Chapter 14. Of Sacraments

Beside the preaching of the Gospel, another help of like sort is in the Sacraments: of which to have some certain doctrine taught is much necessary for us, whereby we may learn both to what end they were ordained, and what is now the use of them. First it is fitting to consider what a Sacrament is. It seems to me that this shall be a plain and proper definition, if we say that it is an outward sign, with which the Lord seals to our consciences the promises of his goodwill toward us, to sustain the weakness of our faith: and we again on our behalf do testify our godliness toward him as well before him and the angels as before men. We may also with more brevity define it otherwise: as to call it a testimony of God's favor toward us confirmed by an outward sign, with a mutual testifying of our godliness toward him. Whichever you choose of these definitions, it differs nothing in sense from that definition of Augustine, which teaches that a Sacrament is a visible sign of a holy thing, or a visible form of invisible grace: but it does better and more certainly express the thing itself. For whereas in that brevity there is some darkness, wherein many of the less skilled sort are deceived, I thought good in more words to give a fuller statement, that there should remain no doubt.

For what reason the old writers used this word in that sense, it is not hard to see. For as often as the old translator would render in Latin this Greek word Mysterion — that is, mystery — especially when divine matters were treated of, he translated it Sacrament. So to the Ephesians: That he might make known to us the Sacrament of his will (Ephesians 1:9 and 3:2). Again: if yet you have heard the distribution of the grace of God, which is given to me in you, because according to revelation the Sacrament was made known to me. To the Colossians: The mystery which has been hidden from ages and generations, but now is manifested to his saints, to whom the Lord would make known the riches of this Sacrament, etc. (Colossians 1:26; 1 Timothy 3:16). Again to Timothy: A great Sacrament of godliness: God is openly shown in the flesh. He would not say a secret, lest he should seem to say somewhat under the greatness of the things. Therefore he has put Sacrament in place of Secret, but of a holy thing. In that signification it is sometimes found among the ecclesiastical writers. And it is well enough known, that those which in Latin are called Sacraments, in Greek are Mysteries: which expressing of one thing in two several words ends all the contention. And hereby it came to pass that it was drawn to those signs which had a reverent representation of high and spiritual things. Which Augustine also notes in one place. It were long (says he) to dispute of the diversity of signs, which when they pertain to divine things, are called Sacraments.

Now from this definition which we have set, we understand that a Sacrament is never without a promise going before it, but rather is adjoined as a certain addition hanging to it, to this end that it should confirm and seal the promise itself, and make it more approved to us, indeed after a certain manner ratified. Which means the Lord foresees to be needful first for our ignorance and dullness, and then for our weakness: and yet (to speak properly) not so much to confirm his holy word, as to establish us in the faith of it. For the truth of God is by itself sound and certain enough, and cannot from any other source receive better confirmation than from itself. But our faith, as it is small and weak, unless it be stayed on every side, and be by all means upheld, is at once shaken, wavers, staggers, and even faints. And herein truly the merciful Lord according to his great tender kindness tempers himself to our capacity: that, whereas we are natural men, who always creeping upon the ground and sticking fast in the flesh, do not think nor so much as conceive any spiritual thing, he vouchsafes even by these earthly elements to guide us to himself, and in the flesh itself to set forth a mirror of spiritual good things. For if we were disembodied (as Chrysostom says) he would have given us the very same things naked and disembodied. Now because we have souls put within bodies, he gives spiritual things under visible things. Not because there are such gifts planted in the natures of the things which are set forth to us in the Sacraments: but because they were signed by God to this signification.

