6.07. Means of Grace
Means of Grace Preliminary Considerations The means of grace are means of sanctification. They suppose the existence of the principle of divine life in the soul: “The outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to his church the benefits of his mediation are all his ordinances; especially the word, sacraments, and prayer; all of which are made effectual to the elect for their salvation” (Westminster Larger Catechism 154). The means of grace are administered within the visible church and to its members.1[Note: 1. WS: When the world of unregenerate men are said to have the means of grace, the means of conviction under common grace, not of sanctification under special grace, are intended: “The Spirit of God makes the reading, but especially the preaching of the word, an effectual means of enlightening, convincing, and humbling sinners, of driving them out of themselves, and drawing them unto Christ” (Westminster Larger Catechism 155).] Consequently, church membership is requisite to obtaining the benefits of the means of grace and sanctification. Some of these benefits cannot be enjoyed at all outside of the visible church: those, namely, connected with the administration of the sacraments and the fellowship and watch of Christians; and none of them can be enjoyed in their fullness by one who has not separated himself from the world by confessing Christ before men.2[Note: 2. WS: Respecting the nature of the church, Calvin (dedication to the Institutes) presents the Protestant view in two fundamental positions: (a) That the church may exist without a visible form, because it is both invisible and visible. The former is composed of all who are really united to Christ; the latter, of all who profess to be united to Christ. The former has no false members; the latter has, as the parables of the tares and the net show. (b) That the visible form of the church is not distinguished by external splendor, but by the pure preaching of God’s word and the legitimate administration of the sacraments. The Romanist contends that the church exists only in a visible form and that this form is in the see of Rome and her order of prelates alone. Rome makes the invisible and visible churches identical and coterminous. For a concise and able statement of the prelatical theory of the church, see Jeremy Taylor’s consecration sermon.]
Confession of faith and church fellowship is a means of sanctification. This is one of “the ordinances of Christ,” all of which, according to the Westminster statement, are means of grace. Christ commands his disciples to confess him before men: “Whosoever shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven” (Matthew 10:32-33; Matthew 16:16-18). The use of this means of spiritual growth is often enjoined in the epistles (Romans 10:9-10; Hebrews 10:25).
Man is a social being, and his religious like his secular welfare depends upon association with others like-minded. Confession of faith and church membership promote sanctification (a) by personal sympathy and (b) by the watch and discipline of fellow Christians. Those who cherish a hope that they are believers, yet make no public acknowledgment of their faith, omit an important means of grace and hinder their own sanctification. Moreover, such a neglect of an explicit ordinance of Christ casts doubt upon the reality of the supposed faith. There would be more ground for hope were this doubt removed by the confession of faith. The word of God is a means of grace and sanctification in two aspects of it. (a) As law its purpose is to point out the duty which God requires of man as a subject of his government. The effect of the word in this form upon the believer is to produce self-knowledge and humility. The believer by the law is made acquainted with indwelling sin. Meekness and lowliness of heart are the effect of the word in this aspect of it. He is kept “poor in spirit.” (b) As gospel its purpose is to disclose the fullness of Christ to meet this spiritual poverty. Preaching should combine the two in just proportions in order to the sanctification of believers. The efficacy of the word is from the Holy Spirit applying it. The Spirit does not operate upon the truth, but upon the soul: “Why do you not understand my speech? even because you cannot hear my word. He that is of God hears God’s word: you therefore hear them not because you are not of God” (John 18:43; John 18:47); “the natural man cannot know the things of the Spirit because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Corinthians 2:14). In using the word, the divine Spirit works directly upon the soul and produces two effects: (a) the understanding is enlightened and enabled to perceive the truth spiritually and (b) the will is renewed and inclined toward it. The aversion of the heart to truth is overcome. Some Lutheran divines represent the Holy Spirit as operating upon the truth so that the truth becomes an efficient by means of this superadded quality or power. The Reformed theologians regard the Holy Spirit as the sole efficient and the truth as only an instrument. (See supplement 6.7.1.) The sacraments are means of grace and sanctification.3[Note: 3. WS: On this subject, see the thorough discussion of Calvin 4.14.17.] In the classical meaning, sacramentum was the oath of allegiance taken by the soldier. It was also the money pledged by contending parties in a litigated case. It implied obligation of some kind. The classical is not the biblical or the ecclesiastical signification. The Latin fathers employed sacramentum as the equivalent of mystērion.4[Note: 4. μυστήριον = mystery] The sacrament was a “mystery.” The Vulgate translates mystērion5[Note: 5. μυστήριον = mystery] in Ephesians 1:9; Ephesians 3:23; Ephesians 5:32 by sacramentum. But as a mystery is exhibited or explained by a symbol, the sacramentum was also a symbolum (Calvin 4.14.2). In the biblical and ecclesiastical use, a “sacrament” is a sign or symbol of a Christian mystery: of the mystery of regeneration in the case of baptism, of the mystery of vicarious atonement in the case of the Lord’s Supper. These two sacraments exhibit and certify, by sensible emblems, to the believing recipient these two mysterious facts in redemption. Westminster Larger Catechism Q. 162 so defines: “A sacrament is a holy ordinance instituted to signify, seal, and exhibit to believers the benefits of Christ’s mediation, to strengthen their faith, to oblige them to obedience, to cherish their love and communion one with another.”
Lord’s Supper The following are the fundamental positions in the Reformed theory of the sacraments:6[Note: 6. Although in this section Shedd makes a few passing references to baptism and the sacraments in general, he deals almost exclusively with the Lord’s Supper. He treats baptism at length in the next section.]
1. They are means of grace, dependent like the other means upon the accompanying operation of the Holy Spirit and consequent faith in the soul of the recipient: “All the energy of operation belongs to the Spirit, and the sacraments are mere instruments which without his agency are vain and useless, but with it, are fraught with surprising efficacy” (Calvin 4.14.9); “the grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments is not conferred by any power in them; neither does the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that does administer it, but upon the work of the Spirit” (Westminster Confession 27.3); “I indeed baptize you with water, but he shall baptize with the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 3:11); “by one Spirit we are all baptized into one body” (1 Corinthians 12:13); “let a man examine himself and so let him eat” (11:28); “neither is that circumcision which is outward” (Romans 2:28); “the antitype whereunto, namely, baptism, does also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), by the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 3:21).
2. In the sacrament of the supper, the bread and wine are both symbols and memorials of Christ’s body. They both emblematize and remind of a particular fact, namely, Christ’s atoning death. This is founded on Luke 22:19 : “This is [i.e., represents]7[Note: 7. WS: The substantive verb in this passage has the same signification as inGalatians 4:24: “These [women] are the two covenants.”] my body; this do in remembrance of me.” The first clause describes the sacrament as symbolic; the second as mnemonic: “Our Lord Jesus instituted the sacrament called the Lord’s Supper for the perpetual remembrance of the sacrifice of himself in his death and a commemoration of the one offering of himself upon the cross” (Westminster Confession 29.1.2).
3. The act of truly partaking of the Lord’s Supper is mental and spiritual, not physical and carnal. Westminster Confession 29.7 teaches that the “worthy receiver spiritually receives and feeds upon Christ crucified” and denies that he “carnally and corporally receives or feeds upon him.” It also denies that “the body and blood of Christ are corporally or carnally in, with, or under the bread and wine” and asserts that they are “really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.” The points in this statement of most importance are that the believer, in worthily partaking of the Lord’s Supper, consciously and confidently relies upon Christ’s atoning sacrifice for the remission of his sins. This is meant by the phrase feed upon Christ crucified. The allusion is to Christ’s words in John 6:53-56 : “Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” The flesh and blood of Christ signify the expiatory death of Christ. To “drink Christ’s blood” is to trust in Christ’s atonement in a vital manner and with a vivid feeling of its expiatory efficacy. The Lord’s Supper can have no meaning if his vicarious sacrifice is denied. (See supplement 6.7.2.) The “presence” of Christ is not in the bread or the wine, but in the soul of the participant. Christ, says the Westminster Confession, is “present to the faith of believers,” and faith is mental and spiritual. The statement of Hooker (Polity 5.67) upon this point is explicit and excellent: The real presence of Christ’s most blessed body and blood is not to be sought for in the sacrament, but in the worthy receiver of the sacrament. I see not which way it should be gathered by the words of Christ, when and where the bread is his body or the cup his blood; but only in the very heart and soul of him which receives them. As for the sacraments, they really exhibit, but for aught we can gather out of that which is written of them, they are not really nor do they really contain in themselves that grace which with them or by them it pleases God to bestow.
