倍可親

回復: 3
列印 上一主題 下一主題

加爾文基督教要義(80)卷四第十四章 論聖禮

[複製鏈接]

2308

主題

5萬

帖子

1萬

積分

版主

求真理不倦悔

Rank: 7Rank: 7Rank: 7

積分
15043
跳轉到指定樓層
樓主
追求永生 發表於 2010-1-23 02:22 | 只看該作者 回帖獎勵 |倒序瀏覽 |閱讀模式
第十四章 論聖禮
  那與傳福音相聯繫作為我們信心的幫助和支持的,乃是聖禮。關於聖禮,我們理當有確切的教義,好使我們知道聖禮是為什麼設立的,並且我們當如何加以謹守。首先我們必須看什麼是聖禮。我以為簡單而適當的定義,乃是認聖禮為表記,藉此主在我們良心中印上他對我們善意的應許,來支持我們軟弱的信心;而我們則在神和眾天使以及人的面前,證明我們對他所存的虔誠心。然而又可下一更簡短的定義,稱聖禮為神對我們施恩的憑證,用一個表記來證實,更附以我們對他虔誠的表示。不問在這兩個定義中採取那一個,都與奧古斯丁對聖禮的定義完全相符。他說,聖禮乃是「聖事的有形表記,」或是「無形恩典的有形表示」。不過我的定義來得更清楚,更確切,因為奧氏簡要的說法尚帶一些含糊,不免使許多沒有經驗的人誤解,所以我用更多的話努力把這題目說得更明白些,叫人沒有懷疑的餘地。
  二、古教父是以此意義來用聖禮一辭,理由是很明顯的。每當新約古拉丁文譯者將希臘文mysterion 「奧秘」一辭譯成拉丁文時,特別是在有關神的事上時,他都用拉丁文sacramentum「聖禮」一辭來譯成。因此在以弗所書上有「叫我們知道他旨意的奧秘」(1:9);又有「諒必你們曾聽見神賜恩給我,將關切你們的職分託付我,用啟示使我知道福音的奧秘」(3:2,3)。在歌羅西書上有:「這道理就是歷世歷代所隱藏的奧秘,但如今向他的聖徒顯明了;神願意叫他們知道,這奧秘有何等豐盛的榮耀」(西1:26,27)。再在提摩太前書上有:「大哉,敬虔的奧秘,就是神在肉身顯現」(3:16)。在這些地方,凡遇到「奧秘」一辭,那位譯者都譯成「聖禮」。他不用拉丁文arcanum「秘密」一辭,是恐怕把主題的尊嚴貶損了。所以他用「聖禮」一辭來指一切神聖的秘密。這字的這一層意義常在教父們的著作上出現。大家都知道,洗禮和聖餐在拉丁人稱為「聖禮」,在希臘人則稱為「奧秘」;這同義字的應用可以消釋各種疑惑。因此聖禮一辭漸被用來指那些表至高神聖事物的表記。這也是為奧古斯丁所看到的,他說:「對於凡表神聖事物的種種表記,都稱為聖禮,若要加以辯論,實不勝其煩。」
  三、從我們所下的定義來看,凡是聖禮未有不是先有神的應許的,這聖禮乃是附加在應許上藉以印證應許,並將應許向我們證實。這是因為神預知其為必須,第一是因我們魯鈍無知,第二是因我們軟弱;然而嚴格說來,不是為證實他的聖道,而是為建立我們對聖道的信心。因為神的真理本身十分充實確定,不需要外來的證明;但是我們的信心薄弱,若不是有各方面所給予的支持和援助,就要立刻動搖,蹣跚,跌倒。我們既是屬肉體的,老匍匐於地,傾向於屬世的東西,不能了解或體會屬靈的事,所以慈悲的主就用無限寬仁來照我們的能力待我們,甚至俯允藉著這些屬世的東西,來引領我們歸於他自己,甚至用肉身賜我們一面屬靈福分的鏡子。正如屈梭多模說:「倘若我們不是屬乎形體的,他就會賜給我們純粹屬靈的東西。只因為我們的靈是住在肉身內,所以他用有形的表記來把那屬靈的賜給我們;這並不是說聖禮所陳列在我們面前的東西,本身具有屬靈的性質,而是說,神使這些東西有此種意義。」
  四、這就是通常所謂,聖禮包含道和外在的表記。所謂道,並不是指沒有意義或不基於信仰的喃喃之聲,也不是指魔咒一般的微語——他們卻以為它們具有能力,叫聖禮中的表記物成為神聖——而是指所傳的福音,將這有形的表記所表示的意義教訓我們。所以通常在教皇的專制下所施行的聖禮,不免是褻瀆聖禮的;因為他們以為神甫照祝聖的儀式口中喃喃,而一般信眾呆視著,便算夠了。誠然,他們是有效地特意要叫聖禮不為百姓所了解;因為他們在不識字的百姓面前用拉丁文祝聖聖禮;而且最後為叫迷信達於極端,他們認為非把祝聖辭用很少有人聽到的嘶啞喃喃聲說出不可。可是奧古斯丁對於設聖禮之道,卻有別樣的說法。他說:「在有形之物上加上聖道,這便成為聖禮。因為水除非是從道得著能力,怎能一接觸人的身體,就會使人聖潔呢?這並不是因為人把道說出來,乃是因為人通道。因為在所說的道中,暫時的聲音是一件事,道的永久效力又是一件事。保羅說:『這就是我們所傳信主的道』(羅10:9)。因此使徒行傳論外邦人如此說:『神藉著信潔凈了他們的心』(徒15:9)。使徒彼得也說:『洗禮也拯救你們;這洗禮本不在乎除掉肉體的污穢,只求在神面前有無虧的良心 』(彼前3:21)。『這就是我們所傳信主的道,』藉著這道,洗禮乃被祝聖而具有潔凈人的效力。」奧氏把傳道作為產生信心所必要的。我們用不著費力來證明這一點,因為凡是基督所作的,他所命令我們作的,使徒們所追蹤的,和較聖潔的教會所遵行的,都是很明顯的。從世界的起始,每逢上帝給聖列祖什麼表記的時候,表記都是和道不可分離地連在一起,沒有道,我們看到表記,就會驚奇。因之,人一提及聖禮之道時,我們就知道這是指聖禮的應許而言,這應許既為牧師明白宣講,便叫我們了解表記所指的意義。
  五、有人想用一種兩難的說法來反對我所說的,這種說法所表現的只是狡猾而並非篤實,我們也不必加以注意。他們說,不是我們知道那先於聖禮的聖道乃是他的真實旨意,便是我們不知道聖道。倘若我們知道聖道,那麼,我們從那後於聖道的聖禮並未學到什麼新東西。倘若我們不知道聖道,我們也不能從那效力完全在乎聖道的聖禮中知道它。我們可以簡括答覆說,附於規章,執照,和其他公文上的印記,就它們本身說,都算不得什麼,因為文件上若沒有寫明什麼,附上的印記沒有用處;然而印記是對寫在文件上的事加以證實,以表徵信。他們也不能反對這種比方,以為是我們最近發明的,因為保羅也曾用過這比方,稱割禮為印記(羅4: 11)。在這經文上,他顯然是爭持說,割禮並不成為亞伯拉罕的義,不過是立約的印記而已,而他對這約的信心已經使他成為義了。從應許的本身看,既然一個應許顯然證實另一應許,那麼,倘若我們教訓人說,聖禮是主的應許的印記,怎會使人受冒犯呢?應許的證據越顯明,便越能幫助信心。聖禮將最顯明的應許給我們,且具有一個特點,超乎聖道所具有的,那就是,聖禮如畫圖一般將應許給我們活描出來。他們以聖禮和公文印記之間有區別為理由,提出異議,我們也不需予以重視。他們說,二者雖具有屬世有形之物,但聖禮不適於作為神的應許的印記,因為神的應許是永恆屬靈的;而公文印記則慣常是附於君王對暫時的必朽之物的敕令。當聖禮陳列於信徒的眼前時,他並不只是看見有形之物,而是照我所示類比的步驟,虔誠靜觀默想,達到隱藏在聖禮中的最高奧秘。
  六、主既稱他的應許為約,而稱聖禮為約的印記,我們就可以用人所立的約為例。古人訂約,慣常宰豬為信。但若不於同時或事先有言,宰豬有什麼用呢?因為人常宰豬卻並沒有什麼潛伏或崇高的奧秘。人既然常以接手來開戰,那麼只用右手彼此相接有什麼意義呢?但一旦有友誼和盟約之言在前,便用接手來證實預先所萌念所提示所言明的約。同樣,聖禮是為增加並堅強我們對主道的信心。只因我們是具有肉身的,所以聖禮是用有形之物來表達,照著我們魯鈍的能力來教導我們,把我們如同兒童一般牽著走。因為這個緣故,奧古斯丁稱聖禮為「有形之道」,因為聖禮好像是將神的應許表之於畫圖中,在我們眼前陳設一幅應許的相,於相中將特徵都表達出來了。為求更清楚說明聖禮的性質,也可引用別的比方,如稱聖禮為「信心的柱石」:正如大廈靠著基礎,若加上柱石,就更加鞏固;照樣,信心靠神的道為基礎,但加上聖禮為柱石,便增加信心的力量。我們也可以稱聖禮為「鏡子」:在其中我們可以看到神所賜予我們的豐富恩典;正如我們所已經提到的,主在聖禮中照我們的魯鈍所能知道他的,將他自己向我們顯明,且對我們表示他的慈悲與愛,較之在道中更為明顯。
  七、我們的對敵若辯論說,聖禮並非神的恩典的證據,因為聖禮常給予惡者,可是惡人並未因此便感到神對他們更為寬宥,反倒使他們更被定罪。這種論調也是無力的,因為以同樣的論調來說,福音也不是神恩的證據了,因為許多人雖聽了福音,卻予以輕蔑;甚至基督也不是神恩的證據了,因為許多人雖看見了他,知道了他,卻很少有人接受他。同樣的情形也可見於君王的敕令,因為有許多人,雖明知那表示皇權的印記,是君王用來證實他的意旨的,卻對之加以輕視和嘲笑;有些人完全將它置之不理,好像與他們無關;有些人甚至咒詛它。因此我們若檢討這兩椿事的相類似處,就更要贊同我所用的比方。所以主的確不只在他的聖道中,也在聖禮中向我們施憐憫,應許施恩典;但除那些以確定的信心來領受聖道和聖禮的人外,就沒有人能領悟,正如父將基督賜予一切世人,使他們那得救,但世人並不都知道他接待他。奧古斯丁為表明這意思,在某一處說,聖道的效果在聖禮中表揚出來,並非「因為宣講聖道,而是因為人相信聖道。」所以當保羅給信徒寫信時,他說聖禮包含與基督相通,所以他說:「你們受洗歸入基督的,都是披戴基督了」(加3:27)。又說:「都從一位聖靈受洗,成了一個身體」(林前12:13)。但是,當他說到聖禮用之不得其當時,他就只以它們為空虛無用的表象;他藉此表明,不管假冒和不敬虔之輩如何褻瀆聖禮,敗壞聖禮中神恩的效力,然而無論何時何地,神可以使聖禮給我們一種與基督相通的證據,而神的靈要親自把聖禮所應許的表明並實現出來。因此我們下結論說,聖禮真是神恩的證據,而且是神對我們施恩的印記,我們心中既證實神恩,就使我們的信心得著支持,培養,增強,加多。有些人向來所提反對這種意見的理由,是很脆弱不足道的。他們申辯說,倘若我們的信心是好的了,就不能使它再增進;因為除堅定不移依靠神憐憫的信心外,再沒有真信心。這種人最好是與眾使徒一同求主增加他們的信心(路17:5),而不頑強自誇說有完全的信心,因為在人中間沒有人今生曾達到,或可以達到這種完全。請問,那說「主阿,我信,但我信不足,求主幫助」(可9:24)的,具有什麼樣的信心呢?因為這種信心,雖然尚在開端,卻是良好的信心,是可以由除去不信而促進的。但沒有什麼理由,比他們自己的良心更能駁斥他們的,因為倘若他們自認為罪人——這是他們所不能否認的——他們就必歸咎於他們不完全的信心。
