THE SACRAMENTS.
Connected with the preaching of the gospel, another assistance and
support for our faith is presented to us in the sacraments; on the
subject of which it is highly important to lay down some certain
doctrine, that we may learn for what end they were instituted, and how
they ought to be used. In the first place, it is necessary to consider
what a sacrament is. Now, I think it will be a simple and appropriate
definition, if we say that it is an outward sign, by which the Lord
seals in our consciences the promises of his good-will towards us, to
support the weakness of our faith; and we on our part testify our piety
towards him, in his presence and that of angels, as well as before men.
It may, however, be more briefly defined, in other words, by calling it
a testimony of the grace of God towards us, confirmed by an outward
sign, with a reciprocal attestation of our piety towards him. Whichever
of these definitions be chosen, it conveys exactly the same meaning as
that of Augustine, which states a sacrament to be “a visible sign of a
sacred thing,” or “a visible form of invisible grace;” but it expresses
the thing itself with more clearness and precision; for as his
conciseness leaves some obscurity, by which many inexperienced persons
may be misled, I have endeavoured to render the subject plainer by more
words, that no room might be left for any doubt.
II. The reason why the ancient fathers used this word in such a sense is
very evident. For whenever the author of the old common version of the
New Testament wanted to render the Greek word μυστηριον, _mystery_, into
Latin, especially where it related to Divine things, he used the word
_sacramentum_, “sacrament.” Thus, in the Epistle to the Ephesians,
“Having made known unto us the _mystery_ of his will.”[1095] Again: “If
ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me
to you-ward; how that by revelation he made known unto me the
_mystery_.”[1096] In the Epistle to the Colossians: “The _mystery_ which
hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest
to his saints; to whom God would make known what is the riches of the
glory of this _mystery_.”[1097] Again, to Timothy: “Great is the
_mystery_ of godliness; God was manifest in the flesh.”[1098] In all
these places, where the word _mystery_ is used, the author of that
version has rendered it _sacrament_. He would not say _arcanum_, or
_secret_, lest he should appear to degrade the majesty of the subject.
Therefore he has used the word _sacrament_ for a sacred or Divine
secret. In this signification it frequently occurs in the writings of
the fathers. And it is well known, that baptism and the Lord’s supper,
which the Latins denominate _sacraments_, are called _mysteries_ by the
Greeks; a synonymous use of the terms, which removes every doubt. And
hence the word _sacrament_ came to be applied to those signs which
contained a representation of sublime and spiritual things; which is
also remarked by Augustine, who says, “It would be tedious to dispute
respecting the diversity of signs, which, when they pertain to Divine
things, are called _sacraments_.”
III. Now, from the definition which we have established, we see that
there is never any sacrament without an antecedent promise of God, to
which it is subjoined as an appendix, in order to confirm and seal the
promise itself, and to certify and ratify it to us; which means God
foresees to be necessary, in the first place on account of our ignorance
and dulness, and in the next place on account of our weakness; and yet,
strictly speaking, not so much for the confirmation of his sacred word,
as for our establishment in the faith of it. For the truth of God is
sufficiently solid and certain in itself, and can receive no better
confirmation from any other quarter than from itself; but our faith
being slender and weak, unless it be supported on every side, and
sustained by every assistance, immediately shakes, fluctuates, totters,
and falls. And as we are corporeal, always creeping on the ground,
cleaving to terrestrial and carnal objects, and incapable of
understanding or conceiving of any thing of a spiritual nature, our
merciful Lord, in his infinite indulgence, accommodates himself to our
capacity, condescending to lead us to himself even by these earthly
elements, and in the flesh itself to present to us a mirror of spiritual
blessings. “For if we were incorporeal,” as Chrysostom says, “he would
have given us these things pure and incorporeal. Now because we have
souls enclosed in bodies, he gives us spiritual things under visible
emblems; not because there are such qualities in the nature of the
things presented to us in the sacraments, but because they have been
designated by God to this signification.”
IV. This is what is commonly said, that a sacrament consists of the word
and the outward sign. For we ought to understand the _word_, not of a
murmur uttered without any meaning or faith, a mere whisper like a
magical incantation, supposed to possess the power of consecrating the
elements, but of the gospel preached, which instructs us in the
signification of the visible sign. That which is commonly practised
under the tyranny of the pope, therefore, involves a gross profanation
of the mysteries; for they have thought it sufficient for the priest to
mutter over the form of consecration, while the people are gazing in
ignorance. Indeed, they have taken effectual care that it should be all
unintelligible to the people; for they have pronounced the consecration
in Latin, before illiterate men; and have at length carried superstition
to such a pitch, as to consider it not rightly performed, unless it be
done in a hoarse murmur, which few could hear. But Augustine speaks in a
very different manner of the sacramental word. “Let the word,” says he,
“be added to the element, and it will become a sacrament. For whence
does the water derive such great virtue, as at once to touch the body
and purify the heart, except from the word? not because it is spoken,
but because it is believed. For in the word itself the transient sound
is one thing, the permanent virtue is another. ‘This is the word of
faith which we preach,’[1099] says the apostle. Whence it is said of the
Gentiles, in the Acts of the Apostles, that ‘God purifies their hearts
by faith.’[1100] And the apostle Peter says, ‘Baptism doth also now save
us, (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a
good conscience towards God.)’[1101] ‘This is the word of faith which we
preach,’ by which baptism is consecrated to endue it with a purifying
virtue.” We see how he makes the preaching of the word necessary to the
production of faith. And we need not labour much to prove this, because
it is very plain what Christ did, what he commanded us to do, what the
apostles followed, and what the purer Church observed. Even from the
beginning of the world, whenever God gave the holy fathers any sign, it
is well known to have been inseparably connected with some doctrine,
without which our senses would only be astonished with the mere view of
it. Therefore, when we hear mention made of the sacramental word, let us
understand it of the promise, which, being audibly and intelligibly
preached by the minister, instructs the people in the meaning and
tendency of the sign.