Again he remarks (5.67): No side denies but that the soul of man is the receptacle of Christ’s presence. Whereby the question is driven to a narrower issue, nor does anything rest doubtful but this, whether, when the sacrament is administered, Christ be whole [wholly] within man only or else his body and blood be also externally seated in the very consecrated elements themselves. Which opinion they that defend are driven either to consubstantiate and incorporate Christ with elements sacramental or to transubstantiate and change their substance into his; and so the one to hold him really, but invisibly, molded up with the substance of those elements, the other to hide him under the only visible show of bread and wine, the substance whereof, as they imagine, is abolished, and his succeeded in the same room. With this statement of Hooker, Calvin (4.17.31) agrees:
They are exceedingly deceived who cannot conceive of any presence of the flesh of Christ in the supper, except it be attached to the bread. For on this principle they leave nothing to the secret operation of the Spirit, which unites us to Christ. They suppose Christ not to be present unless he descends to us; as though we cannot equally enjoy his presence, if he elevates us to himself. The only question between us, therefore, respects the manner of this presence; because they place Christ in the bread, and we think it unlawful for us to bring him down from heaven. Let the reader judge on which side the truth lies. Only let us hear no more of that calumny that Christ is excluded from the sacrament unless he be concealed under the bread. For as this is a heavenly mystery, there is no necessity to bring Christ down to the earth in order to be united to us.8[Note: 8. WS: The presence of Christ in the bread and wine themselves would be a local and extended presence, because bread and wine are local and extended substances. But the presence of Christ to “the faith of a believer” is a presence in his soul, which is an illocal and spiritual presence, because the soul is an illocal and spiritual substance.]
This view of Hooker and Calvin respecting the solely spiritual presence of Christ in the supper was that of the founders of the English church and entered into their form of worship. In the Office for the Communion of the Sick in the Episcopal prayer book, it is said:
If a man by reason of extremity of sickness or any other just impediment do not receive the sacrament of Christ’s body and blood, the minister shall instruct him that if he do truly repent him of his sins and steadfastly believe that Jesus Christ has suffered death upon the cross for him and shed his blood for his redemption, earnestly remembering the benefits he has thereby and giving him hearty thanks therefor, he does eat and drink the body and blood of our Savior Christ profitably to his soul’s health, although he do not receive the sacrament with his mouth. The Romish theory of the sacraments is that they convey both regenerating and sanctifying grace by their own nature and efficiency: by the mere external muscular performance (ex opere operato) of the rite of baptism or of the supper the effect is produced in the soul. Bellarmine (Concerning the Sacraments 2.1) defines the theory thus: “The sacraments convey grace by the virtue of the sacramental action itself instituted by God for this end and not through the merit of either the agent or the receiver.” The Lutheran doctrine of the sacrament of the supper teaches (a) that its efficacy is conditioned upon faith in the recipient (in this it agrees with Reformed doctrine) and (b) that its efficacy is due to an intrinsic virtue, resulting from the presence of Christ’s glorified body in and with the bread and wine. This copresence of Christ’s glorified body in the emblems makes the sacrament efficacious to the believer. In this, the Lutheran differs from the Calvinistic doctrine. The latter finds the efficacy of the sacrament of the supper solely in the operation of the Holy Spirit in the heart of the believer: “The sacraments become effectual means of salvation, not by any power in themselves, but only by the working of the Holy Spirit” (Westminster Larger Catechism 161). The Lutheran asserts that Christ is “spiritually present in the sacrament of the supper as to the manner, but corporeally present as to the substance.” That is to say, the substance of Christ’s spiritual and glorified body as it now exists in heaven, not of his material and unglorified body as it once existed on earth, is actually present in and with the sacramental emblems. Consequently, the spiritual and glorified body of Christ is present in the bread and wine, wherever and whenever the sacrament is administered. This requires the ubiquity of Christ’s glorified body, whereby it can simultaneously be in heaven and on earth. But the glorified body of Christ, like that of his people, though a spiritual body, has form and is extended in space. The description of Christ’s body after his resurrection and at his ascension proves this. But one and the same form cannot occupy two or more spaces at one and the same moment. Christ’s glorified body can pass from space to space instantaneously, but cannot fill two spaces at the same instant. When Christ’s body passed through the “doors being shut” (John 20:26) and stood among the disciples, his body was no longer on the outside of the doors and could not be.
Hooker (5.67) defines the Lutheran, the Romish, and the Reformed views of the supper as follows:
There are but three expositions made of the words this is my body. The first: “This is in itself, before participation, really and truly the natural substance of my body, by reason of the coexistence which my omnipotent body has with the sanctified element of bread”-which is the Lutheran’s interpretation. The second: “This is in itself, and before participation, the true and natural substance of my body, by force of that deity which with the words of consecration abolishes the substance of bread and substitutes in the place thereof my body”-which is the popish construction. The third: “This hallowed food, through concurrence of divine power, is, in verity and truth, unto faithful receivers, instrumentally a cause of that mystical participation, whereby as I make myself wholly theirs, so I give them in hand an actual possession of all such saving grace as my sacrificed body can yield, and their souls do presently need. This is to them and in them my body.”
According to this statement of Hooker, which agrees with that of the Reformed creeds, there are but three generic theories of the sacraments: Reformed, Lutheran, and Romish. Some would find a fourth theory represented by Zwingli. This comes from a misapprehension of the views of the Swiss reformer. The difference between Zwingli and Calvin upon sacramentarian points has been exaggerated. Zwingli has been represented as denying that the sacrament of the supper is a means of grace and that Christ is present in it. The following positions in his Confession of Faith9[Note: 9. Ratio fidei] disprove this. He asserts that (1) the sacraments are things that are holy and should be venerated; (2) they present a testimony of the thing borne; (3) they stand in place of the things which they signify, since they represent what cannot in itself be directly perceived; (4) they signify lofty things: having value not for what they are materially, but for what they signify; as a bridal ring is not worth merely the gold of which it is made;10[Note: 0 10. (1) Res sanctae et venerandae, (2) testimonium rei gestae praebunt, (3) vice rerum sunt quas significant, (4) res arduas significant.] (5) they enlighten and instruct through the analogy between the symbol and the thing symbolized; (6) they bring aid and comfort to faith; and (7) they take the place of (vice) an oath. These positions accord entirely with those in the First Helvetic Confession, which contains Calvin’s view of the sacraments, and also with those presented in the Articles of Agreement between the churches of Zurich and Geneva. Hagenbach (§258) asserts that Zwingli taught that the sacrament is “both a symbol (signum) and a means of strengthening faith.” Sigwart and Zeller, in their monographs upon Zwingli, take the same view. The writer of “Lord’s Supper” in Kitto’s Encyclopedia represents Zwingli as holding that the Lord’s Supper, by presenting under sensible emblems the sufferings and death of Christ and bringing them to vivid remembrance, deepens penitence, stimulates faith, calls out love, and in this way is a means of sanctification equally with hearing the word or any other means of grace employed by the Holy Spirit.
Zwingli asserted as strongly as Calvin the spiritual presence of Christ in the sacrament, denying with him the carnal and corporeal presence, either in the form of transubstantiation or consubstantiation. “Christ,” he says, “is spiritually present in the consciousness of the believer (fidei contemplatione).11[Note: 1 11. in the contemplation of faith] In the recollection of his sufferings and death and by faith in these, his body is spiritually eaten. We trust in the dying flesh and blood of Christ, and this faith is called the eating of the body and blood of Christ” (Concerning the Eucharist; cf. Confession of Faith12[Note: 2 12. Ratio fidei] 4.63-64 [ed. Niemeyer]). The corporeal presence of Christ he denied, appealing to the authority of Augustine, as follows: “Augustine said that the body of Christ must be in some heavenly place, according to the mode of a visible body. The body of Christ is therefore in no more places than our bodies”13[Note: 3 13. Augustinus dixit Christi corpus in aliquo coeli loco esse oportere, propter visi corporis modum. Non est igitur Christi corpus magis in pluribus locis quam nostra corpora.] (Confession of Faith 4.51 [ed. Niemeyer]).