And this is what they commonly say, that a Sacrament consists of the word and the outward sign. For we must understand the word to be, not that which being whispered without meaning and faith, with only noise as it were with a magical enchantment has power to consecrate the element: but which being preached makes us to understand what the visible sign means. Therefore what was usually done under the tyranny of the Pope was not without a great profaning of the mysteries. For they thought it enough, if the Priest, while the people stood amazedly gazing at it without understanding, did mumble up the form of consecration. Yes, they of set purpose provided this, that no part of doctrine should come to the people from it: for they spoke all things in Latin before unlearned men. Afterward superstition broke out so far, that they believed that the consecration was not formally made, unless it were with a hoarse whispering sound which few might hear. But Augustine teaches far otherwise of the Sacramental word. Let the word (says he) be added to the element, and there shall be made a Sacrament. For from where comes this so great strength to the water, to touch the body and wash the soul, but by the word making it? Not because it is spoken, but because it is believed. For in the very word itself the sound which passes is one thing, and the power which abides is another. This is the word of faith which we preach, says the Apostle (Romans 10:8). Whereupon in the Acts of the Apostles it is said, by faith cleansing their hearts (Acts 15:9). And Peter the Apostle says: So Baptism also saves us: not the putting away of the filthiness of the flesh, but the examination of a good conscience (1 Peter 3:21). This is the word of faith which we preach: by which without doubt, that it may be able to cleanse, Baptism also is hallowed. You see how it requires preaching, whereupon faith may grow. And we need not labor much in proof of this, forasmuch as it is clear what Christ did, what he commanded us to do, what the Apostles followed, what the purer Church observed. Indeed even from the beginning of the world it is known, that so often as God offered any sign to the holy Fathers, there was added an inseparable bond of doctrine, without which our senses should be made amazed with bare beholding. Therefore when we hear mention made of the Sacramental word, let us understand the promise, which being with a loud voice preached by the minister may lead the people there as it were by the hand, wherever the sign tends and directs us.

Neither are some to be heard who strive to fight against this, with a double-horned argument rather subtle than sound. Either (say they) we know, or we know not, that the word of God which goes before the Sacrament, is the true will of God. If we know it, then we learn no new thing of the Sacrament which follows after. If we know it not, then neither will the Sacrament teach it, whose whole force stands in the word. To which let this briefly be for an answer: that the seals which are hung at patents and other public instruments, taken by themselves are nothing, forasmuch as they should be hung in vain if the parchment had nothing written in it: yet they do not therefore fail to confirm and seal what is written, when they be added to writings. Neither can they say that this analogy is lately invented by us, which Paul himself used, calling Circumcision a seal, where he purposely labors to prove, that Circumcision was not righteousness to Abraham, but a sealing of that covenant, by faith whereof he had already been justified before (Romans 4:11). And what, I beseech you, is there that may much offend any man, if we teach that the promise is sealed with Sacraments, when of the promises themselves it is evident that one is confirmed with another? For as every one is clearer, so is it more fit to uphold faith. But the Sacraments do both bring most clear promises, and have this peculiar more than the word, that they vividly represent them to us as it were painted out in a table. Neither ought that distinction to move us at all, which is wont to be objected, between Sacraments and seals of patents: that whereas both consist of carnal elements of this world, those cannot suffice or be suitable to seal the promises of God, which are spiritual and everlasting, as these are wont to be hung to, for sealing of the grants of Princes concerning fading and frail things. For a faithful man, when the Sacraments are present before his eyes, sticks not in that fleshly sight, but by those degrees of proportion, which I have spoken of, he rises up with godly consideration to the high mysteries which lie hidden in the Sacraments.

And since the Lord calls his promises, covenants: and his Sacraments, seals of covenants: an analogy may well be drawn from the covenants of men. What can a sow killed work, if words were not used, indeed unless they went before? For sows are many times killed without any more inward or higher mystery. What can the giving of a man's right hand do, since oftentimes hands are joined with enmity? But when words have gone before, by such signs the laws of leagues are established, although they were first conceived, made, and decreed in words. Therefore Sacraments are exercises which make the credit of the word of God certain to us: and because we are carnal, they are delivered under carnal things: that so they should instruct us according to the capacity of our dullness, and guide us by the hand as schoolmasters guide children. For this reason Augustine calls a Sacrament, a visible word: because it represents the promises of God as it were painted in a table, and sets them before our sight cunningly expressed and as in an image. Other analogies also may be brought, whereby Sacraments may be more plainly set out, as if we call them pillars of our faith. For as a building stands and rests upon the foundation: yet by setting under of pillars, it is more surely established: so faith rests upon the word of God, as upon a foundation: but when Sacraments are added, it stays yet more soundly upon them as upon pillars. Or if we call them looking glasses, in which we may behold the riches of the grace of God, which he gives us. For (as we have already said) he does in them manifestly show himself to us, so much as is given to our dullness to know, and does more expressly testify his good will and love toward us than by his word.