V. Nor ought any attention to be paid to some, who endeavour to oppose
this by a dilemma which discovers more subtlety than solidity. They say,
Either we know that the word of God which precedes the sacrament is the
true will of God, or we do not know it. If we know it, then we learn
nothing new from the sacrament which follows. If we do not know it,
neither shall we learn it from the sacrament, the virtue of which lies
entirely in the word. Let it be concisely replied, that the seals
appended to charters, patents, and other public instruments, are
nothing, taken by themselves; because they would be appended to no
purpose, if the parchment had nothing written upon it; and yet they
nevertheless confirm and authenticate what is written on the instruments
to which they are annexed. Nor can it be objected that this similitude
has been recently invented by us; for it has been used by Paul himself,
who calls circumcision a _seal_,[1102] σφραγιδα, in a passage where he
is professedly contending that circumcision did not constitute the
righteousness of Abraham, but was a seal of that covenant, in the faith
of which he had already been justified. And what is there that ought to
give any man much offence, if we teach that the promise is sealed by the
sacraments, while it is evident that among the promises themselves one
is confirmed by another? For in proportion to its superior clearness, it
is the better calculated for the support of faith. Now, the sacraments
bring us the clearest promises, and have this peculiarity beyond the
word, that they give us a lively representation of them, as in a
picture. Nor ought we to regard the objection, frequently urged, from
the distinction between sacraments and seals of civil instruments, that
while they both consist of the carnal elements of this world, the former
cannot be fit to seal the promises of God, which are spiritual and
eternal, as the latter are accustomed to be appended to seal the edicts
of princes relative to frail and transitory things. For the believer,
when the sacraments are placed before his eyes, does not confine himself
to that carnal spectacle; but by those steps of analogy which I have
indicated, rises in pious contemplation to the sublime mysteries which
are concealed under the sacramental symbols.
VI. And since the Lord calls his promises _covenants_, and the
sacraments _seals of covenants_, we may draw a similitude from the
covenants of men. The ancients, in confirmation of their engagements,
were accustomed to kill a sow. But what would have been the slaughter of
a sow, if it had not been accompanied, and even preceded, by some words?
For sows were often slaughtered without any latent or sublime mystery.
What is the contact of one man’s right hand with that of another, since
hands are not unfrequently joined in hostility? But when words of
friendship and compact have preceded, the obligations of covenants are
confirmed by such signs, notwithstanding they have been previously
conceived, proposed, and determined in words. Sacraments, therefore, are
exercises, which increase and strengthen our faith in the word of God;
and because we are corporeal, they are exhibited under corporeal
symbols, to instruct us according to our dull capacities, and to lead us
by the hand as so many young children. For this reason Augustine calls a
sacrament “a visible word;” because it represents the promises of God
portrayed as in a picture, and places before our eyes an image of them,
in which every lineament is strikingly expressed. Other similitudes may
also be adduced for the better elucidation of the nature of sacraments;
as if we call them _pillars of our faith_; for as an edifice rests on
its foundation, and yet, from the addition of pillars placed under it,
receives an increase of stability, so faith rests on the word of God as
its foundation; but when the sacraments are added to it as pillars, they
bring with them an accession of strength. Or if we call them _mirrors_,
in which we may contemplate the riches of grace which God imparts to us;
for in the sacraments, as we have already observed, he manifests himself
to us as far as our dulness is capable of knowing him, and testifies his
benevolence and love towards us more expressly than he does by his word.
VII. Nor is there any force in their reasoning, when they contend that
the sacraments are not testimonies of the grace of God, because they are
often administered to the wicked, who yet do not, in consequence of
this, experience God to be more propitious to them, but rather procure
to themselves more grievous condemnation. For, by the same argument,
neither would the gospel be a testimony of the grace of God, because it
is heard by many who despise it, nor even Christ himself, who was seen
and known by multitudes, of whom very few received him. A similar
observation may be applied to royal edicts; for great numbers of people
despise and deride that seal of authentication, notwithstanding they
know that it proceeded from the monarch to confirm his will; some
utterly disregard it, as a thing not relating to them; others even hold
it in execration; so that a survey of the correspondence of the two
cases ought to produce greater approbation of the similitude which I
have before used. Therefore it is certain that the Lord offers us his
mercy, and a pledge of his grace, both in his holy word and in the
sacraments; but it is not apprehended except by those who receive the
word and sacraments with a certain faith; as the Father has offered and
presented Christ to all for salvation, but he is not known and received
by all. Augustine, intending to express this sentiment, somewhere says,
that the efficacy of the word is displayed in the sacrament, “not
because it is spoken, but because it is believed.” Therefore Paul, when
he is addressing believers, speaks of the sacraments so as to include in
them the communion of Christ; as when he says, “As many of you as have
been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ.”[1103] Again: “By one
Spirit are we all baptized into one body.”[1104] But when he speaks of
the improper use of the sacraments, he attributes no more to them than
to vain and useless figures; by which he signifies that, however impious
persons and hypocrites, by their perversion of the sacraments, may
destroy or obscure the effect of Divine grace in them, yet that,
notwithstanding this, whenever and wherever God pleases, they afford a
true testimony of the communion of Christ, and the Spirit of God himself
exhibits and performs the very thing which they promise. We conclude,
therefore, that sacraments are truly called testimonies of the grace of
God, and are, as it were, seals of the benevolence he bears to us,
which, by confirming it to our minds, sustain, cherish, strengthen, and
increase our faith. The reasons which some are in the habit of objecting
against this sentiment are exceedingly weak and frivolous. They allege,
that if our faith be good, it cannot be made better; for that there is
no real faith except that which rests on the mercy of God, without any
wavering, instability, or distraction. It would have been better for
such persons to pray, with the apostles, that the Lord would increase
their faith,[1105] than confidently to boast of such a perfection of
faith, as no one of the sons of men ever yet attained, or ever will
attain, in this life. Let them answer what kind of faith they suppose
him to have possessed, who said, “Lord, I believe; help thou mine
unbelief.”[1106] For even that, though yet only in its commencement, was
a good faith, and capable of being improved by the removal of unbelief.
