5. § 51. The Sacraments.
§ 51. The Sacraments.
. Alongside the word, the sacrament comes as the second means of grace. Holy Scripture does not know this name and also has no doctrine of the sacraments in general. It does indeed speak of circumcision and passover, of baptism and the Lord's Supper, but does not combine these institutions under one concept. Thus it also did not yet happen in the first
Christian congregations. Although we read in Hd. 2:42 that the congregation at Jerusalem persevered in the doctrine of the apostles, in the fellowship, in the breaking of bread and in the prayers, and from Hd. 6:4 can infer that there was a ministry of the word, we nevertheless know little about the arrangement of the congregational assembly at Jerusalem.
Something more is known to us from 1 Cor. 11:1-14:40 about the religious exercises of the believers from among the Gentiles. After the believers, on the basis [216] of personal confession, had been received by baptism into the name of Christ into the congregation, εἰς ἑν σωμα, Rom. 6:3-5, 1 Cor.
12:13, Gal. 3:27, they came together regularly on the day of the Lord, Hd.
20:7, 1 Cor. 16:2, Op. 1:10. Probably on that day they held two assemblies,
one for the service of the word, to which access also stood open for nonmembers, 1 Cor. 14:23, in which a portion from the Scripture of the O. T. and later also from the apostolic writings was read aloud, each member of the congregation could freely take the floor, 1 Cor. 14:26, and prayers were offered and songs were sung, Hd. 2:42, Rom. 12:12, 1 Cor. 14:14, 15, 26; and another for the celebration of the Lord's Supper, εἰς το φαγειν, 1 Cor.
11:33, in which only the believers were allowed to participate, 10:16v., 11:20v., in which first prayer and thanksgiving were offered, then a common meal (ἀγαπη) Jud. 12, 2 Petr. 2:13 was held from the gifts brought together by the believers, thereafter again prayer and thanksgiving
(εὐχαριστια) and the Lord's Supper was celebrated. Jülicher, Spitta, Haupt, Hoffmann, Drews et al. do indeed think that in the apostolic time the Lord's
Supper was not distinguished from the ordinary meal, but that the whole ἀγαπη was a εὐχαριστια, a δειπνον κυριακον, but this opinion is rightly rejected by Harnack, Zahn, Grafe et al.; Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper after the ordinary meal, Mt. 26:26, 1 Cor. 11:25, and Paul distinguishes both in 1 Cor. 11:20, 21 and proposes to separate them entirely, in that the ordinary meal should beforehand be held at home, 1 Cor. 11:22,
Weiszäcker, Das apost. Zeitalter2 S. 566 f. Moeller-von Schubert, Kirchengesch. I 96 f. 130 f. Zahn art. Agapen and Drews art. Eucharistie in Herzog3. W. Schmidt, Dogm. II 466. But in the second century a great change gradually came about here. The celebration of the Lord's Supper was, for whatever reasons, cf. Drews in Herzog3 5, 562, detached from the agapae, and the two assemblies, that for the service of the word and that for the Lord's Supper, were united. Henceforth the celebration of the Lord's
Supper took place in the ordinary religious service after the ministry of the word; the religious service was distinguished into two parts, at the first, the
ministry of the word, Gentiles or at least catechumens and penitents might also be present, but the second, the celebration of the Lord's Supper, was open only to the baptized, and received [217] through the addition of baptismal confession, administration of baptism, oratio dominica and all kinds of ritual and symbolic acts more and more a mysterious character.
The widely disseminated Greek mystery-cult exerted influence on the Christian religion. In the N. T. μυστηριον is the name for words and deeds of God that were formerly hidden but that have now become manifest, part
I § 30. But this word soon received in the Christian church a wholly different meaning and became the designation of everything in the Christian religion that was mysterious and incomprehensible. In Latin this word was rendered by sacramenten, which had the meaning of an oath, especially to be taken by the soldier to the standard, or of a sum of money that in a lawsuit had to be deposited in a locus sacer and, upon loss of the suit, fell to the gods, but which now took up into itself the thought of a mysterious, holy act or thing. In this sense everything that stood in any connection with God and his revelation could be called a sacrament, the revelation itself and its content, the doctrine, the trinity, the incarnation, etc., further all kinds of signs, such as the sign of the cross, the salt that was given to the catechumens, finally all holy acts, priestly ordination, marriage, exorcism, sabbath celebration, circumcision and all ceremonies; cf. besides the works named in part I 530v., Moeller-v. Schubert I 332 f. and the literature cited there. Herzog2 art. Sakrament. Ziegert, Ueber die Ansätze zu einer
Mysterienlehre, Stud. u. Kr. 1894. Although now among these holy acts designated by the name sacrament baptism and the Lord's Supper still clearly come to the foreground, nevertheless the vagueness of the name was the cause that the number of the sacraments remained for a long time
undetermined. Augustine too still uses the concept in a broader sense and proceeds in his definition from that meaning. Only Pseudodionysius in the 6th century counted in his eccl. hier. IV 2 sq. six sacraments: baptism, confirmation, eucharist, priestly ordination, monastic ordination and usages at the burial. But scholasticism, in the determination of the concept sacrament, attached itself to Augustine and reckoned various holy things and acts under it. Hugo of St. Victor, de Sacr. I 9, 7 names no fewer than 30 sacraments and divides them into three classes: those that are necessary for salvation (baptism, confirmation, eucharist etc.), those that communicate a higher grace (use of holy water etc.) and those that serve as preparation for the other sacraments (consecration of holy implements etc.). Abaelard counts five: baptism, confirmation, eucharist, extreme unction and marriage, while Robert Pullus also names five, but replaces the last two with confession and priestly ordination. Bernard gives no number but in various places names baptism, footwashing, confirmation, eucharist, confession, extreme unction, priestly ordination, investiture, marriage with the name of sacraments. Only Lombardus, Sent. IV dist. 2 has the wellknown seven, but even after him theologians and synods (e.g. the lateran council of 1179) still speak of sacraments in a broad sense. And this continues until the sententiae of Lombardus became the general handbook for the study of theology and the council at Florence 1439 established the seven, cf. Schwane, D. G. III 584 f. Harnack, D. G. III 463. With this restriction of the number, the determination of the concept went hand in hand. Among the church fathers many holy acts, especially baptism and the Lord's Supper, were indeed highly exalted, and were thought to be endowed with a supernatural power and grace. But a doctrine of the sacraments is lacking; the relation of the sensible and spiritual element is not clearly
determined, and the manner of operation is not clearly defined. Augustine distinguishes in the sacraments two constituent parts: dicuntur sacramenta, quia in eis aliud videtur, aliud intellegitur. Quod videtur, speciem habet spiritalem, Serm. 272. detrahe verbum et quid est aqua nisi aqua? accedit verbum ad elementum et fit sacramentum, in Ev. Joh. 80, 3. Sometimes he lays so much emphasis on the word and, for the operation of the sacrament, on the faith of the recipient, that the sign becomes only an image of the thing signified. But on the other hand he gave such a broad definition of the concept sacrament that all kinds of ecclesiastical acts could fall under it, and he bound the sacraments, against the Donatists, so to the church that they could indeed be taken along by the heretics but nevertheless could communicate grace only within the church, Hahn, Die Lehre v. d. Sakr.
Breslau 1864 S. 11 f. Harnack, D. G. III 141.
The proper doctrine of the sacraments is a product of medieval scholasticism; it was the first to institute a precise and often hair-splitting investigation concerning the concept, the institution, the [219] minister, the necessity, the efficacy, the number, the constituent parts, the relation of the sacramentum and the res sacramenti, the distinction between the sacraments in paradise, the Old and the New Testament, the mutual difference of the seven sacraments, the physical or moral operation, the distinct grace which they communicate, the requirements for the administration and the reception of the sacraments, Hugo Vict., de sacramentis. Lombardus, Sent.
IV 1. 2. and comm. of Thomas, Bonaventura, Duns Scotus. Thomas, S.
Theol. III qu. 60-65. Bonaventura, Brevil. VI 1-5. Schwane, D. G. III 579605. Harnack, D. G. III 466 f. The result of this scholastic development was that, partly already at earlier councils but especially at Trent, the following was established concerning the doctrine of the sacraments in general: 1o all
sacraments of the N. Covenant are instituted by Christ and are seven in number: baptism, confirmation, eucharist, penance, extreme unction, priestly ordination, and marriage. 2o These are all true and proper sacraments, essentially distinct from those of the O. Covenant, but nevertheless mutually different in value. 3o They are, although not all for every human being, necessary unto salvation, so that without them, or at least without desire for them, by faith alone, the grace of justification is not to be obtained. 4o They not only signify grace, but also contain it and communicate it ex opere operato. 5o On the side of the minister, for the truth of the sacrament it is at least required that he have the intention to do what the church does, but otherwise it is indifferent whether he is in mortal sin. 6o Lawful dispensers of the sacraments are only the ordained priests, but confirmation and priestly ordination take place only by the bishop, and baptism may in case of necessity also be administered by laymen. 7o On the side of the recipient it is only necessary that he have the intention to receive what the church gives and place no hindrance in the way of grace. 8o Each sacrament confers a particular grace, and baptism, confirmation, and ordination confer a character indelebilis. Cf. Conc. Trid. VII de sacr. Cat.
