Untitled Sermon (5)
dd
6. The sacraments as signs of a covenant
Since the Lord calls his promises “covenants” [Gen. 6:18; 9:9; 17:2] and his sacraments “tokens” of the covenants, a simile can be taken from the covenants of men.
The sacraments, therefore, are exercises which make us more certain of the trustworthiness of God’s Word. And because we are of flesh, they are shown us under things of flesh, to instruct us according to our dull capacity, and to lead us by the hand as tutors lead children. Augustine calls a sacrament “a visible word” for the reason that it represents God’s promises as painted in a picture and sets them before our sight, portrayed graphically and in the manner of images.9
They are not reasoning closely enough when they argue that the sacraments are not testimonies of God’s grace because they are also offered to the wicked, who, however, do not find God more favorable but rather incur a heavier condemnation. For by the same argument, because the gospel is heard but rejected by many, and because Christ was seen and recognized by many but very few of them accepted him, neither gospel nor Christ would be a testimony of God’s grace.
In one place Augustine, meaning to convey this, said that the efficacy of the Word is brought to light in the sacrament, not because it is spoken, but because it is believed.
Accordingly, Paul, in speaking to believers, so deals with the sacraments as to include in them the communicating of Christ. For example, he says, “All of you who have been baptized … have put on Christ” [Gal. 3:27, cf. Vg.]. Again: “All of us who have been baptized in Christ are one body and one spirit” [1 Cor. 12:12–13]. But when he speaks of the perverse use of the sacraments, he treats them as nothing more than cold and empty figures. By this he means: however much impious and hypocritical men may, by their own perversity, oppress or obscure or hinder the working of divine grace in the sacraments—still that does not prevent these (wherever and whenever it pleases God) from bearing true witness to the communication of Christ, and the Spirit of God himself also from revealing and fulfilling what they promise. We have determined, therefore, that sacraments are truly named the testimonies of God’s grace and are like seals of the good will that he feels toward us, which by attesting that good will to us, sustain, nourish, confirm, and increase our faith.
We must also note this: that God accomplishes within what the minister represents and attests by outward action, lest what God claims for himself alone should be turned over to a mortal man. Augustine also wisely admonishes this. “How,” he says, “do both Moses and God sanctify? Not Moses on God’s behalf; but Moses by the visible sacraments through his ministry, God by invisible grace through the Holy Spirit. There, also, is the whole fruit of the visible sacraments. For without this sanctification of invisible grace, what is gained from these visible sacraments?”
But our present intention is specifically to discuss those sacraments which the Lord willed to be ordinary in the church in order to nourish his worshipers and servants in one faith and the confession of one faith
We have already taught that they are seals by which God’s promises are sealed, and, moreover, it is very clear that no promise has ever been offered to men except in Christ [2 Cor. 1:20]. Consequently, to teach us about any promise of God, they must show forth Christ. cTo this pertains that heavenly pattern of the Tabernacle and of worship under the law, which was put before Moses on the mountain [Ex. 25:9, 40; 26:30]. There is only one difference: the former foreshadowed Christ promised while he was as yet awaited; the latter attest him as already given and revealed.
And he leaves us no shred of privilege which could make souls hope to go unpunished. cNor is it lawful for us to attribute more to our baptism than he elsewhere attributes to circumcision when he calls it the seal of the righteousness of faith [Rom. 4:11]. Therefore, whatever is shown us today in the sacraments, the Jews of old received in their own—that is, Christ with his spiritual riches. They felt the same power in their sacraments as do we in ours; these were seals of divine good will toward them, looking to eternal salvation. If our opponents had been skilled interpreters of The Letter to the Hebrews, they would not have been thus deceived. But when they read there that sins were not expiated by the ceremonies of the law, indeed that the ancient shadows had no importance for righteousness [Heb. 10:1], overlooking the comparison discussed there while grasping this one point, that the law of itself does not profit its keepers, they simply supposed the ceremonies to have been figures devoid of truth. But the apostle’s intention is to reduce the ceremonial law to nothing until the coming of Christ, upon whom its entire effectiveness depends.