But there is no argument which more fully refutes them than their own
conscience; for if they confess themselves sinners, which, whatever they
may wish, they cannot deny, they must be obliged to impute it to the
imperfection of their faith.
VIII. But they say, Philip answered the eunuch, that he might be
baptized “if” he “believed with all” his “heart.”[1107] And what room,
they ask, is there here for the confirmation of baptism, where faith
fills the whole heart? On the other hand, I ask them, whether they do
not feel a large part of their heart destitute of faith, and whether
they do not daily know some fresh increase of it. A heathen gloried that
he grew old in learning. We Christians are miserable indeed if we grow
old in making no improvement, whose faith ought to be advancing from one
stage to another till its attainment of perfect manhood. “To believe
with all the heart,” therefore, in this passage, is not to believe
Christ in a perfect manner, but only signifies embracing him with
sincerity of soul and firmness of mind; not to be filled with him, but
to hunger, thirst, and sigh after him with ardent affection. It is the
custom of the Scriptures to say that any thing is done with the whole
heart which is done with sincerity of mind, as in these and other
passages: “With my whole heart have I sought thee;” “I will praise the
Lord with my whole heart.”[1108] On the contrary, when it rebukes the
fraudulent and deceitful, it reproaches them with “a double
heart.”[1109] Our adversaries further allege, that if faith be increased
by the sacraments, the Holy Spirit must have been given in vain, whose
work and influence it is to commence, to confirm, and to consummate
faith. I confess that faith is the peculiar and entire work of the Holy
Spirit, by whose illumination we know God and the treasures of his
goodness, and without whose light our mind is too blind to be capable of
any sight, and too stupid to be capable of the least relish of spiritual
things. But instead of one favour of God, which they mention, we
acknowledge three. For, first, the Lord teaches and instructs us by his
word; secondly, he confirms us by his sacraments; lastly, he illuminates
our minds by the light of his Holy Spirit, and opens an entrance into
our hearts for the word and sacraments; which otherwise would only
strike the ears and present themselves to the eyes, without producing
the least effect upon the mind.
IX. With respect to the confirmation and increase of faith, therefore, I
wish the reader to be apprized, and I conceive I have already expressed,
in language too plain to be misunderstood, that I assign this office to
the sacraments; not from an opinion of their possessing a perpetual
inherent virtue, efficacious of itself to the advancement or
confirmation of faith; but because they have been instituted by the Lord
for the express purpose of promoting its establishment and augmentation.
But they only perform their office aright when they are accompanied by
the Spirit, that internal Teacher, by whose energy alone our hearts are
penetrated, our affections are moved, and an entrance is opened for the
sacraments into our souls. If he be absent, the sacraments can produce
no more effect upon our minds than the splendour of the sun on blind
eyes, or the sound of a voice on deaf ears. I make such a distinction
and distribution, therefore, between the Spirit and the sacraments, that
I consider all the energy of operation as belonging to the Spirit, and
the sacraments as mere instruments, which, without his agency, are vain
and useless, but which, when he acts and exerts his power in the heart,
are fraught with surprising efficacy. Now, it is evident how, according
to this opinion, the faith of a pious mind is confirmed by the
sacraments; namely, as the eyes see by the light of the sun, and the
ears hear by the sound of a voice: the light would have no effect upon
the eyes, unless they had a natural faculty capable of being
enlightened; and it would be in vain for the ears to be struck with any
sound, if they had not been naturally formed for hearing. But if it be
true, as we ought at once to conclude, that what the visive faculty is
in our eyes towards our beholding the light, and the faculty of hearing
is in our ears towards our perception of sound, such is the work of the
Holy Spirit in our hearts for the formation, support, preservation, and
establishment of our faith; then these two consequences immediately
follow—that the sacraments are attended with no benefit without the
influence of the Holy Spirit; and that, in hearts already instructed by
that Teacher, they still subserve the confirmation and increase of
faith. There is only this difference, that our eyes and ears are
naturally endued with the faculties of seeing and hearing, but Christ
accomplishes this in our hearts by special and preternatural grace.
X. This reasoning will also serve for a solution of the objections with
which some persons are greatly disturbed; that if we attribute to
creatures either the increase or confirmation of faith, we derogate from
the Spirit of God, whom we ought to acknowledge as its sole Author. For
we do not, at the same time, deny him the praise of its confirmation and
increase; but we assert that the way in which he increases and confirms
our faith is by preparing our minds, by his inward illumination, to
receive that confirmation which is proposed in the sacraments. If the
way in which this has been expressed be too obscure, it shall be
elucidated by the following similitude. If you intend to persuade a
person to do a certain act, you will consider all the reasons calculated
to draw him over to your opinion, and to constrain him to submit to your
advice. But you will make no impression upon him, unless he possess a
perspicuous and acute judgment, to be able to determine what force there
is in your reasons; unless his mind also be docile, and prepared to
listen to instruction; and lastly, unless he have conceived such an
opinion of your fidelity and prudence as may prepossess him in favour of
your sentiments. For there are many obstinate spirits, never to be moved
by any reasons; and where a person’s fidelity is suspected, and his
authority despised, little effect will be produced, even with those who
are disposed to learn. On the contrary, let all these things be present,
and they will insure the acquiescence of the person advised, in those
counsels which he would otherwise have derided. This work also the
Spirit effects within us. Lest the word should assail our ears in
vain,—lest the sacraments should in vain strike our eyes,—he shows us
that it is God who addresses us in them; he softens the hardness of our
hearts, and forms them to that obedience which is due to the word of the
Lord; in fine, he conveys those external words and sacraments from the
ears into the soul. Our faith is confirmed, therefore, both by the word
and by the sacraments, when they place before our eyes the good-will of
our heavenly Father towards us, in the knowledge of which all the
firmness of our faith consists, and by which its strength is augmented;
the Spirit confirms it, when he makes this confirmation effectual by
engraving it on our minds. In the mean time, the Father of lights cannot
be prohibited from illuminating our minds by means of the lustre of the
sacraments, as he enlightens our bodily eyes with the rays of the sun.
