Wendelin's "Christian Theology": Doctrine of Sacrifices and Sacraments in General, Part 2

THESIS XI:  Hitherto the causes of the sacraments.  The effect concurs with the end, which is the confirmation of our faith, and the sealing of the gracious promise of our communion with Christ, and participation in the benefits acquired by His death.

EXPLANATION:  I.  By a most apt similitude the sacraments are called seals of the word.  For, as seals properly so called are appended or added to letters, containing some contract, so that they might obtain all the more confidence in the contract, and render the contracting parties all the more certain concerning solidity of the contract, and banish every scruple of doubt:  So to His Word, or to the promise comprehended in the word, has God added external and visible signs and seals, namely, the sacraments, whereby He instructs us concerning the certainty of the promises, and confirms and seals for us their fulfillment, either already present, or certainly coming.  Not that there is more dignity and certainty in the sacraments per se, than in the divine word:  but that, what is offered and apprehended by multiple sense at the same time, is more certain to us, and penetrates more deeply into the soul, than what is perceived by hearing alone.  But especially those things that are transmitted through the eye affect the soul.  Whence that of Lyricus:

What we hear, with a weaker passion will affect the heart,

Than when the faithful eye beholds the part.[1]

That this is the end and effect of the sacraments, is able to be proven by evident arguments:

(1.)  Because circumcision is expressly called a sign and seal of the righteousness of faith, that is, of the remission of sins, and of deliverance from the curse, Romans 4:11.  But in this regard the principle of circumcision and of the other sacraments is the same.

(2.)  Because to the sacramental signs are attributed the names and properties of the things signified:  Circumcision is called the covenant:  the Bread is called the body of Christ given for us:  Baptism is called the washing away of sins:  for no other reason than that they represent spiritual things, and seal to us their reception and possession.

(3.)  Because they are exercises of faith, which recall into our minds the benefits of Christ, and so confirm and increase our faith.  To this pertains that saying:  Do this in remembrance of me.

(4.)  Because they are a confession of our faith and obligation to believe, trust, and obey God, and also a public celebration of the blessings of God, and a thanksgiving for them.  For this also makes what the Lutherans expressly confess with Luther himself, that the sacraments are of no use without faith.

II.  Concerning the end and effect of the sacraments the Papists err in excess, who teach that the sacraments are proper and immediate causes of justifying grace, and so they, with power placed in them by God, by the physical act, as many maintain, insofar as it is opposed to a moral act, effect righteousness and regeneration in men:  just as medicines, by the power placed in them, drive out diseases and restore health.

Now, since the justification and regeneration of the impious, according to the opinion of Augustine, is a greater and more excellent work that the very creation of the world, and since God shares the power of creation with no creature, certainly He shall also reserve the physical power of regeneration to Himself alone, and shall not at all share it with the sacraments in such a way as the Papists maintain.  In the case of Abraham, circumcision did not effect righteousness, but revealed and sealed it.  Thus of old did the Apostles baptize those believing and regenerated, but they did not through Baptism infuse faith and regeneration.  Although we do not deny that the sacraments are able rightly to be called also instruments for perfecting regeneration.

The Anabaptists and other err in defect, who maintain that the sacraments are mere tokens and signs of distinction.

But they equally deny to both, that the sacraments are signs and seals confirming our faith, concerning the certainty of the promises and the possession of spiritual goods.  These, among others, are their arguments:

(1.)  The Baptism of Christ, which was administered by the Apostles sent out into the world, is of far greater efficacy than that of John.

Therefore, the Baptism of Christ not only sealed justifying grace, which John’s baptism also did, but also effected it by implanted virtue, and still effects it.

John himself confesses the antecedent, when he says, I baptize with water only, but Christ with the Holy Spirit, John 1:26, 33; Mark 1:8.

Response:  I deny the antecedent.  To the proof I respond:  John did not set up a distinction in the efficacy of baptism:  for the baptism of Christ and of John was the same in kind, and the baptism of John was also the baptism of Christ:  because by the command and authority of Christ, who is the author of all sacraments in His Church, John baptized:  but in the diversity of persons:  since John, as a minister, only handled the external element of water:  but Christ, as Master, bestowed with internal efficacy the matter of the sacrament.  Even now it is thus to be judged concerning baptism.  The ministers of the Church confer no more in baptism than John did of old.  And what Christ through the Spirit adds to Baptism, He did also of old in the Baptism of John.

