XX. And even the sacraments have been different according to the varieties of different periods, and corresponding to the dispensation by which it has pleased the Lord to manifest himself in different ways to mankind. For to Abraham and his posterity circumcision was commanded; to which the law of Moses afterwards added ablutions, sacrifices, and other rites. These were the sacraments of the Jews till the coming of Christ; which was followed by the abrogation of these, and the institution of two others, which are now used in the Christian Church; namely, baptism and the supper of the Lord. I speak of those which were instituted for the use of the whole Church; for as to the imposition of hands, by which the ministers of the Church are introduced into their office, while I make no objection to its being called a sacrament, I do not class it among the ordinary sacraments. What opinion ought to be entertained respecting those which are commonly reputed the five other sacraments, we shall see in a subsequent chapter. Those ancient sacrifices, however, referred to the same object towards which ours are now directed, their design being to point and lead to Christ, or rather, as images, to represent and make him known. For as we have already shown that they are seals to confirm the promises of God, and it is very certain that no promise of God was ever offered to man except in Christ,—in order to teach us any thing respecting the promises of God, they must of necessity make a discovery of Christ. This was the design of that heavenly pattern of the tabernacle and model of the legal worship, which was exhibited to Moses in the mount. There is only one difference between those sacraments and ours: they prefigured Christ as promised and still expected; ours represent him as already come and manifested.
XXI. All these things will be considerably elucidated by a particular detail. In the first place, circumcision was a sign to the Jews to teach them that whatever is produced from human seed—that is, the whole nature of man—is corrupt, and requires to be pruned: it was likewise a testification and memorial to confirm them in the promise given to Abraham respecting the blessed seed, in whom all the nations of the earth were to be blessed, and from whom their own blessing was also to be expected.[[1120]] Now, that blessed seed, as Paul informs us, was Christ, on whom alone they relied for recovering that which they had lost in Adam. Wherefore circumcision was the same to them as Paul declares it to have been to Abraham, even “a seal of the righteousness of faith;”[[1121]] that is, a seal for the further assurance that their faith, with which they expected that seed, would be imputed by God to them for righteousness. But the comparison between circumcision and baptism we shall have more suitable occasion for pursuing in another place. Ablutions and purifications placed before their eyes their uncleanness and pollution, by which they were naturally contaminated, and promised another ablution, by which they would be purified from all their defilement; and this ablution was Christ, washed in whose blood we bring his purity into the presence of God to cover all our impurities.[[1122]] Their sacrifices accused and convicted them of their iniquity, and, at the same time, taught the necessity of some satisfaction to be made to the Divine justice, and that, therefore, there would come a great High Priest, a Mediator between God and men, who was to satisfy the justice of God by the effusion of blood and the oblation of a sacrifice, which would be sufficient to obtain the remission of sins. This great High Priest was Christ; he shed his own blood, and was himself the victim; was obedient to his Father even unto death, and by his obedience obliterated the disobedience of man, which had provoked the indignation of God.[[1123]]
XXII. Our two sacraments present us with a clearer exhibition of Christ, in proportion to the nearer view of him which men have enjoyed since he was really manifested by the Father in the manner in which he had been promised. For baptism testifies to us our purgation and ablution; the eucharistic supper testifies our redemption. Water is a figure of ablution, and blood of satisfaction. These things are both found in Christ, who, as John says, “came by water and blood;”[[1124]] that is, to purify and redeem. Of this the Spirit of God is a witness; or, rather, “there are three that bear witness, the Spirit, the Water, and the Blood.”[[1125]] In the water and the blood we have a testimony of purgation and redemption; and the Spirit, as the principal witness, confirms and secures our reception and belief of this testimony. This sublime mystery was strikingly exhibited on the cross, when blood and water issued from Christ’s sacred side; which, on this account, Augustine has justly called “the fountain of our sacraments;” of which we are yet to treat more at large. And there is no doubt, if we compare one time with another, but that the more abundant grace of the Spirit is also here displayed. For that belongs to the glory of the kingdom of Christ; as we gather from various places, and especially from the seventh chapter of John. In this sense we must understand that passage where Paul, speaking of the legal institutions, says, “which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ.”[[1126]] His design in this declaration is, not to deny the efficacy of those testimonies of grace, in which God was formerly pleased to attest his veracity to the fathers, as he does to us now in baptism and the sacred supper, but to represent the comparative superiority of what has been given to us, that no one might wonder at the ceremonies of the law having been abolished at the advent of Christ.
