capacity, that seeing how from our animal nature we are
always creeping on the ground, and cleaving to the flesh, having no
thought of what is spiritual, and not even forming an idea of it, he
declines not by means of these earthly elements to lead us to
himself, and even in the flesh to exhibit a mirror of spiritual
blessings. For, as Chrysostom says, (Hom. 60, ad Popul.) "Were we
incorporeal, he would give us these things in a naked and
incorporeal form. Now because our souls are implanted in bodies, he
delivers spiritual things under things visible. Not that the
qualities which are set before us in the sacraments are inherent in
the nature of the things, but God gives them this signification."
4. This is commonly expressed by saying that a sacrament
consists of the word and the external sign. By the word we ought to
understand not one which, muttered without meaning and without
faith, by its sound merely, as by a magical incantation, has the
effect of consecrating the element, but one which, preached, makes
us understand what the visible sign means. The thing, therefore,
which was frequently done, under the tyranny of the Pope, was not
free from great profanation of the mystery, for they deemed it
sufficient if the priest muttered the formula of consecration, while
the people, without understanding, looked stupidly on. Nay, this was
done for the express purpose of preventing any instruction from
thereby reaching the people: for all was said in Latin to illiterate
hearers. Superstition afterwards was carried to such a height, that
the consecration was thought not to be duly performed except in a
low grumble, which few could hear. Very different is the doctrine of
Augustine concerning the sacramental word. "Let the word be added to
the element, and it will become a sacrament. For whence can there be
so much virtue in water as to touch the body and cleanse the heart,
unless by the agency of the word, and this not because it is said,
but because it is believed? For even in the word the transient sound
is one thing, the permanent power another. This is the word of faith
which we preach, says the Apostle, (Rom. 10: 8.) Hence, in the Acts
of the Apostles, we have the expressions "Purifying their hearts by
faith," (Acts 15: 9.) And the Apostle Peter says, "The like figure
whereunto even baptism does now save us, (not the putting away of
the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience,") (1
Pet. 3: 21.) "This is the word of faith which we preach: by which
word doubtless baptism also, in order that it may be able to
cleanse, is consecrated," (August. Hom. in Joann. 13.) You see how
he requires preaching to the production of faith. And we need not
labour to prove this, since there is not the least room for doubt as
to what Christ did and commanded us to do, as to what the apostles
followed and a purer Church observed. Nay, it is known that, from
the very beginning of the world, whenever God offered any sign to
the holy Patriarchs, it was inseparably attached to doctrine,
without which our senses would gaze bewildered on an unmeaning
object. Therefore, when we hear mention made of the sacramental
word, let us understand the promise which, proclaimed aloud by the
minister, leads the people by the hand to that to which the sign
tends and directs us.
5. Nor are those to be listened to who oppose this view with a
more subtle than solid dilemma. They argue thus: We either know that
the word of God which precedes the sacrament is the true will of
God, or we do not know it. ]f we know it, we learn nothing new from
the sacrament which succeeds. If we do not know it, we cannot learn
it from the sacrament, whose whole efficacy depends on the word. Our
brief reply is: The seals which are affixed to diplomas, and other
public deeds, are nothing considered in themselves, and would be
affixed to no purpose if nothing was written on the parchment, and
yet this does not prevent them from sealing and confirming when they
are appended to writings. It cannot be alleged that this comparison
is a recent fiction of our own, since Paul himself used it, terming
circumcision a seal, (Rom. 4: 11,) where he expressly maintains that
the circumcision of Abraham was not for justifications but was an
attestation to the covenant, by the faith of which he had been
previously justified. And how, pray, can any one be greatly offended
when we teach that the promise is sealed by the sacrament, since it
is plain, from the promises themselves, that one promise confirms
another? The clearer any evidence is, the fitter is it to support
our faith. But sacraments bring with them the clearest promises,
and, when compared with the word, have this peculiarity, that they
represent promises to the life, as if painted in a picture. Nor
ought we to be moved by an objection founded on the distinction
between sacraments and the seals of documents, viz., that since both
consist of the carnal elements of this world, the former cannot be
sufficient or adequate to seal the promises of God, which are
spiritual and eternal, though the latter may be employed to seal the
edicts of princes concerning fleeting and fading things. But the
believer, when the sacraments are presented to his eye, does not
stop short at the carnal spectacle, but by the steps of analogy
which I have indicated, rises with pious consideration to the
sublime mysteries which lie hidden in the sacraments.
6. As the Lord calls his promises covenants, (Gen. 6: 18; 9: 9;
17: 2,) and sacraments signs of the covenants, so something similar
may be inferred from human covenants. What could the slaughter of a
hog effect, unless words were interposed or rather preceded? Swine
are often killed without any interior or occult mystery. What could
be gained by pledging the right hand, since hands are not
infrequently joined in giving battle? But when words have preceded,
then by such symbols of covenant sanction is given to laws, though
previously conceived, digested, and enacted by words. Sacraments,
therefore, are exercises which confirm our faith in the word of God;
and because we are carnal, they are exhibited under carnal objects,
that thus they may train us in accommodation to our sluggish
capacity, just as nurses lead children by the hand. And hence
Augustine calls a sacrament a visible word, (August. In Joann. Hom.
89,) because it represents the promises of God as in a picture, and
places them in our view in a graphic bodily form, (August. cont.
Faust. Lib. 19.) We might refer to other similitudes, by which
sacraments are more plainly designated, as when they are called the
pillars of our faith. For just as a building stands and leans on its
foundation, and yet is rendered more stable when supported by
pillars, so faith leans on the word of God as its proper foundation,
and yet when sacraments are added leans more firmly, as if resting
on pillars. Or we may call them mirrors, in which we may contemplate
the riches of the grace which God bestows upon us. For then, as has
been said, he manifests himself to us in as far as our dullness can
enable us to recognise him, and testifies his love and kindness to
us more expressly than by word.