  八、但是他們又引腓利答覆太監要求受洗的話:「你若是一心相信就可以」(徒8: 37)。於是他們又問,倘若信充滿了全心,何用洗禮來證實呢?我也要反問他們,他們豈不覺得心中大部分是缺乏信仰,豈不每天感到在信仰上有長進。有一個異教徒曾誇耀說,他的學問與年俱進。我們基督徒的信心也理當逐漸進步。直到達於完全人,倘若我們到老而無進步,那就真是可憐。所以,在此經文中所說,「一心相信」,並不是說,信基督到了完全地步,而只是說,以至誠的心靈和堅定的意志信基督;並不是說,心中充滿了基督,而只是說,如飢如渴地愛慕他。聖經慣常稱誠心為一心,如下面以及別的經節所說:「我一心尋求了你」;「我要一心稱謝主」(詩119:10,111:1,138:1)。反之,經上指責姦猾欺詐的人,常稱為「心懷二意」(詩12:2)。我們的對敵又爭辯說,倘若信心是藉聖禮而增加的,那麼,啟發,充實,並完成信仰的聖靈,豈不是徒然賜給我們了嗎?我承認信心完全是聖靈的特殊作為,我們蒙他的光照,得以知道神和他豐富的慈愛,沒有聖靈的光照,我們的心是太暗弱不能看見和太愚笨不能體會屬靈的事。但是,他們只提到神的一種恩典,而我們卻承認有神的三種恩典。因為神首先是用他的道來教訓我們;其次是用聖禮來堅固我們;最後,是用聖靈的光來照耀我們的心,並打開我們的心門,讓聖道和聖禮進來;若不是這樣,聖道和聖禮就只能激動我們的耳朵,陳現於我們的眼前,而不能在我們的心中發生效力。
  九、所以講到信仰的堅固和增進,我要提醒讀者(雖然我相信我已經用不含糊的話表明了),我將這歸之於聖禮,並不是因為聖禮具有一種永久的內在效力,本身有增進或堅固信仰的效力;而是因為聖禮乃由主所設立,特為建立和增加信仰的。但是,只當那作人內心師傅的聖靈與聖禮相連時,聖禮才能發揮效力。只有聖靈的力量,才能深入人心,感動人意,使聖禮得以進入我們的心靈。倘若沒有聖靈,聖禮就不能在人心發生效力,正如陽光對於瞎子,聲音對於聾子一般。因此,我在聖靈和聖禮之間所加的區別,乃是以一切運行的能力屬乎聖靈,而以聖禮為工具。聖禮若沒有聖靈,乃是空虛無用的,但聖靈一旦在人心中運行,聖禮就滿有驚人的效力了。根據這種意見,可見虔誠人的信仰,是如何靠著聖禮得以堅固;那就正如眼睛因太陽的亮光而看見,耳朵因聲音而聽見。除非眼睛有接受亮光的天賦能力,亮光對於眼睛就無效力;除非耳朵有天賦聽的能力,僅有聲音激蕩耳鼓也是無效的。但若正如我們眼中的視官如何叫我們看見光亮,我們耳中的聽官如何叫我們聽到聲音,聖靈的運行也就如何在我們心中創始,支持,保守,並建立信仰,那麼,我們就立刻得到兩個結論:一,若沒有聖靈的感力,參與聖禮也得不到益處;二,在受了聖靈教導的心中,聖禮乃有助於信心的堅固和增加。惟一的不同點乃是,我們的眼耳乃天然賦有視和聽的能力,但基督在我們的心中所成就的,乃是藉著一種超乎自然的特恩。
  十、這也可以解答另一種使人苦惱的反對說法。他們說,倘若我們把信心的增加和堅固歸之於受造物,那麼我們就貶損了聖靈,因為聖靈應該被認為信心的惟一創始者。可是我們並非不將堅固並增加信心的讚美歸於聖靈;但我們堅持,說,聖靈增加並堅固我們信心的方法,乃是藉著它的內在光照,預備我們的心,來領受聖禮對信心的堅定。意思若尚太含糊,可以用下列的比方來說明。倘若你想勸人作什麼,你一定要用想得到的一切理由,來引他聽從你的意見和勸告。但是,除非那人具有一種明辨而敏銳的判斷力,能夠決定你所提的理由有什麼力量;除非他的心意也馴良,願意受教;而且除非他已經對你具有信心,對你的意見早已具有好感,否則你就不能對他發生影響。因為世上有許多頑固的人,不能為任何理由所動;而且一個人的忠實若受猜疑,而他的威信也被輕視,那麼他甚至對願意學習的人也很少發生效力。反之,若具備這些條件,那受勸告的人就必接受那本來為他所輕視的勸告。這也是聖靈在我們心中所成就的工作。為求避免聖道徒然震動我們的耳朵,聖禮徒然擺在我們眼前,聖靈就指示我們,那在它們裡面對我們說話的乃是上帝;他將我們心中的剛硬化為柔和,使我們的心照所當行的順從主的道;總之,他把聖道和聖禮從我們的耳中灌入我們的心靈中。所以我們的信心是靠著聖道和聖禮來堅固的,這兩者都把天父的善意展示在我們眼前,藉此我們的信心得以堅固,信心的力量得以加增;而聖靈也藉著將天父的善意銘刻在我們的心中,就使我們的信心堅固。同時,眾光的父也藉著聖禮的光照亮我們的心,像他用日光照亮我們的眼睛一般。
  十一、道本身具有這種能力,主在比喻中稱之為「種子」(太13: 3-23;路8:5-15)就已表明了。正如種子落在荒漠中,就要死,不會結實,若落在肥沃的土中,就會結實累累;照樣,神的道若落在剛硬的心中,就如種子落在海灘上不能結實一樣,若落在一個為聖靈所培植的心靈中,就會多結果實。倘若道恰可比為種子,而五穀的生長,增多,和成熟是由種子而來,那麼,我們為何不能說,信心的開端,增加,和完成是從道而來呢?保羅在好些地方將這兩件事說得很好。他為要叫哥林多人回想神怎樣使他的工作發生效力,他就誇耀聖靈的澆灌,好像是說,在他所傳的道和聖靈啟悟人心和激發人意的能力當中,有一種不可分解的關係(林前2:4;林后3:6,8)。但在另一處,他為要叫他們注意所傳神的道有什麼力量,他就把傳道人比為耕種的人,在辛苦殷勤耕種后,就不能再作什麼。若不是天父的恩典使種子生長,一切耕種澆灌有什麼效益呢?因此他下結論說:「可見栽種的算不得什麼,澆灌的也算不得什麼,只在那叫他生長的神」(林前3:7)。所以,眾使徒講道時,都盡量發揮聖靈的能力,因為神用他們作工具來表彰他屬靈的恩典。但我們必須常常看見這種區別,好叫我們記得人的能力只達到什麼地步,而什麼是完全屬於神的作為。
  十二、既然聖禮是為堅固我們信心而設立的,所以主有時為要將我們對他在聖禮中所應許之事的依靠心除去,他就將聖禮的本身除去。神在剝奪亞當的不死恩賜時,乃將他趕出伊甸園,說:「恐怕他伸手又摘生命樹的果子吃,就永遠活著」(創3: 22)。這話有什麼意思呢?難道那果子可以恢復亞當已經墮落了的不朽壞嗎?實在不能。但這是等於主曾說,倘若他保留應許的象徵物,恐怕他存虛妄的依賴心,所以最好把那可以叫他存不死指望的東西也剝奪。因著同一理由,當使徒保羅勸以弗所人「應當記得」他們「從前與基督無關,在以色列國民以外,在所應許的諸約上是局外人,並且活在世上沒有指望,沒有神」(弗2:11,12),他就是說,他們與割禮無分,因此表明他們過去既未曾得著應許的表記,所以他們被撇在應許之外。
  對他們所提出另一種反對理由,說若把這麼大的能力歸之於受造物,便是將神的榮耀轉歸於物,因而也將神的榮耀相等地減損了;我們可以回答說,我們並未把權能歸於物;我們只說神用他認為合宜的方法與工具,使萬有都增進他的榮耀,因為他是管理萬有之主。所以,正如他用麵包和食品養活我們的身體,用太陽照耀世界,用火產生熱力——然而麵包,太陽,與火,都不過是神用來賜福給人的工具——照樣,他用聖禮來培養我們的信心。設立聖禮的目的,乃是要把他的應許擺在我們的眼前,也作為他應許的保證。正如我們對神用寬仁厚愛所賜予我們享用,藉以將他的豐富恩典賜給我們的其他受造物,不當予以依靠,也不當把它們作為我們蒙恩的原因而加以仰慕讚美;照樣,我們對聖禮也不當予以依靠,或把神的榮耀歸於它們。我們當只信仰聖禮和各種福分的主宰。
  十三、有些人從「聖禮」一辭提出論點,其實也缺乏力量。他們說,這一辭在第一流的作者中雖有種種不同的意義,然而它只有一個意義,是指表記說的,那就是指一個士卒加入軍隊時,對主帥所起莊嚴之誓。正如新士卒用軍誓將自己約束在司令官之下,擔任軍務;照樣,我們用表記承認基督為我們的領袖,宣布我們是在他的旌旗之下作戰。他們為進一步說明他們的意見,再加上一些比方。正如羅馬人穿長袍,以別於希臘人披外套;又如羅馬人中的階級不同,他們就用各種不同的徽章以資識別,元老院中的參議員著紫袍圓鞋,以別於騎士,而騎士則帶指環以別於平民;又如英法的戰艦以旗幟的色彩不同為別,法國的旗是白的,英國的旗是紅的;照樣,我們也有我們的表記以別於不信的人。但是由上以觀,古教父稱表記為「聖禮」,完全不是隨著拉丁作者以前用這辭的意義,而是隨自己方便,給它一個新意義,以指神聖的記號。我們再進一步考究,就可發現,正如他們根據類比的原則將「信」一辭移用為現在的意義;照樣,也把「聖禮」一辭移用為現在的意義。正如信本來是表明履行諾言的信實,但他們也把它用於一個人對真理本身的把握;照樣。Sacramentum既是士卒約束自己於領袖的誓言,他們也就用它來作為領袖接納士卒入伍的表記。因為藉著聖禮主應許說,他要作我們的神,我們要作他的子民。但我們可放棄這類微妙之點,因為我想我已經用了充足的理由證明,古人引用聖禮一辭,只是要表明,這辭所指的禮儀,都是聖潔和屬靈之事的表記。我們承認那從外表之物所得的比方,但我們不贊成他們把聖禮最後或最小的用處,當作主要或唯一的目的。它們的首要目的是幫助我們信仰神,其次是叫我們在人前承認信仰。那些比方是與次要目的有關,但是我們切不可忘記主要的目的;否則,正如我們所見過的,除非這些奧秘是我們信心的輔助和伴隨聖道來幫助我們信仰神的,它們就不是有力量的。
  十四、在一方面這些人削弱了聖禮的力量,且完全推倒了它們的用途,在另一方面有些人將一些隱秘的能力歸之於聖禮,而這些能力並不是神賦予它們的。頭腦簡單和沒有經驗的人很危險地受了這種錯誤的欺騙,因為他們在找不到的地方去尋求神的恩賜,因此就逐漸被吸引離開神,所把握的只是虛妄,而非神的真理。因為詭辯派一口同聲說,新律法的聖禮,即教會現在所行的聖禮,能使我們稱義,並將恩典賜給我們,只要我們不犯大罪來加以阻擋就是了。這種意見的危險和有害性是無法形容的,尤其是因為它流行到了世界的大部分,久已損害教會。這顯然是屬魔鬼的說法,因為它既應許人沒有信可以稱義,就叫靈魂淪於滅亡;其次,因為它既以聖禮為稱義的原因,就將那本來太傾向世俗的人心封閉在迷信中,領他們依賴有形之物,而不依靠上帝。我巴不得這兩種邪惡尚積壘不深,不需我來多加證實。人不用信心來領受聖禮,豈不必然使教會傾覆嗎?因為除神所應許的以外,我們不能從聖禮希望得什麼。這應許乃是對不信的人發忿怒,對信的人施恩典。人若以為聖禮在神的道所應許的和真實的信心所領受的以外,另賜予什麼,他乃是大大受了欺騙。因此,我們可以下結論說,得救的把握並不靠參加聖禮,以為聖禮就可以使人稱義一樣。可是我們知道,稱義是全靠基督,而且稱義達於個人,靠福音的宣講,不亞於靠聖禮的印記,即不參加聖禮,也可以完全稱義。奧古斯丁說得好,不用有形的表記,也可以達到無形的稱義;反之,用有形的表記,可以沒有真的稱義。他在另一處又寫道:「人披戴基督,有時是靠領受聖禮,有時卻靠生活成聖。」前者是好人與壞人所能共有的,後者只是信的人才能有的。