Rom. II cap. 1. Bellarminus, Controv. III de sacramentis in genere in 2 books. Theol. Wirceb. ed. 3 IX 1-151. Perrone, Prael. theol. ed. Lov. V 301391. Simar, Dogm.3 659-693. Oswald, Die dogm. Lehre v. d. h. Sakr. der
Kath. Kirche2 I 20-132. [220] Möhler, Symbolik § 28. Jansen, Prael. III 281-367 etc. On the doctrine of the sacraments in the Greek church compare Kattenbusch, Vergl. Confessionskunde I 393 f.
2. The development of this doctrine of the sacraments shows that it had removed itself farther and farther from Scripture. This is especially the case in a threefold respect. In the first place, the grace which the sacrament
communicates is conceived by Rome only as a gratia sanctificans, i.e. as a power which is poured into man, elevates him to the supernatural order, and makes him a partaker of the Divine nature. Grace has been almost entirely detached from guilt and forgiveness of sins and transformed into a supernatural gift accruing to man from without. In the second place, the bond of the sacrament to the word has been as good as entirely severed by Rome; the word does indeed have some significance, but only a preliminary and praeparatory one; the faith which is worked by the word is nothing but a historical faith, which is insufficient unto salvation and must be supplemented by love, i.e. by the gratia infusa. And this gratia is communicated only by the sacrament, which therefore occupies its own, independent place alongside the word and far surpasses it in value. In the third place, faith is absolutely no longer a requirement in the recipient of the sacrament; grace, as gratia sanctificans, as something material, lies enclosed in the sacrament, is communicated by it ex opere operato, and thus presupposes at most that the recipient places no insurmountable hindrance in the way. The sacrament therefore works physically and magically, by virtue of a power bestowed by God upon the priest, as an instrument in his hand. On all three points the Reformation reviewed and altered the Roman doctrine of the sacraments according to Scripture; Zwingli, Luther, Calvin were herein in agreement with one another and expressed in common that the grace which was communicated in the sacrament was in the first place forgiving grace and did not relate to the lower nature, deprived of the donum superadditum, but to sin; that the sacrament was a sign and seal, attached to the word, communicated no grace that was not bestowed by the word and thus without the word had absolutely no value; and that not the sacrament itself but nevertheless [221] its operation and fruit depended on
faith and thus in the recipient always presupposed saving faith. But otherwise, in the doctrine of the sacraments, important difference soon manifested itself among the Reformers. The sacraments became, among Romanists, Lutherans, Zwinglians, Reformed, Anabaptists, etc., the center of the struggle. They became the shibboleth of every dogmatic system; therein the principles were embodied practically and concretely from which one proceeded in church and theology, in doctrine and life; the relation of God and world, creation and re-creation, Divine and human nature of Christ, sin and grace, spirit and matter came in the sacrament to their practical application; all struggle moved around the unio sacramentalis, the union of sign and thing signified, the connection of sacramentum and res sacramenti. Luther first, in 1518 and 1519, laid all the emphasis on faith, which alone makes the sacrament work and thus makes communion with Christ and his benefits our portion; then, from 1520 to 1524, he brings the sacrament especially into connection with the word, of which it is a sign and seal; and finally, after 1524, out of fear of the Anabaptists, he came more and more to deem the sacraments indispensable, to maintain their objective character on the ground of the institution of Christ, and to conceive the connection between sign and thing signified temporally, corporeally, and locally, so that according to the later Lutheran conception the res coelestis is hidden in, with, and under the element, just as the power of the H. Spirit has entered into the word, and grace works through the sacraments as through its instrumenta, media, adminicula, vehicula, organa,
Luther bij Köstlin II 503 f. Heppe, Dogm. d. d. Prot. III 39 f. Symb. Bücher ed. Müller S. 39. 41. 202. 264. 321 enz. Gerhard, Loc. XVIII. Quenstedt, IV 73-88. Schmid, Dogm. d. ev. luth. K. § 53. Over against this Zwingli taught that the sacraments, because they are administered only to such as have
faith and through that faith are partakers of Christ and all his benefits, are in the first place signs and proofs of faith, acts of confession, and then in the second place also means for the strengthening of faith, because they remind us of the benefits to which our faith relates, continually direct our faith more away from ourselves to God's grace in Christ and thereby exercise and strengthen that faith, [222] Zwingli, Fidei ratio bij Niemeyer, Conf.
Ref. 24-26. Expos. chr. fidei, ib. 50-53, en voorts Zeller, Das theol. System Zw. 111 f. Now Calvin too does indeed conceive the sacraments as acts of confession, as mutua nostra erga Deum pietatis testificatio. But with him they are nevertheless only in the second place; first of all the sacraments are divinae in nos gratiae testimonia externo signo confirmata, signs and seals of the promises of God in his word, mirrors in which we behold the riches of his grace. The invisible element, the materia and substantia of the sacrament, is thus the word, the promise, the covenant of grace, the person of Christ with all his benefits. But the visible element does not contain these spiritual goods enclosed within itself, it does not bestow them upon us propria, intrinseca virtute, God does not hand over his work to the signs in the sacrament, He and He alone is the possessor and also remains the only dispenser of grace. The signs render only instrumental, ministerial service;
God makes use of them in order to communicate his grace. But He communicates this grace only to those who believe and then strengthens and nourishes their faith; unbelievers receive only the sign without the thing signified. How now God makes use of the sacraments for the distribution of his grace is not made clear in Calvin and also in the later Reformed.
Therefore room remains for all kinds of questions; is grace always connected with the sign, so that the sacrament objectively always remains the same? or does God connect grace with the sign only when the sacrament
is received by believers? or does God also offer grace with the sign to the unbelieving users, so that it is their guilt if they accept and receive only the sign? wherein is sacramental grace distinguished from that which believers already received earlier, and wherein does it differ from the subjective working of the H. Spirit, which opens the eye of believers for the sacrament and unlocks their heart for it? does the distribution of grace accompany the administration or the reception of the sign? does it take place simultaneously with it or can it also occur earlier or later and thus can the fruit of the sacrament be enjoyed before and during and after the reception? cf. Calvijn, Inst. IV 14. Catech. Genev. 5. Cons. Tigur. Usteri, Stud. u. Krit.
1884 S. 417-455. Conf. Gall. 34. 37. Belg. 33. Cat. Heid. qu. 66. 67 enz. a Lasco, [223] Op. ed. Kuyper I 115-232. 511-514. Bullinger, Huysboek V 6.
Sohnius, Op. I 55. Beza, Tract. Theol. I 206. Junius, Theses Theol. 49. 50.
Zanchius, Op. VIII 511. Polanus, Synt. Theol. VI 49-51. Synopsis pur. theol. 43. Turretinus, Theol. El. XIX qu. 1-10. Moor V 218-267. Vitringa VI 308 enz.
Outside the Lutheran and the Reformed churches, which in the wake of Luther and Calvin maintained the objective character of the sacraments, the doctrine of Zwingli found more and more acceptance. The Anabaptists did indeed still accept foot-washing, baptism, and the Lord's Supper as sacraments, but nevertheless saw in them only signs and symbols, no seals; the sacraments do indeed visibly set before the eyes the benefits which believers have received from God, but they do so as confessions of our faith and communicate no grace, Cloppenburg, Op. II 238. The Socinians, like
Zwingli, disapproved the name sacrament, regarded the Lord's Supper as a memorial meal and a declaration of what we have in Christ, and denied that baptism rested on a command of Christ and was a permanent institution,
Fock, Der Socin. 559 f. The Remonstrants in their confession c. 23 did indeed still confess that God in the sacraments displays his benefits and certo modo exhibet atque obsignat, but their Apology showed that by this they understood no sealing of God's promise and no communication of his grace; the sacraments are signs of the covenant between God and human beings, whereby these obligate themselves to a holy life and God visibly sets his grace before their eyes, cf. Limborch, Theol. Christ. V 66. Among the Rationalists the sacraments became signs of remembrance and confession, whose purpose was the promotion of virtue, and which therefore could easily be increased with other solemn ceremonies,
Wegscheider § 165. The Quakers rejected the sacraments as Jewish ceremonial, understood baptism as baptism of the Spirit, which cleanses us from our sins, and the Lord's Supper as an image of the nourishment of our soul by Christ, Barclay, Verantwoording 1757 bl. 325. This dissolving process was checked by Schleiermacher insofar as he ventured an attempt to maintain the objective character of the sacraments and to unite all the different conceptions in a higher unity. To that end he defined them as fortgesetzte Wirkungen Christi, in Handlungen der Kirche eingehüllt und mit ihnen auf [224] das Innigste verbunden, durch welche er seine hohepriesterliche Tätigkeit auf die Einzelnen ausübt und die Lebensgemeinschaft zwischen ihm und uns, um derentwillen Gott allein die
Einzelnen in Christo sieht, erhält und fortpflanzt, Chr. Gl. § 143. But this attempt at reconciliation did not succeed. The Wirkungen Christi, in Handlungen der Kirche eingehüllt, left undecided what in the sacraments was the first and principal thing. Thus theology soon again diverged in different directions. Some continued to adopt the mediating standpoint,
Nitzsch, Chr. Lehre § 191. Kaftan, Dogm. 595. Oosterzee, Dogm. II 815;
others reproduced the view of Zwingli, Lipsius, Dogm. § 807 f. 840 f.