Zwingli regarded the sacrament of the supper as a means of grace and sanctification, because of its didactic character, because by “evidently setting forth before the eyes Jesus Christ crucified” (Galatians 3:1) it teaches in a vivid and special manner the great truth of Christ’s atonement and redemption and confirms the soul of the believer in it. It is an object lesson. In this respect, the function of the sacrament is like that of the word. Gospel truth is taught by both alike. Both alike are employed by the Holy Spirit in enlightening, strengthening, and comforting the mind of the believer. This feature in Zwingli’s view is sometimes cited to prove a radical difference between him and Calvin. But Calvin is even more explicit and positive on this point: The office of the sacraments is precisely the same as that of the word of God, which is to offer and present Christ to us and in him the treasures of heavenly grace; but they confer no advantage or profit without being received by faith. It is necessary to guard against being drawn into error from reading the extravagant language used by the fathers with a view to exalt the dignity of the sacraments; lest we should suppose there is some secret power annexed and attached to the sacraments, so that they communicate the grace of the Holy Spirit, just as wine is given in the cup; whereas the only office assigned to them is to testify and confirm his benevolence toward us; nor do they impart any benefit unless they are accompanied by the Holy Spirit to open our minds and hearts and render us capable of receiving this testimony. For the sacraments fulfill to us, on the part of God, the same office as messengers of joyful intelligence or earnests for the confirmation of covenants, on the part of men. (4.14.17)
[God] nourishes our faith in a spiritual manner by the sacraments, which are instituted for the purpose of placing his promises before our eyes for our contemplation and of serving as pledges of them. (4.14.12) For this reason, Augustine calls a sacrament “a visible word”; because it represents the promises of God portrayed as in a picture and places before our eyes an image of them. (4.14.5-6)
Connected with the preaching of the gospel, another assistance and support of our faith is afforded us in the sacraments. (4.14.1)
There is no true administration of the sacrament without the word. For whatever advantage accrues to us from the sacred supper requires the word; whether we are to be confirmed in faith, exercised in confession, or excited to duty, there is need of preaching. Nothing more preposterous, therefore, can be done with respect to the supper than to convert it into a mute action, as we have seen done under the tyranny of the pope. (4.17.39) The person who supposes that the sacraments confer any more upon him than that which is offered by the word of God, and which he receives by a true faith, is greatly deceived. Hence also it may be concluded that confidence of salvation does not depend on the participation of the sacrament, as though that constituted our justification, which we know to be placed in Christ Jesus alone, and is to be communicated to us no less by the preaching of the word than by the sealing of the sacraments, and that it may be completely enjoyed without this participation. (4.14.14) (See supplement 6.7.3.) This view of the nature of the sacrament of the supper as didactic is also confirmed by considering the nature and purpose of a symbol. The purpose of a symbol is to teach a certain truth by a visible sign or token. The ocean is a symbol of God’s immensity, and the sun of his glory. The “invisible things” or truths relating to God are emblematized and impressed by “the things that are made” (Romans 1:20). The heavens are a symbol of God because they “declare the glory of God” (Psalms 19:1). The cross is a symbol in all Christendom of the sacrifice of Christ. It teaches emblematically the truth that the Son of God died for man’s sin. The ark, again, is a symbol of the church and teaches that men are safe within the kingdom of God. In the case of all these natural symbols, there is no efficacy in the symbol as such, but only in the truth taught by it. The ocean, the sun, the cross, the ark, make no spiritual impression as mere water, light, and wood. It is only the immensity and glory of God, as taught by the symbols of the ocean and the sun, that affect the mind. It is only the mercy of God, as suggested by the symbol of the cross and the ark, that produces the spiritual effect. The bread and the wine of the Lord’s Supper are specially and divinely appointed symbols, differing in this respect from all natural symbols. They are also seals as well as symbols, differing in this respect, also, from natural symbols. But as symbols they are didactic and teach that truth which is the heart of the Christian religion, namely, that the broken and bleeding body of Christ is the oblation for sin.14[Note: 4 14. WS: The Lord’s Supper took the place of Jewish Passover: “Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us” (2 Corinthians 5:7). The Passover was a divinely appointed symbol, reminding of and setting forth the deliverance of the firstborn by the sprinkling of blood. But the paschal lamb was also typical of the Lamb of God. The visible emblem in the instance of both Passover and the supper teaches the expiation of sin by Christ’s vicarious sacrifice.] They are “holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace, immediately instituted by God to represent Christ and his benefits and to confirm our interest in him” (Westminster Confession 28.1). But in this instance, too, as in that of natural symbols, it is the truth taught by the symbols and not the symbols themselves that strengthens the faith of the participant, deepens his gratitude, enlivens his hope, and sanctifies his heart. As mere bread and wine, the symbols produce no spiritual effect in the soul of the believer. When the Holy Spirit enlightens the mind of the participant to perceive the gospel truth which these emblems “exhibit, signify, and seal,” then and only then do they become means of sanctification. It is not because the glorified body of Christ is conjoined with them, as the Lutheran asserts, or because they are converted into the glorified body of Christ, as the Romanist asserts, that they are effectual. It is because of the spiritual presence of Christ in the soul of the participant and the spiritual perception of the truth signified and sealed by the emblems, as Calvin and Hooker say, that they are means of grace.15[Note: 5 15. WS: On this point see Calvin 4.17.9-12, 33, 36, 39.]
Baptism The sacrament of baptism is the sign and seal of regeneration. It is emblematic and didactic of this doctrine. Baptism is not a means of regeneration, as the Lord’s Supper is of sanctification. It does not confer the Holy Spirit as a regenerating Spirit, but is the authentic token that the Holy Spirit has been or will be conferred, that regeneration has been or will be effected. This is taught in Romans 4:11 : Abraham “received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the faith which he had being yet uncircumcised.” Baptism is Christian circumcision (“the circumcision of Christ”; Colossians 2:11) and takes the place of the Jewish circumcision, so that what is true of the latter is of the former. Paul, Cornelius, and the eunuch were regenerated before they were baptized. As circumcision was not absolutely necessary to salvation, neither is baptism. This is shown by the omission of it in Mark 16:16, when damnation is spoken of. (See supplement 6.7.4.)
Baptism, being the initiatory sacrament, is administered only once. While symbolical only of regeneration, it yet has a connection with sanctification. Being a divinely appointed sign, seal, and pledge of the new birth, it promotes the believer’s growth in holiness by encouragement and stimulus. It is like the official seal on a legal document. The presence of the seal inspires confidence in the genuineness of the title deed; the absence of the seal awakens doubts and fears. Nevertheless, it is the title deed, not the seal, that conveys the title.
Baptism is to be administered to believers and their children:16[Note: 6 16. WS: Proselyte baptism included the whole family, males and females, adults and infants. It was associated also with the circumcision of the males. Some time before the advent, the whole nation of the Idumeans embraced Judaism rather than be expelled from their country. Josephus says that Queen Helena of Adiatum and her son became proselytes. On this subject, see Maimonides; Wall, History of Baptism; Lightfoot; Hammond, On Baptism.] “The promise [of the gift of the Holy Spirit; v. 38] is unto you and your children” (Acts 2:38-39); “if the root be holy, so are the branches” (Romans 11:16); “the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean: but now are they holy” (1 Corinthians 7:14); “go teach [disciple] all nations, baptizing them” (Matthew 28:19). If the command had been “go teach all nations, circumcising them,” no one would have denied that infants were included in the command. Infants are called disciples in Acts 15:10 : “Why tempt God to put a yoke [namely, circumcision] upon the neck of the disciples?” Accordingly, Westminster Confession 28.4 affirms that “the infants of one or both believing parents are to be baptized.”17[Note: 7 17. WS: Calvin 2.508-10, 516; Jeremy Taylor, Liberty of Prophesying, 18.]
The baptism of the infant of a believer supposes the actual or prospective operation of the regenerating Spirit, in order to the efficacy of the rite. Infant baptism does not confer the regenerating Spirit, but is a sign that he either has been or will be conferred in accordance with the divine promise in the covenant of grace. The actual conferring of the Holy Spirit may be prior to baptism or in the act itself or subsequent to it. Hence baptism is the sign and seal of regeneration either in the past, in the present, or in the future. Westminster Confession 38.6 teaches that “the efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered”; in other words, the regenerating grace of the Spirit, signified and sealed by the rite, may be imparted when the infant is baptized or previously or at a future time. The baptism is administered in this reference and with this expectation: “Baptism is to be administered, to be a sign and seal of regeneration and engrafting into Christ, and that even to infants” (Westminster Larger Catechism 177). Under the old dispensation, the circumcision of the flesh was a sign and seal of the circumcision of the heart (Deuteronomy 10:16; Deuteronomy 30:6). “God,” says Calvin (4.16.5), “did not favor infants with circumcision without making them partakers of all those things which were then signified by circumcision.” Similarly, under the new dispensation, the baptism of the body of the infant is the sign and seal of the baptism of the soul by the Holy Spirit. The infant of the believer receives the Holy Spirit as a regenerating Spirit, by virtue of the covenant between God and his people: “I will establish my covenant between me and you and your seed after you in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto you and to your seed after you” (Genesis 17:7); “the promise [of the gift of the Holy Spirit; v. 38] is unto you and your children” (Acts 2:39). The infant of the believer, consequently, obtains the regenerating grace by virtue of his birth and descent from a believer in covenant with God and not by virtue of his baptism. God has promised the blessing of the Holy Spirit to those who are born of his people. The infant of a believer, by this promise, is born into the church, as the infant of a citizen is born into the state: “Children born within the pale of the visible church and dedicated to God in baptism are under the inspection and government of the church” (Directory for Worship, 9). They are church members by reason of their birth from believing parents; and it has been truly said that the question that confronts them at the period of discretion is not “will you join the visible church?” but “will you go out of it?” Church membership by birth from believers is an appointment of God under both the old and the new economies, in the Jewish and the Christian church.