7. It is irrational to contend that sacraments are not
manifestations of divine grace toward us, because they are held
forth to the ungodly also, who, however, so far from experiencing
God to be more propitious to them, only incur greater condemnation.
By the same reasoning, the gospel will be no manifestation of the
grace of God, because it is spurned by many who hear it; nor will
Christ himself be a manifestation of grace, because of the many by
whom he was seen and known, very few received him. Something similar
may be seen in public enactments. A great part of the body of the
people deride and evade the authenticating seal, though they know it
was employed by their sovereign to confirm his will; others trample
it under foot, as a matter by no means appertaining to them; while
others even execrate it: so that, seeing the condition of the two
things to be alike, the appropriateness of the comparison which I
made above ought to be more readily allowed. It is certain,
therefore, that the Lord offers us his mercy, and a pledge of his
grace, both in his sacred word and in the sacraments; but it is not
apprehended save by those who receive the word and sacraments with
firm faith: in like manner as Christ, though offered and held forth
for salvation to all, is not, however, acknowledged and received by
all. Augustine, when intending to intimate this, said that the
efficacy of the word is produced in the sacrament not because it is
spoken, but because it is believed. Hence Paul, addressing
believers, includes communion with Christ in the sacraments, as when
he says, "As many of you as have been baptised into Christ have put
on Christ," (Gal. 3: 27.) Again, "For by one Spirit we are all
baptised into one body," (1 Cor. 12: 13.) But when he speaks of a
preposterous use of the sacraments, he attributes nothing more to
them than to frigid empty figures; thereby intimating, that however
the ungodly and hypocrites may, by their perverseness either
suppress, or obscure, or impede the effect of divine grace in the
sacraments, that does not prevent them, where and whenever God is so
pleased, from giving a true evidence of communion with Christ, or
prevent them from exhibiting, and the Spirit of God from performing,
the very thing which they promise. We conclude, therefore, that the
sacraments are truly termed evidences of divine grace, and, as it
were, seals of the goodwill which he entertains toward us. They, by
sealing it to us, sustain, nourish, confirm, and increase our faith.
The objections usually urged against this view are frivolous and
weak. They say, that our faith, if it is good, cannot be made
better; for there is no faith save that which leans unshakingly,
firmly and undividedly, on the mercy of God. It had been better for
the objectors to pray, with the apostles, "Lord, increase our
faith," (Luke 17: 5,) than confidently to maintain a perfection of
faith which none of the sons of men ever attained, none ever shall
attain in this life. Let them explain what kind of faith his was who
said, "Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief," (Mark 9: 24.) That
faith, though only commenced, was good, and might, by the removal of
the unbelief be made better. But there is no better argument to
refute them than their own consciousness. For if they confess
themselves sinners, (this, whether they will or not, they cannot
deny,) then they must of necessity impute this very quality to the
imperfection of their faith.
8. But Philip, they say, replied to the eunuch who asked to be
baptised, "If thou believest with all thine heart thou mayest,"
(Acts 8: 37). What room is there for a confirmation of baptism when
faith fills the whole heart? I, in my turn, ask them, Do they not
feel that a good part of their heart is void of faith, - do they not
perceive new additions to it every day? There was one who boasted
that he grew old while learning. Thrice miserable then, are we
Christians if we grow old without making progress, we whose faith
ought to advance through every period of life until it grows up into
a perfect man, (Eph. 4: 13.) In this passage, therefore to believe
with the whole heart, is not to believe Christ perfectly, but only
to embrace him sincerely with heart and soul; not to be filled with
him, but with ardent affection to hunger and thirst, and sigh after
him. It is usual in Scripture to say that a thing is done with the
whole heart, when it is done sincerely and cordially. Of this
description are the following passages: - "With my whole heart have
I sought thee," (Ps. 119: 10;) "I will confess unto thee with my
whole heart," &e. In like manner, when the fraudulent and deceitful
are rebuked it is said, "with flattering lips, and with a double
heart, do they speak," (Ps. 12: 2.) The objectors next add - "If
faith is increased by means of the sacraments, the Holy Spirit is
given in vain, seeing it is his office to begin, sustain, and
consummate our faith." I admit, indeed, that faith is the proper and
entire sock of the Holy Spirit, enlightened by whom we recognise God
and the treasures of his grace, and without whose illumination our
mind is so blind that it can see nothing, so stupid that it has no
relish for spiritual things. But for the one Divine blessing which
they proclaim we count three. For, first, the Lord teaches and
trains us by his word; next, he confirms us by his sacraments;
lastly, he illumines our mind by the light of his Holy Spirit, and
opens up an entrance into our hearts for his word and sacraments,
which would otherwise only strike our ears, and fall upon our sight,
but by no means affect us inwardly.
9. Wherefore, with regard to the increase and confirmation of
faith, I would remind the reader, (though I think I have already
expressed it in unambiguous terms,) that in assigning this office to
the sacraments, it is not as if I thought that there is a kind of
secret efficacy perpetually inherent in them, by which they can of
themselves promote or strengthen faith, but because our Lord has
instituted them for the express purpose of helping to establish and
increase our faith. The sacraments duly perform their office only
when accompanied by the Spirit, the internal Master, whose energy
alone penetrates the heart, stirs up the affections, and procures
access for the sacraments into our souls. If he is wanting, the
sacraments can avail us no more than the sun shining on the eyeballs
of the blind, or sounds uttered in the ears of the deaf. Wherefore,
in distributing between the Spirit and the sacraments I ascribe the
whole energy to him, and leave only a ministry to them; this
ministry, without the agency of the Spirit, is empty and frivolous,
but when he acts within, and exerts his power, it is replete with
energy. It is now clear in what way, according to this vies, a pious
mind is confirmed in faith by means of the sacraments, viz., in the
same way in which the light of the sun is seen by the eye, and the
sound of the voice heard by the ear; the former of which would not
be at all affected by the light unless it had a pupil on which the
light might fall; nor the latter reached by any sound, however loud
were it not naturally adapted for hearing. But if it is true, as has
been explained, that in the eye it is the power of vision which
enables it to see the light, and in the ear the power of hearing
which enables it to perceive the voice, and that in our hearts it is
the work of the Holy Spirit to commence, maintain, cherish, and
establish faith, then it follows both that the sacraments do not
avail one iota without the energy of the Holy Spirit; and that yet
in hearts previously taught by that preceptor, there is nothing to
prevent the sacraments from strengthening and increasing faith.
