| << | Contents | >> |
The Institutes of the Christian Religion
Show All Footnotes & Jump to 612
[602] Bernard, de Convers. ad Clericos, cap. 29, inveighing against the crimes of the clergy, says, “Would that those who cannot contain would fear to take the vow of celibacy! For it is a weighty saying, that all cannot receive it. Many are either unable to conceal from the multitude, or seek not to do it. They abstain from the remedy of marriage, and thereafter give themselves up to all wickedness.”
[603] Latin, “Catechism.”–French, “En faisant protestation de notre foy;”–in making profession of our faith.
[604] At the same place, he admirably says, “Dearly beloved, love ease, but with the view of restraining from all worldly delight, and remember that there is no place where he who dreads our return to God is not able to lay his snares.”
[605] Laurentius, defending his written assertion, that the monks falsely imagined that by means of their profession they merited more than others, admirably concludes, “There is no safer, no better way than that taught by Christ, and in it no profession is enjoined.”
[606] French, “,Par ce moyen ils attirent farine au moulin et vendent leur sainteté tres cherement; cependant cette glose est cachee et comme ensevelie en peu de livres;”–by this means they bring grist to their mill, and sell their holiness very dear; meanwhile, the gloss is concealed, and is, as it were, buried in a few books.
[607] Chrysostom, in his Homily on the words of Paul, “Salute Prisca,” &c., says, “All who retire to monasteries separate themselves from the Church, seeing they plainly assert that their monasticism is the form of a second baptism.”
[608] See Bernard. ad Guliel. Abbat.. “I wonder why there is so much intemperance among monks. O vanity of vanities! but not more vain than insane.” See also August. de Opere Monach. in fin
CHAPTER 14. OF THE SACRAMENTS.
[609] That is, the sacrament cannot make the promise of God objectively more certain, but it can make our faith in God’s promise subjectively more certain. God’s Word is always absolute, strong, unchangeable, and “settled in heaven”; but our faith, throughout this life is always relative, weak, changeable, and frequently in need of confirmation and assurance. Thus we properly distinguish between the objective certainty of God’s Word, and the subjective certainty of our faith.
[610] Sometimes this distinction is expressed in terms of the form of administration of the sacraments (the words of institution, the consecration of the element(s), and their application or distribution), on the one hand, and their spiritual significance and value, on the other. The grace of the sacraments does not lie in their fact or form, but in the Word received by faith.
[611] Heb. 9:1-14; 1 John 1:7; Rev. 1:5; Heb. 4:14; 5:5; 9:11.
[612] Rom. 2:25-29; 1 Cor. 7:19; Gal. 6:15; 1 Cor. 10:5; 1 Pet. 3:21; Col. 2:11.
[613] French, “Mais on fera encore un autre argument.”–But there is still another argument which they will employ.
[614] Perhaps an expansion of Calvin’s thrust will help to illumine this “difficult point.” In Hebrews 9 and 10 it may, at first glance, appear that the writer intends to draw a contrast between those sacrifices offered under the law which were never able to take away so much as a single sin, and the one sacrifice offered by Christ which is able to take away all sins. Such a contrast, however, poses certain questions. For example, what would have been the value of the atonement which the high priest was to make each year, when, in the holy of holies, he offered blood for his own sins and for the sins of the people? Again, why did Moses sprinkle blood upon the book, the people, the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the tabernacle, in order (as Hebrews 9:19-23states) to purge and purify them, if the blood of calves and lambs and goats cannot take away a single sin? And how could David have written, “Blessed is the man whose sins are forgiven” (a blessedness applicable, according to Paul in Romans 4:6-8, not only to David, but also to New Testament believers), if by the shedding of blood during the Old Testament economy, there was no remission (forgiveness) of sins? The objection may be raised, but then what does the writer of Hebrews mean when he says (in 10:4) that “it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins”? And how are we to understand the assertion (in 10:11) that “every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins”? Two things appear clear: (1) That the writer of Hebrews does not mean that the Old Testament sacrifices commanded by God were valueless or worthless (2) that our interpretation must be compared to, be in proportion to, and be related to, the analogy of faith (the teaching of Scripture as a whole). Perhaps a viable solution to this problem can be found in two important distinctions; that between temporary and permanent value, and that between extrinsic efficacy. As we attempt to compare and contrast the sacrifices of the Old Testament with the sacrifice by Christ of Himself, we discover that the emphasis in Hebrews 9 and 10, with respect to the Old Testament sacrifices, is upon their temporary value (because they were repeated again and again), and their extrinsic efficacy (because they were not intended to point to themselves, but to the atoning sacrifice of Christ which gave efficacy to them); and we discover that the emphasis in those chapters, with respect to the sacrifice of Christ, is upon its permanent value (because it was completed once and for all by the eternal Word made flesh), and its intrinsic efficacy (because it was and is a perfect and complete satisfaction). The temporary value and extrinsic efficacy of the sacrifices of the Old Testament is borne out by the terms used to express them in these two chapters of Hebrews. They are called signs, or significations (9:8), figures, or types (9:9, 24), patterns (9:23) and shadows (10:1). They could make the believing worshipper perfect “in the sense of final completeness”, since He offered one sacrifice and then sat down, never needing to offer again. But this should not be understood to mean that the sacrifices of the Old Testament had no value and no efficacy with respect to forgiveness of sins. If they were signs, they pointed to that which they signified; if they were figures or types, they anticipated their antitype; if they were patterns, they were patterns of the true reality; and if they were shadows, they silhouetted the substance. These, then, would appear to be the contrasts drawn in Hebrews 9 and 10. Impermanency and non-self-sufficiency characterize the sacrifices of the Old Testament; permanency and self-sufficiency characterize the Sacrifice of the New. The Old Testament sacrifices of lambs were efficacious, but not of themselves, and not without repetition; the New Testament sacrifice of the Lamb of God was efficacious of itself, gave value and efficacy to the Old Testament sacrifices, and is perfect and complete for ever.