Baptism is the infallible sign of regeneration when the infant dies in infancy. All baptized infants dying before the age of self-consciousness are regenerated without exception. Baptism is the probable sign of regeneration, when the infant lives to years of discretion. It is possible that the baptized child of believing parents may prove, in the day of judgment, not to have been regenerated, but not probable. The history of the church and daily observation show it to be the general fact that infant church members become adult church members. Yet exceptions are possible. A baptized infant on reaching years of discretion may to human view appear not to have been regenerated, as a baptized convert may. The fact of unregeneracy, however, must be proved before it can be acted upon. A citizen of the state must be presumed to be such until the contrary appears by his renunciation of citizenship and self-expatriation. Until he takes this course, he must be regarded as a citizen. So a baptized child, in adult years, may renounce his baptism and church membership, become an infidel, and join the synagogue of Satan; but until he does this, he must be regarded as a member of the church of Christ. Such instances are exceedingly rare, both in church and state. The possible exceptions to the general fact that baptism is the sign of regeneration are not more numerous in the case of baptized infants than of baptized converts. Says Hodge (Theology 3.590):
It is not every baptized child who is saved; nor are all those who are baptized in infancy made partakers of salvation. But baptism signs, seals, and actually conveys its benefits to all its subjects, whether infants or adults, who keep the covenant of which it is a sign. It does not follow that the benefits of redemption may not be conferred on infants at the time of their baptism. That is in the hands of God. What is to hinder the imputation to them of the righteousness of Christ or their receiving the renewing of the Holy Spirit, so that their whole nature may be developed in a state of reconciliation with God. Doubtless this often occurs; but whether it does or not, their baptism stands good; it assures them of salvation if they do not renounce their baptismal covenant. (See supplement 6.7.5.) The reason why there is not an infallible connection between infant baptism and regeneration, when the infant lives to years of discretion, so that all baptized children of true believers are regenerated without a single exception, is the fact that the covenant is not observed on the human side with absolute perfection. Should the believer keep the promise on his part with entire completeness, God would be bound to fulfill the promise on his part. But the believer’s fulfillment of the terms of the covenant, in respect to faith in God’s promise, to prayer, to the nurture and education of the child, though filial and spiritual, is yet imperfect. God is, therefore, not absolutely indebted to the believer, by reason of the believer’s action, in respect to the regeneration of the child. Consequently, he may exercise a sovereignty, if he so please, in the bestowment of regenerating grace, even in the case of a believer’s child. We have seen (p. 776) that the regeneration of an unbaptized adult, depending as it does upon election, cannot be made infallibly certain by the use of common grace, though it may be made highly probable by it. In like manner, the regeneration of a baptized child, depending also upon election, may be made highly probable by the imperfect faith and fidelity of the parents, yet not infallibly and necessarily certain. The mode of baptism which is by far the most common in the history of the Christian church is sprinkling or pouring. From the time of Christ to the present, a vastly greater number have been sprinkled than have been immersed. At the present day, sprinkling is the rule throughout Christendom, and immersion the exception. The former mode is Catholic; the latter is denominational.
Sprinkling was the common mode of baptism in the Old Testament, and this fact furnishes the strongest presumption that it was the mode of Christ and his apostles. As the apostolic polity confessedly grew out of the Jewish synagogue, it is equally certain that the apostolic ceremonial and ritual grew out of the Jewish. Polity and ritual are indissolubly associated. Baptizing under the old economy was an important rite and would certainly influence the mode under the New. The Old Testament baptism, therefore, is of the utmost consequence in settling the dispute respecting the mode of baptism and its subjects. The following particulars are to be noted.
First, sacramental baptism by the levitical priest was always administered by sprinkling, never by immersion. (a) The whole congregation at Sinai were baptized by sprinkling (Exodus 24:6-8; Hebrews 9:19-20). (b) The Levites when consecrated to office were baptized by sprinkling: “Thus shall you do unto them to cleanse them: sprinkle water of purifying upon them” (Numbers 8:7). (c) Lepers and defiled persons when restored to the congregation were baptized by sprinkling (Leviticus 14:4-7; Leviticus 14:49-53; Numbers 19:18-19; Numbers 31:19; Numbers 31:22-23; Luke 5:14). (d) Gentiles when admitted to the Jewish church were baptized by sprinkling (Numbers 31:12; Numbers 31:19). These baptisms could be performed only by a priest or by some “clean person” appointed to act for him: “A clean person shall sprinkle water upon the unclean” (19:18-19). The baptism in these instances was sacramental, that is, had reference to guilt and expiatory cleansing. Hence the blood of a sacrificial victim was sprinkled upon the congregation at Sinai and upon the Levites and restored lepers. No individual could baptize himself with this sacramental and expiatory baptism. It was a priestly act and required the priest or his appointed agent.
Second, baptism by Jehovah in both the old economy and the new is by sprinkling or pouring. The Jehovah of the Old Testament is the Christ of the New and is the great high priest. He baptizes with the Holy Spirit: “He shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire” (Matthew 3:11). This baptism is never by immersion: “He shall sprinkle many nations” (Isaiah 52:15); “then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean; a new heart will I give you” (Ezekiel 36:25); “let us draw near to God, having our hearts sprinkled (rherantismenoi)18[Note: 8 18. ῥεραντισμένοι] from an evil conscience” (Hebrews 10:22); “the blood of sprinkling (rhantismou)19[Note: 9 19. ῥαντισμοῦ] that speaks better things than the blood of Abel” (12:24); “elect unto sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 1:2); “until the Spirit be poured upon us from on high” (Isaiah 32:15; Joel 2:28); “I will pour out my Spirit unto you” (Proverbs 1:23).
Third, ceremonial baptisms or washings were administered by sprinkling or pouring, not by immersion. These baptisms had reference not to the guilt of sin, but its pollution. Sometimes they were administered by the person himself and sometimes by the priest. When a man ceremonially washed his hands, this was called a “baptism”: “When the Pharisee saw it, he marveled that he had not first washed (ebaptisthē)20[Note: 0 20. ἐβαπτίσθη] before dinner” (Luke 11:38); “when they come from the market, except they wash (baptisōntai21[Note: 1 21. βαπτίσωνται] in A, D, F, Textus Receptus, Tischendorf; rhantisōntai22[Note: 2 22.ῥαντίσωνται = to be sprinkled] in א, B, C, Lachmann, Hort), they eat not; and many other things there be which they have received to hold, as the washings (baptismous)23[Note: 3 23. βαπτισμούς] of cups, pots, and brazen vessels and of tables” (Mark 7:4). The ceremonial “baptism” of the hands was performed by having a servant pour water upon them; and the ceremonial “baptism” of cups, pots, vessels, and tables was by sprinkling or pouring, as in Numbers 19:18 : “A clean person shall sprinkle water upon the tent and upon all the vessels of the unclean person.”24[Note: 4 24. WS: Whether the baptism of Naaman (2 Kings 5:10; 2 Kings 5:14) was sacramental or ceremonial is doubtful. If it was sacramental, like that of the restored leper under the levitical economy, it wasperformed by a priest or his deputy and was administered by sprinkling. This is the view of Baird, Bible History of Baptism, 157. He explains the command go wash (2 Kings 5:10) byActs 22:16: Ananias said to Saul, “Rise, baptize yourself (baptisai, βάπτισαι), and wash away your sins.” Here the baptism is described as self-administered, as it is in Naaman’s case, though really administered by another. If, on the other hand, Naaman’s baptism was ceremonial, like the ceremonial washing of the blind man in thepool of Siloam (John 9:7), it was by pouring.]