Schweizer, Chr. Gl. II 400 f. Biedermann, Chr. Dogm. II 632. Ritschl, Unterricht in der christl. Rel. § 83. Scholten, L. H. K. II 310, or returned to the confessional standpoint of the Luth. or Geref. churches, Philippi, Kirchl.
Gl. V 2. Hodge, Syst. Theol. III 485. And finally, by the Neolutherans in Germany and by the Zwinglians and the Puseyites in England, a doctrine of the sacraments was advanced which in many respects recalled Rome, let grace work through the sacrament not only upon the soul, but also upon the geistleibliche nature and upon the body of the human being, and often expanded the number of the sacraments, Höfling, Das Sakr. der Taufe, Erl.
1859 I 18-20. Hofmann, Schriftbeweis II 2 S. 167 f. Thomasius, Christi Person u. Werk II3 355 f. Delitzsch, Bibl. Psych.2 340. 350. 354.
Martensen, Dogm. § 247-258. Vilmar, Dogm. II 226 f. Paget, Sacraments in Gore's Lux mundi 1892 p. 296-317.
3. Scripture does not know the word sacrament and also contains, in the abstract, no doctrine of the sacraments. It does indeed speak of various ecclesiastical acts in O. and N. Test. but it does not comprehend them under a common concept. And also in the Christian church it is not the concept but the thing that is first; various doctrines and usages of the church were gradually designated with the name of sacrament. Therefore it is understandable that very many had objections to this name and preferred to replace it with that of signs, seals, secret-signs, mysteries, Geheimnisse. Not only Carlstadt, Zwingli, Socinus, Schleiermacher, Doedes etc. disapproved
[225] the word; but Luther also said in his praeludium de captivitate Babylonica, that Scripture did not know the word in that meaning which it had in theology; Calvin, Inst. IV 14, 13 observed that the church fathers had put a new sense into the Latin word; Melanchthon replaced in the first
edition of his Loci the word sacramenta with signa, and Musculus, Hottinger, Burman, Coccejus and others also gave preference to the Scriptural names of signs and seals. This objection to the name is further strengthened by the fact that the Greek meaning of the word μυστηριον, translated in Latin by sacramentum, has exercised influence on the conception of the ecclesiastical ceremony designated by that name. Yet for all this the word is not to be rejected. For theology makes use of many words which do not occur in Scripture and which within its circle have acquired a technical meaning. If it had to refrain from these, it would have to cease all scholarly labor and all preaching and exposition of God's word, indeed even all translation of Holy Scripture would be unlawful. For that reason it is also not to be disapproved to let the treatment of the doctrine of the sacraments precede that of baptism and the Lord's Supper. For although in Scripture no separate doctrine about the sacraments is to be found and this must rather be built up from what Scripture teaches about the particular institutions of circumcision, passover, baptism and the Lord's Supper; yet a preceding chapter about the sacraments in general puts us precisely in a position to summarize what those particular institutions have in common in Scripture and to set this correct, Scriptural conception over against the impure doctrine which has gradually penetrated into the Christian church concerning the sacraments. In the definition of the sacraments the Reformed therefore adhered as closely as possible to Scripture. Scholasticism disputed about whether a definition of the sacraments could be given, because they, as composed of res and verba, were no ens reale, no unum per se, cf.
Bellarminus, de sacr. in genere I 10. Yet from Augustine, who more than once distinguished in the sacraments a visible and an invisible component, one derived the definition that they were sacrum signum or signum rei
sacrae, Thomas, S. Theol. III qu. 60 art. 1. 2. Hugo Vict. de sacr. I 9, or also
[226] invisibilis gratiae visibilis forma, Lombardus, Sent. IV 1. Although not incorrect, this determination is nevertheless too broad. Later Roman theologians therefore usually adopted the determination of the Catech.
Rom. II 1, 6, 2, and described the sacraments as signa quaedam sensibus subjecta, quae ex Dei institutione sanctitatis et justitiae tum significandae tum efficiendae vim habent. Although this definition can be understood well, it nevertheless has acquired in Roman theology a sense that is in conflict with Holy Scripture and therefore makes it unusable for the Reformation. For Roman theology conceives the sacrament as a res sacra, abdita atque occulta and places in it the sense, not of the Biblical, but of the Greek μυστηριον. And further it places all the emphasis on the fact that the sacraments contain grace in themselves, that they communicate it ex opere operato, and that this grace consists especially in the gratia sanctificans.
Scripture, however, speaks of the rainbow and circumcision as אֹות ַהְּבִרית, Gen. 9:12, 13, 17, 17:11, cf. Ex. 12:13, Hd. 7:8 and calls the latter a σημειον περιτομης, a σφραγις της δικαιοσυνης της πιστεως, Rom. 4:11; and it likewise connects baptism and the Lord's Supper most closely with the covenant of grace, with the mediator and the benefits of that covenant and specifically with the forgiveness of sins, Mk. 1:4, 14:22-24 etc. Accordingly
Reformed theology described the sacraments as holy visible signs and seals, instituted by God, by which He gives the believers to understand and assures the promises and benefits of the covenant of grace all the better, and by which these on their part confess and confirm their faith and love before God, angels and men. Here it deserves attention, in the first place, that God is named as the institutor of the sacraments. In general there is no difference about this in the Christian churches. All confess that God alone can be the
author, the institutor, the causa efficiens of the sacraments. For He alone is the possessor and dispenser of all grace; He alone can determine to which means He wishes to bind Himself in the distribution of His grace. Further,
Christ also as mediator has the right to institute sacraments, for He as mediator is the acquirer of all the grace of God. Hominum non est instituere et formare Dei cultum, sed traditum a Deo recipere et custodire, Helv. II 19.
But Rome here falls into a peculiar [227] difficulty. Because no other sacraments had been instituted by Christ than those of baptism and the Lord's Supper, it had to be asserted of the other sacraments that they either were not sacraments or that the apostles also had the right to the institution of sacraments. Before the council of Trent many asserted, Lombardus, Sent.
IV dist. 3, Hugo Vict., de sacr. II 15, 2, Halesius, Bonaventura and others, that the sacraments, e.g. confirmation, confession, had been instituted not immediately by Christ but by the apostles, Schwane, D. G. III 597. But the council at Trent sess. 7 can. 1 expressly determined that all seven sacraments had been instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord Himself, (not mediately for that all acknowledged; then no conciliar decision would have been necessary, but immediately, Bellarm. de sacr. I c. 23) and thereby imposed on theology an unfulfillable obligation. Yet the council was right insofar as it recognizes that the right to institute sacraments cannot even by God be transferred to creatures. Men can make known the institution of a sacrament, Ex. 12:1, Mk. 1:4, 11:30, 1 Cor. 11:23, can hand out its sign, can announce the grace of God, but they cannot by the nature of the case bestow this grace realiter. For grace is not a material good, but it is the favor, the communion of God, inseparable from Him and therefore not to be communicated by any creature, by any man or angel. Therefore God in Christ through the Holy Spirit is the only institutor but also the only
dispenser of the sacrament. Only that sacrament is the true one that is administered by God Himself. It is Christ Himself who in His church baptizes and holds the Lord's Supper. He has not transferred His office and has appointed no substitute on earth, He Himself rules and just as He alone as prophet administers the word, so He is also the only minister of the sacrament, although it is the case that He also there uses men as His instruments, Helv. II 19. Synopsis pur. theol. 43, 8. Turretinus, Th. El. XIX 1, 14. Amyraldus, Theses Salm. III 10. Vitringa VI 338. In the second place, in the Reformed definition of the sacraments it is also noteworthy that they are described as signs. Although some Reformed also, whether generally, or alternately, reckoned them among the ceremoniae, ritus or actiones,
Bullinger, Huisboek, V 6. Trelcatius Jr. Loci [228] Comm. p. 141, Junius, Theses Theol. 50, 6 etc., yet by far the most reduced them to the generic concept of signa, sigilla, imagines, symbola, typi, antitypi, cf. Moor V 231.
Vitringa VI 341. They deviated in this, partly also from the Romanists but especially from the Lutherans, who were particularly set on the description by actiones and saw in it an important point of dispute with the Reformed,
Gerhard, Loc. XVIII 22 sq. This is on the Lutheran side therefore surprising, because they, with the word, teach that the power of the Holy
Spirit is enclosed in it, also before and outside the use. The analogy would require that the emphasis fell not on the action but on the sign in the sacrament. Yet this is not the case. The Lutherans see in the sacrament first of all an action, consisting in communication of grace in, with and under the sign. The Reformed now by no means denied that there was in the sacrament an action. But this was a hidden, invisible action of Christ, who inwardly in the hearts through the Holy Spirit bestows grace. By contrast, in the sacrament the main matter does not lie in the action of the minister, as if
that were of so much weight and even brought about a conor transubstantiation, but in the sign-being of the sacrament; it depicts and assures the action of Christ, indeed the action of the minister of the sacrament, although an actio, is itself an actio significativa. And Scripture therefore calls the sacraments by the name of signs and seals and also obliges Romanists and Lutherans to approve this designation, Bucanus,
Instit. theol. 559. Maresius, Syst. Theol. XVIII 8. Mastricht, Theol. VII 3, 14. Turretinus, Theol. El. XIX 3, 9. Vitringa VI 341. In the third place the Reformed definition of the sacraments is still peculiar in that it unites the act of God and the confession of the believers, which is to be observed in it, with one another. Calvin, Inst. IV 14, 1 in that way reconciled Luther and Zwingli with one another. With Luther he was in agreement that the act of God in the sacrament took the first and principal place; but with Zwingli he judged that the believers in the sacrament also made confession of their faith and their love before God, angels and men. In the sacrament God first comes to the believers, to signify and seal to them His benefits; He assures them with visible pledges that He is their God [229] and the God of their seed; He affixes seals to His word, in order to strengthen their faith in that word, Gen. 9:11-15. 17:11, Ex. 12:13, Mk. 1:4, 16:16, Luk. 22:19, Rom.