XI. That there is this property in the external word, our Lord has shown
in a parable, by calling it “seed.”[1110] For as seed, if it fall on a
desert and neglected spot of ground, will die without producing any
crop, but if it be cast upon a well manured and cultivated field, it
brings forth its fruit with an abundant increase,—so the word of God, if
it fall upon some stiff neck, will be as unproductive as seed dropped
upon the sea-shore; but if it light upon a soul cultivated by the agency
of the heavenly Spirit, it will be abundantly fruitful. Now, if the word
be justly compared to seed,—as we say that from seed, corn grows,
increases, and comes to maturity,—why may we not say that faith derives
its commencement, increase, and perfection, from the word of God? Paul,
in different places, excellently expresses both these things. For, with
a view to recall to the recollection of the Corinthians with what
efficacy God had attended his labours, he glories in having the ministry
of the Spirit, as if there were an indissoluble connection between his
preaching and the power of the Holy Spirit operating to the illumination
of their minds, and the excitement of their hearts.[1111] But in another
place, with a view to apprize them how far the power of the word of God
extends, merely as preached by man, he compares ministers to husbandmen;
who, when they have employed their labour and industry in cultivating
the ground, have nothing more that they can do. But what would
ploughing, and sowing, and watering, avail, unless heavenly goodness
caused the seed to vegetate? Therefore he concludes, “Neither is he that
planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God, that giveth the
increase.”[1112] The apostles, then, in their preaching, exerted the
power of the Spirit, as far as God made use of the instruments appointed
by himself for the exhibition of his spiritual grace. But we must always
keep in view this distinction, that we may remember how far the power of
man extends, and what is exclusively the work of God.
XII. Now, it is so true that the sacraments are confirmations of our
faith, that sometimes, when the Lord intends to take away the confidence
of those things which had been promised in the sacraments, he removes
the sacraments themselves. When he deprived Adam of the gift of
immortality, he expelled him from the garden of Eden, saying, “Lest he
put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live
for ever.”[1113] What can be the meaning of this language? Could the
fruit restore to Adam the incorruption from which he had now fallen?
Certainly not. But it was the same as if the Lord had said, Lest he
should cherish a vain confidence, if he retain the symbol of my promise,
let him be deprived of that which might give him some hope of
immortality. For the same reason, when the apostle exhorts the Ephesians
to “remember that” they “were without Christ, being aliens from the
commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenant of promise,
having no hope, and without God in the world,” he states that they were
not partakers of circumcision;[1114] thereby signifying that not having
received the sign of the promise, they were excluded from the promise
itself. To the other objection which they make, that the glory of God is
transferred to creatures to whom so much power is attributed, and
thereby sustains a proportionate diminution, it is easy to answer, that
we place no power in creatures; we only maintain that God uses such
means and instruments as he sees will be suitable, in order that all
things may be subservient to his glory, as he is the Lord and Ruler of
all. Therefore, as by bread and other aliments he feeds our bodies, as
by the sun he enlightens the world, as by fire he produces warmth,—yet
bread, the sun, and fire, are nothing but instruments by which he
dispenses his blessings to us,—so he nourishes our faith in a spiritual
manner by the sacraments, which are instituted for the purpose of
placing his promises before our eyes for our contemplation, and of
serving us as pledges of them. And as we ought not to place any
confidence in the other creatures, which, by the liberality and
beneficence of God, have been destined to our uses, and by whose
instrumentality he communicates to us the bounties of his goodness, nor
to admire and celebrate them as the causes of our enjoyments,—so neither
ought our confidence to rest in the sacraments, or the glory of God to
be transferred to them; but, forsaking all other things, both our faith
and confession ought to rise to him, the Author of the sacraments and of
every other blessing.
XIII. The argument which some persons adduce from the very name of
_sacrament_ is destitute of any force;—though the word _sacrament_ has
various significations in authors of the first authority, yet it has but
one which has any agreement or connection with _signs_ or _standards_,
(signa;) that is, when it denotes the solemn oath taken by a soldier to
his commander when he enters on a military life. For as by the military
oath new soldiers bind themselves to their commander, and assume the
military profession, so by our signs we profess Christ to be our Leader,
and declare that we fight under his banners. They add similitudes for
the further elucidation of their opinion. As the dress of the Romans,
who wore gowns, distinguished them from the Greeks, who wore cloaks; as
the different orders among the Romans were distinguished from each other
by their respective badges, the senatorial order from the equestrian by
purple habits and round shoes, and the equestrian from the plebeian by a
ring; as French and English ships of war are known by flags of different
colours, the French flags being white and the English red; so we have
our signs or badges to distinguish us from unbelievers. But from the
observations already made, it is evident that the ancient fathers, who
gave our signs the name of sacraments, were not at all guided by the
previous use of this word in Latin writers; but that they gave it a new
sense for their own convenience, simply denoting sacred signs. And if we
wish to carry our researches any further, it may be found that they
transferred this name to the signification now given, on the same
principle of analogy which induced them to transfer the word _faith_ to
the sense in which it is now used. For as faith properly signifies truth
in the fulfilment of promises, yet they have applied it to the assurance
or certain persuasion which a person has of the truth itself; so, as a
sacrament is an oath by which a soldier binds himself to his leader,
they have applied it to the sign by which the leader receives soldiers
into his army. For by the sacraments the Lord promises that he will be
our God, and that we shall be his people. But we pass over such
subtleties, as I think I have proved by sufficient arguments that the
ancients had no other view, in their application of the word
_sacrament_, than to signify that the ceremonies to which they applied
it were signs of holy and spiritual things. We admit the comparison
deduced from external badges, but we cannot bear that the last and least
use of the sacraments should be represented as their principal and even
sole object. The first object of them is, to assist our faith towards
God; the second, to testify our confession before men. The similitudes
which have been mentioned are applicable to this secondary design, but
the primary one ought never to be forgotten; for otherwise, as we have
seen, these mysteries would cease to interest us, unless they were aids
of our faith, and appendices of doctrine, destined to the same use and
end.
