Wendelin's "Christian Theology": Doctrine of Sacrifices and Sacraments in General, Part 1

THESIS I:  Thus far the word:  the signs joined to the word follow, which are Sacrifices, or Sacraments.

THESIS II:  A sacrifice is an external ceremony, divinely instituted, wherein an external and visible things is offered to God, with the destruction of the whole or part of the thing that is offered, to testify obedience, and to confirm the promise concerning the exhibiting of the Mediator, and the office and blessings of the same.

EXPLANATION:  I.  A sacrifice properly so called, which we have just now defined, is so great a sign of the exhibition, or of the coming birth and sacrifice of Messiah, or the Mediator:  whence, with the sacrifice of His own body accomplished by the Mediator, the typical sacrifices cease:  as it is shown in the Epistle to the Hebrews.

II.  In sacrifices properly so called there are two things especially to be observed:

(1.)  There is no sacrifice properly so called, which does not have to do with an external and visible object; to which the name of sacrifice is commonly attributed:  as it is evident from an induction of all the Old Testament’s sacrifices properly so called.

(2.)  There is no sacrifice properly so called, which is not destroyed either whole or in part, by the act of sacrificing:  as it is evident from an induction of all the Old Testament’s sacrifices properly so called.  Whence the burnt offerings had their name, which were consumed completely by fire.  In Thank-offerings only a part was delivered to the fire:  as it is evident out of Leviticus.  Bellarmine[1] affirms the same, book 1 de missa, chapter 1, where he expressly says, that for a true sacrifice it is required that what is offered to God for a sacrifice is completely destroyed.  Hence it is able firmly to be concluded, that the Roman Catholic Mass is not a sacrifice properly so called:  because it does not have an external and visible sacrificial victim, neither is it destroyed whole or in part.  For the Lord of glory is ἀπαθὴς, beyond suffering, and immortal.

THESIS III:  A sacrament is an external and visible ceremony, divinely instituted, whereby God signifies, seals, and exhibits the grace conveyed in the Mediator, with an appropriate analogy of the signs and the things signified; and the people in turn bear witness to their faith and piety.

EXPLANATION:  Sacrament, to the ancient profane authors of the Latin language, signifies, 1.  Property, or a pledge deposited by litigants before the High Priests in a sacred place, which the one convicted forfeited.  2.  An Oath, which was wont to be formed with sacred Deity invoked.  Whence in Cicero to argue by sacrament is to affirm by swearing.  In Ecclesiastical authors the same term sometimes with a broader signification denotes whatever mysterium or secret of Christian doctrine:  sometimes with a narrow signification, a sign instituted by God, whereby He seals His gifts and blessings to believers:  in which sense it is also taken in this place:  Among the Greeks it is called a μυστήριον/mystery; which term is no less ambiguous.  See Exercitation 76, § 6, 7, etc.

Elsewhere in general a sign is defined as a sensible thing, which, in addition to the appearance, which it conveys to the external senses, causes something else to come into consideration at the same time, which especially agrees with the nature of sacraments.

THESIS IV:  The efficient of a sacrament in general, with respect to institution, is God, and Jesus Christ, the only Mediator between God and men.

EXPLANATION:  I.  God, as He is the sole Lord and Legislator of His Church, and as it belongs to Him alone to promise grace, and actually to bestow it:  so also it belongs to Him alone to signify and to seal the grace bestowed in the sacraments.  Whence we see, that all the sacraments of the Old and New Testaments were instituted by Go alone, and promulgated and dispensed by men at the command of God.

* II.  The sacraments were instituted by God, whether considered outside of the flesh and the hypostatic union with the flesh, or in it and with it.  Whence we see the sacraments of the New Testament instituted by the Son of God, the θεανθρώπῳ/Theanthropos/God-man.  Which is to be observed against certain calumniators:  who complain that the human nature of Christ is excluded by us from the institution of the sacraments:  because according to our opinion, (1.)  The idiomata of divinity are not communicated to the human nature of Christ.  (2.)  It confers nothing to the application of Christ.  (3.)  It is not everywhere.  The first and third of which are obviously inconsequent:  the second is plainly false.