4:11 etc. But on the other hand the sacraments are also acts of confession; the believers confess in them their conversion, their faith, their obedience, their communion with Christ and with one another; while God assures them that He is their God, they solemnly testify that they are His children; every sacramental use is a renewal of the covenant, a vow of fidelity, an oath, which obliges to the service of Christ, Mk. 1:5, 16:16, Hd. 2:41, 8:37, Rom.
6:3v., 1 Cor. 10:16v., cf. Ned. Gel. 36. Form. v. doop en avondmaal.
Vitringa VI 423 sq. Heppe, Dogm. d. ref. K. 441.
4. In the name of sign and seal it is implied that the sacrament consists of two parts, which are distinguished as verbum and elementum, res sacramenti and sacramentum (in the narrower sense), signatum and signum, res coelestis and res terrestris, internal and external matter. For sign and seal both point to something else, of which they are sign and seal. There are many and various signs; there are, as Augustine, de doctr. christ. II 1 already observed, natural and positive, adopted, instituted signs. To the former belong, e.g., the smoke, which calls to mind the fire, the dawn, which calls to mind the sun, the footprint, which calls to mind the walker, the fragrance, which calls to mind the flower, the laugh, which calls to mind joy, the tear, which calls to mind sorrow. Positive signs are such as are established by agreement, convention, custom, or usage and are accepted and recognized in a narrower or wider circle; to this kind belong all lettersigns, passwords, banners, insignia, etc. All these signs are distinguished as ordinary from extraordinary, among which the miracles occupy the foremost place; in Scripture these are often designated by the name σημεια, because they are a proof and sign of God's presence, of his grace or power, of his truth or righteousness. Signs are also still brought into different groups, according as they, like the memorial signs, call to mind something past, Jos. 4:6, or, like the predictive signs, something future, Gen. 4:15, or also, like many other signs, something present and abiding, Deut. 6:8, [230] call to mind. Sacraments now belong to the instituted, extraordinary signs, which are taken by God, not at random, but according to an analogy preformed by Him, from visible things and are employed for the indication and clarification of invisible and eternal goods. Besides signs, the sacraments are also seals, serving for confirmation and strengthening. Seals are distinguished from signs in that they do not merely recall the invisible
thing in our thought, but also authenticate and confirm it for our consciousness. Because there is so much deceit and falsity in the world, all kinds of means are employed to distinguish the true from the false, the genuine from the spurious. Thus a trademark serves to authenticate the genuineness of the product, a stamp, to authenticate the purity of measures and weights, a coin, to authenticate the correct value of the money, and a seal, to authenticate and guarantee the unadulteratedness of writings. Of seal there is also many a time mention in Scripture, when something must be authenticated as genuine and preserved against falsification. Letters of princes, 1 Kon. 21:8, Neh. 9:38, Esth. 3:12, or of other persons, Jer. 32:10, and further laws, Jes. 8:16, books, Dan. 12:4, Op. 22:10. Daniel's lions' den, Dan. 6:18, the grave of Jesus, Mt. 27:66 etc. are sealed and thus protected against violation. God also has a seal, Op. 7:2; He seals the stars, when He hides them and covers them with clouds, Job 9:7; He seals the book of judgment, so that no one, except the Lamb alone, can open and read it, Op. 5:1; He seals the abyss, in which Satan is shut up, so that he may no longer deceive, Op. 20:3; He seals his servants in the last tribulation, so that they are not harmed, Op. 7:3, 9:4; He seals all believers with the H. Spirit, so that they, as heirs, are preserved for the future salvation, 2 Cor. 1:22, Ef.
1:13, 4:30; He seals the Christ by all kinds of signs as the giver of the food that remains unto eternal life, Joh. 6:27; He gives Paul in the blessing upon his labor a seal, a confirmation of his apostleship, 1 Cor. 9:2; He impresses his seal upon the building of the congregation as a pledge that it is his property, 2 Tim. 2:19. Seals therefore are always means to guarantee the genuineness of persons and things or also to preserve them against violation. Thus now [231] Abraham also received in the sign of circumcision a seal, that is, a confirmation, ratification, pledge of the
righteousness which he had by faith, Rom. 4:11. Sacraments are therefore, besides signs, also seals, attached by God to his word, in order to make it, of course not in itself for then it is firm enough as the word of God, but for our consciousness, gain in credibility, in reliability. Sign and seal in the sacraments, however, are not only the visible elements of water, bread, and wine, but the various ceremonial actions that accompany them also have signifying and sealing power. The sprinkling or immersion in baptism, the blessing, breaking, distribution, and receiving of the bread in the Lord's
Supper are not arbitrary and indifferent customs, but they also constitute component parts of the sacraments, enable us the better to understand the promises and benefits of the covenant, and together with the elements form the sacraments into signs and seals of the invisible goods of salvation,
Vitringa VI 352.
The materia interna in the sacrament, the invisible thing, which is represented and sealed in it, is the covenant of grace, Gen. 9:12, 13, 17:11, the righteousness of faith, Rom. 4:11, forgiveness of sins, Mk. 1:4, Mt.
26:28, faith and repentance, Mk. 1:4, 16:16, communion with Christ, with his death and resurrection, Rom. 6:3v., with his flesh and blood, 1 Cor.
10:16 etc. In summary one can therefore say, that Christ, the whole, rich, full Christ, according to his divine and human nature, with his person and work, in the state of his humiliation and in that of his exaltation, is the materia interna, the res coelestis, the thing signified in the sacrament. For this Christ is, with all his benefits and blessings, the mediator of the covenant of grace, the head of the church, the yea and amen of all the promises of God, the content of his word and testimony, the wisdom, righteousness, sanctification and redemption of believers, the prophet, priest and king, in whom God alone communicates all his grace and who is
yesterday and today and eternally the same. Jesus Christ is the truth of the sacraments, without whom they would not be with all his would-be, Ned.
Gel. 33, cf. conf. Belg. 34. 35. Cat. Heid. 67. Conf. Helv. II 19. Scot. 21.
Westm. 27, 1. Calvin, Inst. IV 14, 16. 17. Synopsis pur. theol. 43, [232] 20.
21. Mastricht, Theol. VII 3, 7 etc. The Roman Catholics understand by the materia interna of the sacraments the sanctifying, i.e. the created grace added to nature, enabling it to do good works and once to be capable of the vision of God, which does not differ essentially from uncreated grace, that is from God himself, for properly God in every created grace gives himself,
Heinrich-Gutberlet, Dogm. VIII 550 f., and they teach that that grace, as something thing-like, has entered into and is contained in the sign, is thus communicated with it ex opere operato, and is not to be obtained in any other way, namely by faith alone in God's word. Conc. Trid. VII can. 4 sq.
The Lutheran dogmaticians in the first period called the two constituent parts of the sacrament verbum and elementum, and thus had the sacrament communicate the same grace as the word. But as a consequence of their doctrine of consubstantiation they gradually came, especially since
Gerhard, to assume in the sacrament, alongside the word, still a materia coelestis. Through the word of consecration the element not only ceases, as the older dogmaticians said, to be an ordinary, external element, but it also takes up into itself a special, divine power, which is distinct from the word, is designated as materia coelestis, and works through the element as its medium and vehiculum. Therefore there arose a difference between the benefits of grace that were communicated through the word, and those which were communicated through the sacrament; in the Lord's Supper, after all, the very flesh and blood of Christ were enjoyed. Because, however, such a materia coelestis distinct from the benefits of salvation
could be indicated only in the Lord's Supper and not in baptism, Baier and others objected to speaking, with respect to the sacraments in genere, of a materia coelestis, Schmid, Dogm. d. ev. luth. K. 391 f. Yet more recent theology has repeatedly advanced such a conception of the sacrament and has so distinguished word and sacrament, that the first exercises a Person-, and the second a Naturwirkung; that the one is a means of the metanoetical and the other a means of the anagennetical working of the H. Spirit; that the word transforms the consciousness, but the sacrament changes the spirit, the I, yes the geistleibliche nature of man. All this, however, is in conflict with Scripture and an introduction of Roman error. The [233] sacrament bestows not a single benefit that is not also received from the word of God by faith alone. For, whoever believes, is born again, Joh. 1:12, 13, has eternal life,
Joh. 3:36, is justified, Rom. 3:28, 5:1, sanctified, Joh. 15:3, Hd. 15:9, glorified, Rom. 8:30, has communion with Christ, Ef. 3:17, with his flesh and blood, Joh. 6:47v., with his Father, 1 Joh. 1:3, with the H. Spirit, Joh.