There is only this difference, that the faculty of seeing and
hearing is naturally implanted in the eye and ear; whereas, Christ
acts in our minds above the measure of nature by special grace.
10. In this way, also, we dispose of certain objections by
which some anxious minds are annoyed. If we ascribe either an
increase or confirmation of faith to creatures, injustice is done to
the Spirit of God, who alone ought to be regarded as its author. But
we do not rob him of the merit of confirming and increasing faith;
nay, rather, we maintain that that which confirms and increases
faith, is nothing else than the preparing of our minds by his
internal illumination to receive that confirmation which is set
forth by the sacraments. But if the subject is still obscure, it
will be made plain by the following similitude: Were you to begin to
persuade a person by word to do something you would think of all the
arguments by which he may be brought over to your view, and in a
manner compelled to serve your purpose. But nothing is gained if the
individual himself possess not a clear and acute judgement, by which
he may be able to weigh the value of your arguments; if, moreover he
is not of a docile disposition, and ready to listen to doctrine; if,
in fine, he has no such idea of your faith and prudence as in a
manner to prejudice him in your favour, and secure his assent. For
there are many obstinate spirits who are not to be bent by any
arguments; and where faith is suspected, or authority condemned,
little progress is made even with the docile. On the other hand,
when opposite feelings exist, the result will be, that the person
whose interests you are consulting will acquiesce in the very
counsels which he would otherwise have derided. The same work is
performed in us by the Spirit. That the word may not fall upon our
ear, or the sacraments be presented to our eye in vain, he shows
that it is God who there speaks to us, softens our obdurate hearts,
and frames them to the obedience which is due to his word; in short,
transmits those external words and sacraments from the ear to the
soul. Both word and sacraments, therefore, confirm our faith,
bringing under view the kind intentions of our heavenly Father, in
the knowledge of which the whole assurance of our faith depends, and
by which its strength is increased; and the Spirit also confirms our
faith when by engraving that assurance on our minds, he renders it
effectual. Meanwhile, it is easy for the Father of lights, in like
manner as he illumines the bodily eye by the rays of the sun, to
illumine our minds by the sacraments, as by a kind of intermediate
brightness.
11. This property our Lord showed to belong to the external
word, when, in the parable, he compared it to seed, (Matth. 13: 4;
Luke 8: 15.) For as the seed, when it falls on a deserted and
neglected part of the field, can do nothing but die, but when thrown
into ground properly laboured and cultivated, will yield a
hundred-fold; so the word of God, when addressed to any stubborn
spirit, will remain without fruit, as if thrown upon the barren
waste, but when it meets with a soul which the hand of the heavenly
Spirit has subdued, will be most fruitful. But if the case of the
seed and of the word is the same, and from the seed corn can grow
and increase, and attain to maturity, why may not faith also take
its beginning, increase, and completion from the word? Both things
are admirably explained by Paul in different passages. For when he
would remind the Corinthians how God had given effect to his
labours, he boasts that he possessed the ministry of the Spirit, (1
Cor. 2: 4;) just as if his preaching were inseparably connected with
the power of the Holy Spirit, in inwardly enlightening the mind, and
stimulating it. But in another passage, when he would remind them
what the power of the word is in itself, when preached by man, he
compares ministers to husbandmen, who, after they have expended
labour and industry in cultivating the ground, have nothing more
that they can do. For what would sloughing, and sowing, and watering
avail, unless that which was sown should, by the kindness of Heaven
vegetate? Wherefore, he concludes, that he that planteth and he that
watereth, is nothing, but that the whole is to be ascribed to God,
who alone gives the increase. The apostle, therefore, exert the
power of the Spirit in their preaching, inasmuch as God uses them as
instruments which he has ordained for the unfolding of his spiritual
grace. Still, however, we must not lose sight of the distinction,
but remember what man is able of himself to do, and what is peculiar
to God.
12. The sacraments are confirmations of our faith in such a
sense, that the Lord, sometimes, when he sees meet to withdraw our
assurance of the things which he had promised in the sacraments,
takes away the sacraments themselves. When he deprives Adam of the
gift of immortality, and expels him from the garden, "lest he put
forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and live for
ever," (Gen. 3: 22.) What is this we hear? Could that fruit have
restored Adam to the immortality from which he had already fallen?
By no means. It is just as if he had said, Lest he indulge in vain
confidence, if allowed to retain the symbol of my promise, let that
be withdrawn which might give him some hope of immortality. On this
ground, when the apostle urges the Ephesians to remember, that they
"were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel,
and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and
without God in the world," (Eph. 2: 12,) he says that they were not
partakers of circumcision. He thus intimates metonimically, that all
were excluded from the promise who had not received the badge of the
promise. To the other objection, viz., that when so much power is
attributed to creatures, the glory of God is bestowed upon them, and
thereby impaired, it is obvious to reply, that we attribute no power
to the creatures. All we say is, that God uses the means and
instruments which he sees to be expedient, in order that all things
may be subservient to his glory, he being the Lord and disposer of
all. Therefore, as by bread and other ailment he feeds our bodies,
and by the sun he illumines, and by fire gives warmth to the world,
and yet bread, sun, and fire, are nothing, save inasmuch as they are
instruments under which he dispenses his blessings to us; so in like
manner he spiritually nourishes our faith by means of the
sacraments, whose only office is to make his promises visible to our
eye, or rather, to be pledges of his promises. And as it is our duty
in regard to the other creatures which the divine liberality and
kindness has destined for our use, and by whose instrumentality he
bestows the gifts of his goodness upon us, to put no confidence in
them, nor to admire and extol them as the causes of our mercies; so
neither ought our confidence to be fixed on the sacraments, nor
ought the glory of God to be transferred to them, but passing beyond
them all, our faith and confession should rise to Him who is the
Author of the sacraments and of all things.