(2.)  To Baptism is attributed in Scripture the power of saving and cleansing from sins, Titus 3:5.

Therefore, sacraments do not only seal justification, but justify by their own dignity and the work wrought, as they speak.

Response:  I deny the consequence.  The rationale:  because the effect of the blood of Christ is attributed to Baptism by sacramental expression:  because it signifies, seals, and exhibits the effect of the blood of Christ, that is, purification from sins.

(3.)  Sacraments are administered to those not understanding, like infants.

Therefore, they do not make for the increase and confirmation of faith, but immediately effect sanctity itself.

The antecedent is evident from Circumcision and Baptism.

Response:  I deny the consequence.  The rationale:  because the fruit of the sacraments is not to be restricted to that moment in which they are administered:  as the force of the word does not always exert itself in the very moment in which it is heard.  Even if, therefore, in the very act of Baptism the faith of infants is not confirmed; nevertheless, at length in adults this effect proceeds from the recollection of the reception of this sacrament.  At the same time, in the very act of Baptism even in those not understanding, God confirms the grace of the covenant.  Just as also to infants the fiefs of nobles are confirmed by letters and seals, even if they do not understand the confirmation.

(4.)  The sacraments are no less efficacious, if they be given in a tongue unknown to the one receiving, that if known.

Therefore, they do not work after the manner of word or speech, but they produce by physical action what they signify, namely, justification and regeneration.

The rationale of the consequence:  because among the hearers there is no efficacy to speech in an unknown tongue.

The antecedent is proven:  Because Baptism administered in the Latin language is esteemed by Evangelicals as valid.

Response:  The consequence is denied:  because, even if the words of administration are perhaps unknown, the external ceremony instituted by Christ is not unknown, because of an antecedent or consequent informing made in a known tongue, and used even among the Papists.  Therefore, from the words that are used in the administration to the ceremony or sacred action itself no valid consequence is thus able to be drawn.

(5.)  If the sacraments are not beneficial to any present and watching, but only to those receiving:  it follows, that by them faith and righteousness are not confirmed, but are effected ex opere operato.  But the former is true:  therefore also the latter.

The rationale of the hypothetical:  For, if only after the manner of word and speech do they excite and confirm faith, then they would also be beneficial to any present and watching after the manner of word and speech, even if they do not receive.

Response:  I deny the hypothetical.  The proof is inconsequent.  For, by the institution of God the sacraments of themselves d not confirm faith and the promise of grace, except to those only by whom they are rightly used, or to whom they are applied.  Therefore, thus, and not otherwise, is grace sealed by the sacraments, when, as by a visible word, God addresses individuals in particular, who in the audible word addresses all in a general way.  At the same time, watching the sacraments has its own use; because it recalls into our memory the sealing made to us through their special application.

(6.)  If the sacraments were seals of the word, and were confirming the promise, certainly they would be more familiar than the word and promise.

But the consequent is false:  therefore also the antecedent.

The rationale of the hypothetical:  because it is necessary that a seal be more familiar than that of which it is a seal.

The minor is proven:  Because the sacraments are known by the word.

Response:  1.  The consequent of the hypothetical is not firmly established.  For, the seals of nobles are often not better known than the letters themselves:  and yet they, attached to letters, make confidence greater than letters alone.

2.  I deny the minor.  The proof is inconsequent:  for, although the sacraments are first known from the word and by the word; nevertheless, after they have been made known, nothing hinders them from being better known to us than the things promised in the word, and, added to the word, more and more confirming faith:  because they penetrate more deeply into the soul, and persuaded more thoroughly, than what things are taken in by the ears alone.  Which is the reason, that God promises grace, not only by an audible word, but also by visible signs, that is, by sacraments does He confirm and seal grace.  Thus the promise concerning no future flood did God confirm through the visible sign of the rainbow:  yet its signification had first to be declared by the word.

(7.)  The Holy Spirit confirms faith in us.

Therefore, the sacraments do not.

Response:  I deny the consequence.  The rationale:  because things in subordination are not in opposition.  The Holy Spirit confirms as the principal cause:  the sacraments as instrumental causes, of which it is pleasing to the Holy Spirit to make use.

(8.)  Good works confirm faith and justification.

Therefore, the confirmation of the sacraments is not necessary.

Response:  I deny the consequence.  For, it was pleasing to God to render us certain of justification, not only through good works, as the fruits of faith, but also through the sacraments, as confirming and exhibiting signs.  See Exercitation 81.