  十五、因此,奧古斯丁常把聖禮和聖禮的實質區分。他的意思乃是,聖禮不僅包含一種表記,和藉表記所表明的一些真理,而且兩者中的關係並非是不可分離的;即使兩者連在一起的時候,那所表明的,總應當與表記有區分,使各自所屬的互不相混。他提到兩者的區分說:「聖禮只在蒙揀選者的身上發生其所代表的效力。」當他論到猶太人的時候,他又說:「雖然聖禮是眾人所同有的,但那作聖禮之能力的恩典卻不是他們所同有的;照樣,如今重生的洗禮是眾人所同有的,但那使人重生,成為基督肢體的恩典,卻不是眾人所同有的。」在另一處他論到聖餐說:「現今我們也領受有形的餐;但聖餐是一件事,而聖餐的能力又是一件事。但為何許多人領受聖餐而死,而且那死是因領受聖餐呢?猶大從主所領受的餅含有毒素,並不是因為他所領受的是有毒的東西,而是因為他既是惡人,就邪惡地領受了善良的東西。」稍後他又說:「基督身體和血的聖禮是備置在聖台上,有些地方每天舉行,有些地方定期按時舉行;有些人領受得生命,有些人領受遭滅亡。但聖餐本身是要叫領受的人得生命,而不遭滅亡。」`他在以前曾說:「吃的人必不會死;但他必須領受聖餐的能力,而不只是領受有形的聖餐;是指內心領受,而不只是外表領受;是以心靈來吃,而不只是用牙齒來吃。」這些話表明,領受的人若不配,聖禮乃與聖禮所表明的真理分離,以致使聖禮只是一個空虛無用的表記。為要領受表記所表的真理,而不光是領受表記,我們就必須用信心領會其中所含的道。這樣,我們藉聖禮與基督多麼相交,我們從聖禮中就多麼獲得益處。
  十六、倘若以上所說的太簡略不明,我就要再詳細說明。我肯定基督乃一切聖禮的實體,因為一切聖禮都以基督為本,在他以外別無應許。倫巴都(Peter Lombard)的錯誤是不可容忍的,因為他以聖禮為稱義和得救之因,其實聖禮不過是稱義和得救的若干部分。所以,我們當撇棄人所捏造之因,而謹守這惟一之因。所以只在我們有聖禮為助來培養,堅固,並增加我們對基督的信心,更完全獲得基督並享受他的豐富,聖禮才是對我們有效的;我們若用真實的信心來接受聖禮中所賜予我們的,聖禮就是有效的。那麼人要問,難道不虔誠的人忘恩,就把神的命定挫折,使之歸於徒然了嗎?我要回答說,我並不是說,聖禮的功效和真理是以領受者的情況或選擇為轉移。因為神所設立的,不管人如何改變,仍是繼續不動搖,保持其本性的。但是,因為賜予一件事,領受又是一件事,所以我們若說,那由主的道分別為聖的一個象徵實在是名符其實有它的效力,然而對邪惡不虔的人卻不賦予什麼恩惠,,這種說法是並無不相調和之處。但幸而奧古斯丁用少數話解決了這個問題,說:「倘若你只用肉體來領受聖餐,它仍然不失為屬靈的,不過對你不是如些而已。」而且正如在所引的句子中,奧氏曾表示聖禮中所用的象徵物,若與其所表的真理分開,它就沒有價值;照樣,在另一方面他也說,甚至在兩者連在一起時,我們仍然必須加以分別,免得我們太注意表面的象徵了。他說:「在一方面,拘守字句,取表記而舍它所表的實體,仍是暴露奴隸性的軟弱;但在另一方面,將表記看為無用,也是大錯了。」奧氏提出兩個我們必須謹防的錯誤。一是,我們領受表記,好像它們是徒然給與的,用我們的錯謬見解來減損它們的奧秘意義,使自己不能從其中得所應得的益處。另一是,我們的心意不超脫有形的表記,而把唯獨基督才能賜給我們的福分歸於聖禮。這福分是由那使我們與基督有分的聖靈,藉著召我們歸於基督的表記,賜給我們的。但這表記若被誤用,未有不使它們的用處完全敗壞的。
  十七、因此我們要持守以下的結論,即聖禮的功能是恰如神的道一樣,那就是將基督和在基督裡面的豐富天恩賜予我們;但是我們若不以信心接受,它們對我們就沒有什麼益處;正如酒,油,或任何飲料,雖然大量傾注於一個器皿,但若不把器皿的口揭開,就會流溢於外而失掉;而器皿本身表面雖沾濕,可是裡面仍然是乾涸空虛的。我們也當謹防一種與此相連的錯誤——這錯誤乃是從閱讀古教父對聖禮的尊嚴過分抬高的著作而來——免得我們以為聖餐上附有什麼奧秘的能力,能以傳達聖靈的恩典,有如酒傾於杯中一樣;其實神所指定給聖禮的功能,只是證明並保證他對我們的恩惠;而且除非有聖靈來打開我們的心門,叫我們能夠領受這種證明,那麼聖禮並不能賜下恩惠。在這裡也顯出神的幾種不同的恩典。因為正如我們前面所暗示的,聖禮從神一方面說,是對我們履行那報喜信者的同一職務,從人方面說,是堅定所立的約的信物;它們的自身並不能傳授我們什麼恩典,不過如擔保或信物一般,它們能宣布,呈現,並證實神的恩典所賜給我們的東西。聖靈並不是由聖禮皂白不分地給予一切人的,而是由上帝特別賜予他眾兒女的。這聖靈帶來神的恩典,使聖禮進入我們心中結果子。雖然我們不否認神親自以他靈的能力伴隨著他所設立的聖禮,聖禮的施行不至歸於徒然,然而我們主張,聖靈的內在恩典既與聖禮外表的施行不同,就必須對之單獨加以思索和默想。所以,凡神於聖禮的表記上所應許和預表的,他就都真地予以實行;而表記在證明設立者的信實可靠上,是並非無效的。這裡惟一的問題乃是,神只是用內在的能力來工作呢,還是將他的工作委諸外表的記號呢。我們堅持說,不管神用什麼工具,並不貶損他至高的運行。聖禮的這種教理足以維持它們的尊嚴,表明它們的用途,宣示它們的效用,並保守一種適當的節度,不將不屬於它們的歸給它們,也不將屬於它們的不歸給它們。同時我們不容許那種無稽之談,以為稱義的原因和聖靈的能力,是在於聖禮中所用的物品,如在傳輸之具中一樣;至於為別人所遺漏的那種特別能力,也在這裡清楚地表明出來了。這裡也當說明:神在人心中成就牧師在外在的行為中所代表並證實的;我們不可將神所獨歸於他自己的,歸於必死的世人。奧古斯丁也曾明達地表示同樣的意見。他說:「摩西和神怎能同時使人成聖呢?並不是摩西代替了神,而是摩西藉著禮儀用有形的表記來施行,而神藉著聖靈用無形的恩典來施行。有形聖禮的功效就在乎此。因為若沒有無形的恩典使人成聖,那有形的聖禮有什麼用呢?」
  十八、聖禮這個名稱,照上面所說,是用以指神所給予人的一切表記,以證實他的應許為可靠。這種表記,他有時用自然的事物,有時用神跡來表明。前一類的例子有如:他賜亞當和夏娃生命樹,作為不死的保證,只要他們吃生命樹上的果子,他們就准知可以不死(創2: 9,16,17);又如他「把虹放在雲彩中,」作為對挪亞和他的後裔的表記,以後「不再有洪水毀壞地了」(創9:11-17)。這些東西對亞當和挪亞就是聖禮。這並不是說,那不能將不死給本身的樹,能將不死給他們;也不是說,那由日光在雲上反射而成的虹,能有制止洪水的功效;而是說,它們有由上帝的話所加上的記號,使它們成為他立約的表記和印信。樹與虹以前就都存在了,但它們一印上神的話,就有了新的樣式,不再是以前的東西了。好叫人不能以為這是空話,那虹直到如今就對我們繼續見證神和挪亞所立的約,因為我們一看見虹,就想到神必不再用洪水毀滅世界的應許。所以,倘若有膚淺的哲學家譏笑我們的信仰簡陋,說這種光彩不過是日光反射對方雲層的自然結果,我們就當立刻承認這一層;但是我們要笑這人愚笨,不認識神為管理自然的主宰,按照自己的意旨運用萬物來增加他自己的榮耀。倘若他曾以同樣的印記加於太陽,星辰,土和石頭上,它們對我們也就成為聖禮了。為什麼同一塊白銀未鑄造以前的價值,不如鑄造以後的價值貴重呢?理由乃是,它原是未曾加上什麼的,但一經印上公共的記號,它就變成了錢幣,有了一種新價值,那為神所造之物雖然本來不過是物質,難道神不能用他的話來在它們上面蓋上印,使之成為聖禮嗎?第二種例子有如神對亞伯拉罕顯出「冒煙的爐,並燒著的火把;」(創15:17);又如他以露水沾濕羊毛,而地面仍然乾燥,後來又叫地上有露水,而使羊毛乾燥,以應許基甸得勝(士6:37-40);又如他「使日晷往後退了十度」(王下20:11),以應許希西家得醫治。這些事既是為扶助並建立他們軟弱的信心而作的,也就成了聖禮。
  十九、但是我們當前所要特別討論的,就是主所指定通常在教會中使用,好叫他的僕人和崇拜者保持並承認同一信仰的那些聖禮。用奧古斯丁的話來說:「人若要在任何真或假的宗教上團結一致,他們就必以有形的表記或聖禮來聯繫。」所以最慈悲的天父既預先見到這個需要,就從起初為他的僕人們設立一些操練虔敬的儀式,後來它們為撒但用種種方法所敗壞,變為偶像崇拜。因此就有了異教徒入教的秘密儀式和其他各種墮落的禮節,這些雖是充滿了錯誤和迷信,但同時足以證明,外在的表記乃是宗教所不可缺少的。不過它們既不是由神的道所設立的,又不指向那當作為一切宗教象徵的目標的真理,所以它們決不得與那些為神所設立,且其原來目的 ——即作為真虔誠的援助——未經敗壞的神聖象徵,相提並論。我們的象徵不只是表記如虹和生命樹,而且是一種禮,或說是禮的表記。正如我們前面所提到的,在主一方面,它們是恩典和拯救的憑證,在我們一方面,它們乃是我們公開承認專心事奉神,向他矢忠矢信的表記。所以屈梭多模在某處稱之為契約,神藉此與我們立約,而我們也以聖潔的生活自約,這樣神和我們在其中訂立了一個合同。因為主既在聖禮中應許免除我們因犯罪所遭致的愆尤和刑罰,且藉著他的獨生子使我們與自己和好,所以我們在聖禮中就來約束自己,用虔誠無疵的生活來事奉他,所以這神聖禮可說是神用來訓練他百姓的禮,第一是要培養,激發,並堅固他們的信心;其次是要他們在人前承認他們的信仰。
  二十、聖禮因時期不同,按照主向人類顯明他自己所用種種不同的方法,而有差異。對亞伯拉罕和他的後裔他命定了割禮;後來摩西的律法又加上洗滌,獻祭和別的禮儀。這些禮儀即為猶太人的聖禮,直到基督降世;後來才把這些禮儀廢除,另設立兩種聖禮,即今日基督教會所通行的洗禮和聖餐。我所說的,乃是指那為整個教會所設立的;至於授教牧聖職的按手禮,我雖不反對把它稱為聖禮,但不把它列入正常的聖禮中。對於其餘所謂聖禮應有什麼意見,我們在以後要提到。然而古時的聖禮是指著我們現在的聖禮所指著的同一目標,即以基督為指歸,或說是代表並顯明基督。因為,正如我們所已經表明的,它們是證實神之應許的印記,而神除在基督里以外,確是從未給人應許,因此它們若使我們想起神的應許來,它們就必定表彰基督。在西乃山,神給摩西所指示照著天上樣式的帳棚和屬律法的崇拜,就有這種作用。在那些聖禮和我們的聖禮中間,只有一個不同點:它們預表那已應許卻尚未降世的基督;我們今日的聖禮代表那已經降世而彰顯的基督。
