Page:Tracts for the Times Vol 2.djvu/325

This page has been validated.

REFORMED NOTIONS DESTROY THE SACRAMENTS.

115

Christian Sacrament of Baptism what St, Paul says of the Jewish sign of circumcision^[1], do in effect destroy the very essentials of a Sacrament. For, whatever general terms they may use of Baptism^[2], when they begin to explain themselves, they always

↑ "I think scarcely any place can be found, where the nature of a Sacrament is so briefly and explicitly set forth, as in these words of Paul, wherein circumcision is called a seal." P. Martyr ad Rom. iv. add Loci 4. 7. 7–11. Chamier (de Sacram. 2. 6. 16. ap. Gat. p. 97.) "The Sacraments justify in their own way, i.e., Sacramentally; and what this means, Paul teaches as to circumcision; viz., that it is the seal of the righteousness of faith." (i.e. of previous justification.) Pareus, Dub. 6. ad c. 4. Ep. ad Rom., makes this characteristic of the Calvinistic view of the Sacraments. The doubt proposed is, "do our interpreters explain rightly that Abraham received the sign of circumcision as a seal, &c.; and hence infer that this is the characteristic, which constitutes the Sacraments, and their principal use, that they are seals, sealing to the faithful the righteousness of faith on the part of God." This he affirms. Add Whitaker, de Sacram. q. 1. c. 2.
↑ Thus, it is not an unusual phrase with these writers to say that the Sacraments "not only signify, but effect what they signify," "not only shadow (figurant) but effect what they shadow;" and they are much displeased with their opponents, if they deny it; but when they explain this, we find that "'effecting' only means that the Sacraments seal and confirm that word of promise whereto they are united" ('efficere' utique obsignando confirmandoque verbum illud promissionis, cui adjunguntur ap. uti supra.—Chamier, Gatak. l.c. p. 102. For Chamier's notion, see above, p. 112. Note), whereby we come back to the same result, that they do but seal a thing already given, or to be given, but are not the channels whereby it is imparted. Calvin's definition of a Sacrament (and it is generally praised by this school, e. g. Whitaker, as the best,) is "an outward symbol, whereby the Lord seals to our consciences the promises of His good-will towards us, to sustain the weakness of our faith; and we, on the other hand, attest our piety before Him, angels, and men." (Institt. 4. 14. 1.) Or, more briefly, "a testimony of the Divine favour towards us, confirmed by an outward sign, with a mutual attestation of our piety towards Him." Ib. (Contrast this with our's, "an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace, ordained by Christ Himself, as a means whereby we receive the same, and a pledge to assure us thereof." In Calvin's view, the "means whereby we receive the same" is excluded.) Gataker, l.c. makes the excuse for his own (the Calvinist) writers as well as for the Fathers, that "whereas they say that the 'Sacraments effect what they figure,' they often so speak as to the Sacraments, as to need a fitting explanation, which," he adds, "they themselves also often furnish." Gisb. Voetius (ap. Wits. § 31. "immortalis nominis

[1] "I think scarcely any place can be found, where the nature of a Sacrament is so briefly and explicitly set forth, as in these words of Paul, wherein circumcision is called a seal." P. Martyr ad Rom. iv. add Loci 4. 7. 7–11. Chamier (de Sacram. 2. 6. 16. ap. Gat. p. 97.) "The Sacraments justify in their own way, i.e., Sacramentally; and what this means, Paul teaches as to circumcision; viz., that it is the seal of the righteousness of faith." (i.e. of previous justification.) Pareus, Dub. 6. ad c. 4. Ep. ad Rom., makes this characteristic of the Calvinistic view of the Sacraments. The doubt proposed is, "do our interpreters explain rightly that Abraham received the sign of circumcision as a seal, &c.; and hence infer that this is the characteristic, which constitutes the Sacraments, and their principal use, that they are seals, sealing to the faithful the righteousness of faith on the part of God." This he affirms. Add Whitaker, de Sacram. q. 1. c. 2.

[p325-2] Thus, it is not an unusual phrase with these writers to say that the Sacraments "not only signify, but effect what they signify," "not only shadow (figurant) but effect what they shadow;" and they are much displeased with their opponents, if they deny it; but when they explain this, we find that "'effecting' only means that the Sacraments seal and confirm that word of promise whereto they are united" ('efficere' utique obsignando confirmandoque verbum illud promissionis, cui adjunguntur ap. uti supra.—Chamier, Gatak. l.c. p. 102. For Chamier's notion, see above, p. 112. Note), whereby we come back to the same result, that they do but seal a thing already given, or to be given, but are not the channels whereby it is imparted. Calvin's definition of a Sacrament (and it is generally praised by this school, e. g. Whitaker, as the best,) is "an outward symbol, whereby the Lord seals to our consciences the promises of His good-will towards us, to sustain the weakness of our faith; and we, on the other hand, attest our piety before Him, angels, and men." (Institt. 4. 14. 1.) Or, more briefly, "a testimony of the Divine favour towards us, confirmed by an outward sign, with a mutual attestation of our piety towards Him." Ib. (Contrast this with our's, "an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace, ordained by Christ Himself, as a means whereby we receive the same, and a pledge to assure us thereof." In Calvin's view, the "means whereby we receive the same" is excluded.) Gataker, l.c. makes the excuse for his own (the Calvinist) writers as well as for the Fathers, that "whereas they say that the 'Sacraments effect what they figure,' they often so speak as to the Sacraments, as to need a fitting explanation, which," he adds, "they themselves also often furnish." Gisb. Voetius (ap. Wits. § 31. "immortalis nominis

[1]

[2]