Neither do they reason fittly enough to the purpose, when they labor to prove hereby that they are not testimonies of the grace of God, because they are also given to the wicked, which yet do thereby feel God nothing more favorable to them, but rather procure to themselves more grievous damnation. For by the same argument neither should the Gospel, which is heard and despised of many, be the testimony of the grace of God: nor yet Christ himself, which was seen and known of many, of whom very few received him. The like we may also see in patents. For a great part of the multitude laughs at and scorns that authentic seal, however they know that it proceeded from the Prince to seal his will withal: some regard it not, as a thing not pertaining to them: some also abhor it: so that considering this so equal relation of both, that same similitude which I have above used, ought more and more to be liked. Therefore it is certain that the Lord does offer to us mercy and a pledge of his grace both in his holy word and in the Sacraments: but the same is not received but of them which receive the word and Sacraments with sure faith: like as Christ is offered of the Father to salvation, to all, yet he is not acknowledged and received of all. Augustine in one place, minding to declare the same, said that the effectiveness of the word is shown forth in the Sacrament: not because it is spoken, but because it is believed. Therefore Paul, when he speaks to the faithful, so treats of Sacraments that he includes the communion of Christ in them, as when he says: all you that are baptized, have put on Christ. Again, we are all one body and one Spirit, which are baptized in Christ. But when he speaks of the wrongful use of Sacraments, he gives no more to it than to cold and void figures. Whereby he signifies, that however the wicked and hypocrites with their perverseness do either oppress or darken or hinder the effect of the grace of God in the Sacraments, yet that withstands not but that where and so often as it pleases God, both they may bring a true testimony of the communicating of Christ, and the Spirit of God himself may deliver and perform that which they promise. We determine therefore that Sacraments are truly called testimonies of the grace of God, and as it were certain seals of the good will which he bears toward us: which by sealing it to us, do by this means sustain, nourish, confirm, and increase our faith. As for the reasons which some are wont to object against this sentence, they are too trifling and weak. They say that if our faith be good, it can not be made better: for they say that it is no faith, but which without shaking, steadfastly, and without withdrawing, rests upon the mercy of God. It had been better for such to pray with the Apostles that the Lord would increase their faith, than carelessly to pretend such a perfection of faith, which never any of the sons of men has obtained, nor any shall obtain in this life. Let them answer, what manner of faith they think that he had which said: I believe Lord, help my unbelief. For even that faith, however it was but a begun faith, was a good faith, and might be made better when unbelief were taken away. But they are refuted by no more certain argument than by their own conscience. For if they confess themselves sinners, (which whether they will or no, they can not deny) they must needs impute the same to the imperfection of their faith.

But (say they) Philip answered the Eunuch, that he might be baptized, if he believed with all his heart. What place here has the confirmation of baptism, where faith fills the whole heart? Again I ask them whether they do not feel a good part of their heart void of faith: whether they do not daily acknowledge new increases. The heathen man gloried that he grew old with learning. Therefore we Christians are three times miserable, if we grow old with profiting nothing, whose faith ought to go forward by all degrees of ages, till it grow into a perfect man. Therefore in this place to believe with all the heart, is not perfectly to believe Christ, but only from the heart and with a sincere mind to embrace him: not to be full with him, but with fervent affection to hunger, and thirst, and sigh toward him. This is the manner of the Scripture, to say that that is done with the whole heart, which it means to be done sincerely and heartily. Of this [reconstructed: sort] are these sayings: I have in all my heart sought you: I will confess to you in all my heart, and such other. As on the other side, where he rebukes guileful and deceitful men, he uses to reproach them with heart and heart. Then they say further, that if faith be increased by Sacraments, the Holy Spirit is given in vain, whose strength and work it is to begin, maintain, and make perfect faith. To whom indeed I grant, that faith is the proper and whole work of the Holy Spirit, by whom being enlightened we know God and the treasures of his goodness, and without whose light our mind is so blind, that it can see nothing, so senseless, that it can smell nothing of spiritual things. But for one benefit of God which they set forth, we consider three. For first the Lord teaches and instructs us with his word: then he strengthens us with sacraments: last of all he shines into our minds with the light of his holy Spirit, and opens an entry for the word and Sacraments into our hearts, which otherwise should but strike our ears, and be present before our eyes, and nothing move the inward parts.

