Second, the Calvinists.
Second, the Calvinists.
§ 431. (II) In their words, the Calvinists confess along with us the perspicuity of Scripture. Indeed, they battle for it against the Papists with entire chapters and books. Yet if they keep their suppositions, they cannot keep from accusing Scripture of obscurity in the most important articles of faith. The article on Baptism and its efficacy is, as is evident, one of the chief ones. Concerning it, the Calvinists teach: “Baptism is not an effectual means of regeneration, forgiveness of sins, and salvation, but is only a sign.” Nowhere in all Scripture, however, is Baptism taught in proper, clear, and perspicuous words as merely a sign of regeneration, that Baptism only signifies a washing away of sins. Rather, Scripture often speaks about the end and fruit of Baptism: “By Baptism we are cleansed of our sins”; “We are regenerated of water”; “Baptism is the washing of regeneration and renewal” (John 3:5; Eph. 5:27; Titus 3:5, etc.). Therefore they are compelled to claim that Scripture nowhere speaks about the efficacy and fruit of Baptism in proper, clear, and perspicuous words, but only in figurative, improper, and metonymic words. Sohnius says in Method. theolog., vol. 1, Oper., p. 262: “All propositions concerning the efficacy of Baptism that occur in Scripture are figurative, improper, and metonymic except this one: ‘Baptism is a type of the removal of dirt,’ “which he says is in 1 Pet. 3:21. An inspection of the text, however, clearly reveals the opposite. Ursinus, Compend., p. 503: “These are improper or figurative forms of speaking: ‘Baptism is the washing of regeneration,’ ‘Baptism saves us.’ The proper form of speaking is that it is a sign of washing.” (But where does Scripture use this form of speaking?)
So also the article on the Lord’s Supper is one of the chief articles. Regarding it the Calvinists teach: “The eucharistic bread is not the instrument by which the present body of Christ is distributed, but a sign of His absent body; the eucharistic wine is not the instrument through which the present blood of Christ is distributed, but a sign of the absent Christ.” Nowhere, however, does Scripture speak like this: “The eucharistic bread is the sign of the body of Christ.” Instead, it says, “It is the communication of the body of Christ” [1 Cor. 10:16]. In the institution, Christ does not say, “This is a sign of My body,” but “This is My body” [Matt. 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24]. Therefore they are finally forced to declare that Scripture does not use proper and perspicuous words in teaching this chief article of our religion. Accordingly, Oecolampadius argues in De verbo Dei: “Matthew and Mark wrote obscurely about the Lord’s Supper. Therefore one must look for the meaning from him who wrote more clearly, namely, Luke.” But if you set before them the clear words of Luke, they will respond from Beza: “In his words describing the institution of the Eucharist, Luke committed a grammatical error” (Annot. ad N. T., p. 317). On this point, Beza is supported by Vorstius (Anti-Pistor., part 2, sect. 4), Piscator (Annal. of that passage), and by Goclenius (Problem. grammat., bk. 5, prob. 1, p. 226). So, then, they will never find a place to put their feet, because neither Matthew, Mark, nor Luke describe the institution of the Eucharist in such words as would clearly explain their sacramental metonymy.
And what shall we say about the distinction between the will of the sign and the will of good pleasure, about the limiting of the promises of the Gospel?73 These are revealed nowhere in Scripture in perspicuous words but are added by the Calvinists. Therefore here, too, they are forced to claim that Scripture is obscure in handing down the articles of faith. Consequently, Piscator writes (Respon. apologet. ad Vorstium, part 1, p. 20): “Is it not apparent that it pleased the Holy Spirit everywhere to speak in veiled language to sharpen our reason for concentration and study in searching out the genuine meaning?”