1545 - (Part 4) - The Word and the Sacraments
OF THE WORD OF GOD.
The order already adopted by us requires that we now consider the fourth part of divine worship,
We said that this consists in acknowledging God as the author of all good, and in extolling his goodness, justice, wisdom, and power with praise and thanksgiving, that thus the glory of all good may remain entirely with him. Has he prescribed no :rule as to this part?
All the praises extant in Scripture ought to be our rule. Has the Lord’s Prayer nothing’ which applies here?
Yes. When we pray that his name may be hallowed, we pray that he may be duly glorified in his works - that he may be regarded, whether in pardoning sinners, as merciful; or in exercising vengeance, as just; or in performing his pro-raises, as true: in short, that whatever of his works we see may excite us to glorify him. This is indeed to ascribe to him the praise of all that is good.
What shall we infer from these heads which have hitherto been considered, by us?.
What truth itself teaches, and was stated at the outset, viz., that this is eternal life to know one true God the Father, and Jesus Christ whom he hath sent, (John 17:3,) - to know him, I say, in order that we may pay due honor and worship to him, that he may be not only our Lord but also our Father and Savior, and we be in turn his children and servants, and accordingly devote our lives to the illustration of his glory.
How can we attain to such blessedness? For this end God has left us his holy word; for spiritual doctrine is a kind of door by which we enter his heavenly kingdom. Where are we to seek for this word? In the Holy Scriptures, in which it is contained.
How are you to use it in order to profit by it? By embracing it with entire heartfelt persuasion, as certain truth come down from heaven - by being docile, and subjecting our minds and wills in obedience to it - by loving it sincerely - by having it once for all engraven on our hearts, and there rooted so as to produce fruit in our life - finally, by being formed after its rule. Then shall it turn to our salvation, as it was intended. Are all these things put in our own power?
None of them at all; but every thing which I have mentioned it belongs to God only to effect in us by the gift of his Spirit. But are we not to use diligence,and zealously strive to profit in it by reading, hearing, and meditating?
Yea, verily: seeing that every one ought to exercise himself in the daily reading of it, and all should be especially careful to attend the sermons when the doctrine of salvation is expounded in the assembly of the faithful.
You affirm then that it is not enough for each to read privately at home, and that all ought to meet in common to hear the same doctrine?
They must meet when they can - that is, when an opportunity is given. Are you able to prove this to me? The will of God alone ought to be amply sufficient for proof; and the order which he hath recommended to his church is not what two or three only might observe, but all should obey in common. Moreover, he declares this to be the only method of edifying as well as preserving. This, then, should be a sacred and inviolable rule to us, and no one should think himself entitled to be wise above his Master. Is it necessary, then, that pastors should preside over churches?
Nay; it is necessary to hear them, and listen with fear and reverence to the doctrine of Christ as propounded from their lips. But is it enough for a Christian man to have been instructed by his pastor once, or ought he to observe this course during life?
It is little to have begun, unless you persevere. We must be the disciples of Christ to the end, or rather without end. But he has committed to the ministers of the Church the office of teaching in his name and stead. OF THE SACRAMENTS.
Is there no other medium, as it is called, than the Word by which God may communicate himself to us? To the preaching of the Word he has added the Sacraments.
What is a Sacrament? An outward attestation of the divine benevolence towards us, which, by a visible sign, figures spiritual grace, to seal the promises of God on our hearts, and thereby better confirm their truth to us. Is there such virtue in a visible sign that it can establish our consciences in a full assurance of salvation? This virtue it has not of itself, but by the will of God, because it was instituted for this end.
Seeing it is the proper office of the Holy Spirit to seal the promises of God on our minds, how do you attribute this to the sacraments?
There is a wide difference between him and them. To move and affect the heart, to enlighten the mind, to render the conscience sure and tranquil, truly belongs to the Spirit alone; so that it ought to be regarded as wholly his work, and be ascribed to him alone, that no other may have the praise; but this does not at all prevent God from employing the sacraments as secondary instruments, and applying them to what use he deems proper, without derogating in any respect from the agency of the Spirit.
You think, then. that the power and efficacy of a sacrament is not contained in the outward element, but flows entirely from the Spirit of God?
I think so; viz., that the Lord hath been pleased to exert his energy by his instruments, this being the purpose to which he destined them: this he does without detracting in any respect from the virtue of his Spirit. Can you give me a reason why he so acts? In this way he consults our weakness. If we were wholly spiritual, we might, like the angels, spiritually behold both him and his grace; but as we are surrounded with this body of clay, we need figures or mirrors to exhibit a view of spiritual and heavenly things in a kind of earthly manner; for we could not otherwise attain to them. At the same time, it is our interest to have all our senses exercised in the promises of God, that they may be the better confirmed to us.