XXIII. I will just observe by the way, that the doctrine of the schools, which asserts such a wide difference between the sacraments of the old and new law, as though the former merely prefigured the grace of God, and the latter actually communicated it, ought to be altogether exploded. For the apostle speaks in a manner equally as honourable of the former as of the latter, when he states that the fathers, in the time of Moses, “did all eat the same spiritual meat”[[1127]] with us, and explains that meat to be Christ. Who will dare to call that an empty sign, which exhibited to the Jews the real communion of Christ? And the state of the case, which the apostle is there discussing, is clearly in favour of our argument. For, that no man might dare to despise the judgment of God, in a reliance on a speculative knowledge of Christ, and the mere name of Christianity, with its external signs, he exhibits the examples of Divine severity displayed among the Jews, to teach us that the same punishments which they suffered await us, if we indulge in the same sins. Now, that the comparison might be pertinent, it was necessary to show that there was no inequality between us and them in those privileges of which he forbids us to indulge unfounded boasts. First, therefore, he shows them to have been equal to us in the sacraments, and leaves not a particle of superiority capable of exciting in our minds the least hope of impunity. Nor is it right to attribute to our baptism any thing more than he attributes to circumcision, when he calls it “a seal of the righteousness of faith.”[[1128]] Whatever is presented to us in the present day in our sacraments, was anciently received by the Jews in theirs—even Christ and his spiritual riches. Whatever power our sacraments have, they also experienced the same in theirs: they were seals of the Divine benevolence to them, confirming their hope of eternal salvation. If the advocates of the opinion which we are opposing had been skilful interpreters of the Epistle to the Hebrews, they would not have been so deceived; but when they read there that sins were not expiated by the legal ceremonies, and that the ancient shadows had no power to confer righteousness,—neglecting the comparison intended to be drawn, and confining their attention to this single consideration, that the law in itself was unprofitable to its observers, they have simply concluded that the figures were destitute of any truth. But the design of the apostle was to represent the ceremonial law as of no value till it was referred to Christ, on whom alone depended all its efficacy.
XXIV. But they will allege what Paul says of the “circumcision in the letter,”[[1129]] that it is in no estimation with God; that it confers no advantage; that it is in vain; for such a representation they conceive to degrade it far below baptism. But this is not true; for all that he says of circumcision might justly be affirmed of baptism. And it is actually asserted; first by Paul himself, where he shows that God regards not the external ablution by which we enter on the profession of religion, unless the heart be purified within, and persevere in piety to the end; and, secondly, by Peter, when he declares the truth of baptism to consist, not in “the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience.”[[1130]] It will be objected, that Paul seems in another place utterly to despise “the circumcision made with hands,” when he compares it with “the circumcision of Christ.”[[1131]] I reply, that that passage derogates nothing from its dignity. Paul is there disputing against those who required it as still necessary, after it had been abrogated. He therefore admonishes believers to leave the ancient shadows, and adhere to the truth. These teachers, he says, urge you to be circumcised in your bodies. But you have been spiritually circumcised both in body and soul: you have the substance itself, therefore, which is better than the shadow. Some one might object to this, that the figure was not to be despised in consequence of their having the substance; for that the fathers under the Old Testament had experienced the circumcision of the heart, and the putting off of the old man, of which the apostle was speaking, and yet that external circumcision had not been unnecessary or useless to them. He anticipates and supersedes this objection, by immediately adding, that the Colossians had been “buried with Christ in baptism;” by which he signifies that baptism is to Christians what circumcision was to the ancient believers, and consequently that circumcision cannot be imposed upon Christians without injury to baptism.
XXV. But our objectors proceed to allege, that a still stronger argument in their favour arises from what follows, which I have lately quoted,—that all the Jewish ceremonies were “a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ;”[[1132]] and that the strongest argument of all is what is contained in the Epistle to the Hebrews, that the blood of beasts did not reach the conscience, that “the law” had “a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, and that the worshippers could never attain perfection from the Mosaic ceremonies.”[[1133]] I repeat what I have already suggested, that Paul called the ceremonies shadows, not as if they had nothing solid in them, but because their accomplishment had been deferred till the manifestation of Christ. In the next place, I remark that this is to be understood, not of the efficacy of the ceremonies, but rather of the mode of representation. For till Christ was manifested in the flesh, all the signs prefigured him as absent; however, he displayed his power, and consequently himself, as present in the hearts of believers. But the principal thing to be observed is, that in all these places Paul is not speaking of the subject, considered simply in itself, but with reference to those against whom he is contending. As he was combating the false apostles, who maintained piety to consist in the ceremonies alone, without any regard to Christ,—nothing more was necessary for their confutation, than to discuss what value ceremonies possess of themselves. This also was the object pursued by the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Let us remember, therefore, that the question here does not respect ceremonies, taken in their true and natural signification, but as distorted by a false and perverse interpretation; the controversy is not about the legitimate use, but the superstitious abuse of them. What wonder, then, is it, if ceremonies, separated from Christ, are divested of all their virtue? For all signs are reduced to nothing, when the thing signified is taken away. So when Christ was addressing those who supposed the manna to have been mere food for the body, he accommodated his discourse to their gross notion, and said that he would give them better food, to nourish their souls with the hope of immortality.[[1134]] If a clearer solution be required, all that has been said may be comprised in these three observations: first, that all the ceremonies of the law of Moses, unless they were directed to Christ, were vain and useless; secondly, that they had reference to Christ, so that when he was manifested in the flesh, they received their accomplishment; lastly, that it was necessary for them to be abolished at his advent, as a shadow vanishes in the clear light of the sun. But as I defer the more extended discussion of this subject to the chapter in which I intend to compare baptism with circumcision, I touch the more briefly upon it here.