Now, since sprinkling or pouring was the invariable mode of baptism under the old economy, it is probable in the very highest degree that John the Baptist employed this mode. Baptism was a priestly act, as is implied in the inquiry: “Why do you baptize, if you be not the Christ nor Elijah nor that prophet?” (John 1:25). John was a priest of the family of Aaron (Luke 1:5) and naturally administered the rite by sprinkling or pouring, as the Jewish priest had administered it from time immemorial. There is not a scintilla of proof that he introduced immersion. And this same mode would naturally be adopted by the apostles when our Lord substituted baptism for circumcision and transferred the rite from the old dispensation to the new, from the Jewish to the Christian church. Peter associates “preaching peace by Jesus Christ” with “the baptism which John preached” (Acts 10:36-37).25[Note: 5 25. WS: On Old Testament baptism, see the valuable treatise of Baird, Bible History of Baptism; Mosheim, Commentaries 1.89-90.] (See supplement 6.7.6.) The principal supports of the mode by immersion are (a) the custom in the patristic church of immersing in the laver of the baptistery and (b) the classical meaning of baptō26[Note: 6 26. βάπτω = to dip] and baptizō.27[Note: 7 27. βαπτίζω = to dip]
Concerning the first argument, it is to be noticed, first, that the baptistery dates from a period when Christianity had become powerful and able to erect churches with all the appointments of an imposing ritual. The apostolic church could not do this. The baptistery and laver are as late as the fourth century. Furthermore, the first baptismal fonts were too small for immersing. The fresco in the catacombs of St. Calixtus (a.d. 200 according to Rossi) represents the rite administered by pouring from the vessel upon the person standing upright. The “Teaching of the Apostles” (a.d. 160) says that baptism may be performed by pouring. Second, a more profuse application of water than that of sprinkling or pouring belongs to a period in the history of the church when baptism was held to be regeneration itself. If water be efficacious when applied by the officiating minister, then immersion would be deemed more efficacious than sprinkling. Immersion grew with the growth of the sacramentarian theory of baptism and the doctrine of baptismal regeneration.
Respecting the classical meaning of baptō28[Note: 8 28. βάπτω] and baptizō,29[Note: 9 29. βαπτίζω] it is to be observed that these words had no technical or ritual signification in classical Greek. They were never used to denote a pagan rite. There were purifying rites in the Greek and Roman worship, but they were not called “baptisms.” The Greeks denominated their purifying rite katharsis,30[Note: 0 30. κάθαρσις = purifying rite] and the Romans theirs lustratio. Sprinkling was the mode in both. The nouns baptismos,31[Note: 1 31. βαπτίσμος = washing, cleansing]baptisma,32[Note: 2 32. βαπτίσμα = dipping, baptism] and baptistēs33[Note: 3 33. βαπτίστης = baptizer] are not in the classical vocabulary. They were coined by Jews and Christians from baptizō34[Note: 4 34. βαπτίζω] in order to denote the rite of purification in the Jewish and Christian churches. Consequently, it is the secondary technical use in the Jewish and Christian Scriptures, not the primary untechnical meaning in the Greek classics, which must be considered in determining the mode of baptism.35[Note: 5 35. WS: In the later time of the Roman Empire, when public baths were erected, the bathing tub (labrum) was called baptisterium. The term was probably borrowed from Christian usage. But the labrum was not large enough to immerse the whole body. Water was taken from it and poured upon the head of the person standing in it or beside it (“Baths” in Anthon’s Dictionary of Antiquities, 148).]
The classical meaning of baptō36[Note: 6 36. βάπτω] and baptizō37[Note: 7 37. βαπτίζω] is to dip into water, to sink under water, to dye or tinge in a fluid. The classical meaning favors baptism by immersion, as the classical meaning of sacramentum proves that the Christian sacrament is an oath. But in Hebraistic and New Testament Greek, baptō38[Note: 8 38. βάπτω] and baptizō39[Note: 9 39. βαπτίζω] are employed in a secondary ceremonial signification to denote a Jewish and Christian rite. Consequently, their meaning in the Septuagint and New Testament must be determined by their ritual and historical use, not by their classical. The word pagans (pagani), etymologically and classically, denoted persons living in the villages (pagi) outside of the large towns and cities. Classically, pagans were “villagers.” As Christianity spread first among the inhabitants of the cities, the villagers were the unevangelized; and thus “pagan” came to mean “heathen” instead of “villager.” Similarly, baptō40[Note: 0 40. βάπτω] and baptizō,41[Note: 1 41. βαπτίζω] which in heathenism denoted any unceremonial, nonritual immersion into water, when adopted by Judaism and Christianity, came to have the secondary signification of a ceremonial sprinkling or effusion of water. And he who argues that baptism means immersion in the Scriptures because in the classics the primary meaning of baptō42[Note: 2 42. βάπτω] and baptizō43[Note: 3 43. βαπτίζω] is “to immerse” commits the same error with him who should argue that a pagan is a villager because this was the original signification of paganus or that the Christian sacramentum is an oath and not a symbol because this is its meaning in Livy and Tacitus. The word baptizō44[Note: 4 44. βαπτίζω] is employed in the Septuagint to signify a ritual purification performed by applying water to a person or thing so as to wet it more or less, but not all over and entirely.45[Note: 5 45. WS: An example of the application of the term baptize to a wetting of theperson that is not immersion is found inDaniel 4:33: Nebuchadnezzar’s “body was wet (ebaphē, ἐβάφη) with the dew of heaven.” Another is found inJdt 12:7: Judith “washed herself (ebaptizeto, ἐβαπτίζετο) in a fountain of water by the camp.” That this wasnot an immersion is highly certain, because the fountain would be used for drinking and culinary purposes. And though the washing was “in the night,” yet in a camp there would be nearly as little privacy by night as by day.] The passages that have been quoted (pp. 819-20) prove indisputably that the mode in which the baptismal water of ritual purification was applied under the levitical law was sprinkling or pouring. There was no immersion of the body in the sacramental baptism for guilt or in the ceremonial baptism for pollution. And the spiritual baptism of the Holy Spirit is pouring, not immersing. There is no good reason for supposing that the New Testament use of baptizō46[Note: 6 46. βαπτίζω] is different from that of the Septuagint.
Historically, there is the highest probability that John the Baptist and Christ’s apostles employed the old mode and did not invent a new one like immersion, so different from the mode in both Jewish and Gentile lustrations. Furthermore, the circumstances and customs of the Jews necessitated sprinkling or effusion. It is morally certain that such baptisms as those of Pentecost (Acts 2:41), of the eunuch (8:36), of Cornelius and his family (10:47), and of the jailer (16:33) were not administered by immersion. In the narrative of the baptism of the eunuch, it is said that “the way that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza is desert” (8:26). The whole region is sandy and dry, with only here and there a small spring of water. In the account of the baptism of Cornelius and “all his house” (10:2), the phraseology implies that the baptismal water was brought into the room: “Can any man forbid the water (to hydōr),47[Note: 7 47. τὸ ὕδωρ] that these should not be baptized?” (10:47). This phraseology would be unnatural if the water in question were in a river, pond, or reservoir-but natural if it were in a vessel. No one would “forbid” the Hudson or Connecticut River. It is improbable that within the precincts of the jail there was either a stream or reservoir of water sufficient for immersing in the dead of night “the jailer and all his.” The immersion of three thousand in Jerusalem on one day, at Pentecost (2:41), would have required the use of the public reservoirs of the city, which the Jewish authorities would have been as little likely to have allowed as the common council of New York City would in a similar case.48[Note: 8 48. WS: The preposition eis (εἰς) rendered in the Authorized Version “into” (Acts 8:38) and “in” (Mark 1:9) might be rendered “unto” or “at” (cf.Acts 8:40) equally well. So, likewise, apo (ἀπό) and ek (ἐκ) may be rendered “from” or “out of” inMatthew 3:16;Mark 1:10;Acts 8:39. The clause were baptized in the Jordan (en tō iordanē, ἐν τῷ ἰορδάνῃ) does not necessarily denote immersion, any more than the phrase he lives in the Connecticut does.]
Christ certainly had reference to the Old Testament baptism and to John’s baptism when he said to Nicodemus: “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (John 3:5). Christian baptism in the name of the Trinity had not yet been instituted. Nicodemus was a Pharisee, and our Lord wished to rid him of all self-righteousness by teaching him that he must confess sin with “publicans and sinners” and submit to the old and common Jewish rite that was emblematic of forgiveness and cleansing. Though he was “a ruler of the Jews” and “a master of Israel,” he must take the same attitude with the multitude who “were baptized in Jordan, confessing their sins” (Matthew 3:5). “All the people that heard John and the publicans justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John. But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him” (Luke 7:29-30). This is our Lord’s account of John’s baptism and of the state of mind in those who submitted to it and those who rejected it. John’s baptism was like that of Peter’s on the day of Pentecost: “a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins” (Luke 3:3; Acts 2:38; Acts 19:4). And the remission in both cases alike was through Christ, Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). John directed his disciples to Christ, exactly as the apostles did theirs: “John looking upon Jesus, as he walked, says, Behold the Lamb of God” (1:36); “then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Jesus Christ” (Acts 19:4). The apostles were baptized with John’s baptism and were not rebaptized by Christ. Apollos “knew only the baptism of John” (18:25) and was not rebaptized.49[Note: 9 49. WS: There is an apparent exception to this inActs 19:5. Bengel’s explanation is that these persons “had not known that they were bound by the baptism of repentance to faith in Jesus Christ.” John’s baptism had not been administered to them with an intelligent understanding on their part of the meaning of the rite. Had it been, they would not have been “baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” Says Bengel (onActs 19:5), “The baptism which is mentioned inMatthew 3:6; Matthew 28:19was one; otherwise, there would not have been ‘the beginning of the gospel’ in John the Baptist (Mark 1:1-3), and the Lord’s Supper inMatthew 26:1-75would be older than baptism inMatthew 28:1-20.”]