XIV. On the other hand, we require to be apprized, that as these persons
weaken the force of the sacraments, and entirely subvert their use, so
there are others of a contrary party, who attribute to the sacraments I
know not what latent virtues, which are nowhere represented as
communicated to them by the word of God. By this error the simple and
inexperienced are dangerously deceived, being taught to seek the gifts
of God where they can never be found, and being gradually drawn away
from God to embrace mere vanity instead of his truth. For the
sophistical schools have maintained, with one consent, that the
sacraments of the new law, or those now used in the Christian Church,
justify and confer grace, provided we do not obstruct their operation by
any mortal sin. It is impossible to express the pestilent and fatal
nature of this opinion, and especially as it has prevailed over a large
part of the world, to the great detriment of the Church, for many ages
past. Indeed, it is evidently diabolical; for by promising justification
without faith, it precipitates souls into destruction: in the next
place, by representing the sacraments as the cause of justification, it
envelops the minds of men, naturally too much inclined to the earth, in
gross superstition, leading them to rest in the exhibition of a
corporeal object rather than in God himself. Of these two evils I wish
we had not had such ample experience as to supersede the necessity of
much proof. What is a sacrament, taken without faith, but the most
certain ruin of the Church? For as nothing is to be expected from it,
but in consequence of the promise, which denotes God’s wrath against
unbelievers as much as it offers his grace to believers,—the person who
supposes that the sacraments confer any more upon him than that which is
offered by the word of God, and which he receives by a true faith, is
greatly deceived. Hence also it may be concluded, that confidence of
salvation does not depend on the participation of the sacraments, as
though that constituted our justification, which we know to be placed in
Christ alone, and to be communicated to us no less by the preaching of
the gospel than by the sealing of the sacraments, and that it may be
completely enjoyed without this participation. So true is the
observation, which has also been made by Augustine, that invisible
sanctification may exist without the visible sign, and, on the contrary,
that the visible sign may be used without real sanctification. For, as
he also writes in another place, “Men put on Christ, sometimes by the
reception of a sacrament, sometimes by sanctification of life.” The
first case may be common to the good and the bad; the second is peculiar
to believers.
XV. Hence that distinction, if it be well understood, which is
frequently stated by Augustine, between a sacrament and the matter of a
sacrament. For his meaning is, not only that a sacrament contains a
figure, and some truth signified by that figure, but that their
connection is not such as to render them inseparable from each other;
and even when they are united, the thing signified ought always to be
distinguished from the sign, that what belongs to the one may not be
transferred to the other. He speaks of their separation, when he
observes, that “the sacraments produce the effect which they represent,
in the elect alone.” Again, when he is speaking of the Jews: “Though the
sacraments were common to all, the grace which is the power of the
sacrament was not common; so now, also, the washing of regeneration is
common to all; but the grace itself, by which the members of Christ are
regenerated with their Head, is not common to all.” Again, in another
place, speaking of the Lord’s supper: “We also in the present day
receive visible meat; but the sacrament is one thing, and the power of
the sacrament is another. How is it that many receive of the altar and
die, and die in consequence of receiving? For the morsel of bread given
by the Lord to Judas was poison; not because Judas received an evil
thing, but because, being a wicked man, he received a good thing in a
sinful manner.” A little after: “The sacrament of this thing, that is,
of the unity of the body and blood of Christ, is prepared on the table
of the Lord, in some places daily, in other places on appointed days, at
stated intervals of time; and is thence received, by some to life, by
others to destruction. But the thing signified by this sacrament is
received, not to destruction, but to life, by every one who partakes of
it.” He had just before said, “He shall not die, who eats; I refer not
to the visible sacrament, but to the power of the sacrament; who eats
internally, not externally; he who eats in his heart, not he who presses
with his teeth.” In all these passages we find it maintained, that a
sacrament is separated from the truth signified in it, by the
unworthiness of a person who receives it amiss, so that there is nothing
left in it but a vain and useless figure. In order to enjoy the thing
signified together with the sign, and not a mere sign destitute of the
truth it was intended to convey, it is necessary to apprehend by faith
the word which is contained in it. Thus, in proportion to the communion
we have with Christ by means of the sacraments, will be the advantage
which we shall derive from them.
XVI. If this be obscure in consequence of its brevity, I will explain it
more at large. I affirm that Christ is the matter, or substance, of all
the sacraments; since they have all their solidity in him, and promise
nothing out of him. So much more intolerable is the error of Peter
Lombard, who expressly makes them causes of righteousness and salvation,
of which they are parts. Leaving all causes, therefore, of human
invention, we ought to adhere to this one cause. As far as we are
assisted by their instrumentality, to nourish, confirm, and increase our
faith in Christ, to obtain a more perfect possession of him and an
enjoyment of his riches, so far they are efficacious to us; and this is
the case when we receive by true faith that which is offered in them. Do
the impious, then, it will be said, by their ingratitude, frustrate the
ordinance of God, and cause it to come to nothing? I reply, that what I
have said is not to be understood as implying, that the virtue and truth
of a sacrament depends on the condition or choice of him who receives
it. For what God has instituted continues unshaken, and retains its
nature, however men may vary; but as it is one thing to offer, and
another to receive, there is no incongruity in maintaining, that a
symbol, consecrated by the word of the Lord, is in reality what it is
declared to be, and preserves its virtue, and yet that it confers no
benefit on a wicked and impious person. But Augustine happily solves
this question in a few words: he says, “If thou receive it carnally,
still it ceases not to be spiritual; but it is not so to thee.” And, as
in the passages already cited, this father shows that the symbol used in
a sacrament is of no value, if it be separated from the truth signified
by it, so, on the other hand, he states that it is necessary to
distinguish them, even where they are united, lest our attention be
confined too much to the external sign. “As to follow the letter,” says
he, “and to take the signs instead of the things signified, betrays
servile weakness, so it is the part of unsteadiness and error to
interpret the signs in such a manner as to derive no advantage from
them.” He mentions two faults, against which it is necessary to guard.