THESIS V:  The instrument whereby God constitutes the sacraments is the word of institution, whereby, being added to the element, that is, the external sign, it becomes a sacrament.  To this also pertain the organs of the external administration, namely, the ministers of the word.

EXPLANATION:  I.  The word, whereby a sacrament is instituted, has two parts, a command and a promise.  By the word of command God appoints that a sacrament be administered, by prescribing its formula; and that it be experienced by men, by prescribing the use.  By the word of promise to those that legitimately make use of the sacraments He confirms the exhibition and off of the things signified:  as it will be evident from the specific doctrine.  See Exercitation 77.

II.  The administration of the sacraments, especially of the New Testament, was entrusted by God to the ministers of the word alone.  At which point a singular controversy between the Papists and us occurs, concerning the intention of the minister administrating the sacrament.

It is asked, therefore:  Whether a Sacrament, administered by a minister of the word, and applied to one to whom it is lawful to apply it, and with those words and rites with which God commanded it to be administered, is able to have the relation of a sacrament, if perhaps it be not the intention of the minister applying it, that he wills to do what the Church of God does, and what God wills to do?

Response:  The Orthodox uphold the affirmative with the following arguments:

(1.)  Because the intention of the minister, if bad and differing from the intention of the Church, is a personal sin of the minister:  which is no hindrance to the truth and efficacy of the sacrament, otherwise rightly administered, since it depends upon the truth and authority of the instituting God.

(2.)  If without the good intention of the minister a sacrament, for example, baptism, does not have the relation of a sacrament, no Christian could be certain concerning his own baptism, that is, that he has been baptized.  But the consequent is absurd.  Therefore also the antecedent.

The rationale of the hypothetical:  because it is not possible for anyone to be certain of the intention of the minister.

(3.)  If the truth and efficacy of the sacrament depends upon the intention of the minister, certainly the minister would have in himself the power of the sacrament.

But the consequent is false:  Therefore also the antecedent.

The minor is proven:  Because the power of the sacrament is the authority to confer the thing signified to the sacrament:  which power belongs to God alone.

III.  The Papists take exception to the contrary opinion:

(1.)  No act is voluntary and human without the intention related to its effect, which is wrought.

But the administration of the sacrament is a voluntary and human act.

Therefore, it is not without the intention related to its effect, which is wrought.

Response:  The major is not true in a simply way, except of the acts of the principal agents:  of acts of instrumental agents separated from intention related to the effect, there are many examples in human affairs.  For example, the incest of Absalom[2] was a voluntary and human act, without an intention related to the effect, namely, the avenging of the adultery of his father David.  The departure of a soldier sent by the Emperor to fight is a voluntary and merely human act; yet often foreign to the intention of the Emperor:  for often a soldier girds himself for a journey, not so that he might fight with an enemy, but so that he might plunder or flee.

(2.)  If a minister should sprinkle an infant with water only with this intention, that he might cleanse him from the filth of the body, certainly he could not be said to baptize him.

Therefore, the correct intention of the minister is clearly necessary.

Response:  To the antecedent:  If he, appealed to for the baptism of the infant, rightly and according to the institution of Christ, applies all the external ceremonies of baptism, he would certainly baptize, even if through internal impiety he should intend something else.  He that proclaims the pure word of God does not defraud by use of the divine word; even if perhaps he preaches with an ill intention.

(3.)  Practical words do not have the power to bring to pass without the intention of him, by whom they are set forth.

But sacramental words are practical.

Therefore, they do not have the power to bring to pass without the intention.

The major is proven:  Because of themselves and naturally words are not operative:  Therefore, they are efficacious only after they are spoken by one that has power.