[615] The French adds, “Qu’ils appellent en leur gergon.”–So called in their jargon.
[616] This expression, opus operatum, in connection with the sacraments, has been defined in the following ways: (a) that the sacraments themselves are causes of the operations of God’s grace (b) that the sacraments effect the grace they signify by the inherent power of the sacramental action itself (c) that in the sacraments we find materials and actions which are of themselves efficacious to give grace (d) that the sacraments not only signify inward grace, but have the power of producing it in the soul. In addition to these meanings (which are very similar in content and thrust), Calvin appears to understand the expression, opus operatum, as implying yet another dimension. He seems to define it as “an action which works,” or “an active work,” thereby implying, on the part of the recipient, some active participation which merits the grace of the sacrament. Both the abovementioned definitions of the expression and the implication suggested by it, Calvin strongly repudiates. The sacraments do not have inherent power to produce grace in the soul, nor are they made efficacious by any admixture of human merit which is brought to them by sinful men.
[617] The French adds, “J’appel le acte passif, pourceque Dieu fait le tout, et seulement nous recevons.”–I call the act passive, because God does the whole, and we only receive.
[618] French, “Nous suivons donc de mot à mot la doctrine de Sainct Paul, en ce que nous disons que le peché est remis au Baptesme, quant à la coulpe, mais qu’il demeure toujours quant à la matière, en tous Chretiens jusques à la mort.”–We therefore follow the doctrine of St Paul, word for word, when we say that in Baptism, sin is forgiven as to the guilt, but that it always remains as to the matter in all Christians until death.
[619] Latin, “Exsufflatio.”–French, “Le souffle pour conjurer le diable.”
[620] Vid. Calv. in Epist. de Fugiendis illicitis sacris. Item, Vera Ecclesia Reformandæ Ratio. See also infra, chap. 17 sec. 43. As to the form of baptism, see Cyprian, Lib. 4 Ep. 7.
[621] French, “Au reste, c’est une chose de nulle importance, si on baptise en plongeant du tout dans l’eau celui qui est baptisé, ou en repandant seulement de l’eau sur lui: mais selon la diversité des regions cela doit demeura en la liberté des Eglises. Car le signe est representé en l’un et en l’autre. Combien que le mot mesme de Baptiser signifie du tout plonger et qu’il soit certain que la coustume d’ainsi totalement plonger ait eté anciennement observée en 1’Eglise.”–Moreover, it is a matter of no importance whether we baptise by entirely immersing the person baptised in the water, or only by sprinkling water upon him, but, according to the diversity of countries, this should remain free to the churches. For the sign is represented in either. Although the mere term Baptise means to immerse entirely, and it is certain that the custom of thus entirely immersing was anciently observed in the Church.
[622] In this sentence Calvin makes three assertions: (1) that the mode of baptism is a matter of complete indifference (“not of the least consequence”). (2) that it is evident that the term “baptize” means to immerse. (3) that immersion was the mode used by the primitive Church. These assertions deserve thoughtful consideration. Perhaps the following observations will be helpful: (1) Behind Calvin’s complete infifference to mode lies an important distinction - the distinction between the substance or matter of the sacraments, and the mode or form of the sacraments; or to put it another way, the distinction between the essentials and the accidentals of the sacraments. For Calvin, the essential elements of the proper administration of baptism include: (a) a proper consecration, which includes the words of institution, the promises and obligations connected with the sacrament, and prayer; (b) a proper distribution, which involves the application of water in the name of the Trinity; and (c) a proper reception, which consists of faith, repentance, and an obedient spirit on the part of the recipient (or , in the case of infants, on the part of the parents). Beyond these, other aspects of the sacrament are “not of the least consequence,” but are purely matters of expediency (such as differences of national or local custom, or diversity or climate). (2) The contention that the word translate “baptize” means to immerse is true in many instances of its usage in the Greek classics, so many of which had been rediscovered in the Renaissance which preceded the Reformation period. It was no doubt in these works that Calvin found the word “baptize” to mean “immerse”. However, from a study of its usage in the Septuagient (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, made about 250-200 B.C.); and from a careful examination of its usage in the New Testament; we discover that this word, during the history of its usage, enlarged its scope of meaning to include, along with its classical definition of “to submerge, to immerse, and to dip,” the further meanings of “to bathe in or with water, to wash.” It should be noted that two of the most highly regarded Greek lexicons–Thayer’s and Arndt and Gingrich’s–bear witness to this enlarged scope of meaning. As far as the New Testament meaning of the word “baptize” is concerned, it must be decided by a study, in each instance, of its usage in context. Such a study reveals that the word “baptize” does not mean immersion (although immersion could have been used in a number of cases). On the other hand, the same study reveals that “baptize” does not mean pouring or sprinkling either! The word, as used in the New Testament, does not mean a particular mode. Whenever it is used to refer to Christian water baptism, it means “to perform the Christian ceremony of initiation, with its essential elements of consecration, distribution, and reception.” (3) The contention that immersion was the mode used by the primitive Church has more recently been questioned, in the light of a comparison between the writings of the Church Fathers and the archaeological evidence that in any way relates to mode. Such a comparison appears to favor pouring the prevailing mode, with other modes also in use. Excellent studies of this question can be found in Clement F. Rogers’ work, Baptism and Christian Archaeology (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1903), and J.G. Davies’ work, The Architectural Setting of Baptism (London, Barrie and Rockliff, 1962).
Search Comments
This page has been visited 0561 times.
| << | Contents | >> |
10 per page