But by way of objection they will quote what they read concerning “circumcision of the letter” in Paul [Rom. 2:29], that it has no place with God, confers nothing, and is empty. For such statements bseem to press it down far beneath our baptism [cf. Rom. 2:25–29; Gal. 5:6; 6:15; 1 Cor. 7:19]. Not at all! The very same thing could justly be said of baptism. But this is even said, and first by Paul himself, when he is showing that God cares nothing about the outward washing with which we are initiated into religion [cf. 1 Cor. 10:5], unless the heart also be inwardly cleansed and persevere in purity to the end. Then it is said by Peter when he bears witness that the truth of baptism rests not in outward washing but in the testimony of a clear conscience [1 Peter 3:21].
He therefore admonishes believers to forsake the old shadows and stand fast in the truth. These teachers (he says) urge you to have your bodies circumcised. Yet you have been spiritually circumcised both in soul and body. You therefore have a revelation of the reality, which is far better than the shadow. But someone could have objected, on the other hand, that men ought not to despise the figure because they had the thing itself, inasmuch as among the patriarchs too there was that putting off of the old man, of which Paul is there speaking; yet outward circumcision was not superfluous for them. Paul forestalls this objection when he immediately adds that the Colossians had been buried with Christ through baptism [Col. 2:12]. By this he means that baptism is today for Christians what circumcision was for the ancients, and that therefore circumcision cannot be enjoined upon Christians without injustice to baptism.
I repeat what I have already touched upon—that Paul does not make the ceremonies shadowed because they have no reality, but because their fulfillment had been, so to speak, held in suspense until the appearance of Christ. Then I say that this must be understood not of efficacy but rather of mode of signification. For until Christ was manifested in the flesh, all signs foreshadowed him as if absent, however much he might make the presence of his power and himself inwardly felt among believers. But we ought especially to note that in all these passages Paul is not speaking simply but by way of controversy. Since he was in conflict with false apostles who wished piety to consist in ceremonies alone without regard to Christ, to refute them it was enough only to treat what value the ceremonies had of themselves. The author of The Letter to the Hebrews also sought this end.
But if you require a clearer answer to objections, the whole matter comes to this: first, all the pomp of ceremonies which was in the law of Moses, unless it be directed to Christ, is a fleeting and worthless thing; secondly, they looked to Christ in such a way that, when he was at length revealed in the flesh, they had their fulfillment; lastly, it was fitting that they should be abrogated by his coming, just as shadows vanish in the clear light of the sun. But because I defer further discussion of this matter to the place where I have planned to compare baptism with circumcision,55 I am now touching upon it only briefly.
Perhaps those immoderate praises of the sacraments which are read in ancient writers concerning our signs have deceived these miserable Sophists. Such is Augustine’s statement: “The sacraments of the old law only promised the Savior; but ours give salvation.” Failing to note that these and similar figures of speech were exaggerated, they also published their own exaggerated dogmas, but in a sense wholly at variance from the writings of the ancients. For Augustine only meant there the same thing that he writes elsewhere: “The sacraments of the Mosaic law foretold Christ, but ours tell forth Christ.”56 And against Faustus: “Theirs were promises of things to be accomplished; ours are tokens of things already accomplished.”57 It is as if he had said: “Those represented him when he was still awaited; but ours show him as if present who has already come.” c(a)Further, he is speaking of the manner of signifying, just as he indicates elsewhere in these words: “The Law and Prophets had sacraments foretelling a thing to come; but the sacraments of our time attest that what the former proclaimed as a future event has come.” But his understanding of the thing itself and its efficacy he explains in many places, as when he says that c(a)the sacraments of the Jews were different in their signs, but equal in the thing signified; different in visible appearance, but equal in spiritual power. cLikewise: “In different signs there is the same faith; it is the same with different signs as it is with different words; for words change their sounds from time to time; and words are nothing but signs. The fathers drank the same spiritual drink, but not the same physical one, as ours. See, therefore, how faith remains while signs change. With them Christ was the Rock [1 Cor. 10:4]; for us Christ is that which is put upon the altar. They drank, as a great sacrament, water flowing from the rock; believers know what we drink. If you look at the visible appearance, they drank something different; if you look at the inner signification, they drank the same spiritual drink.” Another passage: “In the mystery they had the same food and drink as we; but in signification, not in appearance. For the same Christ represented to them in the rock has been manifested to us in the flesh.”