  二十一、這些事若個別加以述說就清楚些。割禮的記號是為教訓猶太人,凡從人的種子來的,即整個的人性,都是敗壞的,必須加以修理;它也是一種見證和紀念品,使他們堅信神對亞伯拉罕論有福的種子所給的應許,即說地上的萬族都要因這種子蒙福,而且猶太人自己也必指望從他得福(創12: 3,22:18,加3:16)。照著保羅所告訴我們的,那個有福的種子乃是基督,只有靠著基督,他們才能恢復他們在亞當里所喪失的。所以割禮對他們的作用,也就是和保羅所宣布對亞伯拉罕的作用一樣,即是「因信稱義的印證」(羅4:11)——這印證使他們確知,他們指望該種子的信心必被神看為義。至於割禮和洗禮的比較,我們在別處將有更合式的機會來申論。洗滌禮和潔凈禮是將他們生來所沾染的不潔和污穢擺在他們眼前,並應許他們另有一種能洗凈他們一切沾污的洗滌;而這一個洗滌就是基督,在他的寶血中我們既得以洗凈,就將他的潔凈帶到神的面前,以掩蓋我們的污穢(來9:10-14;約壹1:7;啟1:5)。他們的祭控告並指證他們的不義,同時也教訓他們必須滿足神的公義,因此,必有一位在神與人中間作中保的大祭司降世,以流血獻祭來滿足神的義,使罪得赦。這位大祭司乃是基督;他流出自己的血,以自己為犧牲,順服天父以至於死,因他的順服,乃將人惹神發怒的不順服除去了(來4:14,9:11,10:1-4;腓 2:8;羅5:19)。
  二十二、我們的兩個聖禮比舊約的聖禮更彰顯基督,這是因為自從父照所應許的把他彰顯出來,人就更能迫近看見他。因為洗禮證明我們得以洗凈了,聖餐證明我們得救了。水乃洗滌的表象,血乃贖罪的表象。這兩者都在基督裡面找著,他正如約翰所說的,是「由水和血而來」(約壹5: 8),那乃是洗凈並拯救。聖靈就是為這事作見證,或說:「作見證的原來有三,就是聖靈,水,與血」(約壹5:8)。水和血是滌罪和得救的證據;而聖靈既是主要的見證,就堅固這證據,使我們接受並相信。這一個至高的奧秘是在十字架上表明出來了,因為水和血從基督的聖體上流出來;正因為這樣,所以奧古斯丁稱之為「我們聖禮的泉源」;關於這一點,我們往後仍須再加詳論。若我們把基督前後的時代加以比較,就必看出聖靈的恩典在我們的聖禮中更豐富地表明出來了。因為那恩典是屬於基督的國的榮耀,這是我們從聖經上許多地方,特別從約翰福音第七章上可以知道的。我們必須從這一層意思去了解保羅論屬律法的規矩的話,說: 「這些原是後事的影兒,那形體卻是基督」(西2:17)。他的目的並不是要否認神向列祖表明——正如今日他在洗禮和聖餐中向我們表明一樣——他的信實的那些恩典,而是要表明那賜給我們的恩典更為優越,好叫人不能因基督降世廢止了律法的禮儀而引以為奇。
  二十三、我要順便提到經院派的主張,他們說,在舊律法和新律法的聖禮之間,有一個很大的區分,他們以為前者只預表神的恩典,後者才實際將神的恩典傳給人。這種主張完全不對。因為使徒保羅認為兩者是同樣可尊重的,他說列祖在摩西的時候,同我們「都吃了一樣的靈食」(林前10: 3),而且說明那靈食即是基督。那對猶太人表明與基督相通的表記,誰敢說是虛空的記號呢?而且保羅在這裡所討論的事情,是明明有利於我們的主張的。因為他為求免得有人靠著對基督的一種空幻知識,和基督教的空名及其外表的表記,敢於藐視神的審判,他就把上帝在猶太人中所表示的嚴厲的例子提了出來,教訓我們說,倘若我們犯同樣的罪,猶太人所受的刑罰也在等待著我們。為求使比較更適切,他必須表明我們並不比猶太人多有他禁止我們誇口的那些權利。因此,他首先表明他們在聖禮上與我們一樣,而不給我們留下絲毫的優越點,足以使我們存免受處罰的些微希望。他稱割禮為「因信稱義的印證」(羅4:11),我們就沒有理由以為洗禮較比割禮有更大的價值。凡今日在聖禮中所賜予我們的,都為古時猶太人在他們的聖禮中一樣領受了,即基督和他屬靈的富足。凡我們聖禮中所有的能力,他們也在他們的聖禮中經驗到了:他們的聖禮乃是神對他們恩慈的印證,堅定他們永遠得救的盼望。倘若我們的對敵是善於解釋希伯來書的,他們就不會這麼受騙。當他們在該書中念到律法的禮儀不能贖罪,古時的影兒不能使人稱義,他們疏忽了作者的命意所在,而只注意到律法本身對遵守的人無益這一點,便草率下結論說,表記毫無真理。其實使徒的命意乃是以禮儀律除非是指向那使它生效的基督,就沒有價值。
  二十四、但是他們要爭辯說,保羅以「儀文的割禮」(羅2: 25-29;林前7:19;加6:15),不為神所重視,是與人無益,徒然的;他們認為這種說法,乃是把割禮看為遠不如洗禮。但是,這種看法是不對的,因為使徒論割禮所說的,也可以論洗禮,使徒們也實在如此行了。保羅曾說,神不看我們入教的外表洗凈,除非我們的內心潔凈了,堅持虔誠到底;彼得也說過,真洗禮不在乎「除掉肉體的污穢,只求在神面前有無虧的良心」(彼前3:21)。但他們又要提出反對理由說,保羅在另一處把「人手所行的割禮,」拿來與「基督的割禮」相比的時候(西2:11),似乎完全輕看它。我回答說,那一段經文絲毫不貶損割禮的尊貴。保羅在那裡是駁斥人在割禮被廢棄后,仍要把它當作必要。所以他勸信徒脫離古事的影兒,隨從真理。他說這些師傅乃是勸你們行肉身的割禮。但你們的肉身和靈魂都行了屬靈的割禮了;你們有比影兒更好的實體。對於這一點,也許有人要提出反對理由說,不能因為有了實體,便輕看那表象;因為祖先在舊約時代經驗了保羅所說脫離舊人和心中的割禮,然而外表的割禮對他們並非是無用和不必須的。保羅曾預料到這種反對理由,所以立刻補充說,歌羅西人「在洗禮中與基督一同埋葬」;這乃是說,洗禮對於基督徒,有如割禮對於古時的信徒一樣,因此若將割禮加於基督徒,就對洗禮不能無損傷。
  二十五、但我們對敵又要爭辯說,從我所曾引過的經文,說猶太人的一切禮儀「原是後事的影兒,那形體卻是基督」(西2:17),他們便有一個更強有力的論據,而最強有力的論據乃是希伯來書所說,牲畜的血不能達於良心,而「律法原是將來美事的影兒,不是本物的真像,並且崇拜的人決不能靠摩西的禮儀得以完全」(來 9:9,10:1,2)。我重述我已經提過的,保羅稱那些禮儀為影兒,並非是說它們毫無實在,而只因為它們的完成是要等到基督顯現。其次我要說,這裡不是指禮儀的功效而言,乃是就表明的方式而言。因為在基督尚未在肉身顯現以前,一切表記都預示他尚未來到;然而他對信徒的彰顯了他的能力,因此可說他自己來到了他們心中。但當注意的主要事情,乃是保羅在這些地方所說的,並不是只就題目的本身而言,而是就他所反對的人而言。他既是為打擊那些以為虔誠只在乎禮儀,而不注重基督的假使徒,所以為駁斥他們,最好是討論禮儀本身所具有的價值。希伯來書的作者也有這個目的。所以我們須記得,這裡他所說的,不是指禮儀原來的真意義,而是指對禮儀虛妄和悖謬的解釋;又不是指禮儀的合法作用,而是指帶迷信的濫用。他說禮儀離開了基督,就失去了它們的一切效用,那有什麼可怪呢。因為表記所表的若被取去,表記就算不得什麼。所以當基督對那些以嗎哪僅為肉體的糧食的人說話時,他為要適應這種粗鄙的意見,就說,他要賜他們更好的糧食,用不死的希望來養活他們的靈魂(約6:27)。倘若需要一個更清楚的解答,就可將上面所說的歸納為下列三點:第一,摩西律法的一切禮儀除非是指向基督,就都是徒然無益的;第二,因為它們指向基督,所以基督一旦在肉身顯現,它們就成全了;第三,它們在基督降世的時候必須廢除,如同黑影在太陽的光亮中消失一般。但是我們既然要在比較洗禮與割禮一章中詳細討論此題,此處我不過簡單提及而已。
  二十六、這些詭辯家可能是因教父著作過分崇仰聖禮,因而陷入這種錯誤。例如奧古斯丁曾說:「舊約律法中的聖禮只應許了救主,我們的聖禮卻施行拯救。」他們不察這類話,乃是言過其實的說法,便將這種說法宣布為教義,其實這是和教父們的命意完全相左的。因為上面所引奧古斯丁的話的意思,是與他在另一處所說的相同,他說:「摩西律法中的聖禮宣布基督以後要降世;我們的聖禮宣布他已經降世。」他又說:「他們的聖禮是那將要應驗的事的應許;我們的聖禮是已經成就的事的表記。」他好像是說,舊約的聖禮乃預表仍在指望中的基督,我們的聖禮乃是表明他與我們同在,因為他已經來了。此外,奧氏也說到聖禮表明的方式,即如他在另一處說:「律法和先知有聖禮來宣布將要臨到的事;但他們所祝頌將要臨到的事,我們今日的聖禮卻宣布是已經臨到了。」他對古時聖禮的真理和功效的意見,曾在好幾處地方申明,他說:「猶太人的聖禮在表記上和我們的聖禮不同,但在所表明的事上,彼此都是一樣的;在有形的方式上不同,但在屬靈的功效上都是一樣的。」他又說:「表記不同,信仰卻是一樣。表記不同,一如言語不同;因為言語在不同的時候,發不同聲音,而言語也可說是表記。列祖和我們一樣喝了靈水,但物質的水彼此不同。因此,表記可以改變,信心是不改變的。對於他們,磐石乃是基督,對於我們,陳列於聖壇的,乃是基督。他們飲磐石中流出來的水,認為是一大聖禮;而我們所飲的,是信徒所知道的。倘若我們看那有形的外表,其間確是有別;倘若我們看那所表明的意義,他們是喝同樣的靈水。」在另一處他又說:「在這奧秘中他們的飲食和我們的是一樣的;形式雖不同。意義卻是相同,因為同一基督,對他們是以磐石來預表,而對我們是以肉體來表明。」然而就在這一方面,我們承認在列祖和我們的聖禮當中,也有不同之處。因為雖然兩者都見證神在基督里將慈父般的恩慈和聖靈的恩典賜下了,但我們的聖禮所表明的更為清楚。兩者都表現基督,但正如我所說過的,由於新舊約的不同,所以我們的聖禮將他表現得更為豐富和充實。這正是奧古斯丁——他是古代作者中為我更多加引證和最真實最優秀的作者——的意向,他說,自基督啟示於人以後,聖禮的設立,「在數量上較少,在意義上更高尚,在功效上更完美。」在這裡也當警告讀者,詭辯家所謂「因功生效」的胡言妄語,不僅是虛妄,而且是和聖禮的本性不相容,因為上帝設立聖禮,是為要叫那可憐無善可陳的信徒來領受聖禮,藉以承認自己的缺乏,求神施恩。所以,信徒領受聖禮,並未曾行什麼善功,他們只是領受,不是作工。