If it is true that the sacraments were instituted by God to be helps to our necessity, is it not arrogance for any one to hold that he can dispense with them as unnecessary?
It certainly is; and hence, if any one of his own accord abstains from the use of them, as if he had no need of them, he contemns Christ, spurns his grace, and quenches the Spirit. But what confidence can there be in the sacraments as a means of establishing the conscience, and what certain security can be conceived from things which the good and bad use indiscriminately?
Although the wicked: so to speak, annihilate the gifts of God offered in the sacraments in so far as regards themselves, they do not thereby’ deprive the sacraments of their nature and virtue.
How, then, and when does the effect follow the use of the sacraments? When we receive them in faith, seeking Christ alone and his grace in them.
Why do you say that Christ is to be sought in them?
I mean that we are not to cleave to the visible signs so as to seek salvation from them, or imagine that the power of conferring grace is either fixed or included in them, but rather that the sign is to be used as a help, by which, when seeking salvation and complete felicity, we are pointed directly to Christ.
Seeing that faith is requisite for the use of them, how do you say that they are given us to confirm our faith, to make us more certain of the promises of God?
It is by no means sufficient that faith is once begun in us. It must be nourished continually, and increase more and more every day. To nourish, strengthen, and advance it, the Lord instituted the sacraments. This indeed Paul intimates, when he says that they have the effect of sealing the promises of God. (Romans 4:11.) But is it not an indication of unbelief not to have entire faith in the promises of God until they are confirmed to us from another source?
It certainly argues a weakness of faith under which the children of God labor. They do not, however, cease to be believers, though the faith with which they are endued is still small and imperfect; for as long as we continue in this world remains of distrust cleave to our flesh, and these there is no other way of shaking off than by making continual progress even unto the end. It is therefore always necessary to be going forward.
How many are the sacraments of the Christian Church?
There are only two, whose use is common among all believers.
What are they?
Baptism and the Holy Supper.
What likeness or difference is there between them?
Baptism is a kind! of entrance into the Church; for we have in it a testimony that we who are otherwise strangers and aliens, are received, into the family of God, so as to be counted of his household; on the other hand, the Supper attests that God exhibits himself to us by nourishing our souls. That the meaning of both may be more clear to us, let us treat of them separately. First, what is the meaning of Baptism?
It consists of two parts. For, first, Forgiveness of sins; and, secondly, Spiritual regeneration, is figured by it. (Ephesians 5:26; Romans 6:4) What resemblance has water with these things, so as to represent them?
Forgiveness of sins is a kind of washing, by which our souls are cleansed from their defilements, just as bodily stains are washed away by water.
What do you say of Regeneration?
Since the mortification of our nature is its beginning, and our becoming’ new creatures its end, a figure of death is set before us when the water is poured upon the head, and the figure of a new life when instead of remaining immersed under water, we only enter it for a moment as a kind of grave, out of which we instantly emerge. Do you think that the water is a washing’ of the soul? By no means; for it were impious to snatch away this honor from the blood of Christ, which was shed in order to wipe away all our stains:, and render us pure and unpolluted in the sight of God. (1 Peter 1:19; 1 John 1:7.) And we receive the fruit of this cleansing when the Holy Spirit sprinkles our consciences with that sacred blood. Of this we have a seal in the Sacrament. But do you attribute nothing more to the water than that it is a figure of ablution?
I understand it to be a figure, but still so that the reality is annexed to it; for God does not disappoint us when he promises us his gifts. Accordingly, it is certain that both pardon of sins and newness of life are offered to us in baptism, and received by us. Is this grace bestowed on all indiscriminately?
Many precluding its entrance by their depravity, make it void to themselves. Hence the benefit extends to believers only, and yet the Sacmmeret loses nothing of its nature.
Whence is Regeneration derived? From the Death and Resurrection of Christ taken together. His death hath this efficacy, that by means of it our old man is crucified, and the vitiosity of our nature in a manner buried, so as no more to be in rigor in us. Our reformation to a new life, so as to obey the righteousness of God, is the result of the resurrection.
How are these blessings bestowed upon us by Baptism?
If we do not render the promises there offered unfruitful by rejecting them, we are clothed with Christ, and presented with his Spirit.
What must we do in order to use Baptism duly? The right use of Baptism consists in faith and repentance; that is, we must first hold with a firm heartfelt reliance that, being purified from all stains by the blood of Christ, we are pleasing to God: secondly, we must feel his Spirit dwelling in us, and declare this to others by our actions, and we must constantly exercise ourselves in aiming at the mortification of our flesh, and obedience to the righteousness of God.
If these things are requisite to the legitimate use of Baptism, how comes it that we baptize Infants?