Immersion has been supported by the equivocal rendering of the verb synthaptō50[Note: 0 50. συνθάπτω = to bury with] in Romans 6:4 and Colossians 2:12. In Romans 6:4 the rendering is “buried by baptism”; in Colossians 2:12 “buried in baptism.” The English word bury is applicable either to burial in earth or in water; but the Greek word synthaptō51[Note: 1 51. συνθάπτω] is applicable only to burial in earth. No one would render it “to immerse.” The English word bury can suggest immersion, but the Greek cannot. Consequently, when a person unacquainted with the original reads in the English version of a “burial in baptism” or “by baptism,” a burial in water is the only idea that enters his mind; an idea which the Greek positively excludes. For when a dead body is “buried” in a tomb as our Lord was, it comes into no contact with water and is carefully protected from it. Had synthaptō52[Note: 2 52. συνθάπτω] been translated literally by “entombed” instead of “buried,” this text never would have been quoted, as it so frequently has been, to prove that Christian baptism is immersion. Christ’s entombment or burial in Joseph’s sepulcher has not the slightest connection with his baptism at the Jordan and throws no light upon the mode in which he was baptized; and, consequently, it throws no light upon the mode in which his disciples were. Matthew Henry (on Romans 6:4) remarks as follows:
Why this “burying in baptism” should so much as allude to any custom of dipping under water in baptism, any more than our “baptismal crucifixion” and death should have any such reference, I confess I cannot see. It is plain that it is not the sign, but the thing signified in baptism, that the apostle here calls “being buried with Christ”; and the expression of “burying” alludes to Christ’s burial [in a tomb]. As Christ was buried [in a tomb] that he might rise again to a new and more heavenly life, so we are, in baptism, buried [in a tomb], that is, cut off from the life of sin that we may rise again to a new life of faith and love.
S U P P L E M E N T S
6.7.1 (see p. 810). The Lutheran Formula of Concord 5 makes the following excellent statement of the law and the gospel as means of grace:
1. We believe, teach, and confess that the distinction of the law and the gospel, as a most excellently clear light, is to be retained with special diligence in the church of God, in order that the word of God, agreeably to the admonition of St. Paul, may be rightly divided.
2. We believe, teach, and confess that the law is properly a doctrine divinely revealed, which teaches what is just and acceptable to God and which also denounces whatever is sinful and contrary to the divine will.
3. Wherefore, whatever is found in the Holy Scriptures which convicts of sin, this properly belongs to the preaching of the law.
4. The gospel, on the other hand, we judge to be properly the doctrine which teaches what a man ought to believe who has not satisfied the law of God and therefore is condemned by the same, to wit: that it behooves him to believe that Jesus Christ has expiated all his sins and made satisfaction for them and has obtained remission of sins, a righteousness which avails before God, and eternal life, without the intervention of any merit of the sinner.
5. But inasmuch as the word gospel is not always used in Holy Scripture in one and the same signification, we believe, teach, and confess that if the term gospel is understood to denote the whole doctrine of Christ which he set forth in his ministry, as also did his apostles (in which signification the word is used in Mark 1:15 and Acts 20:21), it is rightly said and taught that the gospel is a preaching of both repentance and remission of sins.
6. But when the law and the gospel are compared together, as in John 1:17, where Moses is described as the teacher of the law and Christ of the gospel, we believe, teach, and confess that the gospel is not a preaching of repentance and convicting of sin, but that it is properly nothing else than a most joyful message and preaching full of consolation, not convicting or terrifying, since it comforts the conscience against the terrors of the law and bids it look at the merits of Christ alone and, by a most sweet preaching of the grace and favor of God, obtained through the merits of Christ, lifts it up again.
7. But as respects the revelation of sin, the case stands thus: That veil of Moses of which St. Paul speaks (2 Corinthians 3:13-16) is drawn over all men’s eyes so long as they hear only the preaching of the law and nothing of Christ. And so they do not by the law come to know their sins truly and humbly, but either become hypocrites swelling with an opinion of their own righteousness, like the Pharisees of old, or despair in their sins, as did the traitor Judas. For this cause Christ took it upon himself to explain the law spiritually (Matthew 5:21-48; Romans 7:14-24), and in this manner the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all sinners (1:18), in order that by perceiving the true meaning of the law it may be understood how great is that wrath. And thus, at length, sinners being remanded to the law, truly and rightly come to know their sins. But such a humble and penitent acknowledgment of sin, Moses alone never could have extorted from them. Although, therefore, this preaching of the passion and death of Christ the Son of God is full of severity and terror, inasmuch as it sets forth the wrath of God against sin, from whence men are at length brought nearer to the law of God, after the veil of Moses is taken away so that they may exactly perceive how great things God requires from us in his law, none of which we are able to perform, so that it behooves us to seek the whole of our righteousness in Christ alone.
8. Nevertheless, so long as the passion and death of Christ place before the eyes the wrath of God and terrify man, so long they are not properly the preaching of the gospel, but the teaching of the law and Moses, and are Christ’s strange work, through which he proceeds to his proper office, which is to declare the grace of God, to console and vivify. These latter things are the peculiar function of evangelical preaching. We reject, therefore, as a false and perilous dogma the assertion that the gospel, as distinguished from the law, is properly a preaching of repentance, rebuking, accusing, and condemning sins, and that it is not solely a preaching of the grace of God, For in this way the gospel is transformed again into law, the merit of Christ and the Holy Scriptures are obscured, a true and solid consolation is wrested away from godly souls, and the way is opened to papal errors and superstitions.
9. We believe that the law is to be inculcated upon the regenerate also; that although they who truly believe in Christ and are sincerely converted to God are through Christ set free from the curse and constraint of the law, they are not on that account without law, inasmuch as the Son of God redeemed them for the very reason that they might meditate on the law day and night and continually exercise themselves in the keeping thereof (Psalms 1:2; Psalms 119:1-2). For not even our first parents, even before the fall, lived wholly without law, which was certainly at that time graven on their hearts, because the Lord had created them after his own image (Genesis 1:26-27; Genesis 2:16-17; Genesis 3:3).
10. We therefore believe, teach, and confess that the preaching of the law should be sedulously urged upon those who truly believe in Christ, are truly converted to God, and are regenerated and justified by faith. For, although they are regenerate and renewed in the spirit of their mind, yet this regeneration and renewal is not absolutely complete, but only begun. And they that believe have continually to struggle with their flesh, that is, with corrupt nature, which inheres in us even till death (Galatians 5:17; Romans 7:21; Romans 7:23). And on account of the old Adam, which still remains fixed in the intellect and will of man and in all his powers, there is need that the law of God should always shine before man, that he may not frame anything in matters of religion under an impulse of self-devised devotion, and may not choose out ways of honoring God not instituted by the word of God. Also, lest the old Adam should act according to his own bent, but that he may rather be constrained against his own will not only by the admonitions and threats of the law, but also by chastisements and afflictions, in order that he may render obedience to the Spirit and give himself up captive to the same (1 Corinthians 9:27; Romans 6:12; Galatians 6:14; Psalms 119:1-2; Hebrews 12:1; Hebrews 13:21).”