2308

主題

5萬

帖子

1萬

積分

版主

求真理不倦悔

Rank: 7Rank: 7Rank: 7

積分
15043
沙發
 樓主| 追求永生 發表於 2010-1-23 02:22 | 只看該作者
CHAPTER 14.
OF THE SACRAMENTS.

This chapter consists of two principal parts,—I. Of sacraments in general. The sum of the doctrine stated, sec. 1-6. Two classes of opponents to be guarded against—viz. those who undervalue the power of the sacraments, sec. 7-13; and those who attribute too much to the sacraments, sec. 14-17. II. Of the sacraments in particular, both of the Old and the New Testament. Their scope and meaning. Refutation of those who have either too high or too low ideas of the sacraments.

Sections.

1. Of the sacraments in general. A sacrament defined.

2. Meaning of the word sacrament.

3. Definition explained. Why God seals his promises to us by sacraments.

4. The word which ought to accompany the element, that the sacrament may be complete.

5. Error of those who attempt to separate the word, or promise of God, from the element.

6. Why sacraments are called Signs of the Covenant.

7. They are such signs, though the wicked should receive them, but are signs of grace only to believers.

8. Objections to this view answered.

9. No secret virtue in the sacraments. Their whole efficacy depends on the inward operation of the Spirit.

10. Objections answered. Illustrated by a simile.

11. Of the increase of faith by the preaching of the word.

12. In what way, and how far, the sacraments are confirmations of our faith.

13. Some regard the sacraments as mere signs. This view refuted.

14. Some again attribute too much to the sacraments. Refutation.

15. Refutation confirmed by a passage from Augustine.

16. Previous views more fully explained.

17. The matter of the sacrament always present when the sacrament is duly administered.

18. Extensive meaning of the term sacrament.

19. The ordinary sacraments in the Church. How necessary they are.

20. The sacraments of the Old and of the New Testament. The end of both the same —viz. to lead us to Christ.

21. This apparent in the sacraments of the Old Testament.

22. Apparent also in the sacraments of the New Testament.

23. Impious doctrine of the Schoolmen as to the difference between the Old and the New Testaments.

24. Scholastic objection answered.

25. Another objection answered.

26. Sacraments of the New Testament sometimes excessively extolled by early Theologians. Their meaning explained.

1. Akin to the preaching of the gospel, we have another help to our faith in the sacraments, in regard to which, it greatly concerns us that some sure doctrine should be delivered, informing us both of the end for which they were instituted, and of their present use. First, we must attend to what a sacrament is. It seems to me, then, a simple and appropriate definition to say, that it is an external sign, 2492by which the Lord seals on our consciences his promises of good-will toward us, in order to sustain the weakness of our faith, and we in our turn testify our piety towards him, both before himself, and before angels as well as men. We may also define more briefly by calling it a testimony of the divine favour toward us, confirmed by an external sign, with a corresponding attestation of our faith towards Him. You may make your choice of these definitions, which in meaning differ not from that of Augustine, which defines a sacrament to be a visible sign of a sacred thing, or a visible form of an invisible grace, but does not contain a better or surer explanation. As its brevity makes it somewhat obscure, and thereby misleads the more illiterate, I wished to remove all doubt, and make the definition fuller by stating it at greater length.

2. The reason why the ancients used the term in this sense is not obscure. The old interpreter, whenever he wished to render the Greek term μυστήριον into Latin, especially when it was used with reference to divine things, used the word sacramentum. Thus, in Ephesians, 「Having made known unto us the mystery (sacramentum) of his will;」 and again, 「If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God, which is given me to you-wards, how that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery」 (sacramentum) (Eph. 1:9; 3:2). In the Colossians, 「Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but is now made manifest to his saints, to whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery」 (sacramentum) (Col. 1:26). Also in the First Epistle to Timothy, 「Without controversy, great is the mystery (sacramentum) of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh」 (1 Tim. 3:16). He was unwilling to use the word arcanum (secret), lest the word should seem beneath the magnitude of the thing meant. When the thing, therefore, was sacred and secret, he used the term sacramentum. In this sense it frequently occurs in ecclesiastical writers. And it is well known, that what the Latins call sacramenta, the Greeks call μυστήρια (mysteries). The sameness of meaning removes all dispute. Hence it is that the term was applied to those signs which gave an august representation of things spiritual and sublime. This is also observed by Augustine, 「It were tedious to discourse of the variety of signs; those which relate to divine things are called sacraments」 (August. Ep. 5. ad Marcell.).

3. From the definition which we have given, we perceive that there never is a sacrament without an antecedent promise, the sacrament being added as a kind of appendix, with the view of confirming and sealing the promise, and giving a better attestation, or rather, in a manner, confirming it. In this way God provides first for our ignorance and sluggishness, and, secondly, for our infirmity; and yet, properly speaking, it does not so much confirm his word as establish us in the faith of it.613613   122 D122 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. For the truth of God is in itself sufficiently stable and certain, and cannot receive a better confirmation from any 2493other quarter than from itself. But as our faith is slender and weak, so if it be not propped up on every side, and supported by all kinds of means, it is forthwith shaken and tossed to and fro, wavers, and even falls. And here, indeed, our merciful Lord, with boundless condescension, so accommodates himself to our capacity, that seeing how from our animal nature we are always creeping on the ground, and cleaving to the flesh, having no thought of what is spiritual, and not even forming an idea of it, he declines not by means of these earthly elements to lead us to himself, and even in the flesh to exhibit a mirror of spiritual blessings. For, as Chrysostom says (Hom. 60, ad Popul.). 「Were we incorporeal, he would give us these things in a naked and incorporeal form. Now because our souls are implanted in bodies, he delivers spiritual things under things visible. Not that the qualities which are set before us in the sacraments are inherent in the nature of the things, but God gives them this signification.」

4. This is commonly expressed by saying that a sacrament consists of the word and the external sign. By the word we ought to understand not one which, muttered without meaning and without faith, by its sound merely, as by a magical incantation, has the effect of consecrating the element, but one which, preached, makes us understand what the visible sign means. The thing, therefore, which was frequently done, under the tyranny of the Pope, was not free from great profanation of the mystery, for they deemed it sufficient if the priest muttered the formula of consecration, while the people, without understanding, looked stupidly on. Nay, this was done for the express purpose of preventing any instruction from thereby reaching the people: for all was said in Latin to illiterate hearers. Superstition afterwards was carried to such a height, that the consecration was thought not to be duly performed except in a low grumble, which few could hear. Very different is the doctrine of Augustine concerning the sacramental word. 「Let the word be added to the element, and it will become a sacrament. For whence can there be so much virtue in water as to touch the body and cleanse the heart, unless by the agency of the word, and this not because it is said, but because it is believed? For even in the word the transient sound is one thing, the permanent power another. This is the word of faith which we preach says the Apostle」 (Rom. 10:8). Hence, in the Acts of the Apostles, we have the expression, 「Purify their hearts by faith」 (Acts 15:9). And the Apostle Peter says, 「The like figure whereunto even baptism doth now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience)」 (1 Pet. 3:21). 「This is the word of faith which we preach: by which word doubtless baptism also, in order that it may be able to cleanse, is consecrated」 (August. Hom. in Joann. 13). You see how he requires preaching to the production of faith. And we need not labour to prove this, since there is not the least room for doubt as to what Christ did, and commanded us to do, as to what the apostles followed, and a purer Church observed. Nay, it is known that, from the very 2494beginning of the world, whenever God offered any sign to the holy Patriarchs, it was inseparably attached to doctrine, without which our senses would gaze bewildered on an unmeaning object. Therefore, when we hear mention made of the sacramental word, let us understand the promise which, proclaimed aloud by the minister, leads the people by the hand to that to which the sign tends and directs us.

5. Nor are those to be listened to who oppose this view with a more subtle than solid dilemma. They argue thus: We either know that the word of God which precedes the sacrament is the true will of God, or we do not know it. If we know it, we learn nothing new from the sacrament which succeeds. If we do not know it, we cannot learn it from the sacrament, whose whole efficacy depends on the word. Our brief reply is: The seals which are affixed to diplomas, and other public deeds, are nothing considered in themselves, and would be affixed to no purpose if nothing was written on the parchment, and yet this does not prevent them from sealing and confirming when they are appended to writings. It cannot be alleged that this comparison is a recent fiction of our own, since Paul himself used it, terming circumcision a seal (Rom. 4:11), where he expressly maintains that the circumcision of Abraham was not for justification, but was an attestation to the covenant, by the faith of which he had been previously justified. And how, pray, can any one be greatly offended when we teach that the promise is sealed by the sacrament, since it is plain, from the promises themselves, that one promise confirms another? The clearer any evidence is, the fitter is it to support our faith. But sacraments bring with them the clearest promises, and, when compared with the word, have this peculiarity, that they represent promises to the life, as if painted in a picture. Nor ought we to be moved by an objection founded on the distinction between sacraments and the seals of documents—viz. that since both consist of the carnal elements of this world, the former cannot be sufficient or adequate to seal the promises of God, which are spiritual and eternal, though the latter may be employed to seal the edicts of princes concerning fleeting and fading things. But the believer, when the sacraments are presented to his eye, does not stop short at the carnal spectacle, but by the steps of analogy which I have indicated, rises with pious consideration to the sublime mysteries which lie hidden in the sacraments.

6. As the Lord calls his promises covenants (Gen. 6:18; 9:9; 17:2), and sacraments signs of the covenants, so something similar may be inferred from human covenants. What could the slaughter of a hog effect, unless words were interposed or rather preceded? Swine are often killed without any interior or occult mystery. What could be gained by pledging the right hand, since hands are not unfrequently joined in giving battle? But when words have preceded, then by such symbols of covenant sanction is given to laws, though previously conceived, digested, and enacted by words. Sacraments, 2495therefore, are exercises which confirm our faith in the word of God; and because we are carnal, they are exhibited under carnal objects, that thus they may train us in accommodation to our sluggish capacity, just as nurses lead children by the hand. And hence Augustine calls a sacrament a visible word (August. in Joann. Hom. 89), because it represents the promises of God as in a picture, and places them in our view in a graphic bodily form (August. cont. Faust. Lib. 19). We might refer to other similitudes, by which sacraments are more plainly designated, as when they are called the pillars of our faith. For just as a building stands and leans on its foundation, and yet is rendered more stable when supported by pillars, so faith leans on the word of God as its proper foundation, and yet when sacraments are added leans more firmly, as if resting on pillars. Or we may call them mirrors, in which we may contemplate the riches of the grace which God bestows upon us. For then, as has been said, he manifests himself to us in as far as our dulness can enable us to recognise him, and testifies his love and kindness to us more expressly than by word.

7. It is irrational to contend that sacraments are not manifestations of divine grace toward us, because they are held forth to the ungodly also, who, however, so far from experiencing God to be more propitious to them, only incur greater condemnation. By the same reasoning, the gospel will be no manifestation of the grace of God, because it is spurned by many who hear it; nor will Christ himself be a manifestation of grace, because of the many by whom he was seen and known, very few received him. Something similar may be seen in public enactments. A great part of the body of the people deride and evade the authenticating seal, though they know it was employed by their sovereign to confirm his will; others trample it under foot, as a matter by no means appertaining to them; while others even execrate it: so that, seeing the condition of the two things to be alike, the appropriateness of the comparison which I made above ought to be more readily allowed. It is certain, therefore, that the Lord offers us his mercy, and a pledge of his grace, both in his sacred word and in the sacraments; but it is not apprehended save by those who receive the word and sacraments with firm faith: in like manner as Christ, though offered and held forth for salvation to all, is not, however, acknowledged and received by all. Augustine, when intending to intimate this, said that the efficacy of the word is produced in the sacrament, not because it is spoken, but because it is believed. Hence Paul, addressing believers, includes communion with Christ, in the sacraments, as when he says, 「As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ」 (Gal. 3:27). Again, 「For by one Spirit we are all baptized into one body」 (1 Cor. 12:13). But when he speaks of a preposterous use of the sacraments, he attributes nothing more to them than to frigid, empty figures; thereby intimating, that however the ungodly and hypocrites may, by their perverseness, either suppress, or obscure, or impede 2496the effect of divine grace in the sacraments, that does not prevent them, where and whenever God is so pleased, from giving a true evidence of communion with Christ, or prevent them from exhibiting, and the Spirit of God from performing, the very thing which they promise. We conclude, therefore, that the sacraments are truly termed evidences of divine grace, and, as it were, seals of the good-will which he entertains toward us. They, by sealing it to us, sustain, nourish, confirm, and increase our faith. The objections usually urged against this view are frivolous and weak. They say that our faith, if it is good, cannot be made better; for there is no faith save that which leans unshakingly, firmly, and undividedly, on the mercy of God. It had been better for the objectors to pray, with the apostles, 「Lord, increase our faith」 (Luke 17:5), than confidently to maintain a perfection of faith which none of the sons of men ever attained, none ever shall attain, in this life. Let them explain what kind of faith his was who said, 「Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief」 (Mark 9:24). That faith, though only commenced, was good, and might, by the removal of the unbelief, be made better. But there is no better argument to refute them than their own consciousness. For if they confess themselves sinners (this, whether they will or not, they cannot deny), then they must of necessity impute this very quality to the imperfection of their faith.