7:39, Gal. 3:2, 5 etc. The word contains all the promises of God, and faith accepts them all. The content of the word is Christ, the whole Christ, and this is also the content of the sacrament. There is not a single benefit of grace that is held back in the word and is now communicated to believers by a special way, through the sacrament. There is neither a separate baptismal, nor a separate supper grace. The content of word and sacrament is completely the same; both contain the same mediator, the same covenant, the same benefits, the same salvation, the same communion with God; they are even one in modus and instrumentum perceptionis, for also in the sacrament Christ is enjoyed not bodily but spiritually, not by the mouth but by faith. They differ only in forma externa, in the manner in which they offer us the same Christ. In a certain sense the word too is a sign and seal; a
sign that makes us think of the thing which it indicates; a seal, which confirms that which exists in reality. That holds in general for all word, but it holds in a special measure for the word of God; whoever denies that makes God a liar, 1 Joh. 5:10. But the word signifies and seals Christ to us through the sense of hearing; the sacrament signifies and seals Christ to us through the sense of sight. Together they offer Christ with all his benefits to us by way of the two higher senses which God has bestowed on man, without therefore the other senses, smell, taste and touch, being entirely excluded. From this difference in the manner in which they offer us Christ with his benefits there further follows that the sacrament is subordinate to the word; it is a sign of the content of the word; a seal, which God has attached to his testimony; a pillar, as Calvin says, which has been erected on the foundation of the word; an appendix, which is added to the gospel and appended to it. The word is thus something and much without the sacrament, but the sacrament without the word is nothing and then has no value or power of any kind; it is nothing less but also nothing more than a verbum visibile. All goods of salvation are to be obtained from the word and by faith alone, but there is not a single benefit that could be received from the sacrament alone without the word and apart from faith. The word therefore works and strengthens faith, it addresses both unbelievers and believers; but the sacrament says nothing and contains nothing for unbelievers, it is intended exclusively for believers, it can only strengthen the faith that is present; for it is nothing but a sign and seal of the word.
Therein consists its only, but nevertheless also according to God's intention its sufficient value and power, to clarify and confirm the word and thereby to strengthen faith. In the struggle against Rome, maintenance of this agreement and of this difference between word and sacrament is of the
highest importance. Whoever determines both otherwise and ascribes to the sacrament another working of grace than to the word, divides Christ and his benefits, breaks the unity of the covenant of grace, materializes grace, makes the sacrament independent over against and above the word, reverses the relation of Scripture and church, makes the sacrament necessary for salvation and makes man dependent on the priest. Therefore the Reformed, just as also the Lutherans in the first period, did not tire of repeatedly bringing this correct, scriptural relation of word and sacrament to light and always anew arguing that the sacrament is subordinate to the word and that both serve to point our faith to the offering of Jesus Christ on the cross, as the only ground of our salvation. Cf. Luther bij Köstlin II 503. Symb. B. ed.
Müller 202. 320. 487. 500. Heppe, Dogm. d. d. Prot. II 36. Calvin. Inst. IV 14, 3. 5. 6. 14. Cons. Tigur. bij Niemeyer 204. 206. Conf. Gall. 34. Belg. 33.
Cat. Heid. 66. Helv. II 19. Polanus, Synt. VI 51. Mastricht, Theol. VIII 3, 11. Turretinus, Theol. El. XIX 3, 6.
5. The connection that exists between sign and thing signified was sometimes called forma sacramenti, sometimes also unio sacramentalis
[235]. Against the latter designation Gomarus, Theses theol. disp. 31 § 36 not without reason raised objection; the relation, he says, that exists between sign and thing signified and in a certain sense unites both, nova et obscura phrasi, unio sacramentalis, Ubiquitariorum imitatione, non satis recta, vulgo nominatur. Quia res significata nobis verius unitur quam signis idque signis denotatur ac confirmatur, cf. also Heidegger, Corp. Theol. XI 58. Roman Catholics and Lutherans can to a certain extent at the Lord's
Supper speak of a unio between the materia externa and interna in the sacrament, for they teach that the thing signified enters into the sign and is contained in it; they assume a physical, bodily, local union. But even on
their standpoint there is an objection; for among the Roman Catholics the sign changes into the thing signified, and thus no proper union is possible; and among the Lutherans the thing signified is indeed in, with, and under the sign and thus brought together with the sign in one and the same place and in one and the same space, but such a juxtaposition is nevertheless something quite different from a union. Furthermore, the unio sacramentalis in word and baptism and also in the other sacraments accepted by Rome bears a character so different from that in the Lord's Supper, that it will not do simply to speak in general of a unio sacramentalis. Much more objection, however, exists from the Reformed standpoint. Scripture calls the sacraments signs and seals and thereby indicates the connection that exists between materia interna and externa. No one will call the connection between a word and the thing that it indicates, between an image and the person whom it represents, between a pledge and that of which the pledge is, a union. And yet of that same kind is the relation which exists between sign and thing signified in the sacrament. It is no physical, local, bodily, substantial connection; the signs of water, bread, and wine are no miracula, medicamenta, ὀχηματα, vehicula, canales, causae physicae of the thing signified. But it is an ethical connection, a relation, completely like that between Christ and the gospel, between the benefits of the covenant of grace and the word of God that makes them known to us. Mastricht, Theol.
VII 3, 8. Turretinus, Theol. El. XIX 4, 3. With the word that connection with the things that it describes is [236] given of itself. But with the signs in the sacrament this is not the case. Water, bread, wine are not by nature signs and seals of Christ and his benefits. No one could or might see that in them, if God had not expressly declared it. That does not mean that these signs have been chosen by God wholly arbitrarily from the visible things. On the
contrary, now that God has told us it in his word, we discover between sign and thing signified the most striking correspondence. Besides, it is the same
God and Father who rules in the realm of nature and in the realm of grace; He created the visible so that we can understand the invisible from it; the natural is an image of the spiritual. But nevertheless a special word of God was necessary, in order to see in the signs of baptism and the Lord's Supper a representation of the spiritual goods of salvation. And this was all the more necessary, because water, bread, and wine not only represent grace but also seal it and thus in God's hand serve to strengthen our faith. In these two things, then, consists the forma sacramenti: in the above-mentioned relation between sign and thing signified (forma interna) and in the divine institution, which by the word lays such a connection between both.
Bucanus, Instit. theol. 561. Junius, Theses theol. 49, 8. Maresius, Syst.
Theol. XVIII 19. M. Vitringa VI 400.
In accordance with their doctrine of the unio sacramentalis, Roman Catholics and Lutherans ascribe to the word of institution a different power than the Reformed do. With them it must namely serve to change the sign into the thing signified or to carry the thing signified into the sign. It therefore has a consecratory and operative power, is directed more to the element than to the hearers, and for that reason in the Roman church is spoken by the priest in a mysterious, whispering manner and in the Latin language, Bellarminus, de sacr. I 19. But among the Reformed the word of institution, which is spoken by the minister, possesses no hidden, mysterious, magical power; it does not serve and need not serve to incorporate the thing signified into the sign; it is rather a verbum concionale seu praedicatum, which is spoken aloud to the congregation, which brings about absolutely no change in the sign, but only sets it apart from common
use for the consciousness [237] of the hearers and gives it hic et nunc a special destination, Calvijn, Inst. IV 14, 4. Turretinus, Th. El. XIX qu. 6.
Without that word and outside the use, water, bread and wine are nothing but ordinary, daily food. Detrahe verbum et quid est aqua nisi aqua; accedit verbum ad elementum et fit sacramentum. Therefore the minister, even after he has spoken the word of institution, holds nothing but the sign in his hand, and nothing but the sign does he distribute to the believers. Only God has bound himself, in order, where the sacrament is administered according to his command, himself through his Spirit to grant the invisible grace. God and He alone remains the dispenser of grace, and the Christian, also with the sacrament, does not depend on the minister but on God alone and has everything to expect from Him. This dependence on God alone is by Roman Catholics and Lutherans changed into a dependence on the minister, and this latter is moreover at Rome still strengthened by the fact that in the ministers, when they hand out the sacrament, at least the intention is required to do, quod facit ecclesia, Trid. VII can. 11. In dogmatics this intention is extremely weakened; an intentio generalis, not to hand out this, but a sacrament, is sufficient, and also that intention need not be actualis but is already as virtualis sufficient. It is even not necessary to have the intention to do what the Roman church does; if a minister in the church at Geneva only has the intention to do what the church does which he holds for the true one, then he meets the requirement, and Rome recognizes the sacrament administered by him, Schwane, D. G. III 600. Bellarminus, de sacr. in genere I 27. Nevertheless the requirement of the intention, without further explanation, remains standing as an infallible pronouncement in the Tridentine canons and keeps the earnest Roman Christian in continual uncertainty. And when Calvijn in his Antidotum calls attention to this,
Bellarminus gives only in reply that people in this life do not need such an infallible certainty of their salvation, that a human, moral certainty is sufficient, and that this can be obtained sufficiently, even if one depends on the intention of the minister, cum habere intentionem sit facillimum, ib. 28.