Therefore as touching the confirmation and increase of faith, I would have the reader warned (which I think I have already in plain words expressed) that I do so assign that ministry to the sacraments, not as though I thought that there is perpetually in them I know not what secret force, by which they may of themselves be able to further or confirm faith: but because they are ordained of the Lord to this end, that they should serve to the establishing and increasing of faith. But then only they do truly perform their office, when that inward schoolmaster the Spirit is come to them, with whose only power both the hearts are pierced, and affections are moved, and the entry is set open for the sacraments into our souls. If he be absent, sacraments can do no more to our minds, than if either the brightness of the sun should shine upon blind eyes, or a voice sound to deaf ears. Therefore I so make division between the Spirit and sacraments, that the power of working remain with the Spirit, and to the sacraments be left only the ministry, yes and the same void and trifling without the working of the Spirit: but of much effectualness, when he inwardly works and puts forth his force. Now it is plain in what sort according to this sentence, a godly mind is confirmed in the faith by sacraments: that is to say, even as the eyes see by the brightness of the sun, and the ears hear by the sound of a voice: of which neither the eyes should any whit perceive any light, unless they had a sight in themselves that might naturally be enlightened: and the ears should in vain be knocked at with any crying whatever it were, unless they were naturally made and fit to hear. But if it be true, which ought at once to be determined among us, that what the sight works in our eyes to seeing of the light, what the hearing works in our ears to the perceiving of a voice, the same is the work of the Holy Spirit in our hearts, both to the conceiving, and sustaining, and cherishing and establishing of faith: then both these things do likewise follow: that the sacraments do nothing at all profit without the power of the Holy Spirit: and that nothing withstands but that in hearts already taught of that schoolmaster, they may make faith both stronger and more increased. Only this difference there is, that the power of hearing and seeing is naturally set in our ears and eyes: but Christ besides the measure of nature does by special grace work the same in our minds.

Whereby those objections also, which trouble some men, are dissolved: that if we ascribe to creatures either the increase or confirmation of faith, there is wrong done to the Spirit of God, whom we ought to acknowledge the only author thereof. For neither do we in the mean time take from him the praise either of confirming or increasing it: but rather we affirm, that even this that he increases and confirms faith, is nothing else but with his inward enlightening to prepare our minds to receive that confirming which is set forth by the sacraments. But if it be yet too darkly spoken, it shall be made very clear by a similitude which I will bring. If you purpose with words to persuade a man to do anything, you will search out all the reasons, whereby he may be drawn to your opinion, and may be in a manner subdued to obey your counsel. But you have hitherto nothing prevailed, unless he likewise have a piercing and sharp judgment, whereby he may weigh what weight is in your reasons: unless also he have a tractable wit and ready to hearken to teaching: finally, unless he have conceived such an opinion of your faithfulness and wisdom, as may be to him like a certain forejudgment to cause him to subscribe. For both there are many stubborn heads, which a man can never bow with any reasons: and also where credit is suspected, where authority is despised, little good is done even with the willing to learn. On the other side, let all those things be present, they will truly bring to pass that the hearer, to whom you give counsel, will obey the self same counsels which otherwise he would have laughed to scorn. The same work also the Spirit works in us. For lest the word should beat our ears in vain, lest the sacraments should strike our eyes in vain, he shows us that it is God which speaks therein, he softens the stubbornness of our heart, and frames it to the obedience which is due to the word of the Lord. Finally he conveys those outward words and sacraments from the ears into the soul. Therefore both the word and the sacraments do confirm our faith, when they set before our eyes the good will of the heavenly Father toward us, by knowledge of whom both the whole steadfastness of our faith stands fast, and the strength of it increases: the Spirit confirms it, when in engraving the same confirmation in our minds he makes it effectual. In the mean time the Father of lights cannot be forbidden, but as he enlightens the bodily eyes with the beams of the sun, so he may enlighten our minds with sacraments, as with a brightness set as a means between.