III.  Hitherto the refutation of the arguments of the Papists for the physical efficacy of the sacraments in producing justification and regeneration.  Against the same, let certain arguments of the Orthodox also be observed:

(1.)  If the sacraments by physical efficacy, and inherent force, produce justification and regeneration, certainly they would produce them even without faith.

But the consequent is false:  Therefore also the antecedent.

The hypothetical is proven:  because they have that force, not from our faith, but only from the author of the sacraments.

The minor is proven:  Because it is the consistent teaching of Scripture, that without faith man is not justified:  as we will prove in its place.

(2.)  The sacraments are often added to justification and sanctification already previously produced.

Therefore, they are not added to produce them physically.

The antecedent is evident from the examples of adult believers, who are baptized, and make use of the Eucharist.

The rationale of the consequence:  because an effect is not prior to its own cause acting physically.

(3.)  In baptism the washing away of the filth of the flesh does not save the baptized, 1 Peter 3:21.

Therefore, the sacraments by some inherent quality do not produce justification and sanctification.

(4.)  The signs and seals of righteousness do not produce righteousness by some inherent efficacy:  as it is evident from an induction of all the signs.

But the sacraments are signs and seals of righteousness.

Therefore.

Even the more moderate Papists concede the minor; and the Apostle expressly calls circumcision the seal of righteousness, Romans 4:11.

IV.  The agreement and differences between the word and the sacraments are to be observed in this place.  Augustine briefly indicates both, when he says, in treatise 80 on John, a sacrament is a visible word.

Therefore, the agreement of the sacrament and of the word, which is called the Gospel, is principally in these things:

(1.)  Both are external and sensible means to advance in an ordinary way the salvation of men, prescribed to the Church by God.

(2.)  Both are conversant with the same object.  For, a sacrament does not confirm some other thing than what the word promises:  neither does the word promise some other thing than what the sacrament confirms:  for, sacraments are nothing other than seals appended to the word:  but seals confirm nothing other than what the letter contains.

(3.)  Both in general exhibit the thing promised and signified in the same way.  For, as Christ, with His benefits, is in the word of the Gospel by way of signification, promise, and exhibition, which requires faith of those hearing:  So He is also in the sacrament by way of representation, sealing, and exhibition.  But, unless faith be added, the sacrament is of no more advantage than the word.  Therefore, as the word of itself is not empty and void, even if Christ with His benefits is not, or is not included, bodily in the letters and syllable:  so neither ought the sacrament be said to be empty and void, even if the body and blood of Christ are not included in the sacramental symbols.

Hitherto concerning the agreement.

The differences are evident principally in these things:

(1.)  The word meets the ears, but the sacrament the eyes.  Whence Augustine calls the latter a visible word:  and since generally what things are seen penetrate more deeply into the soul, than what things are heard, there is evident reason why God added sacraments to the word; whence also a judgment is to be made concerning the principal end of the sacraments.

(2.)  The word initiates faith:  the sacrament confirms faith initiated.  Whence the word is also to be preached to unbelievers:  Sacraments are to be applied only to believers, who either are such actually, or are held as such by the judgment of charity.

(3.)  The word, even without the sacraments, is advantageous to adults:  sacraments without the word are not so to the same.  Whence without the sacraments, yet not neglected nor despised, they are able to be regenerated and saved:  but without knowledge, which is ordinarily had by the word, they are not saved.

Therefore, we grant this to our adversaries:  the Sacraments are ordinary instruments for conferring grace:  only let that be taken in a sound and right sense, and let faith be conjoined with the sacraments, through which the sacraments have their saving effect in us.  Therefore, while the sacraments confirm faith, they enlarge the grace of sanctification in us, and unite us more and more tightly with Christ day-by-day, when they oblige us to be grateful to God, excite in us the study of holiness, and keep us in the exercise of piety, as if by a sort of bridle.

Whom of our men Eckhard adduces unto a different opinion, Fasciculo, chapter 28, question 3:  they do not simply deny that the sacraments are instruments of grace:  but they only deny that they are instruments of the sort that either the Papists or the Lutherans maintain:  which act as Physical causes in men, and, applied to those not understanding and not believing, immediately infuse faith and regeneration, which we think to be foreign to the word of God.  Least of all do the arguments of Eckhard compel us, that in the question alleged he sets over against us:  because he imposes a falsehood on us.

[1] Horace’s Ars Poetica 181.  Horace (65 BC-8 AD) was a Roman poet, perhaps the greatest of his day.