8. But Philip, they say, replied to the eunuch who asked to be baptized, 「If thou believest with all thine heart thou mayest」 (Acts 8:37). What room is there for a confirmation of baptism when faith fills the whole heart? I, in my turn, ask them, Do they not feel that a good part of their heart is void of faith—do they not perceive new additions to it every day? There was one who boasted that he grew old while learning. Thrice miserable, then, are we Christians if we grow old without making progress, we whose faith ought to advance through every period of life until it grow up into a perfect man (Eph. 4:13). In this passage, therefore, to believe with the whole heart, is not to believe Christ perfectly, but only to embrace him sincerely with heart and soul; not to be filled with him, but with ardent affection to hunger and thirst, and sigh after him. It is usual in Scripture to say that a thing is done with the whole heart, when it is done sincerely and cordially. Of this description are the following passages:—「With my whole heart have I sought thee」 (Ps. 119:10); 「I will confess unto thee with my whole heart,」 &c. In like manner, when the fraudulent and deceitful are rebuked, it is said 「with flattering lips, and with a double heart, do they speak」 (Ps. 12:2). The objectors next add—「If faith is increased by means of the sacraments, the Holy Spirit is given in vain, seeing it is his office to begin, sustain, and consummate our faith.」 I admit, indeed, that faith is the proper and entire work of the Holy Spirit, enlightened by whom we recognise God and the treasures of his grace, and without whose illumination our mind is so blind that it can see nothing, so stupid that it has no relish for spiritual things. But 2497for the one Divine blessing which they proclaim we count three. For, first, the Lord teaches and trains us by his word; next, he confirms us by his sacraments; lastly, he illumines our mind by the light of his Holy Spirit, and opens up an entrance into our hearts for his word and sacraments, which would otherwise only strike our ears, and fall upon our sight, but by no means affect us inwardly.

9. Wherefore, with regard to the increase and confirmation of faith, I would remind the reader (though I think I have already expressed it in unambiguous terms), that in assigning this office to the sacraments, it is not as if I thought that there is a kind of secret efficacy perpetually inherent in them, by which they can of themselves promote or strengthen faith, but because our Lord has instituted them for the express purpose of helping to establish and increase our faith. The sacraments duly perform their office only when accompanied by the Spirit, the internal Master, whose energy alone penetrates the heart, stirs up the affections, and procures access for the sacraments into our souls. If he is wanting, the sacraments can avail us no more than the sun shining on the eyeballs of the blind, or sounds uttered in the ears of the deaf. Wherefore, in distributing between the Spirit and the sacraments, I ascribe the whole energy to him, and leave only a ministry to them; this ministry, without the agency of the Spirit, is empty and frivolous, but when he acts within, and exerts his power, it is replete with energy. It is now clear in what way, according to this view, a pious mind is confirmed in faith by means of the sacraments—viz. in the same way in which the light of the sun is seen by the eye, and the sound of the voice heard by the ear; the former of which would not be at all affected by the light unless it had a pupil on which the light might fall; nor the latter reached by any sound, however loud, were it not naturally adapted for hearing. But if it is true, as has been explained, that in the eye it is the power of vision which enables it to see the light, and in the ear the power of hearing which enables it to perceive the voice, and that in our hearts it is the work of the Holy Spirit to commence, maintain, cherish, and establish faith, then it follows, both that the sacraments do not avail one iota without the energy of the Holy Spirit; and that yet in hearts previously taught by that preceptor, there is nothing to prevent the sacraments from strengthening and increasing faith. There is only this difference, that the faculty of seeing and hearing is naturally implanted in the eye and ear; whereas, Christ acts in our minds above the measure of nature by special grace.

10. In this way, also, we dispose of certain objections by which some anxious minds are annoyed. If we ascribe either an increase or confirmation of faith to creatures, injustice is done to the Spirit of God, who alone ought to be regarded as its author. But we do not rob him of the merit of confirming and increasing faith; nay, rather, we maintain that that which confirms and increases faith, is nothing else than the preparing of our minds by his internal illumination to receive 2498that confirmation which is set forth by the sacraments. But if the subject is still obscure, it will be made plain by the following similitude: Were you to begin to persuade a person by word to do something, you would think of all the arguments by which he may be brought over to your view, and in a manner compelled to serve your purpose. But nothing is gained if the individual himself possess not a clear and acute judgment, by which he may be able to weigh the value of your arguments; if, moreover, he is not of a docile disposition, and ready to listen to doctrine; if, in fine, he has no such idea of your faith and prudence as in a manner to prejudice him in your favour, and secure his assent. For there are many obstinate spirits who are not to be bent by any arguments; and where faith is suspected, or authority contemned, little progress is made even with the docile. On the other hand, when opposite feelings exist, the result will be, that the person whose interests you are consulting will acquiesce in the very counsels which he would otherwise have derided. The same work is performed in us by the Spirit. That the word may not fall upon our ear, or the sacraments be presented to our eye in vain, he shows that it is God who there speaks to us, softens our obdurate hearts, and frames them to the obedience which is due to his word; in short, transmits those external words and sacraments from the ear to the soul. Both word and sacraments, therefore, confirm our faith, bringing under view the kind intentions of our heavenly Father, in the knowledge of which the whole assurance of our faith depends, and by which its strength is increased; and the Spirit also confirms our faith when, by engraving that assurance on our minds, he renders it effectual. Meanwhile, it is easy for the Father of lights, in like manner as he illumines the bodily eye by the rays of the sun, to illumine our minds by the sacraments, as by a kind of intermediate brightness.
回復 支持 反對

使用道具 舉報

2308

主題

5萬

帖子

1萬

積分

版主

求真理不倦悔

Rank: 7Rank: 7Rank: 7

積分
15043
3
 樓主| 追求永生 發表於 2010-1-23 02:23 | 只看該作者
11. This property our Lord showed to belong to the external word, when, in the parable, he compared it to seed (Mt. 13:4; Luke 8:15). For as the seed, when it falls on a deserted and neglected part of the field, can do nothing but die, but when thrown into ground properly laboured and cultivated, will yield a hundred-fold; so the word of God, when addressed to any stubborn spirit, will remain without fruit, as if thrown upon the barren waste, but when it meets with a soul which the hand of the heavenly Spirit has subdued, will be most fruitful. But if the case of the seed and of the word is the same, and from the seed corn can grow and increase, and attain to maturity, why may not faith also take its beginning, increase, and completion from the word? Both things are admirably explained by Paul in different passages. For when he would remind the Corinthians how God had given effect to his labours, he boasts that he possessed the ministry of the Spirit (1 Cor. 2:4); just as if his preaching were inseparably connected with the power of the Holy Spirit, in inwardly enlightening the mind, and stimulating it. But in another passage, when he would remind them what the power of the word is 2499in itself, when preached by man, he compares ministers to husbandmen, who, after they have expended labour and industry in cultivating the ground, have nothing more that they can do. For what would ploughing, and sowing, and watering avail, unless that which was sown should, by the kindness of Heaven, vegetate? Wherefore he concludes, that he that planteth, and he that watereth is nothing, but that the whole is to be ascribed to God, who alone gives the increase. The apostles, therefore, exert the power of the Spirit in their preaching, inasmuch as God uses them as instruments which he has ordained for the unfolding of his spiritual grace. Still, however, we must not lose sight of the distinction, but remember what man is able of himself to do, and what is peculiar to God.

12. The sacraments are confirmations of our faith in such a sense, that the Lord, sometimes, when he sees meet to withdraw our assurance of the things which he had promised in the sacraments, takes away the sacraments themselves. When he deprives Adam of the gift of immortality, and expels him from the garden, 「lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and live for ever」 (Gen. 3:22). What is this we hear? Could that fruit have restored Adam to the immortality from which he had already fallen? By no means. It is just as if he had said, Lest he indulge in vain confidence, if allowed to retain the symbol of my promise, let that be withdrawn which might give him some hope of immortality. On this ground, when the apostle urges the Ephesians to remember, that they 「were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world」 (Eph. 2:12), he says that they were not partakers of circumcision. He thus intimates metonymically, that all were excluded from the promise who had not received the badge of the promise. To the other objection—viz. that when so much power is attributed to creatures, the glory of God is bestowed upon them, and thereby impaired—it is obvious to reply, that we attribute no power to the creatures. All we say is, that God uses the means and instruments which he sees to be expedient, in order that all things may be subservient to his glory, he being the Lord and disposer of all. Therefore, as by bread and other aliment he feeds our bodies, as by the sun he illumines, and by fire gives warmth to the world, and yet bread, sun, and fire are nothing, save inasmuch as they are instruments under which he dispenses his blessings to us; so in like manner he spiritually nourishes our faith by means of the sacraments, whose only office is to make his promises visible to our eye, or rather, to be pledges of his promises. And as it is our duty in regard to the other creatures which the divine liberality and kindness has destined for our use, and by whose instrumentality he bestows the gifts of his goodness upon us, to put no confidence in them, nor to admire and extol them as the causes of our mercies; so neither ought our confidence to be fixed on the sacraments, nor ought the glory of God to be transferred to them, but passing beyond them all, our faith and 2500confession should rise to Him who is the Author of the sacraments and of all things.

13. There is nothing in the argument which some found on the very term sacrament. This term, they say, while it has many significations in approved authors, has only one which is applicable to signs—namely, when it is used for the formal oath which the soldier gives to his commander on entering the service. For as by that military oath recruits bind themselves to be faithful to their commander, and make a profession of military service; so by our signs we acknowledge Christ to be our commander, and declare that we serve under his standard. They add similitudes, in order to make the matter more clear. As the toga distinguished the Romans from the Greeks, who wore the pallium; and as the different orders of Romans were distinguished from each other by their peculiar insignia; e. g., the senatorial from the equestrian by purple, and crescent shoes, and the equestrian from the plebeian by a ring, so we wear our symbols to distinguish us from the profane. But it is sufficiently clear from what has been said above, that the ancients, in giving the name of sacraments to signs, had not at all attended to the use of the term by Latin writers, but had, for the sake of convenience, given it this new signification, as a means of simply expressing sacred signs. But were we to argue more subtilely, we might say that they seem to have given the term this signification in a manner analogous to that in which they employ the term faith in the sense in which it is now used. For while faith is truth in performing promises, they have used it for the certainty or firm persuasion which is had of the truth. In this way, while a sacrament is the act of the soldier when he vows obedience to his commander, they made it the act by which the commander admits soldiers to the ranks. For in the sacraments the Lord promises that he will be our God, and we that we will be his people. But we omit such subtleties, since I think I have shown by arguments abundantly plain, that all which ancient writers intended was to intimate, that sacraments are the signs of sacred and spiritual things. The similitudes which are drawn from external objects (chap. 15 sec. 1), we indeed admit; but we approve not, that that which is a secondary thing in sacraments is by them made the first, and indeed the only thing. The first thing is, that they may contribute to our faith in God; the secondary, that they may attest our confession before men. These similitudes are applicable to the secondary reason. Let it therefore remain a fixed point, that mysteries would be frigid (as has been seen) were they not helps to our faith, and adjuncts annexed to doctrine for the same end and purpose.

14. On the other hand, it is to be observed, that as these objectors impair the force, and altogether overthrow the use of the sacraments, so there are others who ascribe to the sacraments a kind of secret virtue, which is nowhere said to have been implanted in them by God. By this error the more simple and unwary are perilously deceived, 2501while they are taught to seek the gifts of God where they cannot possibly be found, and are insensibly withdrawn from God, so as to embrace instead of his truth mere vanity. For the schools of the Sophists have taught with general consent that the sacraments of the new law, in other words, those now in use in the Christian Church, justify, and confer grace, provided only that we do not interpose the obstacle of mortal sin. It is impossible to describe how fatal and pestilential this sentiment is, and the more so, that for many ages it has, to the great loss of the Church, prevailed over a considerable part of the world. It is plainly of the devil: for, first, in promising a righteousness without faith, it drives souls headlong on destruction; secondly, in deriving a cause of righteousness from the sacraments, it entangles miserable minds, already of their own accord too much inclined to the earth, in a superstitious idea, which makes them acquiesce in the spectacle of a corporeal object rather than in God himself. I wish we had not such experience of both evils as to make it altogether unnecessary to give a lengthened proof of them. For what is a sacrament received without faith, but most certain destruction to the Church? For, seeing that nothing is to be expected beyond the promise, and the promise no less denounces wrath to the unbeliever than offers grace to the believer, it is an error to suppose that anything more is conferred by the sacraments than is offered by the word of God, and obtained by true faith. From this another thing follows—viz. that assurance of salvation does not depend on participation in the sacraments, as if justification consisted in it. This, which is treasured up in Christ alone, we know to be communicated, not less by the preaching of the Gospel than by the seal of the sacrament, and may be completely enjoyed without this seal. So true is it, as Augustine declares, that there may be invisible sanctification without a visible sign, and, on the other hand, a visible sign without true sanctification (August. de Quæst. Vet. Test. Lib. 3). For, as he elsewhere says, 「Men put on Christ, sometimes to the extent of partaking in the sacrament, and sometimes to the extent of holiness of life」 (August. de Bapt. Cont. Donat. cap. 24). The former may be common to the good and the bad, the latter is peculiar to the good.