Response:  If as practical are those words understood that are directed toward practice, and which some practice also follows; which sort are those of the Prophets, Apostles, preachers, and orators, urging some action:  we deny the major.  The proof is not true in a simple way.  For, even if the words materially considered, with respect to the letters, syllables, or sound, are not operative:  yet taken formally, as far as they signify anything that is understood, they are quite operative among us, who understand them:  although the intention of those speaking or writing is often far different from what the readers or hearers think.

THESIS VI:  The matter of the Sacrament is twofold:  (1.)  external and visible, (2.)  internal and intelligible.

EXPLANATION:  Hence that saying of Irenæus,[3] saying and teaching, that the Eucharist consists in two things, an earthly and an heavenly.[4]  For, all sacraments consist in these two things:  yet this is not to be taken in such a way that the sacrament is some integral whole, composed of these two integrating parts:  as mixed bodies are said to be composed of elements, earth and water:  but it is not able to be properly called a sacrament, unless in it there is consideration of the earthly and heavenly matter:  of the former as the sign, of the latter as the thing signified.  But it is now evident, that the sign and thing signified, the related and correlated, are not one through the composition of one thing out of two, but are united by the relation of the one to the other.  At the same time, with special propriety, the sacrament is taken for the sign, or the external and sensible thing, related to the internal and intelligible thing:  in which sense it is defined by Augustine, that it is a visible sign of an invisible grace.

THESIS VII:  The External matter is the sacramental signs, whereby God signifies, seals, and supplies divine things to us; and they are sensible substances, or actions concerning the substances.

EXPLANATION:  I.  Thus, for example, in baptism the substantial sign is water, the accidental sign is the sprinkling of water.  In the Lord’s supper the sensible substances are bread and wine.  The actions are the breaking, distribution, receiving, and eating of the bread, and the pouring out, distribution, and drinking of the wine.

But, even if the sacramental and visible signs have the things signified and invisible neither inhering nor adhering ἀδιαστάτως/inseparably, that is, without local distance, they are not therefore bare and empty signs; as some ineptly infer:  seeing that they are not sign only barely representing, of which is a monument erected as a sign of victory:  but also sealing, and organically communicating and presenting the things signified.  Therefore, whoever receives these visible signs with becoming reverence, most really and truly is made a partaker of the things signified, the enjoyment of which in the legitimate use is always most fully conjoined with the enjoyment of the external symbols.  But let the bare imagination of bodily union or conjunction of Christ the θεανθρώπου/ Theanthropos/God-man according to the flesh, with our bodies or the sacramental symbols, be fare from the minds of the faithful.  For this is altogether alien to the Scripture, the analogy of faith, and the nature of sacraments.

* II.  The corporal and sensible sacramental signs are nevertheless called spiritual in a certain respect, as it is evident from the Manna and the Rock in the desert, 1 Corinthians 10:3-5; not with respect to substance, but rather to use and end:  because:

(1.)  They are not profane and singular things, but determined to a holy and spiritual use.

(2.)  They are instruments of the Holy Spirit, efficacious for the confirmation of faith in us.

(3.)  They signify, seal, and exhibit spiritual goods to believers.

(4.)  They are of principal service, not to the body, but to the spirit or soul.

THESIS VIII:  The Internal matter is the thing signified, that is, Christ with all His benefits, and the partaking of those.

EXPLANATION:  The benefits of Christ that are signified and sealed in every sacrament, are chiefly four:

(1.)  Righteousness, which is the remission of sins, and the absolution of the sinner from the curse of the law.

(2.)  Wisdom, which is the saving knowledge of the divine will, conjoined with faith, which no one has outside of Christ.

(3.)  Sanctification, which consists in the flight from sin, and the study of a new life.

(4.)  Redemption, which is full deliverance from all evils, and final glorification.

To this pertains that saying of Paul, 1 Corinthians 1:30, of God is Christ made to us wisdom, righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:  see Exercitation 71.