This property the Lord taught was in his outward word, when in the parable he called it seed. For as seed, if it falls upon a desert and untilled piece of ground, will do nothing but die: but if it is thrown upon arable land well manured and tilled, it will bring forth its fruit with very good increase: so the word of God, if it lights upon a stiff neck, it will grow barren as that which is sown upon sand: but if it lights upon a soul manured with the hand of the heavenly Spirit, it will be most fruitful. But if there is like reason of seed and of the word: as we say that out of seed corn both springs and increases, and grows up to ripeness: why may we not say that faith takes out of the word of God both beginning, increase, and perfection? Paul very well expresses both these things in sundry places. For when he goes about to put the Corinthians in remembrance how effectually God used his labor, he glories that he has the ministry of the Spirit, as though the power of the Holy Spirit were with an inseparable knot joined with his preaching, to enlighten and thoroughly move the mind. But in another place when he minds to admonish them, of what force the word of God is of itself being preached by man, he compares the ministers themselves to husbandmen, which when they have bestowed their labor and toil in tilling the earth, have no more to do. But what should tilling, and sowing, and watering profit, unless that which is sown should receive liveliness by heavenly benefit? Therefore he concludes, that both he that plants and he that waters are nothing: but that all things are to be ascribed to God, which alone gives the increase. Therefore the apostles do in their preaching utter the power of the Spirit, so far as God uses the instruments ordained by himself to the setting forth of his spiritual grace. Yet we must keep still that distinction, that we remember, what man is able to do by himself, and what is proper to God.

Sacraments are so confirmations of our faith, that many times when the Lord means to take away the confidence of the very things that are by him promised in the Sacraments, he takes away the sacraments themselves. When he despoils and thrusts away Adam from the gift of immortality, he says: Let him not eat of the fruit of life, lest he live forever. What says he? Could that fruit restore to Adam his incorruption, from which he was now fallen? No. But this is all one as if he had said: Lest he should enjoy a vain confidence if he keeps still the sign of my promise, let that be shaken away from him which might bring him some hope of immortality. After this manner when the apostle exhorts the Ephesians to remember that they were foreign guests of the testaments, strangers from the fellowship of Israel, without God, without Christ, he says, that they were not partakers of Circumcision. Whereby he does (by figure of transnomination) signify that they were excluded from the promise itself, which had not received the sign of the promise. To their other objection, that the glory of God is conveyed to creatures, to whom so much power is ascribed, and that thereby it is so far diminished, we have in readiness to answer that we set no power in creatures. Only this we say, that God uses means and instruments, which he himself sees to be expedient: that all things may serve his glory, inasmuch as he is Lord and judge of all. Therefore as by bread and other nourishments he feeds our body: as by the sun he enlightens the world: as by fire he warms: yet neither bread, nor the sun, nor fire, are anything but so far as by those instruments he does distribute his blessings to us: so spiritually he nourishes faith by the Sacraments, whose only office is to set his promises before our eyes to be looked upon, indeed to be pledges to us of them. And as it is our duty to fasten none of our confidence in other creatures, which by the liberality and bountifulness of God are ordained to our uses, and by the ministry by which he gives us his gifts, nor to have them in admiration and praise them as causes of our good: so neither ought our confidence to stick fast in the Sacraments, nor the glory of God to be removed to them: but leaving all things, both our faith and confession ought to rise up to him the author both of the sacraments and of all things.