13. There is nothing in the argument which some found on the
very term sacrament. This term, they say, while it has many
significations in approved authors, has only one which is applicable
to signs, namely, when it is used for the formal oath which the
soldier gives to his commander on entering the service. For as by
that military oath recruits bind themselves to be faithful to their
commander, and make a profession of military service: so by our
signs we acknowledge Christ to be our commander, and declare that we
serve under his standard. They add similitudes, in order to make the
matter more clear. As the toga distinguished the Romans from the
Greeks, who wore the gallium; and as the different orders of Romans
were distinguished from each other by their peculiar insignia; e.g.,
the senatorial from the equestrian by purple, and crescent shoes,
and the equestrian from the plebeian by a ring, so we wear our
symbols to distinguish us from the profane. But it is sufficiently
clear from what has been said above, that the ancients, in giving
the name of sacraments to signs, had not at all attended to the use
of the term by Latin writers, but had, for the sake of convenience,
given it this new signification, as a means of simply expressing
sacred signs. But were we to argue more subtilely, we might say that
they seem to have given the term this signification in a manner
analogous to that in which they employ the term faith in the sense
in which it is now used. For while faith is truth in performing
promises, they have used it for the certainty or firm persuasion
which is had of the truth. In this way, while a sacrament is the act
of the soldier when he vows obedience to his commander, they made it
the act by which the commander admits soldiers to the ranks. For in
the sacraments the Lord promises that he will be our God, and we
that we will be his people. But we omit such subtleties, since I
think I have shown by arguments abundantly plain, that all which
ancient writers intended was to intimate, that sacraments are the
signs of sacred and spiritual things. The similitudes which are
drawn from external objects, (chap. 15 sec. 1,) we indeed admit; but
we approve not, that that which is a secondary thing in sacraments
is by them made the first, and indeed the only thing. The first
thing is, that they may contribute to our faith in God; the
secondary, that they may attest our confession before men. These
similitudes are applicable to the secondary reason. Let it therefore
remain a fixed point, that mysteries would be frigid, (as has been
seen,) were they not helps to our faith, and adjuncts annexed to
doctrine for the same end and purpose.
14. On the other hand, it is to be observed, that as these
objectors impair the force, and altogether overthrow the use of the
sacraments, so there are others who ascribe to the sacraments a kind
of secret virtue, which is nowhere said to have been implanted in
them by God. By this error the more simple and unwary are perilously
deceived while they are taught to seek the gifts of God where they
cannot possibly be found, and are insensibly withdrawn from God, so
as to embrace instead of his truth mere vanity. For the schools of
the Sophists have taught with general consent that the sacraments of
the new law, in other words, those now in use in the Christian
Church, justify, and confer grace, provided only that we do not
interpose the obstacle of mortal sin. It is impossible to describe
how fatal and pestilential this sentiment is, and the more so, that
for many ages it has, to the great loss of the Church, prevailed
over a considerable part of the world. It is plainly of the devil:
for, first, in promising a righteousness without faith, it drives
souls headlong on destruction; secondly, in deriving a cause of
righteousness from the sacraments, it entangles miserable minds,
already of their own accord too much inclined to the earth, in a
superstitious idea, which makes them acquiesce in the spectacle of a
corporeal object rather than in God himself. I wish we had not such
experience of both evils as to make it altogether unnecessary to
give a lengthened proof of them. For what is a sacrament received
without faith, but most certain destruction to the Church? For,
seeing that nothing is to be expected beyond the promise, and the
promise no less denounces wrath to the unbeliever than offers grace
to the believer, it is an error to suppose that anything more is
conferred by the sacraments than is offered by the word of God, and
obtained by true faith. From this another thing follows, viz., that
assurance of salvation does not depend on participation in the
sacraments, as if justification consisted in it. This, which is
treasured up in Christ alone, we know to be communicated, not less
by the preaching of the Gospel than by the seal of a sacrament, and
may be completely enjoyed without this seal. So true is it, as
Augustine declares, that there may be invisible sanctification
without a visible sign, and, on the other hand, a visible sign
without true sanctification, (August. de Quest. Vet. Test. Lib. 3.)
For as he elsewhere says, "Men put on Christ, sometimes to the
extent of partaking in the sacrament, and sometimes to the extent of
holiness of life," (August. de Bapt. Cont. Donat. cap. 24.) The
former may be common to the good and the bad, the latter is peculiar
to the good.
15. Hence the distinction, if properly understood, repeatedly
made by Augustine between the sacrament and the matter of the
sacrament. For he does not mean merely that the figure and truth are
therein contained, but that they do not so cohere as not to be
separable, and that in this connection it is always necessary to
distinguish the thing from the sign, so as not to transfer to the
one what belongs to the other. Augustine speaks of the separation
when he says that in the elect alone the sacraments accomplish what
they represent, (Augustin. de Bapt. Parvul.) Again, when speaking of
the Jews, he says, "Though the sacraments were common to and the
grace was not common: yet grace is the virtue of the sacraments.
Thus, too, the laver of regeneration is now common to all, but the
grace by which the members of Christ are regenerated with their head
is not common to all," (August. in Ps. 78.) Again, in another place,
speaking of the Lord's Supper, he says "We also this day receive
visible food; but the sacrament is one thing, the virtue of the
sacrament another. Why is it that many partake of the altar and die,
and die by partaking? For even the cup of the Lord was poison to
Judas, not because he received what was evil, but being wicked he
wickedly received what was good," (August. in Joann. Hom. 26.) A
little after, he says, "The sacrament of this thing, that is, of the
unity of the body and blood of Christ, is in some places prepared
every day, in others at certain intervals at the Lord's table, which
is partaken by some unto life, by others unto destruction. But the
thing itself, of which there is a sacrament, is life to all, and
destruction to none who partake of it." Some time before he had
said, "He who may have eaten shall not die, but he must be one who
attains to the virtue of the sacrament, not to the visible
sacrament; who eats inwardly not outwardly; who eats with the heart,
and not with the teeth." Here you are uniformly told that a
sacrament is so separated from the reality by the unworthiness of
the partaker, that nothing remains but an empty and useless figure.