It is not necessary that faith and repentance should always precede baptism. They are only required from those whose age makes them capable of both. It will be sufficient, then, if, after infants have grown up, they exhibit the power of their baptism. Can you demonstrate by reason that there is nothing absurd in this?
Yes; if it be conceded to me that our Lord instituted nothing at variance with reason. For while Moses and all the Prophets teach that circumcision was a sign of repentance, and was even as Paul declares the sacrament of faith, we see that infants were not excluded from it. (Deuteronomy 30:6; Jeremiah 4:4; Romans 4:11.) But are they now admitted to Baptism for the same reason that was valid in circumcision? The very same, seeing that the promises which God anciently gave to the people of Israel are now published through the whole world. But do you infer from thence that the sign also is to be used?
He who will duly ponder all things in both ordinances, will perceive this to follow. Christ in making us partakers of his grace, which had been formerly bestowed on Israel, did not condition, that it should either bemore obscure or in some respect less abundant. Nay, rather he shed it upon as both more clearly and more abundantly. Do you think that if infants are denied baptism, some thing is thereby deducted from the grace of God, and it must be said to have been diminished by the coming of Christ? That indeed is evident; for the sign being taken away, which tends very much to testify the mercy of God and confirm the promises, we should want an admirable consolation which those of ancient times enjoyed. Your view then is, that since God, under the Old Testament, in order to show himself the Father of infants, was pleased that the promise, of salvation should be engraven on their bodies by a visible sign, it were unbecoming to suppose that, since the advent of Christ, believers have less to confirm them, God having intended to give us in the present day the same promise which was anciently given to the Fathers, and exhibited in Christ a clearer specimen of his goodness. That is my view. Besides, while it is sufficiently clear that the force, and so to speak, the substance of Baptism are common to children, to deny them the sign, which is inferior to the substance, were manifest injustice. On what terms then are children to be baptized? To attest that they are heirs of the blessing promised to the seed of believers, and enable them to receive and produce the fruit of their Baptism, on acknowledging its reality after they have grown up.
Let us now pass to the Supper. And, first, I should like to know from you what its meaning is.
It was instituted by Christ in order that by the communication of his body and. blood, he might teach and assure us that our souls are being trained in the hope of eternal life. But why is the body of our Lord figured by bread, and his blood by wine?
We are hence taught that such virtue as bread has in nourishing our bodies to sustain the present life, the same has the body of our Lordspiritually to nourish our souls. As by wine the hearts of men are gladdened, their strength recruited, and the whole man strengthened, so by the blood of our Lord the same benefits are received by our souls. Do we therefore eat the body and blood of the Lord?
I understand so. For as our whole reliance for salvation depends on him, in order that the obedience which he yielded to the Father may be imputed to us just as if it were ours, it is necessary that he be possessed by us; for the only way in which he communicates his blessings to us is by making himself ours. But did he not give himself when he exposed himself to death, that he might redeem us from the sentence of death, and reconcile us to God? That is indeed true; but it is not enough for us unless we now receive him, that thus the efficacy and fruit of his death may reach us. Does not the manner of receiving consist in faith?
I admit it does. But I at the same time add, that this is done when we not only believe float he died in order to free us from death, and was raised up that he might purchase life for us, but recognize that he dwells in us, and that we are united to him by a union the same in kind as that which unites the members to the head, that by virtue of this union we may become partakers of all his blessings. Do we obtain this communion by the Supper alone?
No, indeed. For by the gospel also, as Paul declares, Christ is communicated to us. And Paul justly declares this, seeing we are there told that we are flesh of his flesh and bones of his bones - that he is the living bread which came down from heaven to nourish our souls - that we are one with him as he is one with the Father, etc. (1 Corinthians 1:6; Ephesians 5:30; John 6:51; John 17:21.) What more do we obtain from the sacrament, or what other benefit does it confer upon us? The communion of which I spoke is thereby confirmed and increased; for although Christ is exhibited to us both in baptism and in the gospel, we do not however receive him entire, but in part only.
What then have we in the symbol of bread? As the body of Christ was once sacrificed for us to reconcile us to God, so now also is it given to us, that we may certainly know that reconciliation belongs to us.
What in the symbol of wine? That as Christ once shed his blood for the satisfaction of our sins, and as the price of our redemption, so he now also gives it to us to drink, that we may feel the benefit which should thence accrue to us.
According to these two answers, the holy Supper of the Lord refers us to his death, that we may communicate in its virtue?
Wholly so; for that the one perpetual sacrifice, sufficient for our salvation, was performed. Hence nothing more remains for us but to enjoy it. The Supper then was not instituted in order to offer up to God the body of his Son? By no means. He, himself alone, as priest for ever, has this privilege; and so his words express when he says, "Take, eat." He there commands us not to offer his body, but only to eat it. (Hebrews 5:10; Matthew 26:26.) Why do we use two signs?