2. The meaning of baptism determined
First, it is a doctrine well enough known and confessed among all godly men that a right consideration of signs does not rest solely in external ceremonies, but depends chiefly upon the promise and the spiritual mysteries, which the Lord ordains the ceremonies themselves to represent. Therefore, let him who would fully learn the value of baptism, its object, and indeed its entire nature, not fix his thought upon the element and the physical appearance, but rather raise it to God’s promises which are there offered to us, and to the inner mysteries which are represented in it. He who grasps these things has attained the solid truth of baptism, and, so to speak, its entire substance. And from this he will also be taught the reason and use of outward sprinkling. On the other hand, he who contemptuously disregards these things and has his attention fixed and bound wholly to the visible ceremony will understand neither the force nor the character of baptism—and not even the meaning of the water or its use. This statement is proved by so many and such clear testimonies of Scripture that it is not necessary to pursue it further for the present. It therefore now remains for us, from the promises given in baptism, to inquire what its force and nature are. Scripture declares that baptism first points to the cleansing of our sins, which we obtain from Christ’s blood; then to the mortification of our flesh, which rests upon participation in his death and through which believers are reborn into newness of life and into the fellowship of Christ. All that is taught in the Scriptures concerning baptism can be referred to this summary, except that baptism is also a symbol for bearing witness to our religion before men.
Accordingly, the children of the Jews also, because they had been made heirs of his covenant and distinguished from the children of the impious, were called a holy seed [Ezra 9:2; Isa. 6:13]. For this same reason, the children of Christians are considered holy; and even though born with only one believing parent, by the apostle’s testimony they differ from the unclean seed of idolators [1 Cor. 7:14]. Now seeing that the Lord, immediately after making the covenant with Abraham, commanded it to be sealed in infants by an outward sacrament [Gen. 17:12], what excuse will Christians give for not testifying and sealing it in their children today?
The covenant is common, and the reason for confirming it is common. Only the manner of confirmation is different—what was circumcision for them was replaced for us by baptism. Otherwise, if the testimony by which the Jews were assured of the salvation of their posterity is taken away from us, Christ’s coming would have the effect of making God’s grace more obscure and less attested for us than it had previously been for the Jews. Now, this cannot be said without grievously slandering Christ, through whom the Father’s infinite goodness was more clearly and liberally poured out upon the earth and declared to men than ever before. And if so, we must admit that at least it should not be concealed with more malign intent, nor revealed with weaker testimony than under the dim shadows of the law.
9. The blessing of infant baptism
It remains for us to indicate briefly what sort of benefit comes from this observance, both to the believers who present their children to be baptized, and to the infants themselves15 who are baptized with the sacred water—lest anyone despise it as useless and unprofitable. Yet, if it enters anyone’s mind to jest at infant baptism on this pretext, he is mocking the command of circumcision given by the Lord. For what will they bring forward to impugn infant baptism that may not be turned back against circumcision? Thus the Lord punishes the arrogance of those who at once condemn what they cannot comprehend with their carnal sense. But God provides us with other weapons to beat down their stupidity. For this holy institution of his, by which we feel our faith singularly comforted, does not deserve to be called superfluous. For God’s sign, communicated to a child as by an impressed seal, confirms the promise given to the pious parent, and declares it to be ratified that the Lord will be God not only to him but to his seed; and that he wills to manifest his goodness and grace not only to him but to his descendants even to the thousandth generation [Ex. 20:6]. God’s boundless generosity, in showing itself there, first gives men ample occasion to proclaim his glory, then floods godly hearts with uncommon happiness, which quickens men to a deeper love of their kind Father, as they see his concern on their behalf for their posterity.
