Book Fourth · Chapter 14 · Of The Sacraments. · 6

26. Those wretched sophists are perhaps deceived by the extravagant eulogiums on our signs which occur in ancient writers: for instance, the following passage of Augustine: "The sacraments of the old law only promised a Saviour, whereas ours give salvation" (August. Proem. in Ps. 73). Not perceiving that these and similar figures of speech are hyperbolical, they too have promulgated their hyperbolical dogmas, but in a sense altogether alien from that of ancient writers. For Augustine means nothing more than in another place where he says, "The sacraments of the Mosaic law foretold Christ, ours announce him" (Quæst. sup. Numer. c. 33). And again, "Those were promises of things to be fulfilled, these indications of the fulfilment" (Contra Faustum, Lib. 19 c. 14); as if he had said, Those figured him when he was still expected, ours, now that he has arrived, exhibit him as present. Moreover, with regard to the mode of signifying, he says, as he also elsewhere indicates, "The Law and the Prophets had sacraments foretelling a thing future, the sacraments of our time attest that what they foretold as to come has come" (Cont. Liter. Petil. Lib. 2 c. 37). His sentiments concerning the reality and efficacy, he explains in several passages, as when he says, "The sacraments of the Jews were different in the signs, alike in the things signified; different in the visible appearance, alike in spiritual power" (Hom. in Joann. 26). Again, "In different signs there was the same faith: it was thus in different signs as in different words, because the words change the sound according to times, and yet words are nothing else than signs. The fathers drank of the same spiritual drink, but not of the same corporeal drink. See then, how, while faith remains, signs vary. There the rock was Christ; to us that is Christ which is placed on the altar. They as a great sacrament drank of the water flowing from the rock: believers know what we drink. If you look at the visible appearance there was a difference; if at the intelligible signification, they drank of the same spiritual drink." Again, "In this mystery their food and drink are the same as ours; the same in meaning, not in form, for the same Christ was figured to them in the rock; to us he has been manifested in the flesh" (in Ps. 77). Though we grant that in this respect also there is some difference. Both testify that the paternal kindness of God, and the graces of the Spirit, are offered us in Christ, but ours more clearly and splendidly. In both there is an exhibition of Christ, but in ours it is more full and complete, in accordance with that distinction between the Old and New Testaments of which we have discoursed above. And this is the meaning of Augustine (whom we quote more frequently, as being the best and most faithful witness of all antiquity), where he says that after Christ was revealed, sacraments were instituted, fewer in number, but of more august significancy and more excellent power (De Doct. Christ. Lib. 3; et Ep. ad Janur.). It is here proper to remind the reader, that all the trifling talk of the sophists concerning the opus operatum, is not only false. but repugnant to the very nature of sacraments, which God appointed in order that believers, who are void and in want of all good. might bring nothing of their own, but simply beg. Hence it follows, that in receiving them they do nothing which deserves praise, and that in this action (which in respect of them is merely passive

objectively more certain, but it can make our faith in God's promise subjectively more certain. God's Word is always absolute, strong, unchangeable, and "settled in heaven"; but our faith, throughout this life is always relative, weak, changeable, and frequently in need of confirmation and assurance. Thus we properly distinguish between the objective certainty of God's Word, and the subjective certainty of our faith.

form of administration of the sacraments (the words of institution, the consecration of the element(s), and their application or distribution), on the one hand, and their spiritual significance and value, on the other. The grace of the sacraments does not lie in their fact or form, but in the Word received by faith.

Col. 2:11.

still another argument which they will employ.

illumine this "difficult point." In Hebrews 9 and 10 it may, at first glance, appear that the writer intends to draw a contrast between those sacrifices offered under the law which were never able to take away so much as a single sin, and the one sacrifice offered by Christ which is able to take away all sins. Such a contrast, however, poses certain questions. For example, what would have been the value of the atonement which the high priest was to make each year, when, in the holy of holies, he offered blood for his own sins and for the sins of the people? Again, why did Moses sprinkle blood upon the book, the people, the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the tabernacle, in order (as Hebrews 9:19-23states) to purge and purify them, if the blood of calves and lambs and goats cannot take away a single sin? And how could David have written, "Blessed is the man whose sins are forgiven" (a blessedness applicable, according to Paul in Romans 4:6-8, not only to David, but also to New Testament believers), if by the shedding of blood during the Old Testament economy, there was no remission (forgiveness) of sins? The objection may be raised, but then what does the writer of Hebrews mean when he says (in 10:4) that "it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins"? And how are we to understand the assertion (in 10:11) that "every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins"? Two things appear clear: That the writer of Hebrews does not mean that the Old Testament sacrifices commanded by God were valueless or worthless that our interpretation must be compared to, be in proportion to, and be related to, the analogy of faith (the teaching of Scripture as a whole). Perhaps a viable solution to this problem can be found in two important distinctions; that between temporary and permanent value, and that between extrinsic efficacy. As we attempt to compare and contrast the sacrifices of the Old Testament with the sacrifice by Christ of Himself, we discover that the emphasis in Hebrews 9 and 10, with respect to the Old Testament sacrifices, is upon their temporary value (because they were repeated again and again), and their extrinsic efficacy (because they were not intended to point to themselves, but to the atoning sacrifice of Christ which gave efficacy to them); and we discover that the emphasis in those chapters, with respect to the sacrifice of Christ, is upon its permanent value (because it was completed once and for all by the eternal Word made flesh), and its intrinsic efficacy (because it was and is a perfect and complete satisfaction). The temporary value and extrinsic efficacy of the sacrifices of the Old Testament is borne out by the terms used to express them in these two chapters of Hebrews. They are called signs, or significations (9:8), figures, or types (9:9, 24), patterns (9:23) and shadows (10:1). They could make the believing worshipper perfect "in the sense of final completeness", since He offered one sacrifice and then sat down, never needing to offer again. But this should not be understood to mean that the sacrifices of the Old Testament had no value and no efficacy with respect to forgiveness of sins. If they were signs, they pointed to that which they signified; if they were figures or types, they anticipated their antitype; if they were patterns, they were patterns of the true reality; and if they were shadows, they silhouetted the substance. These, then, would appear to be the contrasts drawn in Hebrews 9 and 10. Impermanency and non-self-sufficiency characterize the sacrifices of the Old Testament; permanency and self-sufficiency characterize the Sacrifice of the New. The Old Testament sacrifices of lambs were efficacious, but not of themselves, and not without repetition; the New Testament sacrifice of the Lamb of God was efficacious of itself, gave value and efficacy to the Old Testament sacrifices, and is perfect and complete for ever.

their jargon.

sacraments, has been defined in the following ways: (a) that the sacraments themselves are causes of the operations of God's grace (b) that the sacraments effect the grace they signify by the inherent power of the sacramental action itself (c) that in the sacraments we find materials and actions which are of themselves efficacious to give grace (d) that the sacraments not only signify inward grace, but have the power of producing it in the soul. In addition to these meanings (which are very similar in content and thrust), Calvin appears to understand the expression, opus operatum, as implying yet another dimension. He seems to define it as "an action which works," or "an active work," thereby implying, on the part of the recipient, some active participation which merits the grace of the sacrament. Both the abovementioned definitions of the expression and the implication suggested by it, Calvin strongly repudiates. The sacraments do not have inherent power to produce grace in the soul, nor are they made efficacious by any admixture of human merit which is brought to them by sinful men.

tout, et seulement nous recevons."--I call the act passive, because God does the whole, and we only receive.