Now, in order that you may have not a sign devoid of truth, but the
thing with the sign, the Word which is included in it must be
apprehended by faith. Thus, in so far as by means of the sacraments
you will profit in the communion of Christ, will you derive
advantage from them.
16. If this is obscure from brevity, I will explain it more at
length. I say that Christ is the matter, or, if you rather choose
it, the substance of all the sacraments, since in him they have
their whole solidity, and out of him promise nothing. Hence the less
toleration is due to the error of Peter Lombard, who distinctly
makes them causes of the righteousness and salvation of which they
are parts, (Sent. Lib. 4 Dist. 1.) Bidding adieu to all other causes
of righteousness which the wit of man devises, our duty is to hold
by this only. In so far, therefore, as we are assisted by their
instrumentality in cherishing, confirming, and increasing the true
knowledge of Christ, so as both to possess him more fully, and enjoy
him in all his richness, so far are they effectual in regard to us.
This is the case when that which is there offered is received by us
in true faith. Therefore, you will ask, Do the wicked, by their
ingratitude, make the ordinance of God fruitless and void? I answer,
that what I have said is not to be understood as if the power and
truth of the sacrament depended on the condition or pleasure of him
who receives it. That which God instituted continues firm, and
retains its nature, however men may vary; but since it is one thing
to offer, and another to receive, there is nothing to prevent a
symbol, consecrated by the word of the Lord, from being truly what
it is said to be, and preserving its power, though it may at the
same time confer no benefit on the wicked and ungodly. This question
is well solved by Augustine in a few words: "If you receive
carnally, it ceases not to be spiritual, but it is not spiritual to
you," (August. Hom. in Joan 26.) But as Augustine shows in the above
passages that a sacrament is a thing of no value if separated from
its truth; so also, when the two are conjoined, he reminds us that
it is necessary to distinguish, in order that we may not cleave too
much to the external sign. "As it is servile weakness to follow the
latter, and take the signs for the thing signified, so to interpret
the signs as of no use is an extravagant error," (August. de Doct.
Christ. Lib. 3 c. 9.) He mentions two faults which are here to be
avoided; the one when we receive the signs as if they had been given
in vain, and by malignantly destroying or impairing their secret
meanings, prevent them from yielding any fruit - the other, when by
not raising our minds beyond the visible sign, we attribute to it
blessings which are conferred upon us by Christ alone, and that by
means of the holy Spirit, who makes us to be partakers of Christ,
external signs assisting if they invite us to Christ; whereas, when
wrested to any other purpose, their whole utility is overthrown.
17. Wherefore, let it be a fixed point, that the office of the
sacraments differs not from the word of God; and this is to hold
forth and offer Christ to us, and, in him, the treasures of heavenly
grace. They confer nothing, and avail nothing, if not received in
faith, just as wine and oil, or any other liquor, however large the
quantity which you pour out, will run away and perish unless there
be an open vessel to receive it. When the vessel is not open, though
it may be sprinkled all over, it will nevertheless remain entirely
empty. We must beware of being led into a kindred error by the
terms, somewhat too extravagant, which ancient Christian writers
have employed in extolling the dignity of the sacraments. We must
not suppose that there is some latent virtue inherent in the
sacraments, by which they, in themselves confer the gifts of the
Holy Spirit upon us, in the same way in which wine is drunk out of a
cup, since the only office divinely assigned them is to attest and
ratify the benevolence of the Lord towards us; and they avail no
farther than accompanied by the Holy Spirit to open our minds and
hearts, and make us capable of receiving this testimony, in which
various distinguished graces are clearly manifested. For the
sacraments, as we lately observed, (chap. 13 sec. 6; and 14 sec. 6,
7,) are to us what messengers of good news are to men, or earnests
in ratifying pactions. They do not of themselves bestow any grace,
but they announce and manifest it, and, like earnests and badges,
give a ratification of the gifts which the Divine liberality has
bestowed upon us. The Holy Spirit, whom the sacraments do not bring
promiscuously to all, but whom the Lord especially confers on his
people, brings the gifts of God along with him, makes way for the
sacraments, and causes them to bear fruit. But though we deny not
that God, by the immediate agency of his Spirit, countenances his
own ordinance, preventing the administration of the sacraments which
he has instituted from being fruitless and vain, still we maintain
that the internal grace of the Spirit, as it is distinct from the
external ministration, ought to be viewed and considered separately.
God, therefore, truly performs whatever he promises and figures by
signs; nor are the signs without effect, for they prove that he is
their true and faithful author. The only question here is, whether
the Lord works by proper and intrinsic virtue, (as it is called,) or
resigns his office to external symbols? We maintain, that whatever
organs he employs detract nothing from his primary operation. In
this doctrine of the sacraments, their dignity is highly extolled,
their use plainly shown, their utility sufficiently proclaimed, and
moderation in all things duly maintained; so that nothing is
attributed to them which ought not to be attributed, and nothing
denied them which they ought to possess. Meanwhile, we get rid of
that fiction by which the cause of justification and the power of
the Holy Spirit are included in elements as vessels and vehicles,
and the special power which was overlooked is distinctly explained.
Here, also, we ought to observe, that what the minister figures and
attests by outward action, God performs inwardly, lest that which
God claims for himself alone should be ascribed to mortal man. This
Augustine is careful to observe: "How does both God and Moses
sanctify? Not Moses for God, but Moses by visible sacraments through
his ministry, God by invisible grace through the Holy Spirit. Herein
is the whole fruit of visible sacraments; for what do these visible
sacraments avail without that sanctification of invisible grace?"