If anyone should object that the promise ought to be enough to confirm the salvation of our children, I disregard this argument. For God views this otherwise; as he perceives our weakness, so he has willed to deal tenderly with us in this matter. Accordingly, let those who embrace the promise that God’s mercy is to be extended to their children deem it their duty to offer them to the church to be sealed by the symbol of mercy, and thereby to arouse themselves to a surer confidence, because they see with their very eyes the covenant of the Lord engraved upon the bodies of their children. On the other hand, the children receive some benefit from their baptism: being engrafted into the body of the church, they are somewhat more commended to the other members. Then, when they have grown up, they are greatly spurred to an earnest zeal for worshiping God, by whom they were received as children through a solemn symbol of adoption before they were old enough to recognize him as Father. Finally, we ought to be greatly afraid of that threat, that God will wreak vengeance upon any man who disdains to mark his child with the symbol of the covenant; for by such contempt the proffered grace is refused, and, as it were, foresworn [Gen. 17:14].
I shall only admonish believers that, though I do not speak, they should ponder among themselves whether they ought to think a sign merely earthly and literal when it represents nothing but what is spiritual and heavenly. But that they may not sell their smoke to the simpleminded, we shall refute one objection with which they cover this utterly shameless lie. It is quite certain that the primary promises, which contained that covenant ratified with the Israelites by God under the Old Testament, were spiritual and referred to eternal life; then, conversely, that they were received by the fathers spiritually (as was fitting) in order that they might gain therefrom assurance of the life to come, to which they aspired with their whole heart. But meanwhile we do not deny that he attested his good will to them by earthly and physical benefits, by which we say that the hope of the promises of spiritual things was also confirmed. For example, when God promised eternal blessedness to his servant Abraham, in order to lay a clear indication of his favor before his eyes, he added another promise concerning the possession of the Land of Canaan [Gen. 15:1, 18]. In this way we ought to understand all the earthly promises given to the Jewish nation: that the spiritual promise, as the head to which they refer, should always hold the first place. And since I have treated these matters at some length in the difference between the New and Old Testaments,21 I now touch them more lightly.
14. Covenant with the Jews not made void*
But they will bring forward in opposition another passage of the apostle [Rom. 9:7], where he teaches that those who are of the flesh are not children of Abraham, but that only those who are children of the promise are counted among his offspring. This seems to hint that physical descent from Abraham, to which we give some place, is nothing.
But we must mark more carefully the case which the apostle is discussing there. For, intending to show the Jews how God’s goodness was not bound to the offspring of Abraham, indeed that of itself such descent conferred nothing, Paul cites, by way of proof, Ishmael and Esau [Rom. 9:6–13], who were rejected just as if they were strangers; even though they were real offspring of Abraham according to the flesh, the blessing rests upon Isaac and Jacob. From this follows what he afterward affirms, that salvation depends upon God’s mercy, which he extends to whom he pleases [Rom. 9:15–16]; but that there is no reason for the Jews to preen themselves and boast in the name of the covenant unless they keep the law of the covenant, that is, obey the Word.
Nevertheless, when Paul cast them down from vain confidence in their kindred, he still saw, on the other hand, that the covenant which God had made once for all with the descendants of Abraham could in no way be made void. Consequently, in the eleventh chapter he argues that Abraham’s physical progeny must not be deprived of their dignity. By the virtue of this, he teaches, the Jews are the first and natural heirs of the gospel, except to the extent that by their ungratefulness they were forsaken as unworthy—yet forsaken in such a way that the heavenly blessing had not departed utterly from their nation. For this reason, despite their stubbornness and covenant-breaking, Paul still calls them holy [Rom. 11:16] (such great honor does he give to the holy generation whom God had held worthy of his sacred covenant); but he calls us (if we are compared with them), as it were, posthumous or even abortive children of Abraham—and that by adoption, not by nature—as if a sapling broken from its tree were grafted upon the trunk of another [Rom. 11:17]. Therefore, that they might not be defrauded of their privilege, the gospel had to be announced to them first. For they are, so to speak, like the first-born in God’s household. Accordingly, this honor was to be given them until they refused what was offered, and by their ungratefulness caused it to be transferred to the Gentiles. Yet, despite the great obstinacy with which they continue to wage war against the gospel, we must not despise them, while we consider that, for the sake of the promise, God’s blessing still rests among them. For the apostle indeed testifies that it will never be completely taken away: “For the gifts and the calling of God are without repentance” [Rom. 11:29, Vg.].