6.7.2 (see p. 811). Augustine (Tractates inJohn 26:1 [ed. Migne]), expounding the words except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you, says: “The Lord, when he was about to give the Holy Spirit, said that he is the bread that came down from heaven, exhorting them to believe in him. For to believe in him is to eat the living bread. He who believes, eats: he is nourished invisibly, because he is invisibly born again.”53[Note: 3 53. Daturus Dominus Spiritum sanctum, dixit se panem qui de coelo descendit, hortans ut credamus in eum. Credere enim in eum, hoc est manducare panem vivum. Qui credit, manducat: invisibiliter saginatur, quia invisibiliter renascitur.] Again (26.18) he finds a definition of “eating flesh” and “drinking blood,” by St. John himself (6:56), in the declaration “he that eats my flesh and drinks my blood dwells in me, and I in him.” “Therefore, this is what it means to eat that food and to drink that drink: to abide in Christ and to have him abiding within. But he who does not abide in Christ through this, and in whom Christ does not abide, beyond doubt neither eats [spiritually] his flesh nor drinks his blood [even though he literally eats (premat dentibus), carnally and visibly, the sacrament of Christ’s body and blood].”54[Note: 4 54. Hoc est ergo manducare illam escam, et illum bibere potum, in Christo manere, et illum manentem in se habere. Ac per hoc qui non manet in Christo, et in quo non manet Christus, procul dubio nec manducat (spiritualiter) carnem ejus, nec bibit ejus sanguinem (licet carnaliter et visibiliter premat dentibus sacramentum corporis et sanguinis Christi).] The words in brackets are not Augustine’s, but the Benedictine editor’s. This view of Augustine that “believing is eating” and that “eating Christ’s flesh and blood” is not to be understood literally but metaphorically for trusting in his vicarious atonement passed into the creeds very widely and into theological literature. Zwingli (Exposition of the Faith) declares that “in the Lord’s Supper that natural and substantial body of Christ, in which he suffered here and in which he now sits at the right hand of the Father in heaven, is not eaten naturally and in its essence, but spiritually only. ‘To eat spiritually’ the body of Christ is nothing other than to trust in the mercy and goodness of God through Christ with our spirit and mind. To eat the body of Christ sacramentally, when we wish to speak properly, is, when connected with the sacrament, to eat the body of Christ in mind and in spirit.”55[Note: 5 55. In coena Domini naturale ac substantiale istud corpus Christi, quo et hic passus est et nunc in coelis ad dexteram patris sedet, not naturaliter atque per essentiam editur, sed spiritualiter tantum. Spiritualiter edere corpus Christi, nihil aliud quam spiritu ac mente niti misericordia et bonitate Dei per Christum. Sacramentaliter edere corpus Christi, cum proprie volumus loqui, est, adjuncto sacremento, mente et spiritu corpus Christi edere.] The Confession of the Ministers of the church of Zurich, as quoted by Hodge (Theology 3.628), declares that “although the things of which the service of the sacrament is a memorial are not visible or present after a visible or corporal manner, nevertheless believing apprehension and the assurance of faith renders them present, in one sense, to the soul of the believer. He has truly eaten the bread of Christ who believes on Christ, very God and very man, crucified for us, on whom to believe is to eat and to eat is to believe.” The Heidelberg Catechism in answer to Q. 76 (“what is it to eat of the crucified body and drink the shed blood of Christ?”) states: “It is not only to embrace with a believing heart all the sufferings and death of Christ and thereby to obtain the pardon of sin and life eternal, but also besides that to become more and more united to his sacred body by the Holy Spirit, who dwells both in Christ and in us; so that we, though Christ is in heaven and we on earth, are notwithstanding ‘flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone’; and live and are governed forever by one spirit as members of the same body are by one soul.” The Second Helvetic Confession describes two kinds of eating: “Eating is not of one kind. There is corporeal eating, in which food is received into the mouth by a man, is chewed with the teeth and swallowed into the stomach. The Capernaites in times past thought that the flesh of the Lord ought to be eaten in this way, but they are refuted by him in John 6:1-71. And there is a spiritual eating of Christ’s body-not, indeed, as if we thought that the food was changed into spirit, but in which the body and blood of the Lord are communicated to us spiritually, while retaining their own essence and property. These certainly are not communicated to us in a corporeal but in a spiritual way, through the Holy Spirit, who evidently applies and confers on us those things which are bestowed through the body and blood of the Lord given on our behalf in death, that is, the very remission of sins, liberation, and eternal life, so that Christ might live in us and we in him. From all these [statements] it becomes clear that by ‘spiritual food’ we hardly mean ‘imaginary food’ (whatever that might be: nescio quem), but the very body of the Lord given for us, which nevertheless is received by the faithful spiritually through faith, not corporeally. In this matter we follow completely the doctrine of the Savior Christ the Lord himself, saying in John 6:63 : ‘The flesh (undoubtedly corporeal eating) profits nothing; it is the spirit who gives life. The words which I speak to your are spirit and life.’ Moreover, this spiritual food and drink occurs even outside of the Lord’s Supper, whenever and wherever a man should believe in Christ. Perhaps the following statement of Augustine applies: ‘Why do you provide for your teeth and stomach? Believe and you have eaten.’ ”56[Note: 6 56. Manducatatio non est unius generis. Est enim manducatio corporalis, qua cibus in os percipitur ab homine, dentibus atterritur et in ventrem deglutitur. Hoc manducationis genere intellexerunt olim Capernaitae sibi manducandam carnem Domini, sed refutantur ab ipso, Joann. cap. 6. Est et spiritualis manducatio corporis Christi, non ea quidem, qua existememus cibum mutari in spiritum, sed qua, manente in sua essentia et proprietate corpore et sanguine Domini, ea nobis communicantur spiritualiter, utique non corporali modo, sed spirituali, per Spiritum Sanctum, qui videlicet ea quae per carnem et sanguinem Domini pro nobis in mortem tradita parata sunt, ipsam, inquam, remissionem peccatorum, liberationem et vitam aeternam, applicat et confert nobis, ita ut Christus in nobis vivat et nos in ipso vivamus. Ex quibus omnibus claret, nos per spiritualem cibum minime intellegere imaginarium, nescio quem, cibum, sed ipsum Domini corpus pro nobis traditum, quod tamen percipiatur a fidelibus, non corporaliter, sed spiritualiter per fidem. In qua re sequimur per omnia doctrinam ipsius Salvatoris Christi Domini, dicentis apud Joann. 6:63, “Caro (nimirum corporaliter manducatio) non prodest quidquam, spiritus est qui vivificat. Verba quae loquor vobis spiritus et vita sunt.” Fit autem hic esus et potus spiritualis etiam extra Domini coenam, et quoties, aut ubicunque homo in Christum crediderit. Quo fortassis illud Augustini pertinet: “Quid paras dentem et ventrem? Crede et manducasti.”] Belgic Confession 33 declares that “God has ordained the sacraments in order to seal unto us his promises and to be pledges of his goodwill and grace toward us and also to nourish and strengthen our faith”; and that he “has added them to the word of the gospel in order the better to represent to our outward senses both that which he teaches by his written word and that which he works inwardly in our hearts.” This view, like that of Calvin, closely associates the sacraments with the written word and makes their influence mental and didactic like that of the word, not material and corporeal. Belgic Confession 35 thus defines “eating Christ”: “For the support of the spiritual and heavenly life which believers have, God has sent a living bread which descended from heaven, namely, Jesus Christ, which nourishes and strengthens the spiritual life of believers when it is eaten, that is to say, when it is applied and received by faith in the mind (esprit).” It further declares that “what is eaten and drunk by us is the proper and natural body and the proper blood of Christ [i.e., his real and actual sacrifice for sin]; but the manner of our partaking of the same is not by the mouth, but by the Spirit through faith.” The Thirty-nine Articles teach that “the body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the supper only after a heavenly and spiritual manner; and the means whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the supper is faith.” The Irish Articles in almost the same terms say that “the body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Lord’s Supper only after a heavenly and spiritual manner; and the means whereby the body of Christ is thus received and eaten is faith.” Westminster Confession 29.8.7 says that “worthy partakers of the supper inwardly by faith receive and feed upon Christ crucified.” On pp. 811-16 we have presented Zwingli’s, Calvin’s, and Hooker’s doctrines of the Lord’s Supper and shown their agreement with each other and with the Reformed creeds. They all deny the corporeal and local presence of Christ’s body and blood in the bread and wine, together with the literal eating of Christ’s flesh and blood by the mouth, and maintain that the words this is my body are metaphorical and that the believer eats and drinks the flesh and blood of Christ by trusting in his vicarious sacrifice for sin, being enlightened and enabled to this act of faith by the Holy Spirit.
It is noteworthy that Lutheranism, in some of its earlier creed statements, substantially adopted this spiritual view of the supper, though subsequently departing from it in its development of the doctrine of consubstantiation. Luther’s Shorter Catechism presents it in the following questions and answers: “What is the use of such eating and drinking? It is shown to us in the words given and shed for you for the forgiveness of sins; that is to say, through these words, the forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation are given to us in the sacrament; for where there is forgiveness of sins there is also life and salvation. How can corporeal eating and drinking do such great things? Eating and drinking, indeed, do not do them, but the words which stand here: ‘Given and shed for you for the forgiveness of sins.’ Which words, besides the corporeal eating and drinking, are the main point in the sacrament; and he who believes these words has that which they say and mean, namely, forgiveness of sins. Who, then, receives this sacrament worthily? He is truly worthy and well prepared who has faith in these words given and shed for you for the forgiveness of sins. But he who does not believe these words, or doubts, is unworthy and unfit; for the words for you require truly believing hearts.” In these answers faith in Christ’s atonement is declared to be the meaning of eating and drinking his flesh and blood. But the position that Christ’s spiritual body is literally and locally present in and with the material bread and wine and is literally eaten by the mouth when these are eaten, notwithstanding all endeavors to guard and spiritualize it, finally neutralized the earlier affinity with the Reformed doctrine of the supper and ended in antagonism and separation. The Saxon Visitation Articles mention as a “false and erroneous doctrine of the Calvinists” that “the body of Christ is in the bread and wine as a typified body, which is only signified and prefigured by the bread and wine” and that “the body is received by faith alone, which raises itself to heaven and not by the mouth.”