15. Hence the distinction, if properly understood, repeatedly made by Augustine between the sacrament and the matter of the sacrament. For he does not mean merely that the figure and truth are therein contained, but that they do not so cohere as not to be separable, and that in this connection it is always necessary to distinguish the thing from the sign, so as not to transfer to the one what belongs to the other.614614   123 D123 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. Augustine speaks of the separation when he says that in the elect alone the sacraments accomplish what they represent (Augustin. de Bapt. Parvul.). Again, when speaking of the Jews, he says, 「Though the sacraments were common to all, the grace was not common: yet grace is the virtue of the sacraments. Thus, too, the laver of regeneration is now common to all, but the grace by which 2502the members of Christ are regenerated with their head is not common to all」 (August. in Ps. 78). Again, in another place, speaking of the Lord』s Supper, he says, 「We also this day receive visible food; but the sacrament is one thing, the virtue of the sacrament another. Why is it that many partake of the altar and die, and die by partaking? For even the cup of the Lord was poison to Judas, not because he received what was evil, but being wicked he wickedly received what was good」 (August. in Joann. Hom. 26). A little after, he says, 「The sacrament of this thing, that is, of the unity of the body and blood of Christ, is in some places prepared every day, in others at certain intervals at the Lord』s table, which is partaken by some unto life, by others unto destruction. But the thing itself, of which there is a sacrament, is life to all, and destruction to none who partake of it.」 Some time before he had said, 「He who may have eaten shall not die, but he must be one who attains to the virtue of the sacrament, not to the visible sacrament; who eats inwardly, not outwardly; who eats with the heart, and not with the teeth.」 Here you are uniformly told that a sacrament is so separated from the reality by the unworthiness of the partaker, that nothing remains but an empty and useless figure. Now, in order that you may have not a sign devoid of truth, but the thing with the sign, the Word which is included in it must be apprehended by faith. Thus, in so far as by means of the sacraments you will profit in the communion of Christ, will you derive advantage from them.

16. If this is obscure from brevity, I will explain it more at length. I say that Christ is the matter, or, if you rather choose it, the substance of all the sacraments, since in him they have their whole solidity, and out of him promise nothing. Hence the less toleration is due to the error of Peter Lombard, who distinctly makes them causes of the righteousness and salvation of which they are parts (Sent. Lib. 4 Dist. 1). Bidding adieu to all other causes of righteousness which the wit of man devises, our duty is to hold by this only. In so far, therefore, as we are assisted by their instrumentality in cherishing, confirming, and increasing the true knowledge of Christ, so as both to possess him more fully, and enjoy him in all his richness, so far are they effectual in regard to us. This is the case when that which is there offered is received by us in true faith. Therefore, you will ask, Do the wicked, by their ingratitude, make the ordinance of God fruitless and void? I answer, that what I have said is not to be understood as if the power and truth of the sacrament depended on the condition or pleasure of him who receives it. That which God instituted continues firm, and retains its nature, however men may vary; but since it is one thing to offer, and another to receive, there is nothing to prevent a symbol, consecrated by the word of the Lord, from being truly what it is said to be, and preserving its power, though it may at the same time confer no benefit on the wicked and ungodly. This question is well solved by Augustine in a few words: 「If you receive carnally, it ceases not to 2503be spiritual, but it is not spiritual to you」 (August. Hom. in Joann. 26). But as Augustine shows in the above passages that a sacrament is a thing of no value if separated from its truth; so also, when the two are conjoined, he reminds us that it is necessary to distinguish, in order that we may not cleave too much to the external sign. 「As it is servile weakness to follow the latter, and take the signs for the thing signified, so to interpret the signs as of no use is an extravagant error」 (August. de Doct. Christ. Lib. 3 c. 9). He mentions two faults which are here to be avoided; the one when we receive the signs as if they had been given in vain, and by malignantly destroying or impairing their secret meanings, prevent them from yielding any fruit—the other, when by not raising our minds beyond the visible sign, we attribute to it blessings which are conferred upon us by Christ alone, and that by means of the Holy Spirit, who makes us to be partakers of Christ, external signs assisting if they invite us to Christ; whereas, when wrested to any other purpose, their whole utility is overthrown.

17. Wherefore, let it be a fixed point, that the office of the sacraments differs not from the word of God; and this is to hold forth and offer Christ to us, and, in him, the treasures of heavenly grace. They confer nothing, and avail nothing, if not received in faith, just as wine and oil, or any other liquor, however large the quantity which you pour out, will run away and perish unless there be an open vessel to receive it. When the vessel is not open, though it may be sprinkled all over, it will nevertheless remain entirely empty. We must be aware of being led into a kindred error by the terms, somewhat too extravagant, which ancient Christian writers have employed in extolling the dignity of the sacraments. We must not suppose that there is some latent virtue inherent in the sacraments by which they, in themselves, confer the gifts of the Holy Spirit upon us, in the same way in which wine is drunk out of a cup, since the only office divinely assigned them is to attest and ratify the benevolence of the Lord towards us; and they avail no farther than accompanied by the Holy Spirit to open our minds and hearts, and make us capable of receiving this testimony, in which various distinguished graces are clearly manifested. For the sacraments, as we lately observed (chap. 13 sec. 6; and 14 sec. 6, 7), are to us what messengers of good news are to men, or earnests in ratifying pactions. They do not of themselves bestow any grace, but they announce and manifest it, and, like earnests and badges, give a ratification of the gifts which the divine liberality has bestowed upon us. The Holy Spirit, whom the sacraments do not bring promiscuously to all, but whom the Lord specially confers on his people, brings the gifts of God along with him, makes way for the sacraments, and causes them to bear fruit. But though we deny not that God, by the immediate agency of his Spirit, countenances his own ordinance, preventing the administration of the sacraments which he has instituted from being fruitless and vain, still we maintain that the internal grace of the Spirit, as 2504it is distinct from the external ministration, ought to be viewed and considered separately. God, therefore, truly performs whatever he promises and figures by signs; nor are the signs without effect, for they prove that he is their true and faithful author. The only question here is, whether the Lord works by proper and intrinsic virtue (as it is called), or resigns his office to external symbols? We maintain, that whatever organs he employs detract nothing from his primary operation. In this doctrine of the sacraments, their dignity is highly extolled, their use plainly shown, their utility sufficiently proclaimed, and moderation in all things duly maintained; so that nothing is attributed to them which ought not to be attributed, and nothing denied them which they ought to possess. Meanwhile, we get rid of that fiction by which the cause of justification and the power of the Holy Spirit are included in elements as vessels and vehicles, and the special power which was overlooked is distinctly explained. Here, also, we ought to observe, that what the minister figures and attests by outward action, God performs inwardly, lest that which God claims for himself alone should be ascribed to mortal man. This Augustine is careful to observe: 「How does both God and Moses sanctify? Not Moses for God, but Moses by visible sacraments through his ministry, God by invisible grace through the Holy Spirit. Herein is the whole fruit of visible sacraments; for what do these visible sacraments avail without that sanctification of invisible grace? 」

18. The term sacrament, in the view we have hitherto taken of it, includes, generally, all the signs which God ever commanded men to use, that he might make them sure and confident of the truth of his promises. These he was pleased sometimes to place in natural objects—sometimes to exhibit in miracles. Of the former class we have an example, in his giving the tree of life to Adam and Eve, as an earnest of immortality, that they might feel confident of the promise as often as they ate of the fruit. Another example was, when he gave the bow in the cloud to Noah and his posterity, as a memorial that he would not again destroy the earth by a flood. These were to Adam and Noah as sacraments: not that the tree could give Adam and Eve the immortality which it could not give to itself; or the bow (which is only a reflection of the solar rays on the opposite clouds) could have the effect of confining the waters; but they had a mark engraven on them by the word of God, to be proofs and seals of his covenant. The tree was previously a tree, and the bow a bow; but when they were inscribed with the word of God, a new form was given to them: they began to be what they previously were not. Lest any one suppose that these things were said in vain, the bow is even in the present day a witness to us of the covenant which God made with Noah (Calv. in Gen. 9:6). As often as we look upon it, we read this promise from God, that the earth will never be destroyed by a flood. Wherefore, if any philosophaster, to deride the simplicity of our faith, shall contend that the variety of 2505colours arises naturally from the rays reflected by the opposite cloud, let us admit the fact; but, at the same time, deride his stupidity in not recognising God as the Lord and governor of nature, who, at his pleasure, makes all the elements subservient to his glory. If he had impressed memorials of this description on the sun, the stars, the earth, and stones, they would all have been to us as sacraments. For why is the shapeless and the coined silver not of the same value, seeing they are the same metal? Just because the former has nothing but its own nature, whereas the latter, impressed with the public stamp, becomes money, and receives a new value. And shall the Lord not be able to stamp his creatures with his word, that things which were formerly bare elements may become sacraments? Examples of the second class were given when he showed light to Abraham in the smoking furnace (Gen. 15:17), when he covered the fleece with dew while the ground was dry; and, on the other hand, when the dew covered the ground while the fleece was untouched, to assure Gideon of victory (Judges 6:37); also, when he made the shadow go back ten degrees on the dial, to assure Hezekiah of his recovery (2 Kings 20:9; Isa. 38:7). These things, which were done to assist and establish their faith, were also sacraments.

19. But my present purpose is to discourse especially of those sacraments which the Lord has been pleased to institute as ordinary sacraments in his Church, to bring up his worshippers and servants in one faith, and the confession of one faith. For, to use the words of Augustine, 「In no name of religion, true or false, can men be assembled, unless united by some common use of visible signs or sacraments」 (August. cont. Faustum, Lib. 9 c. 11). Our most merciful Father, foreseeing this necessity, from the very first appointed certain exercises of piety to his servants; these, Satan, by afterwards transferring to impious and superstitious worship, in many ways corrupted and depraved. Hence those initiations of the Gentiles into their mysteries, and other degenerate rites. Yet, although they were full of error and superstition, they were, at the same time, an indication that men could not be without such external signs of religion. But, as they were neither founded on the word of God, nor bore reference to that truth which ought to be held forth by all signs, they are unworthy of being named when mention is made of the sacred symbols which were instituted by God, and have not been perverted from their end—viz. to be helps to true piety. And they consist not of simple signs, like the rainbow and the tree of life, but of ceremonies, or (if you prefer it) the signs here employed are ceremonies. But since, as has been said above, they are testimonies of grace and salvation from the Lord, so, in regard to us, they are marks of profession by which we openly swear by the name of God, binding ourselves to be faithful to him. Hence Chrysostom somewhere shrewdly gives them the name of pactions, by which God enters into covenant with us, and we become bound to holiness and purity of life, because a mutual stipulation is here interposed between 2506God and us. For as God there promises to cover and efface any guilt and penalty which we may have incurred by transgression, and reconciles us to himself in his only begotten Son, so we, in our turn, oblige ourselves by this profession to the study of piety and righteousness. And hence it may be justly said, that such sacraments are ceremonies, by which God is pleased to train his people, first, to excite, cherish, and strengthen faith within; and, secondly, to testify our religion to men.