One is, when we take the signs as if they were given in vain, and
disparaging or diminishing their secret significations by our perverse
misconstruction, exclude ourselves from the advantage which we ought to
derive from them. The other is, when, not elevating our minds beyond the
visible sign, we transfer to the sacraments the praise of those
benefits, which are only conferred upon us by Christ alone, and that by
the agency of the Holy Spirit, who makes us partakers of Christ himself,
by the instrumentality of the external signs which invite us to Christ,
but which cannot be perverted to any other use, without a shameful
subversion of all their utility.
XVII. Wherefore let us abide by this conclusion, that the office of the
sacraments is precisely the same as that of the word of God; which is to
offer and present Christ to us, and in him the treasures of his heavenly
grace; but they confer no advantage or profit without being received by
faith; just as wine, or oil, or any other liquor, though it be poured
plentifully on a vessel, yet will it overflow and be lost, unless the
mouth of the vessel be open; and the vessel itself, though wet on the
outside, will remain dry and empty within. It is also necessary to guard
against being drawn into an error allied to this, from reading the
extravagant language used by the fathers with a view to exalt the
dignity of the sacraments; lest we should suppose there is some secret
power annexed and attached to the sacraments, so that they communicate
the grace of the Holy Spirit, just as wine is given in the cup; whereas
the only office assigned to them by God, is to testify and confirm his
benevolence towards us; nor do they impart any benefit, unless they are
accompanied by the Holy Spirit to open our minds and hearts, and render
us capable of receiving this testimony: and here, also, several distinct
favours of God are eminently displayed. For the sacraments, as we have
before hinted, fulfil to us, on the part of God, the same office as
messengers of joyful intelligence, or earnests for the confirmation of
covenants on the part of men; they communicate no grace from themselves,
but announce and show, and, as earnests and pledges, ratify, the things
which are given to us by the goodness of God. The Holy Spirit, whom the
sacraments do not promiscuously impart to all, but whom God, by a
peculiar privilege, confers upon his servants, is he who brings with him
the graces of God, who gives the sacraments admission into our hearts,
and causes them to bring forth fruit in us. Now, though we do not deny
that God himself accompanies his institution by the very present power
of his Spirit, that the administration of the sacraments which he has
ordained may not be vain and unfruitful, yet we assert the necessity of
a separate consideration and contemplation of the internal grace of the
Spirit, as it is distinguished from the external ministry. Whatever God
promises and adumbrates in signs, therefore, he really performs; and the
signs are not without their effect, to prove the veracity and fidelity
of their Author. The only question here is, whether God works by a
proper and intrinsic power, as it is expressed, or resigns the office to
external symbols. Now, we contend, that whatever instruments he employs,
this derogates nothing from his supreme operation. When this doctrine is
maintained respecting the sacraments, their dignity is sufficiently
announced, their use plainly signified, their utility abundantly
declared, and a proper moderation is preserved in all these particulars,
so that nothing is attributed, which ought not to be attributed to them,
and nothing that belongs to them is denied; while there is no admission
of that figment, which places the cause of justification and the power
of the Spirit in the sacramental elements, as in so many vehicles; and
that peculiar power which has been omitted by others is clearly
expressed. Here, also, it must be remarked, that God accomplishes
within, that which the minister represents and testifies by the external
act; that we may not attribute to a mortal man what God challenges
exclusively to himself. Augustine has judiciously suggested the same
sentiment. “How,” says he, “do Moses and God both sanctify? Not Moses
instead of God. Moses does it with visible signs, by his ministry. God
does it with invisible grace, by his Holy Spirit. Here also lies all the
efficacy of visible sacraments. For what avail those visible sacraments
without that sanctification of invisible grace?”
XVIII. The term _sacrament_, as we have hitherto treated of its nature,
comprehends generally all the signs which God has ever given to men, to
certify and assure them of the truth of his promises. These he has been
pleased to place in natural things, and sometimes to exhibit in
miracles. Examples of the former kind are such as these: when he gave
Adam and Eve the tree of life, as a pledge of immortality, which they
might assure themselves of enjoying as long as they should eat of the
fruit of that tree;[1115] and when he “set” his “bow in the cloud,” as a
token to Noah and his posterity, that there should “no more be a flood
to destroy the earth.”[1116] These Adam and Noah had as sacraments. Not
that the tree would actually communicate immortality to them, which it
could not give to itself; or that the rainbow, which is merely a
refraction of the rays of the sun on the opposite clouds, would have any
efficacy in restraining the waters; but because they had a mark
impressed upon them by the word of God, constituting them signs and
seals of his covenants. The tree and the rainbow both existed before,
but when they were inscribed with the word of God, they were endued with
a new form, so that they began to be something that they were not
before. And that no one may suppose this to be spoken in vain, the bow
itself continues to be a witness to us in the present age, of that
covenant which God made with Noah: whenever we behold it, we read this
promise of God in it, that he would never more destroy the earth with a
flood. Therefore, if any smatterer in philosophy, with a view to
ridicule the simplicity of our faith, contend that such a variety of
colours is the natural result of the refraction of the solar rays on an
opposite cloud, we must immediately acknowledge it, but we may smile at
his stupidity in not acknowledging God as the Lord and Governor of
nature, who uses all the elements according to his will for the
promotion of his own glory. And if he had impressed similar characters
on the sun, on the stars, on the earth, and on stones, they would all
have been sacraments to us. Why is not silver of as much value before it
is coined, as it is after, since the metal is the very same? The reason
is, that it has nothing added to its natural state; stamped with a
public impression, it becomes money, and receives a new valuation. And
shall not God be able to mark his creatures with his word, that they may
become sacraments, though before they were mere elements? Examples of
the second kind were exhibited, when God showed Abraham “a smoking
furnace and a burning lamp;”[1117] when he watered the fleece with dew
while the earth remained dry, and afterwards bedewed the earth without
wetting the fleece, to promise victory to Gideon;[1118] when “he brought
the shadow ten degrees backward in the dial,”[1119] to promise recovery
to Hezekiah. As these things were done to support and establish the
weakness of their faith, they also were sacraments.