6.7.3 (see p. 815). If, as Calvin asserts, “the office of the sacraments is precisely the same as that of the word of God, which is to offer and present Christ to us,” and if, as Augustine declares, “a sacrament is a visible word because it presents the promises of God as in a picture and places before our eyes an image of them,” the question arises, How then does the sacrament of the supper differ from the other didactic means of grace-such as the preaching and hearing of the word, prayer, and meditation? The answer is, generally, that it consists in teaching the cardinal doctrine of Christ’s sacrifice and satisfaction in a special and peculiar manner. Owen mentions several points of difference. In the seventh of his Sacramental Discourses he remarks: “In the ordinance of the supper there is a real exhibition and tender of Christ [as the sacrifice for sin] unto every believing soul. The exhibition and tender of Christ in this ordinance is distinct from the tender of Christ in the promise of the gospel, in that, in the gospel promise, the person of the Father is principally looked upon as proposing and tendering Christ unto us. But in the ordinance of the supper Christ tenders himself: ‘This is my body,’ says he; ‘do this in remembrance of me.’ He makes an immediate tender of himself [as the oblation for sin] unto a believing soul and calls our faith unto a respect to his grace, to his love, to his readiness to unite and spiritually to incorporate with us. Again it is a tender of Christ and an exhibition of Christ, under an especial consideration [or aspect]; not in general [as in the Scriptures generally], but under this consideration [or aspect], as he is a new and fresh sacrifice in the great work of reconciling, making peace with God, making an end of sin, doing all that was done between God and sinners that they might be at peace.” Owen here represents the office of the sacrament of the supper as the same in kind with that of the ministry of the word. It is didactic of divine truth, like that. But it differs in being confined to a particular truth instead of ranging over the whole field of revelation. And, again, it differs from the ordinary teaching by the word in that the instruction is by means of sensuous and visible emblems and not by articulate language only. Owen mentions a second point of difference in his tenth Sacramental Discourse: “Christ is present with us in an especial manner in the sacrament of the supper. One of the greatest engines that ever the devil made use of to overthrow the faith of the church was by forging such a presence of Christ as is not truly in this ordinance to drive us off from looking after that presence which is true. It is not a corporeal presence; there are arguments of sense, reason, and faith that overthrow that. But I will remind you of two texts wherewith it is inconsistent. The first is John 16:7 : ‘It is expedient for you that I go away; for if I go not away the Comforter will not come unto you.’ The corporeal presence of Christ and the evangelical presence of the Holy Spirit as the Comforter are inconsistent with each other. But, say the Romish priests, Christ so went away as to his presence, as to come again with his bodily presence [in the sacrament]. No, says Peter in Acts 3:21 : ‘The heavens must receive him till the time of the restitution of all things.’ We must not, therefore, look for a bodily presence of Christ until the time of the restitution. Christ is [spiritually] present in the sacrament …
1. By representation through sensible emblems. He represents himself as the food of our souls; and he represents himself as the sacrifice for our sins. There are three ways whereby God represents Christ to the faith of believers: one is by the word of the gospel as written; the second by the ministry of the gospel and preaching the word; and the third is by this sacrament, wherein we represent the Lord’s death to the faith of our own souls.
2. By exhibition through emblems. The bread and wine exhibit what they do not themselves contain. The bread does not contain the body or flesh of Christ; the cup does not contain the blood of Christ; but they exhibit them. We must not think that the Lord Jesus Christ deludes our souls with empty shows and [fictitious] appearances. It is himself as literally broken and crucified that he exhibits unto us.
3. By obsignation. In the sacrament of the supper, he seals the covenant. Therefore the cup is called ‘the new covenant in the blood of Christ.’ ” In the second of his Sacramental Discourses Owen mentions another characteristic of the sacrament of the supper, namely, an especial and peculiar communion with Christ. This communion, he says, differs from the other forms of communion with the Lord Jesus, in four particulars: “(1) It is commemorative: ‘Do this in remembrance of me’; (2) it is professional: it has a peculiar profession attending it: ‘You show forth the Lord’s death till he come’; you make a profession and manifestation of it; (3) It is peculiarly eucharistic: there is a special thanksgiving that ought to attend this ordinance; it is called ‘the cup of blessing or thanksgiving’ (eulogia);57[Note: 7 57. εὐλογία] (4) it is a federal ordinance wherein God confirms the covenant of grace unto us and wherein he calls upon us to make a recognition of the covenant to God.”
6.7.4 (see p. 817). That baptism is not a means of regeneration but only the sign and seal of it is evident from its relation to faith. It presupposes faith, and faith presupposes regeneration. Philip said to the eunuch, “If you believe with all your heart you may be baptized” (Acts 8:37). No faith, no baptism. Christ’s command for the church in all time is “he that [first] believes and is baptized [in profession and sign of his faith] shall be saved” (Mark 16:16). The Apostle Peter declares that “baptism saves us by the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 3:21). Not by its own efficacy, therefore, but as the emblem of what has been done by Christ’s redemption, whose “resurrection” is one of the constituent factors in it. And in order to preclude the notion that the mere application of water has any spiritual effect like that of regenerating the soul, the apostle explains that baptism does not “save by the putting away of the filth of the flesh,” but by “the answer of a good conscience toward God.” The of a good conscience” is its pacification through the atonement of Christ for sin, to which baptism has reference. For, as St. Paul says, “As many of us as were baptized with reference to (eis)58[Note:8 58. εἰς] Jesus Christ were baptized with reference to (eis)59[Note: 9 59. εἰς] his [atoning] death.”
6.7.5 (see p. 818). Baxter (Directions for Spiritual Peace) thus speaks of the salvation of infants: “Grace is not natural to us or conveyed by generation. Yet grace is given to our children as well as to us. That it may be so and is so with some, all will grant who believe that infants may be and are saved; and that it is so with the infants of believers I have fully proved in my book on baptism; but mark what grace I mean. The grace of remission of original sin, the children of all true believers have at least a high probability of, if not a full certainty; their parent accepting it for himself and them and dedicating them to Christ and engaging them in his covenant, so that he takes them for his people and they take him for their Lord and Savior. And for the grace of inward renewing of their nature or disposition, it is a secret to us, utterly unknown whether God use to do it in infants or no.” According to this, Baxter regarded the election and salvation of infants as individual only. All dying infants are not elected and saved.
6.7.6 (see p. 820). Mosheim (Commentaries 1.5) thus remarks upon “the rite of baptism, by which our Savior ordained that his followers should be received into the kingdom of heaven or the new covenant”: “My opinion on this subject entirely corresponds with theirs who consider this ceremony as having been adopted by the Jews long before the time of our Savior and used by them in the initiating of strangers who had embraced their religion. The account given in John 1:1-51 of the embassy sent by the supreme council of the Jews to John the Baptist, the forerunner of Christ, supports this view. For the rite itself of baptizing with water those who have confessed their sins and promised an amendment of life does not seem to have been regarded by the elders of the Jews as a novelty or as a practice of an unusual kind. The only point on which they require information of John is from whence he derived his authority to perform this solemn and sacred ceremony. The thing itself occasioned them no surprise, since daily use had rendered it familiar to them: what attracted their attention was that a private individual should take upon him to perform it, contrary to the established usage of the nation.
“An inference of still greater moment may also be drawn from this message sent by the Jewish council to John, which will supply the reason why our Savior adopted this ancient Jewish practice of baptizing proselytes with water; for the concluding question put by the messengers evidently implies an expectation in the Jews of that age that the Messiah for whom they looked would baptize men with water: ‘If you be not that Christ nor Elijah nor that prophet, why do you then baptize?’ An opinion, it appears, prevailed among the Jews that Elijah, whose coming was to precede that of the Messiah, and also the Messiah himself, would initiate their disciples by a ‘sacred ablution’; and it was necessary, therefore, in order to avoid giving the Jews any pretext for doubt respecting Christ’s authority that both John and himself should accommodate themselves to this popular opinion.”