Cf. M. Vitringa VI 458 sq. [238] Although the connection between sign and signified thing does not consist in a corporeal and local union of the two, it is nevertheless objective, real, essential. Roman Catholics and Lutherans, however, have a different concept of reality than the Reformed. If the signified thing is not physically united with the sign, they think that the connection of the two is not essential and that Christ with his benefits is not truly communicated and enjoyed in the sacrament. Yet the difference in the doctrine of the sacraments does not concern whether God truly communicates his grace, but the manner in which He does so. And the Reformed said: in a spiritual manner, because only thus is grace truly communicated and can be communicated. Physical communication of Christ and his benefits is in conflict with the nature of the Christian religion, with the essence of grace, with the nature of re-creation, and would, even if it were possible, nevertheless be of no avail, Joh. 6:63. But the spiritual manner in which, in the sacrament, Christ with his benefits is communicated, forms so little an antithesis with true reality, that it rather brings this about and guarantees it in the full sense. It is no different with the sacrament than with the word. In the word Christ is truly and essentially offered and bestowed upon everyone who believes. And just as really He is communicated to believers in the sacrament. The sacrament gives the same full Christ as the word and in the same, that is, in a spiritual manner through faith, even though the means is also different, audible the one time, and visible the other time. Therefore, in
Reformed theology the so-called phraseologia sacramentalis comes into its own just as well as in Lutheran and Roman Catholic theology. Scripture, namely, in order to indicate the relation which God has established between signum and signatum, sometimes designates the signified thing by the name of the sign, Rom. 2:29, or the sign by the name of the signified thing, Mt.
26:26, or also ascribes the property and operation of the signified thing to the sign, Hd. 22:16, 1 Cor. 11:24. For this manner of speaking detracts nothing from the fact that, also according to Lutherans and Roman
Catholics, God is the proper dispenser and worker of grace in the hearts of men. And with this the Reformed agree wholeheartedly. Whether God communicates that grace in, with, under the sign, through the sign as a channel, or whether He [239] does it in connection with the sign, does not affect the reality of that communication itself. Also in Scholastic and Roman Catholic theology there was at all times difference over the manner in which the sacraments work grace. The Thomistic school ascribed to the sacrament a physical, the Scotistic a moral operation. According to Thomas and his followers God works through the sacrament in such a way that it itself in a physical manner causes grace in the recipient. According to Scotus, however, God had bound himself, upon completion of the sacramental act, to let grace follow, without therefore leading it through the sign as through a channel; he represented the sacrament as a confession of guilt, upon which the user receives grace from God. Rome thus does indeed teach that the sacrament works ex opere operato, but leaves open in what manner God, the causa principaliter efficiens, communicates grace through the sacrament as the causa instrumentalis, cf. Schwane, D. G. III 595. IV 363. Jansen, Prael. III 317. Even though the Reformed therefore reject the doctrine that grace is conveyed to us through the sign as a channel, they
have thereby in no respect done injustice to the truthfulness of the sacrament. Indeed, by that means they have maintained the spiritual nature of grace much better than Rome and Luther. For the rest, the manner in which God, in dispensing his grace, makes use of word and sacrament, remains a mystery. Scripture also says of the word of God that it creates and re-creates, regenerates and renews, justifies and sanctifies. But who describes in what manner God thereby makes use of the word and likewise of the sacrament?
6. In proportion as the relation of sign and signified thing is conceived differently, the power and the operation which are ascribed to the sacrament also differ. Since at Rome the visible sign has taken the invisible grace into itself, the sacrament works ex opere operato, without anything else or anything more being required in the recipient than the purely negative non obicem ponere, Trid. VII can. 6-8. Already Augustine had sought the difference between the sacraments of the O. and of the N. Covenant in this, that sacramenta novi testamenti dant salutem, sacramenta veteris testamenti promiserunt salvatorem, [240] Enarr. in Ps. 73, 2. Scholasticism developed this in such a way that the sacraments of the O. T., because they praefigureered the future Christ, had no power in themselves to communicate grace, but worked only out of and through faith. Under the O.
Test. everything thus depended on the opus operans, i.e. on the believing subject that looked toward the future Christ. But with the sacraments of the N. T. it is otherwise; the sacrifice of Christ has been offered, and therefore the sacraments now work per se, propria virtute, ex opere operato. This latter expression, which was introduced into theology by William of Auxerre and Alexander of Hales, at first still formed no antithesis with the fact that in the recipient of the sacrament a certain dispositio was required,
—Thomas, e.g., still says that virtus sacramentorum praecipue est ex fide passionis Christi, S. Theol. III qu. 62 art. 5 ad 2—but indicated only that the N. T. sacraments had received their power from the accomplished suffering of Christ ad conferendum gratiam justificantem, Thomas, ib. art. 6. But the maintenance of this objective, causative character of the sacraments then naturally led to weakening the required dispositio in the recipient more and more and finally reducing it to the negative non obicem opponere.
Formerly, with this expression, which already occurs in Augustine, Ep. 98, 9, one thought of a positive disposition, of a bonus motus inferior. But the N. T. sacraments worked ex opere operato and excluded, on the side of the recipient, all power and merit; a bonus motus, however, is according to Rome meritorious and therefore unnecessary for the sacrament; indeed even the seven praeparationes, which in adults precede baptism, still have a meritum de congruo and are therefore superfluous for the sacrament; the sacrament works grace in everyone who does not intentionally harden himself, who does not place a positive hindrance in the way, who relates himself to it negatively and passively, Schwane, D. G. III 581. Harnack, D.
G. III 479 f. Bellarminus, de sacr. in genere II 1 sq. Simar, Dogm. 686. The grace that is communicated through the sacraments is the gratia habitualis, infusa, sanctificans, whether this, as in baptism, is bestowed for the first time, or, as in penance, renewed after loss, or also, as in the other sacraments, increased. From that is still distinguished the gratia sacramentalis, which [241] adds to the gratia sanctificans yet a divinum auxilium ad consequendum finem sacramenti, is different in the different sacraments, and enables one to attain that special end which is proper to each sacrament in particular, Thomas, S. Theol. III qu. 62 art. 2. And finally there are still three sacraments, baptism, confirmation, and ordination,
which, besides this grace, imprint yet a character indelebilis, Trid. VII c. 9.
The church fathers already said that baptism was a spiritual sign and seal that was impressed upon the baptized person; just like a mark that is burned into a soldier's hand, which always makes him known and remains binding.
Thus baptism also impresses a πνευματικη σφραγις, nota, character, which is never lost, Schwane, D. G. II 734. Scholasticism also brought this doctrine to further development. It defined the character as a habitus or virtus, which was impressed upon the soul and gave the human being right and power ad cultum divinum. For there were three sacraments which incorporated the human being into a different hierarchical status and made him irrevocably known as a member thereof before God, angels, and human beings. Baptism incorporates into the status fidei genitae, separates believers from unbelievers, and makes us conformed to Christ as our spiritual head; confirmation incorporates into the status fidei roboratae, separates the strong from the weak, and makes us into fighters under Christ as king; ordination incorporates into the status fidei multiplicatae, separates the priests from the laity and elevates them to conformity to Christ as high priest. It is a signum dispositivum, distinguitivum, configurativum, obligativum, which consecrates the human being to God, obliges him to his service, and is never, even in the lost, erased, Schwane, D. G. III 592.
Thomas, S. Th. III qu. 63. Bonaventura, Brevil. VI 6. Bellarminus, de sacr.
II 18-22.
This doctrine was unanimously rejected by the Reformation. For Scripture clearly taught that the sacraments are signs and seals of the covenant of grace, that they are intended only for believers and therefore always presuppose faith, Mk. 16:16, Hd. 8:37, 38, 9:11, 17, 18, 10:34, Rom. 4:11 etc. Only when faith is present are they means in God's hand to signify and
seal the invisible goods of grace, Hd. 2:38, 22:16, Ef. 5:26. Further, the [242] Scripture makes absolutely no distinction between the gratia sanctificans, which is bestowed in the sacrament, and a special gratia sacramentalis different from it; for the grace that is sealed in the sacrament is neither lesser nor also other than that which is bestowed through the word in faith and which consists first of all in forgiving grace, and thereafter also in sanctifying grace. And finally, there is not a word in Scripture about a character indelebilis, which is impressed by baptism, confirmation, and ordination; the texts, 2 Cor. 1:22, Ef. 1:13, 4:30, to which Bellarminus, t. a. p. c. 22 appeals, do indeed deal with a sealing of believers by the H. Spirit unto future salvation, but make mention of no sacrament to which that sealing is bound, nor of a separate habitus or virtus in which that sealing would consist. Even if it is therefore also true that God holds each one to and judges according to the measure of grace that has been bestowed upon him, yet thereby no juridical affiliation to the church of Rome or any other church has been impressed, Calvijn, Antid. 7, 9. The Lutherans later departed from their original standpoint indeed insofar as they had regeneration in children be effected by baptism and had unbelievers in the Lord's Supper partake corporeally of the flesh and blood. But yet they maintained thereby at all times that in adults faith was decidedly necessary for a salutary reception of the sacrament. Therewith the Protestants were confronted with the task of maintaining their objective, real character, in spite of the fact that the working of the sacraments depended on faith.
Among the Roman Catholics and also among the Lutherans this character seems better preserved, because the working of grace is incorporated in word and sacrament. By contrast, the Reformed are apparently in a double difficulty. In the first place, they teach that grace is distributed by God not
per verbum et sacramentum but only cum verbo et sacramento. And in the second place they maintain that a vocatio externa unto salvation is insufficient, that with the calling by the word a calling by the H. Spirit must be added, and that thus per consequentiam the sacrament without more, without special working of the H. Spirit in the heart of believers, does not answer to its purpose. Yet thereby the reality and objectivity of the sacrament is not in the least annulled. [243] For 1o the bond between sign and thing signified in the sacrament is no other but also no lesser than that which exists between the word of the gospel and the person of Christ.