XIX. But our present design is to treat particularly of those sacraments
which the Lord has appointed to be ordinarily used in his Church, to
keep his worshippers and servants in one faith and in the confession of
the same. “For,” to use the language of Augustine, “men cannot be united
in any profession of religion, whether true or false, unless they are
connected by some communion of visible signs or sacraments.” Our most
merciful Father, therefore, foreseeing this necessity, did, from the
beginning, institute for his servants certain exercises of piety, which
Satan afterwards depraved and corrupted in a variety of ways,
transferring them to impious and idolatrous worship. Hence those
initiations of the heathen into their mysteries, and the rest of their
degenerate rites, which, though fraught with error and superstition, at
the same time furnish an evidence that such external signs are
indispensable to a profession of religion. But as they were neither
founded on the word of God, nor referred to that truth which ought to be
the object of all religious emblems, they are unworthy of notice, where
mention is made of the sacred symbols which have been instituted by God,
and which have never been perverted from their original principle, which
constitutes them aids of true piety. Now, they consist not of mere
signs, like the rainbow and the tree of life, but in ceremonies; or,
rather, the signs which are here given are ceremonies. And, as we have
before observed, as they are testimonies of grace and salvation on the
part of the Lord, so on our part they are badges of our profession, by
which we publicly devote ourselves to God, and swear obedience and
fidelity to him. Chrysostom, therefore, somewhere properly calls them
_compacts_, by which God covenants with us, and we bind ourselves to
purity and sanctity of life; because a mutual stipulation is made in
them between God and us. For as the Lord promises to obliterate and
efface all the guilt and punishment that we have incurred by sin, and
reconciles us to himself in his only begotten Son, so we, on our parts,
by this profession, bind ourselves to him, to serve him in piety and
innocence of life; so that such sacraments may justly be described as
ceremonies by which God is pleased to exercise his people, in the first
place, to nourish, excite, and confirm faith in their hearts; and in the
next place, to testify their religion before men.
XX. And even the sacraments have been different according to the
varieties of different periods, and corresponding to the dispensation by
which it has pleased the Lord to manifest himself in different ways to
mankind. For to Abraham and his posterity circumcision was commanded; to
which the law of Moses afterwards added ablutions, sacrifices, and other
rites. These were the sacraments of the Jews till the coming of Christ;
which was followed by the abrogation of these, and the institution of
two others, which are now used in the Christian Church; namely, baptism
and the supper of the Lord. I speak of those which were instituted for
the use of the whole Church; for as to the imposition of hands, by which
the ministers of the Church are introduced into their office, while I
make no objection to its being called a sacrament, I do not class it
among the ordinary sacraments. What opinion ought to be entertained
respecting those which are commonly reputed the five other sacraments,
we shall see in a subsequent chapter. Those ancient sacrifices, however,
referred to the same object towards which ours are now directed, their
design being to point and lead to Christ, or rather, as images, to
represent and make him known. For as we have already shown that they are
seals to confirm the promises of God, and it is very certain that no
promise of God was ever offered to man except in Christ,—in order to
teach us any thing respecting the promises of God, they must of
necessity make a discovery of Christ. This was the design of that
heavenly pattern of the tabernacle and model of the legal worship, which
was exhibited to Moses in the mount. There is only one difference
between those sacraments and ours: they prefigured Christ as promised
and still expected; ours represent him as already come and manifested.
XXI. All these things will be considerably elucidated by a particular
detail. In the first place, circumcision was a sign to the Jews to teach
them that whatever is produced from human seed—that is, the whole nature
of man—is corrupt, and requires to be pruned: it was likewise a
testification and memorial to confirm them in the promise given to
Abraham respecting the blessed seed, in whom all the nations of the
earth were to be blessed, and from whom their own blessing was also to
be expected.[1120] Now, that blessed seed, as Paul informs us, was
Christ, on whom alone they relied for recovering that which they had
lost in Adam. Wherefore circumcision was the same to them as Paul
declares it to have been to Abraham, even “a seal of the righteousness
of faith;”[1121] that is, a seal for the further assurance that their
faith, with which they expected that seed, would be imputed by God to
them for righteousness. But the comparison between circumcision and
baptism we shall have more suitable occasion for pursuing in another
place. Ablutions and purifications placed before their eyes their
uncleanness and pollution, by which they were naturally contaminated,
and promised another ablution, by which they would be purified from all
their defilement; and this ablution was Christ, washed in whose blood we
bring his purity into the presence of God to cover all our
impurities.[1122] Their sacrifices accused and convicted them of their
iniquity, and, at the same time, taught the necessity of some
satisfaction to be made to the Divine justice, and that, therefore,
there would come a great High Priest, a Mediator between God and men,
who was to satisfy the justice of God by the effusion of blood and the
oblation of a sacrifice, which would be sufficient to obtain the
remission of sins. This great High Priest was Christ; he shed his own
blood, and was himself the victim; was obedient to his Father even unto
death, and by his obedience obliterated the disobedience of man, which
had provoked the indignation of God.[1123]
XXII. Our two sacraments present us with a clearer exhibition of Christ,
in proportion to the nearer view of him which men have enjoyed since he
was really manifested by the Father in the manner in which he had been
promised. For baptism testifies to us our purgation and ablution; the
eucharistic supper testifies our redemption. Water is a figure of
ablution, and blood of satisfaction. These things are both found in
Christ, who, as John says, “came by water and blood;”[1124] that is, to
purify and redeem. Of this the Spirit of God is a witness; or, rather,
“there are three that bear witness, the Spirit, the Water, and the
Blood.”[1125] In the water and the blood we have a testimony of
purgation and redemption; and the Spirit, as the principal witness,
confirms and secures our reception and belief of this testimony. This
sublime mystery was strikingly exhibited on the cross, when blood and
water issued from Christ’s sacred side; which, on this account,
Augustine has justly called “the fountain of our sacraments;” of which
we are yet to treat more at large. And there is no doubt, if we compare
one time with another, but that the more abundant grace of the Spirit is
also here displayed. For that belongs to the glory of the kingdom of
Christ; as we gather from various places, and especially from the
seventh chapter of John. In this sense we must understand that passage
where Paul, speaking of the legal institutions, says, “which are a
shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ.”[1126] His design
in this declaration is, not to deny the efficacy of those testimonies of
grace, in which God was formerly pleased to attest his veracity to the
fathers, as he does to us now in baptism and the sacred supper, but to
represent the comparative superiority of what has been given to us, that
no one might wonder at the ceremonies of the law having been abolished
at the advent of Christ.