THESIS IX:  Hitherto the matter of the sacrament:  the form follows, which is the sacramental union of the signs and the things signified in the legitimate use, consisting, not in the substantial contact of the signs and the things signified, nor in the local inclusion of the things signified in the signs, but rather in the signification, sealing, and furnishing of the things signified through the signs.

EXPLANATION:  I.  Signification is that whereby through visible signs the things signified are represented, which are not seen but believed.

Sealing is that whereby, not only is the truth of the similitude between the signs and the things signified confirmed, but also the efficacy of the union is sealed in the legitimate use.

Furnishing is that whereby the heavenly treasure is offered in word for our apprehension, and that which is figured by the signs is actually furnished in a spiritual manner, and that by the hidden virture of the Holy Spirit, with faith intervening, whereby the Spirit unites us to Christ, and bestows His blessings upon us.  The external and ordinary instruments of this furnishing include the sacraments.  See Exercitation 79.

II.  From this union or conjunction of the sacramental signs and the things signified arises sacramental predication, whereby either the thing signified is predicated of the sign, or the sign predicated of the thing signified; or the effect of the thing signified is attributed to the sign, or the properties of the sign to the thing signified, or the properties of the thing signified to the sign.  For example:

Circumcision is the covenant.[5]

The bread is the body of Christ.[6]

The wine is the blood of Christ.[7]

Baptism is the washing of regeneration.[8]

Of which propositions this is sense:

Circumcision is the sign and seal of the covenant.

The bread is the sign and seal of the body of Christ.

The wine is the sign and seal of the blood of Christ.

Baptism, or the water of baptism, is the sign and seal of the washing of regeneration, or of the blood of Christ, which purges us from all sin.

Thus sanctification of heart is called circumcision:  breaking, which is proper to bread, is attributed to the body of Christ:  sacramental eating and drinking is called spiritual.

This manner of speech, or the explanation of sacramental expressions, is furnished for us by:

(1.)  Scripture, which sometimes calls circumcision the covenant, and at other times the sign of the covenant; as we shall see in its place.

(2.)  The nature of sacraments, which is completely relative, and is comprised in the mutual relation of the signs and the things signified.  Whence, because of the analogy of the signs and the things signified the signs themselves are said to be the things signified.

(3.)  Venerable antiquity, the doctrine of which Augustine expressed in epistle 23 to Boniface:  If sacraments did not have a certain similitude with the very things of which they are sacraments, they were not at all be sacraments.  But from this similitude they commonly also take the names of the things themselves.  The same on Leviticus, question 57:  The things that signify are wont to be signified by the name of the thing itself, which they signify.  Hence the saying:  Christ was a rock:  for it is not said, A rock was signifying Christ:  but as this would be the case; that it certainly was not by substance, but by signification.

III.  The Lutherans are displeased by this form of sacraments, against which Eckhard[9] disputes in his Fasciculo, chapter 18, question 5.

(1.)  The form of the sacrament is in the declaration of the action, as Beza teaches.  But the significative analogy is not in the declaration of the action.

Therefore, the significative analogy is not the form of the sacrament.

Response:  1.  The calumny of the adversary is only concerning the significative analogy.  But we say that that analogy is perfected, not in signification alone, but also in sealing and furnishing.

2.  The major is not granted, except concerning the external and sensible form of the sacrament.  The internal, of which we here treat, is in the declaration of the relation, to which the sacrament also pertains, by consent of all antiquity.  Neither are our adversaries themselves able to deny, that in the sacraments the signs and things signified are especially considered.

(2.)  The form gives being to a thing.

The significative analogy does not give being to a sacrament.  Therefore.

Response:  If the sophistry, concerning significative analogy alone, be removed from the minor, it shall be false:  it is not to be assumed by our adversary, but proven.

(3.)  The true form of the sacraments is expressed in the seat of the institution.

But the significative analogy is not expressed in the institution.

Therefore, it is not the true form of the sacraments.

Response:  If to be expressed is to be mentioned expressly, we deny the Major:  but, if it is to be indicted and taught implicitly through the mention of the signs and things signified, and their mutual relation and sacramental prediction, we deny the minor.