18. The term sacrament, in the view we have hitherto taken of
it, includes, generally, all the signs which God ever commanded men
to use, that he might make them sure and confident of the truth of
his promises. These he was pleased sometimes to place in natural
objects - sometimes to exhibit in miracles. Of the former class we
have an example, in his giving the tree of life to Adam and Eve, as
an earnest of immortality, that they might feel confident of the
promise as often as they ate of the fruit. Another example was, when
he gave the bow in the cloud to Noah and his posterity, as a
memorial that he would not again destroy the earth by a flood. These
were to Adam and Noah as sacraments: not that the tree could give
Adam and Eve the immortality which it could not give to itself; or
the bow (which is only a reflection of the solar rays on the
opposite clouds) could have the effect of confining the waters; but
they had a mark engraven on them by the word of God, to be proofs
and seals of his covenant. The tree was previously a tree, and the
bow a bow; but when they were inscribed with the word of God, a new
form was given to them: they began to be what they previously were
not. Lest any one suppose that these things were said in vain, the
bow is even in the present day a witness to us of the covenant which
God made with Noah, (Calv. in Gen. 9: 6.) As often as we look upon
it, we read this promise from God, that the earth will never be
destroyed by a flood. Wherefore, if any philosophaster, to deride
the simplicity of our faith, shall contend that the variety of
colours arises naturally from the rays reflected by the opposite
cloud, let us admit the fact; but, at the same time, deride his
stupidity in not recognising God as the Lord and governor of nature,
who, at his pleasure, makes all the elements subservient to his
glory. If he had impressed memorials of this description on the sun,
the star, the earth, and stones, they would all have been to us as
sacraments. For why is the shapeless and the coined silver not of
the same value, seeing they are the same metal? Just because the
former has nothing but its own nature, whereas the latter, impressed
with the public stamp, becomes money, and receives a new value. And
shall the Lord not be able to stamp his creatures with his word,
that things which were formerly bare elements may become sacraments?
Examples of the second class were given when he showed light to
Abraham in the smoking furnace, (Gen. 15: 17,) when he covered the
fleece with dew while the ground was dry; And, on the other hand,
when the dew covered the ground while the fleece was untouched, to
assure Gideon of victory, (Judges 6: 37;) also, when he made the
shadow go back ten degrees on the dial, to assure Hezekiah of his
recovery, (2 Kings 20: 9; Isa. 38: 7.) These things, which were done
to assist and establish their faith, were also sacraments.
19. But my present purpose is to discourse especially of those
sacraments which the Lord has been pleased to institute as ordinary
sacraments in his Church, to bring up his worshipers and servants in
one faith, and the confession of one faith. For, to use the words of
Augustine, "In no name of religion, true or false, can men be
assembled, unless united by some common use of visible signs or
sacraments," (August. cont. Faustum, Lib. 9 c. 11.) Our most
merciful Father, foreseeing this necessity, from the very first
appointed certain exercises of piety to his servants; these, Satan,
by afterwards transferring, to impious and superstitious worship, in
many ways corrupted and depraved. Hence those initiations of the
Gentiles into their mysteries, and other degenerate rites. Yet,
although they were full of error and superstitions they were, at the
same time, an indication that men could not be without such external
signs of religion. But, as they were neither founded on the word of
God, nor bore reference to that truth which ought to be held forth
by all signs, they are unworthy of being named when mention is made
of the sacred symbols which were instituted by God, and have not
been perverted from their end, viz., to be helps to true piety. And
they consist not of simple signs, like the rainbow and the tree of
life, but of ceremonies, or (if you prefer it) the signs here
employed are ceremonies. But since, as has been said above, they are
testimonies of grace and salvation from the Lord, so, in regard to
us, they are marks of profession by which we openly swear by the
name of God, binding ourselves to be faithful to him. Hence
Chrysostom somewhere shrewdly gives them the name of factions, by
which God enters into covenant with us, and we become bound to
holiness and purity of life, because a mutual stipulation is here
interposed between God and us. For as God there promises to cover
and efface any guilt and penalty which we may have incurred by
transgression, and reconciles us to himself in his only begotten
Son; so we, in our turn, oblige ourselves by this profession to the
study of piety and righteousness. And hence it may be justly said,
that such sacraments are ceremonies, by which God is pleased to
train his people, first, to excite, cherish, and strengthen faith
within; and, secondly, to testify our religion to men.
20. Now, these have been different at different times,
according to the dispensation which the Lord has seen meet to employ
in manifesting himself to men. Circumcision was enjoined on Abraham
and his posterity, and to it were afterwards added purifications and
sacrifices and other rites of the mosaic Law. These were the
sacraments of the Jews even until the advent of Christ. After these
were abrogated the two sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper,
which the Christian Church now employs, were instituted. I speak of
those which were instituted for the use of the whole Church. For the
laying on of hands, by which the ministers of the Church are
initiated into their office, though I have no objection to its being
called a sacrament, I do not number among ordinary sacraments. The
place to be assigned to the other commonly reputed sacrament, we
shall see by and by. Still the ancient sacraments had the same end
in view as our own, viz., to direct and almost lead us by the hand
to Christ, or rather, were like images to represent him and hold him
forth to our knowledge. But as we have already shown that sacraments
are a kind of seals of the promises of God, so let us hold it as a
most certain truth, that no divine promise has ever been offered to
man except in Christ, and that hence when they remind us of any
divine promise, they must of necessity exhibit Christ. Hence that
heavenly pattern of the tabernacle and legal worship which was shown
to Moses in the mount. There is only this difference, that while the
former shadowed forth a promised Christ while be was still expected,
the latter bear testimony to him as already come and manifested.