XXIII. I will just observe by the way, that the doctrine of the schools,
which asserts such a wide difference between the sacraments of the old
and new law, as though the former merely prefigured the grace of God,
and the latter actually communicated it, ought to be altogether
exploded. For the apostle speaks in a manner equally as honourable of
the former as of the latter, when he states that the fathers, in the
time of Moses, “did all eat the same spiritual meat”[1127] with us, and
explains that meat to be Christ. Who will dare to call that an empty
sign, which exhibited to the Jews the real communion of Christ? And the
state of the case, which the apostle is there discussing, is clearly in
favour of our argument. For, that no man might dare to despise the
judgment of God, in a reliance on a speculative knowledge of Christ, and
the mere name of Christianity, with its external signs, he exhibits the
examples of Divine severity displayed among the Jews, to teach us that
the same punishments which they suffered await us, if we indulge in the
same sins. Now, that the comparison might be pertinent, it was necessary
to show that there was no inequality between us and them in those
privileges of which he forbids us to indulge unfounded boasts. First,
therefore, he shows them to have been equal to us in the sacraments, and
leaves not a particle of superiority capable of exciting in our minds
the least hope of impunity. Nor is it right to attribute to our baptism
any thing more than he attributes to circumcision, when he calls it “a
seal of the righteousness of faith.”[1128] Whatever is presented to us
in the present day in our sacraments, was anciently received by the Jews
in theirs—even Christ and his spiritual riches. Whatever power our
sacraments have, they also experienced the same in theirs: they were
seals of the Divine benevolence to them, confirming their hope of
eternal salvation. If the advocates of the opinion which we are opposing
had been skilful interpreters of the Epistle to the Hebrews, they would
not have been so deceived; but when they read there that sins were not
expiated by the legal ceremonies, and that the ancient shadows had no
power to confer righteousness,—neglecting the comparison intended to be
drawn, and confining their attention to this single consideration, that
the law in itself was unprofitable to its observers, they have simply
concluded that the figures were destitute of any truth. But the design
of the apostle was to represent the ceremonial law as of no value till
it was referred to Christ, on whom alone depended all its efficacy.
XXIV. But they will allege what Paul says of the “circumcision in the
letter,”[1129] that it is in no estimation with God; that it confers no
advantage; that it is in vain; for such a representation they conceive
to degrade it far below baptism. But this is not true; for all that he
says of circumcision might justly be affirmed of baptism. And it is
actually asserted; first by Paul himself, where he shows that God
regards not the external ablution by which we enter on the profession of
religion, 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.”[1130] 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.”[1131] 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 believers 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;”[1132] 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.”[1133] I repeat what I have already suggested, that Paul
called the ceremonies _shadows_, not as if they had nothing 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 believers. 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.[1134] 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 reference 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.
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 already come. Besides, he speaks of
the mode of representation, as he also shows 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, believers 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 apprize 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 has instituted, in order that
believers, 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.
Footnote 1095:
Eph. i. 9.
Footnote 1096:
Eph. iii. 2, 3.
Footnote 1097:
Col. i. 26, 27.
Footnote 1098:
1 Tim. iii. 16.
Footnote 1099:
Rom. x. 8.
Footnote 1100:
Acts xv. 9.
Footnote 1101:
1 Peter iii. 21.
Footnote 1102:
Rom. iv. 11.
Footnote 1103:
Gal. iii. 27.
Footnote 1104:
1 Cor. xii. 13.
Footnote 1105:
Luke xvii. 5.
Footnote 1106:
Mark ix. 24.
Footnote 1107:
Acts viii. 37.
Footnote 1108:
Psalm cxix. 10; cxi. 1; cxxxviii. 1.
Footnote 1109:
Psalm xii. 2.
Footnote 1110:
Matt. xiii. 3-23. Like viii. 5-15.
Footnote 1111:
1 Cor. ii. 4. 2 Cor. iii. 6, 8.
Footnote 1112:
1 Cor. iii. 7.
Footnote 1113:
Gen. iii. 22.
Footnote 1114:
Eph. ii. 11, 12.
Footnote 1115:
Gen. ii. 9, 16, 17.
Footnote 1116:
Gen. ix. 12-17.
Footnote 1117:
Gen. xv. 17.
Footnote 1118:
Judges vi. 37-40.
Footnote 1119:
2 Kings xx. 11.
Footnote 1120:
Gen. xii. 3; xxii. 18. Gal. iii. 16.
Footnote 1121:
Rom. iv. 11.
Footnote 1122:
Heb. ix. 10-14. 1 John i. 7. Rev. i. 5.
Footnote 1123:
Heb. iv. 14; ix. 11; x. 1-4. Phil. ii. 8. Rom. v. 19.
Footnote 1124:
1 John v. 8.
Footnote 1125:
1 John v. 8.
Footnote 1126:
Col. ii. 17.
Footnote 1127:
1 Cor. x. 3.
Footnote 1128:
Rom. iv. 11.
Footnote 1129:
Rom. ii. 25-29. 1 Cor. vii. 19. Gal. vi. 15.
Footnote 1130:
1 Pet. iii. 21.
Footnote 1131:
Col. ii. 11.
Footnote 1132:
Col. ii. 17.
Footnote 1133:
Heb. ix. 9; x. 1, 2.
Footnote 1134:
John vi. 27.