Therein the Lord consulted our weakness, teaching us in a more familiar manner that he is not only food to our souls, but drink also, so that we are not to seek any part of spiritual life anywhere else than in him alone.
Ought all without exception to use both alike? So the commandment of Christ bears: and to derogate from it in any way, by attempting anything contrary to it, is wicked. Have we in the Supper only a figure of the benefits which you have mentioned, or are they there exhibited to us in reality?
Seeing that our Lord Jesus Christ is truth itself, there cannot, be a doubt that he at the same time fulfills the promises which he there gives us, andadds the reality to the figures. Wherefore I doubt not that as he testifies by words and signs, so he also makes us partakers of his substance, that thus we may have one life with him. But how can this be, when the body of Christ is in heaven, and we are still pilgrims on the earth? This he accomplishes by the secret and miraculous agency of his Spirit, to whom it is not difficult to unite things otherwise disjoined by a distant space.
You do not imagine then, either that the body is inclosed in the bread or the blood in the wine?
Neither is inclosed. My understanding rather is, that in order to obtain the reality of the signs, our minds must be raised to heaven, where Christ is, and from whence we expect him as Judge and Redeemer, and that it is improper and vain to seek him in these earthly elements. To collect the substance of what you have said, you maintain that there are two things in the Supper, viz., bread and wine, which are seen by the eyes, handled by the hands, and perceived by the taste, and Christ by whom our souls are inwardly fed as with their own proper ailment?
True; and so much so that the resurrection of the body also is there confirmed to us by a kind of pledge, since the body also shares in the symbol of life.
What is the right and legitimate use of this Sacrament? That which Paul points out, "Let a man examine himself," before he approach to it. (1 Corinthians 11:28.) Into what is he to inquire in this examination?
Whether he be a true member of Christ. By what evidence may he come to know this?
If he is endued with faith and repentance, if he entertains sincere love for his neighbor, if he has his mind pure from all hatred and malice. Do you require that a man’s faith and charity should both be perfect?
Both should be entire and free from all hypocrisy, but it were vain to demand an absolute perfection to which nothing should be wanting, seeing that none such will ever be found in man.
Then the imperfection under which we still labor does not forbid our approach? On the contrary, were we perfect, the Supper would no longer be of any use to us. It should be a help to aid our weakness, and a support to our imperfection. Is no other end besides proposed by these two Sacraments?
They are also martyrs and as it were badges of our profession. For by the use of them we profess our faith before men, and testify our consent in the religion of Christ. Were any one to despise the use of them, in what light should it be regarded? As an indirect denial of Christ. Assuredly such a person, inasmuch as he deigns not to confess himself a Christian, deserves not to be classed among Christians. Is it enough to receive both once in a lifetime?
It is enough so to receive baptism, which may not be repeated. It is different with the Supper.
What is the difference? By baptism the Lord adopts us and brings us into his Church, so as thereafter to regard us as part of his household. After he has admitted us among the number of his people, he testifies by the Supper that he takes a continual interest in nourishing us. Does the administration both of baptism and of the Supper belong indiscriminately to all? By no means. It is confined to those to whom the office of teaching has been committed. For the two things, viz., to feed the Church with thedoctrine of piety and administer the sacrament, are united together by an indissoluble tie. Can you prove this to me by the testimony of Scripture?
Christ gave special commandment to the Apostles to baptize. In the celebration of the Supper he ordered us to follow his example. And the Evangelists relate that he himself in dispensing it, performed the office of a public minister. (Matthew 28:19; Luke 22:19.) But ought pastors, to whom the dispensing of it has been committed, to admit all indiscriminately without selection? In regard to baptism, as it is now bestowed only on infants, there is no room for discrimination; but in the Supper the minister ought to take heed not to give it to any one who is clearly unworthy of receiving it.
Why so?
Because it cannot be done without insulting and profaning the Sacrament. But did not Christ admit Judas, impious though he was, to the Communion?
I admit it; as his impicity was still secret. For though it was not unknown to Christ, it had not come to light or the knowledge of men. (Matthew 26:25.) What then can be done with hypocrites? The pastor cannot keep them back as unworthy, but must wait till such time as he shall reveal their iniquity, and make it manifest to all. But if he knows or has been warned that an individual is unworthy?
Even that would not be sufficient to keep him back from communicating, unless in addition to it there was a legitimate investigation and decision of the Church.
It is of importance, then, that there should be a certain order of government established in churches?
It is: they cannot otherwise be well managed or duly constituted. The method is for elders to be chosen to preside as censors of manners, to guard watchfully against offenses, and exclude from communion all whom they recognize to be unfit for it, and who could not be admitted without profaning the Sacrament.