21. When these things are explained singly and separately, they
will be much clearer. Circumcision was a sign by which the Jews were
reminded that whatever comes of the seed of man - in other words,
the whole nature of man - is corrupt, and requires to be cut off;
moreover, it was a proof and memorial to confirm them in the promise
made to Abraham, of a seed in whom all the nations of the earth
should be blessed, and from whom they themselves were to look for a
blessing. That saving seed, as we are taught by Paul, (Gal. 5: 16,)
was Christ, in whom alone they trusted to recover what they had lost
in Adam. Wherefore, circumcision was to them what Paul say, it was
to Abraham, viz., a sign of the righteousness of faith, (Rom. 4:
11;) viz., a seal by which they were more certainly assured that
their faith in waiting for the Lord would be accepted by God for
righteousness. But we shall have a better opportunity elsewhere
(chap. 16 sec. 3, 4) of following out the comparison between
circumcision and baptism. Their washings and purifications placed
under their eye the uncleanness, defilement, and pollution with
which they were naturally contaminated, and promised another laver
in which all their impurities might be wiped and washed away. This
laver was Christ, washed by whose blood we bring his purity into the
sight of God, that he may cover all our defilements. The sacrifices
convicted them of their unrighteousness, and at the same time taught
that there was a necessity for paying some satisfaction to the
justice of God; and that, therefore, there must be some high priest,
some mediator between God and man, to satisfy God by the shedding of
blood, and the immolation of a victim which might suffice for the
remission of sins. The high priest was Christ: he shed his own
blood, he was himself the victim: for, in obedience to the Father,
he offered himself to death, and by this obedience abolished the
disobedience by which man had provoked the indignation of God,
(Phil. 2: 8; Rom. 5: 19.)
22. In regard to our sacraments, they present Christ the more
clearly to us, the more familiarly he has been manifested to man,
ever since he was exhibited by the Father, truly as he had been
promised. For Baptism testifies that we are washed and purified; the
Supper of the Eucharist that we are redeemed. Ablution is figured by
water, satisfaction by blood. Both are found in Christ, who, as John
says, "came by water and blood;" that is, to purify and redeem. Of
this the Spirit of God also is a witness. Nay, there are three
witnesses in one, water, Spirit, and blood. In the water and blood
we have an evidence of purification and redemption, but the Spirit
is the primary witness who gives us a full assurance of this
testimony. This sublime mystery was illustriously displayed on the
cross of Christ, when water and blood flowed from his sacred side,
(John 19: 34;) which, for this reasons Augustine justly termed the
fountain of our sacraments, (August. Hom. in Joann. 26.) Of these we
shall shortly treat at greater length. There is no doubt that, if
you compare time with time, the grace of the Spirit is now more
abundantly displayed. For this forms part of the glory of the
kingdom of Christ, as we gather from several passages, and
especially from the seventh chapter of John. In this sense are we to
understand the words of Paul, that the law was "a shadow of good
things to come, but the body is of Christ," (Col. 2: 17.) His
purpose is not to declare the inefficacy of those manifestations of
grace in which God was pleased to prove his truth to the patriarchs,
just as he proves it to us in the present day in Baptism and the
Lord's Supper, but to contrast the two, and show the great value of
what is given to us, that no one may think it strange that by the
advent of Christ the ceremonies of the law have been abolished.
23. The Scholastic dogma, (to glance at it in passing,) by
which the difference between the sacraments of the old and the new
dispensation is made so great, that the former did nothing but
shadow forth the grace of God, while the latter actually confer it,
must be altogether exploded. Since the apostle speaks in no higher
terms of the one than of the other, when he says that the fathers
ate of the same spiritual food, and explains that that food was
Christ, (1 Cor. 10: 3,) who will presume to regard as an empty sign
that which gave a manifestation to the Jews of true communion with
Christ? And the state of the case which the apostle is there
treating militates strongly for our view. For to guard against
confiding in a frigid knowledge of Christ, an empty title of
Christianity and external observances, and thereby daring to condemn
the judgement of God, he exhibits signal examples of divine severity
in the Jews, to make us aware that if we indulge in the same vices,
the same punishments which they suffered are impending over us. Now,
to make the comparison appropriate, it was necessary to show that
there is no inequality between us and them in those blessings in
which he forbade us to glory. Therefore, he first makes them equal
to us in the sacraments, and leaves us not one iota of privilege
which could give us hopes of impunity. Nor can we justly attribute
more to our baptism than he elsewhere attributes to circumcision,
when he terms it a seal of the righteousness of faith, (Rom. 4: 11.)
Whatever, therefore, is now exhibited to us in the sacraments, the
Jews formerly received in theirs, viz., Christ, with his spiritual
riches. The same efficacy which ours possess they experienced in
theirs, viz., that they were seals of the divine favour toward them
in regard to the hope of eternal salvation. Had the objectors been
sound expounders of the Epistle to the Hebrews, they would not have
been so deluded, but reading therein that sins were not expiated by
legal ceremonies, nay, that the ancient shadows were of no
importance to justification, they overlooked the contrast which is
there drawn, and fastening on the single point, that the law in
itself was of no avail to the worshipped, thought that they were
mere figures, devoid of truth. The purpose of the apostle is to show
that there is nothing in the ceremonial law until we arrive at
Christ, on whom alone the whole efficacy depends.
24. But they will found on what Paul says of the circumcision
of the letter, and object that it is in no esteem with God; that it
confers nothing, is empty; that passages such as these seem to set
it far beneath our baptism. But by no means. For the very same thing
might justly be said of baptism. Indeed, it is said; first by Paul
himself, when he shows that God regards not the external ablution by
which we are initiated into religion, unless the mind is purified
inwardly, and maintains its purity to the end; and, secondly, by
Peter, when he declares that the reality of baptism consists not in
external ablution, but in the testimony of a good conscience. But it
seems that in another passage he speaks with the greatest contempt
of circumcision made with hands, when he contrasts it with the
circumcision made by Christ. I answer, that not even in that passage
is there any thing derogatory to its dignity. Paul is there
disputing against those who insisted upon it as necessary, after it
had been abrogated. He therefore admonishes believers to lay aside
ancient shadows, and cleave to truth. These teachers, he says,
insist that your bodies shall be circumcised. But you have been
spiritually circumcised both in soul and body. You have, therefore,
a manifestation of the reality, and this is far better than the
shadow. Still any one might have answered, that the figure was not
to be despised because they had the reality, since among the fathers
also was exemplified that putting off of the old man of which he was
speaking, and yet to them external circumcision was not superfluous.