Whoever receives the word in faith truly receives, according to God's promise, Christ as his portion; and likewise, whoever receives the sacrament in faith receives in that same way and according to that same promise of God the whole Christ with all his benefits and goods. Whoever, on the other hand, rejects the word through unbelief, thereby rejects Christ himself, even if he has heard the word and even accepted it historically; and in the same way, whoever despises the sacrament, thereby despises Christ himself; even if he receives the sign, he does not become partaker of the thing signified. One rule applies to both; objectively the bond for word and sacrament with Christ remains in existence; for that bond has been laid by God himself. He has said: if anyone receives my word and my sacrament in faith, he shall not perish unto eternity. 2o Roman Catholics and Lutherans assure to the sacrament no other, better reality than that which also belongs to it according to Reformed confession. For unto salvation nothing else but also nothing less and more is needed than the whole Christ, who is offered in word and sacrament and accepted by faith; and one can do nothing more dreadful than to reject that same Christ in and with the word and sacrament.
Whether unbelievers then corporeally and locally in the signs of bread and
wine eat the very flesh and blood of Christ, does nothing to the objectivity of the sacrament, is wholly useless, and also does not serve to aggravate the judgment, for the moral rejection, i.e. unbelief, is the great sin. The grace of God in Christ is of a spiritual nature and can therefore be accepted only spiritually. 3o The Lutherans too do not dare, in adults, to abandon the requirement of faith for the reception of the sacrament. In children they, like the Roman Catholics, bring regeneration about through baptism, but children form a category of their own, which according to Reformed confession is in no respect in a less favorable condition than according to Lutheran and Roman confession. In adults, however, faith is required. And even the Roman Catholics require in that case that the recipient of the sacrament shall not place an obstacle in the way. According to both, therefore, the [244] sacrament does not work absolutely ex opere operato.
There are cases in which the sacrament does not work, i.e. bestows no grace, and yet retains its objective character. Scholasticism still taught unanimously that qui sine fide vel ficte accedunt, sacramentum, non rem, suscipiunt, Lombardus, Sent. IV dist. 4. And Roman Catholic theology still always deals with the question whether the sacrament, which was first rejected by an obex, can also later still exercise its working, Schwane D. G.
IV 371. Jansen, Prael. Theol. III 330. The working of grace does not, according to any confession, always accompany the sacrament simultaneously. And yet nevertheless the objectivity, and the bond of sign and thing signified, is maintained. 4o Roman Catholics and Lutherans finally stand before the same difficulty as the Reformed, that is, before the question when and in which case the sacraments provide salvation to the recipients and communicate grace to them. The question is the same as that which formerly presented itself with the calling through the gospel. There it
was answered in this sense, that with the vocatio externa a vocatio interna had to be added. And it is no different with the sacrament. The unio sacramentalis taught by Roman Catholics and Lutherans, however intimate it may be, is nevertheless not, without more, able to communicate grace, for then it would have to communicate it always and everywhere and in all cases. In adults something must be added on the side of the subject; the obex must be removed and faith must be put in its place. Objectively the sacrament is indeed sufficient; in the sacrament, just as really as in the word, the whole Christ is bestowed. But in the subject it is necessary that his understanding be enlightened, his will be bent, in order truly to understand and accept the sacrament. If one says that unbelief is the fault of the subject, then one speaks the truth, but one does not name the last and deepest cause of the distinction which is to be observed in the use of the sacrament, just as in the hearing of the word. And therefore the Reformed said that although Christ is indeed objectively, truly, and seriously offered to all users of the sacrament just as in the word to all who hear it, yet subjectively a working of the H. Spirit was necessary in order to enjoy the true power of the sacrament. Non omnibus promiscue, sed electis Dei tantum, ad quos interior et [245] efficax Spiritus operatio pervenit, prosunt signa, Cons. Tigur. bij Niemeyer 209. 5o For believers, for those who receive and enjoy the sacraments in faith, they are signs and seals of the covenant of grace. With a view to the many who receive the sacrament and yet do not believe, a distinction was already made by Gomarus, disp. de sacr. § 31. Essenius, Comp. Theol. dogm. XI 6. Kantt. op 1 Cor. 7:14, between an internal and an external covenant. And when the state of the church indicated more and more a separation and opposition between the two, this distinction gave rise to repeatedly renewed dispute. On the one
side it was asserted that in the O. T. an external covenant had existed but that now there was only an internal covenant (C. Vitringa, Labadie etc.); on the other side many said that even now an external covenant still existed, in which all who made confession were participants and had right and claim to the sacraments (Swarte, van Eerde, Janssonius). And between the two stood those who tried to unite external and internal covenant in a more or less successful way (Koelman, Appelius, Bachiene, Kessler), cf. Vitringa VI 361-398. In fact the older theologians and confessional writings know nothing of such a separation. Internal and external covenant are no more two covenants than invisible and visible church are two churches. And the sacraments therefore cannot be only signs and seals of an external covenant, to which also "unoffending ungraced persons" would have a right. They are not a confirmation only of the sententia of the gospel, that whoever believes will be saved, but they are for believers seals of the whole covenant of grace, of all its promises, of the whole Christ and all his benefits. They therefore assure not merely a general truth, but they are seals to the promise: I am your God and the God of your seed; they set before us, both that which God gives us to understand through his word and that which He does inwardly in our hearts, making salvation concise and firm, which He communicates to us, Ned. Gel. 33; they give us to understand them better and seal to us that God, on account of the only sacrifice of Christ, accomplished on the cross, grants us forgiveness of sins and eternal life by grace, Cat. Heid. 66v. Thereby it is not denied that those who receive the sacrament without faith would not enjoy some temporal fruit [246] thereof, for God is rich in mercy and bestows even many benefits upon those who reject his word and sacrament in unbelief, cf. part III 491v. But the full, true
fruit of the sacraments is, just like that of the word, only for believers. They are thereby assured of their salvation.
From all this follows the value of the sacraments. Necessary they are not in themselves, for God did not need to institute them; and his covenant and grace, his word and promise are, as those of a true God, firm enough, that they would have need of the confirmation of the sacraments, Calvin, Inst.
IV 14, 3. 6. Necessary they are also not in an absolute sense unto salvation, for Scripture binds salvation only to faith, Joh. 3:16, Mk 16:16, and Roman
Catholics and Lutherans, although apparently teaching the absolute necessity and therefore defending emergency baptism, do not maintain this in practice and say e.g. with Augustine, that in the case of the murderer on the cross the baptism of blood replaces the baptism of water. Not privatio but contemptus sacramenti makes guilty before God. But nevertheless the sacraments have great value. Because we are not spirits but sensible, earthly creatures, who cannot understand the spiritual otherwise than under sensible forms, God has instituted the sacraments, in order that we, by the seeing of those signs, would obtain a better insight into his benefits, would receive a more powerful confirmation of his promises, and thus would be supported and strengthened in our faith. The sacraments do not work faith, but they strengthen it, as the wedding ring love. They pour in no physical grace, but they bestow the whole Christ, whom believers already possess through the word, yet they bestow upon them that same Christ in another manner and along another way and strengthen faith. And furthermore they renew the believers' covenant with God, strengthen them in the communion of Christ, bind them together among themselves the more closely, separate them from the world, and testify to angels and men, that they are the people of God, the church of Christ, the communio sanctorum, M. Vitringa VI 422. 437.
7. The number of the sacraments is determined very differently, [247] according as the concept sacrament is taken in a narrower or broader sense.