15. The promise to be fulfilled not allegorically but literally
See what is the value of the promise given to Abraham’s descendants, and in what scale it is to be weighed. In distinguishing the heirs of the Kingdom from the illegitimate and foreigners, we have no doubt that God’s election alone rules as of free right. Nevertheless, we see that it pleased him especially to embrace Abraham’s offspring by his mercy, and, in order to attest that mercy more clearly, to seal it by circumcision. Now the condition of the Christian church is exactly the same. For, as Paul argues in that passage that the Jews are sanctified by their parents, so he teaches elsewhere that the children of Christians receive the same sanctification from their parents [1 Cor. 7:14]. From this he concludes that those who, on the contrary, are found guilty of uncleanness [1 Cor. 7:15] are deservedly separated from the rest.
Now, who can doubt that our opponents’ conclusion is utterly false: that those infants who of old were circumcised merely prefigured that spiritual infancy which arises from the regeneration of God’s Word? The apostle writes that “Christ” is “a minister of the circumcision, to fulfill the promises which had been given to the fathers” [Rom. 15:8 p.]. Speaking thus, he does not philosophize as subtly as if he had spoken in this fashion: “Inasmuch as the covenant made with Abraham applies to his descendants, Christ, to perform and discharge the pledge made once for all by his Father, came for the salvation of the Jewish nation.” Do you see how, after Christ’s resurrection also, he thinks that the promise of the covenant is to be fulfilled, not only allegorically but literally, for Abraham’s physical offspring? To the same point applies Peter’s announcement to the Jews [Acts 2:39] that the benefit of the gospel belongs to them and their offspring by right of the covenant; and in the following chapter he calls them “sons of the covenant” [Acts 3:25], that is, heirs. Not very different from this is the other passage of the apostle cited above, where he understands and interprets circumcision imprinted upon infants as a testimony of that communion which they have with Christ [Eph. 2:11–13].
But if we listen to their trifles, what will become of that promise by which the Lord in the Second Commandment of his law pledges to his servants that he will be merciful to their offspring even to the thousandth generation [Ex. 20:6]? Shall we here take refuge in allegories? That would be too frivolous an evasion! Shall we say that it is abolished? But thus the law would be destroyed, which Christ came rather to establish [Matt. 5:17], in so far as it benefits our life. Let us accept as incontrovertible that God is so good and generous to his own as to be pleased, for their sake, also to count among his people the children whom they have begotten.
With this answer everything gleaned from the meaning of baptism that they twist against us is once for all overthrown. Such is the label with which Paul marks it when he calls it the washing of regeneration and of renewal [Titus 3:5]. From this they reason that it is to be conferred only on persons capable of experiencing these things. But we are free to counter this by saying: neither was circumcision, which designated regeneration, to be conferred upon any but the regenerate. And thus a thing instituted by God will be condemned by us. Accordingly (as we have already suggested at various times), all the arguments that tend to shake circumcision are without force in assailing baptism.
And they do not escape by saying that what rests upon God’s sure authority is established and fixed, even though there is no reason for it, but that such reverence is not due either infant baptism or other like things that are not commended to us by God’s express word; when once they are caught and held in this dilemma, they are held forever. God’s command concerning circumcision of infants was either lawful and not to be trifled with, or it was deserving of censure. If there was in it nothing incongruous or absurd, neither can anything absurd be found in the observance of infant baptism.