20. Now these have been different at different times, according to the dispensation which the Lord has seen meet to employ in manifesting himself to men. Circumcision was enjoined on Abraham and his posterity, and to it were afterwards added purifications and sacrifices, and other rites of the Mosaic Law. These were the sacraments of the Jews even until the advent of Christ. After these were abrogated, the two sacraments of Baptism and the Lord』s Supper, which the Christian Church now employs, were instituted. I speak of those which were instituted for the use of the whole Church. For the laying on of hands, by which the ministers of the Church are initiated into their office, though I have no objection to its being called a sacrament, I do not number among ordinary sacraments. The place to be assigned to the other commonly reputed sacraments we shall see by-and-by. Still the ancient sacraments had the same end in view as our own—viz. to direct and almost lead us by the hand to Christ, or rather, were like images to represent him and hold him forth to our knowledge. But as we have already shown that sacraments are a kind of seals of the promises of God, so let us hold it as a most certain truth, that no divine promise has ever been offered to man except in Christ, and that hence when they remind us of any divine promise, they must of necessity exhibit Christ. Hence that heavenly pattern of the tabernacle and legal worship which was shown to Moses in the mount. There is only this difference, that while the former shadowed forth a promised Christ while he was still expected, the latter bear testimony to him as already come and manifested.
回復 支持 反對

使用道具 舉報

2308

主題

5萬

帖子

1萬

積分

版主

求真理不倦悔

Rank: 7Rank: 7Rank: 7

積分
15043
4
 樓主| 追求永生 發表於 2010-1-23 02:23 | 只看該作者
21. When these things are explained singly and separately, they will be much clearer. Circumcision was a sign by which the Jews were reminded that whatever comes of the seed of man—in other words, the whole nature of man—is corrupt, and requires to be cut off; moreover, it was a proof and memorial to confirm them in the promise made to Abraham, of a seed in whom all the nations of the earth should be blessed, and from whom they themselves were to look for a blessing. That saving seed, as we are taught by Paul (Gal. 5:16), was Christ, in whom alone they trusted to recover what they had lost in Adam. Wherefore circumcision was to them what Paul says it was to Abraham—viz. a sign of the righteousness of faith (Rom. 9:11):—viz. a seal by which they were more certainly assured that their faith in waiting for the Lord would be accepted by God for righteousness. But we shall have a better opportunity elsewhere (chap. 16 sec. 3, 4) of following out the comparison between circumcision 2507and baptism.615615   Heb. 9:1-14; 1 John 1:7; Rev. 1:5; Heb. 4:14; 5:5; 9:11. Their washings and purifications placed under their eye the uncleanness, defilement, and pollution with which they were naturally contaminated, and promised another laver in which all their impurities might be wiped and washed away. This laver was Christ, washed by whose blood we bring his purity into the sight of God, that he may cover all our defilements. The sacrifices convicted them of their unrighteousness, and at the same time taught that there was a necessity for paying some satisfaction to the justice of God; and that, therefore, there must be some high priest, some mediator between God and man, to satisfy God by the shedding of blood, and the immolation of a victim which might suffice for the remission of sins. The high priest was Christ: he shed his own blood, he was himself the victim: for in obedience to the Father, he offered himself to death, and by this obedience abolished the disobedience by which man had provoked the indignation of God (Phil. 2:8; Rom. 5:19).

22. In regard to our sacraments, they present Christ the more clearly to us, the more familiarly he has been manifested to man. ever since he was exhibited by the Father, truly as he had been promised. For Baptism testifies that we are washed and purified; the Supper of the Eucharist that we are redeemed. Ablution is figured by water, satisfaction by blood. Both are found in Christ, who, as John says, 「came by water and blood;」 that is, to purify and redeem. Of this the Spirit of God also is a witness. Nay, there are three witnesses in one, water, Spirit, and blood. In the water and blood we have an evidence of purification and redemption, but the Spirit is the primary witness who gives us a full assurance of this testimony. This sublime mystery was illustriously displayed on the cross of Christ, when water and blood flowed from his sacred side (John 19:34); which, for this reason, Augustine justly termed the fountain of our sacraments (August. Hom. in Joann. 26). Of these we shall shortly treat at greater length. There is no doubt that, it you compare time with time, the grace of the Spirit is now more abundantly displayed. For this forms part of the glory of the kingdom of Christ, as we gather from several passages, and especially from the seventh chapter of John. In this sense are we to understand the words of Paul, that the law was 「a shadow of good things to come, but the body is of Christ」 (Col. 2:17). His purpose is not to declare the inefficacy of those manifestations of grace in which God was pleased to prove his truth to the patriarchs, just as he proves it to us in the present day in Baptism and the Lord』s Supper, but to contrast the two, and show the great value of what is given to us, that no one may think it strange that by the advent of Christ the ceremonies of the law have been abolished.

23. The Scholastic dogma (to glance at it in passing), by which the difference between the sacraments of the old and the new dispensation 2508is made so great, that the former did nothing but shadow forth the grace of God, while the latter actually confer that it, must be altogether exploded. Since the apostle speaks in no higher terms of the one than of the other, when he says that the fathers ate of the same spiritual food, and explains that that food was Christ (1 Cor. 10:3), who will presume to regard as an empty sign that which gave a manifestation to the Jews of true communion with Christ? And the state of the case which the apostle is there treating militates strongly for our view. For to guard against confiding in a frigid knowledge of Christ, an empty title of Christianity and external observances, and thereby daring to contemn the judgment of God, he exhibits signal examples of divine severity in the Jews, to make us aware that if we indulge in the same vices, the same punishments which they suffered are impending over us. Now, to make the comparison appropriate, it was necessary to show that there is no inequality between us and them in those blessings in which he forbade us to glory. Therefore, he first makes them equal to us in the sacraments, and leaves us not one iota of privilege which could give us hopes of impunity. Nor can we justly attribute more to our baptism than he elsewhere attributes to circumcision, when he terms it a seal of the righteousness of faith (Rom. 4:11). Whatever, therefore, is now exhibited to us in the sacraments, the Jews formerly received in theirs—viz. Christ, with his spiritual riches. The same efficacy which ours possess they experienced in theirs—viz. that they were seals of the divine favour toward them in regard to the hope of eternal salvation. Had the objectors been sound expounders of the Epistle to the Hebrews, they would not have been so deluded, but reading therein that sins were not expiated by legal ceremonies, nay, that the ancient shadows were of no importance to justification, they overlooked the contrast which is there drawn, and fastening on the single point, that the law in itself was of no avail to the worshipper, thought that they were mere figures, devoid of truth. The purpose of the apostle is to show that there is nothing in the ceremonial law until we arrive at Christ, on whom alone the whole efficacy depends.

24. But they will found on what Paul says of the circumcision of the letter,616616   Rom. 2:25-29; 1 Cor. 7:19; Gal. 6:15; 1 Cor. 10:5; 1 Pet. 3:21; Col. 2:11. and object that it is in no esteem with God; that it confers nothing, is empty; that passages such as these seem to set it far beneath our baptism. But by no means. For the very same thing might justly be said of baptism. Indeed, it is said; first by Paul himself, when he shows that God regards not the external ablution by which we are initiated into religion, unless the mind is purified inwardly, and maintains its purity to the end; and, secondly, by Peter, when he declares that the reality of baptism consists not in external ablution, but in the testimony of a good conscience. But it seems that in another passage he speaks with the greatest contempt of circumcision made with hands, when he contrasts it with the circumcision 2509made by Christ. I answer, that not even in that passage is there anything derogatory to its dignity. Paul is there disputing against those who insisted upon it as necessary, after it had been abrogated. He therefore admonishes believers to lay aside ancient shadows, and cleave to truth. These teachers, he says, insist that your bodies shall be circumcised. But you have been spiritually circumcised both in soul and body. You have, therefore, a manifestation of the reality, and this is far better than the shadow. Still any one might have answered, that the figure was not to be despised because they had the reality, since among the fathers also was exemplified that putting off of the old man of which he was speaking, and yet to them external circumcision was not superfluous. This objection he anticipates, when he immediately adds, that the Colossians were buried together with Christ by baptism, thereby intimating that baptism is now to Christians what circumcision was to those of ancient times; and that the latter, therefore, could not be imposed on Christians without injury to the former.

25. But there is more difficulty in explaining the passage which follows, and which I lately quote617617   French, 「Mais on fera encore un autre argument.」—But there is still another argument which they will employ. —viz. that all the Jewish ceremonies were shadows of things to come, but the body is of Christ (Col. 2:17). The most difficult point of all, however, is that which is discussed in several chapters of the Epistle to the Hebrews—namely, that the blood of beasts did not reach to the conscience; that the law was a shadow of good things to come, but not the very image of the things (Heb. 10:1); that worshippers under the Mosaic ceremonies obtained no degree of perfection, and so forth. I repeat what I have already hinted, that Paul does not represent the ceremonies as shadowy because they had nothing solid in them, but because their completion was in a manner suspended until the manifestation of Christ.618618   124 D124 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. Again, I hold that the words are to be understood not of their efficiency, but rather of the mode of significancy. For until Christ was manifested in the flesh, all signs shadowed him as absent, however he might inwardly exert the presence of his power, and consequently of his person on believers. But the most important observation is, that in all these passages Paul does not speak simply but by way of reply. He was contending with false apostles, who maintained that piety consisted in mere ceremonies, without any respect to Christ; for their refutation it was sufficient merely to consider what effect ceremonies have in themselves. This, too, was the scope of the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Let us remember, therefore, that he is here treating of ceremonies not taken in their true and native signification, but when wrested to a false and vicious interpretation, not of the legitimate use, but of the superstitious abuse of them. What wonder, then, if ceremonies, when separated from Christ, are devoid of all virtue? All signs become null when the thing signified is taken away. Thus Christ, when addressing those who thought that manna 2510was nothing more than food for the body, accommodates his language to their gross opinion, and says, that he furnished a better food, one which fed souls for immortality. But if you require a clearer solution, the substance comes to this: First, the whole apparatus of ceremonies under the Mosaic law, unless directed to Christ, is evanescent and null. Secondly, these ceremonies had such respect to Christ, that they had their fulfilment only when Christ was manifested in the flesh. Lastly, at his advent they behoved to disappear, just as the shadow vanishes in the clear light of the sun. But I now touch more briefly on the point, because I defer the future consideration of it till I come to the place where I intend to compare baptism with circumcision.

26. Those wretched sophists are perhaps deceived by the extravagant eulogiums on our signs which occur in ancient writers: for instance, the following passage of Augustine: 「The sacraments of the old law only promised a Saviour, whereas ours give salvation」 (August. Proem. in Ps. 73). Not perceiving that these and similar figures of speech are hyperbolical, they too have promulgated their hyperbolical dogmas, but in a sense altogether alien from that of ancient writers. For Augustine means nothing more than in another place where he says, 「The sacraments of the Mosaic law foretold Christ, ours announce him」 (Quæst. sup. Numer. c. 33). And again, 「Those were promises of things to be fulfilled, these indications of the fulfilment」 (Contra Faustum, Lib. 19 c. 14); as if he had said, Those figured him when he was still expected, ours, now that he has arrived, exhibit him as present. Moreover, with regard to the mode of signifying, he says, as he also elsewhere indicates, 「The Law and the Prophets had sacraments foretelling a thing future, the sacraments of our time attest that what they foretold as to come has come」 (Cont. Liter. Petil. Lib. 2 c. 37). His sentiments concerning the reality and efficacy, he explains in several passages, as when he says, 「The sacraments of the Jews were different in the signs, alike in the things signified; different in the visible appearance, alike in spiritual power」 (Hom. in Joann. 26). Again, 「In different signs there was the same faith: it was thus in different signs as in different words, because the words change the sound according to times, and yet words are nothing else than signs. The fathers drank of the same spiritual drink, but not of the same corporeal drink. See then, how, while faith remains, signs vary. There the rock was Christ; to us that is Christ which is placed on the altar. They as a great sacrament drank of the water flowing from the rock: believers know what we drink. If you look at the visible appearance there was a difference; if at the intelligible signification, they drank of the same spiritual drink.」 Again, 「In this mystery their food and drink are the same as ours; the same in meaning, not in form, for the same Christ was figured to them in the rock; to us he has been manifested in the flesh」 (in Ps. 77). Though we grant that in this respect also there is some difference. Both testify that 2511the paternal kindness of God, and the graces of the Spirit, are offered us in Christ, but ours more clearly and splendidly. In both there is an exhibition of Christ, but in ours it is more full and complete, in accordance with that distinction between the Old and New Testaments of which we have discoursed above. And this is the meaning of Augustine (whom we quote more frequently, as being the best and most faithful witness of all antiquity), where he says that after Christ was revealed, sacraments were instituted, fewer in number, but of more august significancy and more excellent power (De Doct. Christ. Lib. 3; et Ep. ad Janur.). It is here proper to remind the reader, that all the trifling talk of the sophists concerning the opus operatum,619619   The French adds, 「Qu』ils appellent en leur gergon.」—So called in their jargon.620620   125 D125 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. is not only false. but repugnant to the very nature of sacraments, which God appointed in order that believers, who are void and in want of all good. might bring nothing of their own, but simply beg. Hence it follows, that in receiving them they do nothing which deserves praise, and that in this action (which in respect of them is merely passive621621   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. ) no work can be ascribed to them.
回復 支持 反對

使用道具 舉報

關於本站 | 隱私權政策 | 免責條款 | 版權聲明 | 聯絡我們

Copyright © 2001-2013 海外華人中文門戶:倍可親 (http://big5.backchina.com) All Rights Reserved.

程序系統基於 Discuz! X3.1 商業版 優化 Discuz! © 2001-2013 Comsenz Inc.

本站時間採用京港台時間 GMT+8, 2025-7-21 17:08

快速回復 返回頂部 返回列表