This objection he anticipates, when he immediately adds, that the
Colossians were buried together with Christ by baptism, thereby
intimating that baptism is now to Christians what circumcision was
to those of ancient times; and that the latter, therefore, could not
be imposed on Christians without injury to the former.
24. But there is more difficulty in explaining the passage
which follows, and which I lately quoted, viz., that all the Jewish
ceremonies were shadows of things to come, but the body is of
Christ, (Col. 2: 17.) The most difficult point of all, however, is
that which is discussed in several chapters of the Epistle to the
Hebrews, namely, that the blood of beasts did not reach to the
conscience; that the law was a shadow of good things to come, but
not the very image of the things, (Heb. 10: 1;) that worshipers
under the Mosaic ceremonies obtained no degree of perfection, and so
forth. I repeat what I have already hinted, that Paul does not
represent the ceremonies as shadowy, because they had nothing solid
in them, but because their completion was in a manner suspended
until the manifestation of Christ. Again, I hold that the words are
to be understood not of their efficiency, but rather of the mode of
significance. For until Christ was manifested in the flesh, all
signs shadowed him as absent, however he might inwardly exert the
presence of his power, and consequently of his person on believers.
But the most important observation is, that in all these passages
Paul does not speak simply, but by way of reply. He was contending
with false apostles, who maintained that piety consisted in mere
ceremonies, without any respect to Christ: for their refutation it
was sufficient merely to consider what effect ceremonies have in
themselves. This, too, was the scope of the author of the Epistle to
the Hebrews. Let us remember, therefore, that he is here treating of
ceremonies not taken in their true and native signification, but
when wrested to a false and vicious interpretation, not of the
legitimate use, but of the superstitious abuse of them. What wonder,
then, if ceremonies, when separated from Christ, are devoid of all
virtue? All signs become null when the thing signified is taken a
away. Thus Christ, when addressing those who thought that manna was
nothing more than food for the body, accommodates his language to
their gross opinion, and says, that he furnished a better food, one
which fed souls for immortality. But if you require a clearer
solution, the substance comes to this: First, the whole apparatus of
ceremonies under the Mosaic law, unless directed to Christ, is
evanescent and null. Secondly, these ceremonies had such respect to
Christ, that they had their fulfilment only when Christ was
manifested in the flesh. Lastly, at his advent they behaved to
disappear, just as the shadow vanishes in the clear light of the
sun. But I now touch more briefly on the point, because I defer the
future consideration of it till I come to the place where I intend
to compare baptism with circumcision.
26. Those wretched sophists are perhaps deceived by the
extravagant eulogiums on our signs which occur in ancient writers:
for instance, the following passage of Augustine: "The sacraments of
the old law only promised a Saviour, whereas ours give salvation,"
(August. Proem. in Ps. 73.) Not perceiving that these and similar
figures of speech are hyperbolical, they too have promulgated their
hyperbolical dogmas, but in a sense altogether alien from that of
ancient writers. For Augustine means nothing more than in another
place where he says, "The sacraments of the Mosaic law foretold
Christ, ours announce him," (Quest. sup. Numer. C. 33.) And again,
"Those were promises of things to be fulfilled these indications of
the fulfilments" (Contra Faustum, Lib 19 c. 14;) as if he had said,
Those figured him when he was still expected, ours, now that he has
arrived, exhibit him as present. Moreover, with regard to the mode
of signifying, he says, as he also elsewhere indicates, "The Law and
the Prophets had sacraments foretelling a thing future, the
sacraments of our time attest that what they foretold as to come has
come," (Cont. Liter. Petit. Lib. 2. C. 37.) His sentiments
concerning the reality and efficacy, he explains in several
passages, as when he says, "The sacraments of the Jews were
different in the signs, alike in the things signified; different in
the visible appearance, alike in spiritual power," (Hom. in Joann.
26.) Again, "In different signs there was the same faith: it was
thus in different signs as in different words, because the words
change the sound according to times, and yet words are nothing else
than signs. The fathers drank of the same spiritual drink, but not
of the same corporeal drink. See then how, while faith remains,
signs vary. There the rock was Christ; to us that is Christ which is
placed on the altar. They as a great sacrament drank of the water
flowing from the rock: believers know what we drink. If you look at
the visible appearance there was a difference; if at the
intelligible signification, they drank of the same spiritual drink."
Again, "In this mystery their food and drink are the same as ours:
the same in meaning, not in form, for the same Christ was figured to
them in the rock; to us he here been manifested in the flesh," (in
Ps. 77.) Though we grant that in this respect also there is some
difference. Both testify that the paternal kindness of God, and the
graces of the spirit, are offered us in Christ, but ours more
clearly and splendidly. In both there is an exhibition of Christ,
but in ours it is more full and complete, in accordance with that
distinction between the Old and New Testament, of which we have
discoursed above. And this is the meaning of Augustine, (whom we
quote more frequently, as being the best and most faithful witness
of all antiquity,) where he says that after Christ was revealed,
sacraments were instituted, fewer in number, but of more august
significance and more excellent power, (De Doct. Christ. Lib. 3:; et
Ep. ad Januar.) It is here proper to remind the reader, that all the
trifling talk of the sophists concerning the opus operatum, is not
only false, but repugnant to the very nature of sacraments, which
God appointed in order that believers, who are void and in want of
all good, might bring nothing of their own, but simply beg. Hence it
follows, that in receiving them, they do nothing which deserves
praise, and that in this action (which in respect of them is merely
passive) no work can be ascribed to them.
Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Volume 4
(continued in part 16...)
----------------------------------------------------
file: /pub/resources/text/ipb-e/epl-09: cvin4-15.txt
.