XXVI. It is possible that these miserable sophists have been led into this error by the extravagant encomiums on the sacraments which are found in the writings of the fathers; as when Augustine says, that “the sacraments of the old law only promised the Saviour, but ours give salvation.” Not observing that these and other similar forms of expression were hyperbolical, they, also, on their part, have promulgated their hyperbolical dogmas, but in a sense altogether foreign from the writings of the fathers. For the meaning of Augustine in that passage was the same as in another, where he says, “The sacraments of the Mosaic law announced Christ as afterwards to come; ours announce him as already come.” Again: “They were promises of things to be fulfilled; these are signs of things accomplished;” as if he had said, that the old sacraments prefigured Christ while he was yet expected, but that ours exhibit him as present, since he has already come. Besides, he speaks of the mode of representation, as he also shows in another place, where he says, “The law and the prophets had sacraments announcing something future; but what they celebrated as about to come, the sacraments of our time announce as already come.” His sentiments respecting their truth and efficacy he declares in several places; as when he says, “The sacraments of the Jews were different from ours in the signs; in the thing signified, they were equal; different in visible form, equal in spiritual efficacy.” Again: “In different signs, the same faith; in different signs, just as in different words; because words change their sounds in different times, and words are no other than signs. The fathers drank the same spiritual drink as we; though their corporeal drink was different. See, then, the signs have been varied without any change in the faith. To them the Rock was Christ; to us, that which is placed on the altar is Christ. And as a great sacrament, they drank the water flowing from the Rock; what we drink, believers know. If we consider the visible form, there was a difference; if we regard the intelligible signification, they drank the same spiritual drink.” In another place: “In the mystery their meat and drink were the same as ours; but the same in signification, not in form; because the very same Christ was prefigured to them in the Rock, and has been manifested to us in the flesh.” Yet in this respect, also, we admit that there is some difference between their sacraments and ours. For both testify that the paternal benevolence of God is offered to us in Christ, together with the graces of the Holy Spirit; but ours testify it in a more clear and evident manner. In both there is an exhibition of Christ, but the exhibition of him in ours is richer and fuller, corresponding to the difference between the Old Testament and the New, of which we have already treated. And this is what was intended by Augustine, whom I quote more frequently than any other, as the best and most faithful writer of antiquity, when he states, that after the revelation of Christ, sacraments were instituted, “fewer in number, more noble in signification, and more excellent in efficacy.” It is right, also, just to apprize the readers, that all the jargon of the sophists respecting the work wrought (opus operatum) is not only false, but repugnant to the nature of the sacraments; which God has instituted, in order that believers, being poor and destitute of every good, may come to them simply confessing their wants, and imploring him to supply them. Consequently, in receiving the sacraments, they perform nothing at all meritorious, and the action itself being, as far as they are concerned, merely passive, no work can be attributed to them in it.
CHAPTER XV.
BAPTISM.
Baptism is a sign of initiation, by which we are admitted into the society of the Church, in order that, being incorporated into Christ, we may be numbered among the children of God. Now, it has been given to us by God for these ends, which I have shown to be common to all sacraments: first, to promote our faith towards him; secondly, to testify our confession before men. We shall treat of both these ends of its institution in order. To begin with the first: from baptism our faith derives three advantages, which require to be distinctly considered. The first is, that it is proposed to us by the Lord, as a symbol and token of our purification; or, to express my meaning more fully, it resembles a legal instrument properly attested, by which he assures us that all our sins are cancelled, effaced, and obliterated, so that they will never appear in his sight, or come into his remembrance, or be imputed to us. For he commands all who believe to be baptized for the remission of their sins. Therefore those who have imagined that baptism is nothing more than a mark or sign by which we profess our religion before men, as soldiers wear the insignia of their sovereign as a mark of their profession, have not considered that which was the principal thing in baptism; which is, that we ought to receive it with this promise, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.”[[1135]]
II. In this sense we are to understand what is said by Paul, that Christ sanctifies and cleanses the Church “with the washing of water by the word;”[[1136]] and in another place, that “according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;”[[1137]] and by Peter, that “baptism doth save us.”[[1138]] For it was not the intention of Paul to signify that our ablution and salvation are completed by the water, or that water contains in itself the virtue to purify, regenerate, and renew; nor did Peter mean that it was the cause of salvation, but only that the knowledge and assurance of it is received in this sacrament; which is sufficiently evident from the words they have used. For Paul connects together the “word of life” and “the baptism of water;” as if he had said that our ablution and sanctification are announced to us by the gospel, and by baptism this message is confirmed. And Peter, after having said that “baptism doth save us,” immediately adds that it is “not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards God,” which proceeds from faith. But, on the contrary, baptism promises us no other purification than by the sprinkling of the blood of Christ; which is emblematically represented by water, on account of its resemblance to washing and cleansing. Who, then, can pretend that we are cleansed by that water, which clearly testifies the blood of Christ to be our true and only ablution? So that, to refute the error of those who refer all to the virtue of the water, no better argument could be found, than in the signification of baptism itself, which abstracts us, as well from that visible element which is placed before our eyes, as from all other means of salvation, that it may fix our minds on Christ alone.