If, with Augustine, it is said: omne signum sacrum est sacramentum, the number is very greatly extended. And also if, with Calvin, under sacraments all those signs are understood which God ever gave to men, in order to assure them of the truth of his promises, Holy Scripture gives us a whole series of sacraments, Inst. IV 14, 18. The Reformed then also enumerated many, especially when later the doctrine of the covenants was worked out and every covenant and each covenant administration had to have the requisite number of sacraments. Thus one sometimes counted, in the covenant of works before the fall, although then properly speaking there could really be no question of means of grace, the sabbath and paradise, the tree of knowledge and the tree of life as sacraments. And in the Old
Testament administration of the covenant of grace not only circumcision and passover, but frequently also the expulsion from paradise, the making of coats, the offering of Abel, the bow of Noah, the passage through the Red
Sea, the manna, the water from the rock, the bronze serpent, Aaron's staff, Gideon's fleece, Hezekiah's sundial etc. were regarded as sacraments,
Polanus, Synt. Theol. VI 50-54. Witsius. Oec. foed. I 6. IV 7. 10. Moor V 258-267. But when one had arrived at the N. Test. sacraments, one at once conceived the concept in a narrower sense and limited their number to two, although it is the case that Calvin still called the laying on of hands, Inst. IV 14, 20 and Luther and Melanchthon the absolution, Symb. B. ed. Müller
173. 202 sometimes still a sacrament. Rome, however, expanded the number of sacraments to seven and introduced alongside them still a great number of so-called sacramentalia. The distinction between the two consists in this, that the sacraments have been instituted by God, the sacramentals by
the church; the former work through the power granted to them by God, the latter through the intercession and blessing of the church; the first effect immediately man's inner sanctification, the latter contribute thereto only by the granting of subordinate graces and the preserving from temporal misfortunes; the sacraments are necessary by virtue of God's command, the sacramentals are recommended by the church as useful and salutary. To the sacramentals belong objects such as churches, altars, priestly garments, chalices, bells, water, oil, salt, bread, wine, palms etc., which are consecrated by the church and set apart for [248] religious use, and further the actions of exorcising and blessing, which the church employs, in order to withdraw things and persons from the evil influence of the devil and to transfer them onto the holy domain of the church. For Rome, indeed, creation is of a much lower order than re-creation; creation is nature, recreation is grace, i.e. elevatio naturae; the world bears a profane character and moreover stands under the influence of Satan; all that therefore passes from the world into the service of the church must be withdrawn from the power of the devil and consecrated and blessed to the service of God. While thus the sacramentals form the great enclosure that separates the church from the world, the sacraments are the means by which God inwardly sanctifies the members of the church, imparts supernatural grace and makes them partakers of his nature. They are the means to redemption and elevation of the whole visible creation, which is represented in the four elements that they use, namely water, oil, bread and wine, and they are seven in number, because they, uniting the number of the Godhead with the number of the world, by supernatural grace sanctify the whole creation and consecrate it to the service of God. Baptism, instituted by Christ, Mt. 28:19, not only takes away all guilt and punishment of sin, but also delivers from
the stain of sin, implants the principle of grace and holiness, the germ of the new life through regeneration in the soul, and thus makes man a living member of Christ's mystical body and receives him into communion with the triune God. Just as Adam by the donum superadditum entered into a higher world, into the kingdom of grace, so the baptized person is raised into the state of supernatural holiness. But just as Adam had to preserve the bestowed grace by his free will, so also the Christian must by his free will appropriate to himself the grace of baptism. To grant him strength thereto, the second sacrament serves, confirmation or the rite of confirmation. The Roman Catholics cannot prove that Christ instituted this sacrament and commanded it to the apostles, but they must nevertheless believe this because the church says it, and therefore appeal to Hd. 8:15, 19:6, Hebr.
6:2, where there is only mention of extraordinary gifts of the H. Spirit, which were imparted by the apostles with laying on of hands, as is clearly evident from Hd. 8:18, 10:44, [249] 45 cf. 1 Cor. 14:1, 15, 37. Besides laying on of hands, the rite of confirmation further consists in anointing and in the pronouncing of a formula by the bishop, which is wholly unknown to Holy Scripture and was only gradually introduced into the church.
According to Rome, this sacrament now grants to the baptized children, when they have come to the use of their reason, the power of the H. Spirit, in order to preserve the life of grace received in baptism and steadfastly to confess the faith with word and deed. This power of the new life is nourished and strengthened by the third sacrament, which is called that of the altar or of the eucharist, in which Christ himself with his divine and human nature is present, offers himself in an unbloody manner for sins and gives his true body and blood to the communicants to partake as nourishment of their soul. Because, however, the life of grace, given man's
weakness, can suffer damage and be lost through all manner of sin, Christ instituted a fourth sacrament, that of penance, in order to restore or renew his sanctifying grace. For the institution by Christ Rome appeals to the power which Christ granted to his apostles to forgive sins, Mt. 16:19, 18:18,
Joh. 20:22, 23. Now this commission of Christ is indeed certain, but not a word is said that it bears the character of a sacrament; a sign is lacking in it and Rome knows nothing else to say than that contrition, confession and the disposition to make satisfaction are the sign in this sacrament of penance.
The sacrament of penance has therefore with Rome become a tribunal, in which the priest judges the sins confessed in confession, according to the standard of the libri poenitentiales and, although absolving from guilt and eternal punishment, nevertheless makes one atone with all manner of temporal punishments on earth or in purgatory, which, however, can then again be remitted by indulgences. The sacrament of extreme unction does not serve for the healing of the sick, as the adduced proof-text Jak. 4:14 would lead one to expect, but for preparation of the dying person for death; the anointing with holy olive oil signifies the anointing of the H. Spirit, the communication of grace, which delivers the soul from its defects and grants the necessary strength for the last struggle. To these five sacraments there are then added still the sacrament of ordination, which distinguishes the priest [250] from the layman by an official gift of the H. Spirit and grants him the power to change in the mass bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ and to forgive the penitent sinner sins in Christ's name; and the sacrament of marriage, which, according to the word of Ef. 5:25, makes the married state into an image of the union between Christ and his church, to that end binds the married not only to one another by natural bonds but by supernatural grace and grants them the power to persevere in mutual
love unto death and to bring up their children in the fear of God. Cf.
Lombardus, Sent. IV Thomas, S. Theol. III qu. 65 sq. Trid. Sess. 7. 13. 14.
21-24. Catech. Rom. pars II. Bellarminus, Controv. Tom. III etc.
From the Protestant side this set of seven sacraments has sometimes been excessively glorified, e.g. by Leibniz, Syst. der Theol. Mainz 1825 S. 195 f.
Goethe, Aus meinem Leben II 179. Vilmar, Dogm. II 227. Bilderdijk, Opstellen I 61. Brieven IV 68. 174 V 42 etc. There even arose repeatedly here and there an endeavor to expand the number of sacraments and ceremonies and to enrich the Protestant churches with the symbolic rite of Rome. Yet there is no reason to be jealous of Rome's concept and number of sacraments. With all appreciation of the beauty that is expressed in it, for the Protestant Christian this is nevertheless already decisive beforehand, that for the five sacraments added by Rome to baptism and the Lord's
Supper the scriptural proof is lacking. Sometimes this is candidly acknowledged from the Roman side. Thus, for example, Deharbe,
Verklaring der Kath. Geloofsen Zedeleer IV 174 says of confirmation, that we nowhere read that Christ instituted this sacrament or commanded his disciples to administer it. And this applies in the same measure to confession and extreme unction, to marriage and priestly ordination. But apart from this, what does Rome achieve with all these sacraments? It seems that the treasure and the distribution of grace in Rome is extraordinarily rich, but in fact it is so poor, that each time only a small part of sins and punishments is forgiven and can be forgiven and that each time a new sacrament is needed, to impart grace and to release from punishments. Yes, even if one has enjoyed baptism and the Lord's Supper, penance and extreme unction, [251] then after this life an expiation in purgatory still remains necessary. Sins and punishments are by Rome
divided and split so endlessly, that all the sacraments together with the indulgences added to them still cannot completely free from them. Over against this it indeed stands that the saints can bring it so far, that they even over-earn and increase the thesaurus meritorum. But that is exception; it is only possible for saints who, besides the praecepta, fulfill the consilia and lead an exclusively religious life, and provides for themselves no certainty or comfort. The ordinary Roman Christian, who lives in the midst of the world, is to an even greater degree in uncertainty; he remains, even after his death, standing over against God as over against a Judge, whom he must satisfy and whom he still has to reconcile by all kinds of acts of penance.
His state of grace is never certain and fixed; always he is in fear whether he is indeed in it and will not fall out of it the next moment. And this uncertainty is not removed in the least by the fact that the sacraments work ex opere operato. For although baptism, confirmation, and ordination bestow a character indelebilis, the sanctifying grace which the sacraments communicate is nevertheless always again losable; its reception in penance, communion, extreme unction, marriage is dependent on a repentant disposition; and also, where it is bestowed, it does not free from all punishment; satisfactio operis always still remains necessary, even after this life in purgatory. And what sort of grace is it, which the Roman Christian receives in the sacrament? No grace of forgiveness and of adoption as children, but a grace which as a donum superadditum is added to nature, which never becomes one with the human being, and therefore either drives him into the monastery or in the world makes him lead a dualistic life. Over against that the Protestant Christian has enough in the word and in the two sacraments instituted by Christ. In them, if he accepts them in faith, he has the whole Christ, the full treasure of his merits, the perfect righteousness
and holiness, the unbreakable communion with God. From all guilt he is freed, from all punishment released. In baptism he is assured of that and in the Lord's Supper he is continually strengthened and confirmed in that faith. Thus he has no separate grace in confirmation, penance, and extreme unction any longer of [252] need, for through word, baptism, and the Lord's
Supper he receives all grace which he needs in life and death, for time and eternity. His only comfort is that he is the property of Christ; in that comfort he lives, in that comfort he dies. Christ has accomplished everything for him; from him no penance or punishment is demanded, neither in this nor in the coming life. And all this grace which the Christian receives stands so little above nature or over against it, that it rather renews and sanctifies all that is natural. When he marries, he therefore has no new, sacramental grace of need, for marriage is holy by virtue of its origin, and thus does not need to be elevated above its institution but must only be restored and renewed in its natural ordering. Or if he desires an office of overseer, he is not incorporated by a sacramental grace into a special estate but is called from God's side to a service in his church and for that made fit by the same grace of Christ. In baptism and the Lord's Supper the Protestant Christian possesses infinitely more than the Roman in his seven sacraments; for it is not the number of sacraments that decides but the institution of Christ and the fullness of grace which he communicates in them. Cf. on the Roman sacraments: Calvin, Inst. IV 19. Chamier, Panstr. cath. Loc. IV lib. 4.
Synopsis pur. theol. disp. 47. Turretinus, Theol. El. XIX qu. 31. Moor V 330 sq. Gerhard, Loc. XIX 60 sq. Hase, Prot. Polemik5 414 f. Tschackert,
Evang. Polemik 67 f. etc.