(4.)  Significative analogy is contrary to the nature of the sacraments of the New Testament.

Therefore, it is not the form of them.

The antecedent is proven:  Because the sacraments of the Old and New Testaments differ in this, that the former are σημαντικὰ/significative, but the latter, μεταδοτικὰ καὶ προσφέροντα, imparting and applying.

Response:  The antecedent, if the sophistry be removed, we deny.  The proof is false.  The sacraments of the Old Testament were, not only σημαντικὰ/significative, but also μεταδοτικὰ καὶ προσφέροντα, imparting and applying.  For Old Testament believers were made partakers of the things signified, every bit as much as we New Testament citizens.

IV.  Eckhard, with others, is not able to accept, that our men contend that the sacramental union of the signs and things signified are only σχετικὴν/ relative.  But in vain does he vex himself; in vain does that man attempt to engage us with arguments.  For, our men do not set a union only σχετικὴν/relative in opposition to a real union, conjoined with the exhibition and furnishing of the things signified:  but rather to the Lutheran synusia, whereby the body and blood of Christ are imagined to lie in, with, and under the symbols ἀδιαστάτως, without extension, and σωματικῶς/bodily, in bodily contact.

Because of σχετικὴν/relative union that we assert, to the signs are attributed the names of the things signified:  to the Eucharistic cup or wine, the name of the κοινωνίας/communion of the blood of Christ:  to the bread, the name of the body of Christ,[10] etc.  See Exercitation 80.

THESIS X:  The principal end of a sacrament is twofold:  (1.)  the invisible signifying of the grace of God, and of our union with Christ, the exhibition, and the visible sealing; (2.)  a testimony of piety towards God, and of charity towards one’s neighbor, conjoined with a public profession of faith.

EXPLANATION:  * I.  The Lutherans do us injuring, accusing us of denying the sacraments of the Old and New Testaments to be efficacious means of offering and conferring grace.  However, although the spiritual goods, offered to us through visible signs, are only apprehended through faith, neither are they conferred except to believers:  Indeed, sacraments grant grace no differently than the word:  which is the moral organon for exciting faith and conferring grace in adults:  through which in adults faith is stirred, which, having been stirred, the sacrament confirms:  and so the sacrament supports our infirmity in three ways:

(1.)  With respect to our understanding, to which they are notifying signs, and, as it were, brilliantly shining mirrors, which also represent the mysteries of God to our external sense by analogy.

(2.)  With respect to our memory:  to which they are reminding signs, always renewing the memory of Christ’s benefits.

(3.)  With respect to our will and faith:  to which they are sealing signs, and altogether certain seals and pledges of the benefits acquired by Christ to individuals that receive them in true faith.

II.  We express the principal ends of the sacraments in the thesis.  There are also other, less principal, ends in addition to these.

(1.)  The setting apart of the Church from Pagans and all other sects.  For, for the sacraments are military watchwords, as it were, whereby the members of the visible Church militant are distinguished from Jews and Gentiles, not attaining the signs of Christ.

(2.)  The preservation and propagation of heavenly Evangelical doctrine.  For there is no use of the sacraments without the preaching of the word.

[1] Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621) entered the Order of the Jesuits in his late teens.  He became one of the great theologians of his era, a Cardinal, and, after his death, a Doctor of the Church.

[2] 2 Samuel 16:22.

[3] Irenæus was a second century Church Father, born near Smyrna, but serving as Bishop in Lyon.  He was a disciple of Polycarp, who was in turn a disciple of the Apostle John.

[4] Against Heresies, book 4, chapter 18.

[5] Genesis 17:10-13.

[6] Matthew 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 10:16, 17.

[7] Matthew 26:27, 28; Mark 14:23, 24; Luke 22:20.

[8] Titus 3:5.

[9] Heinrich Eckhard (1580-1624) was a German Lutheran Pastor and Theologian.

[10] 1 Corinthians 10:16.