Whereas some bring an argument out of the very name of a Sacrament, it is nothing strong. A Sacrament (say they) whereas it has among allowed authors many significations, yet it has but one which agrees with the signs: that is, whereby it signifies that solemn oath which the soldier makes to his captain when he enters into profession of a soldier. For as by that oath of warfare new soldiers do bind their faith to the captain, and profess to be his soldiers: so by our signs we profess Christ our captain, and do testify that we serve under his banner. They add similitudes to make thereby the matter more plain. As a gown made the Romans severally known from the Greeks which did wear cloaks: as the very degrees of men at Rome were discerned by their several signs: the degree of Senators from the degree of knights, by purple coat and picked shoes: again a knight from a commoner, by a ring: so we bear our signs that may make us severally known from profane men. But by the things above said it is evident enough that the old writers, which gave to the signs the name of Sacraments, had no regard how this word was used among Latin writers, but for their own purpose feigned this new signification, whereby they signified only holy signs. But if we will search the matter more deeply, it may seem that they have with the same relation applied this word to such a signification, wherewith they have removed the name of Faith to that sense wherein it is now used. For whereas Faith is a truth in performing promises: yet they have called Faith an assuredness, or sure persuasion which is had of the truth itself. Likewise whereas a Sacrament is the soldier's part whereby he vows himself to his captain: they have made it the captain's part, whereby he receives soldiers into rooms of service. For by the Sacrament the Lord does promise that he will be our God, and that we shall be his people. But we pass over such subtleties: forasmuch as I think I have proved with arguments plain enough, that they had respect to nothing else but to signify that these are signs of holy and spiritual things. We receive indeed the similitudes which they bring of outward tokens: but we do not allow that that which is the last point in the Sacraments, is by them set forth as the chief, yes and only thing. But this is the first point, that they should serve our Faith before God: the later point that they should testify our confession before men. According to this later consideration those similitudes have place. But in the mean time let that first point remain: because otherwise (as we have already proved) the mysteries should be but cold, unless they were helps to our faith, and additions to doctrine ordained to the same use and end.

Again we must be warned, that as these men do weaken the force, and utterly overthrow the use of Sacraments: so on the contrary side there be some, which feign to Sacraments, I do not know what secret virtues, which are nowhere read to be put in them by God. By which error the simple and unskillful are dangerously deceived, while they are both taught to seek the gifts of God where they cannot be found, and are by little and little drawn away from God, to embrace mere vanity in stead of his verity. For the Sophistical schools have taught with great consent, that the Sacraments of the new law, that is to say those which are now in use in the Christian Church, do justify and give grace, so that we do not lay a stop of deadly sin. It cannot be expressed how pernicious and pestilent this opinion is, and so much the more, because in many ages heretofore, to the great loss of the Church it has prevailed in a great part of the world: Truly it is utterly devilish. For when it promises righteousness without Faith, it drives souls headlong into destruction: then because it fetches the cause of righteousness from the Sacraments, it binds the miserable minds of men already of their own accord too much bending to the earth, with this superstition that they rather rest in the sight of a bodily thing than of God himself. Which two things I would to God we had not so proved in experience, so little need they any long proof. But what is a Sacrament taken without Faith, but the most certain destruction of the Church? For whereas nothing is to be looked for thereof without the promise, and the promise does no less threaten wrath to the unfaithful, than it offers grace to the faithful: he is deceived that thinks that there is any more given to him by the Sacraments, than that which being offered by the word of God, he receives by Faith. Whereupon another thing also is gathered, that the confidence of salvation hangs not upon the partaking of the Sacrament, as though Justification consisted therein: which we know to be reposed in Christ only, and to be communicated to us no less by the preaching of the Gospel, than by the sealing of the Sacrament: and that without that it cannot wholly stand. So true is that which Augustine also writes, that invisible sanctification may be without a visible sign, and again that a visible sign may be without true sanctification. For (as he also writes in another place,) men do put on Christ sometimes until the receiving of a sacrament, sometimes even until the sanctification of life. And that first point may be common both to good and to evil: but this other is proper to the good and godly.

From this comes that distinction — if it be well understood — which the same Augustine has often noted, between a Sacrament and the thing of the Sacrament. For it not only signifies that the figure and truth are there contained, but that they do not so hang together but that they may be severed: and that even in the very conjoining, the thing must always be discerned from the sign, that we give not to the one that which belongs to the other. He speaks of the separation when he writes that the Sacraments work in the only elect that which they figure. Again, when he writes thus of the Jews: When the Sacraments were common to all, the [reconstructed: grace] was not common, which is the power of the Sacraments. [reconstructed: So now] also the washing of regeneration is common to all: but the grace itself, whereby the members of Christ are regenerate with their head, is not common to all. Again in another place of the Supper of the Lord: We also at this day receive visible food. But the Sacrament is one thing, and the power of the Sacrament another thing. What is this, that many receive of the altar and die, and in receiving do die? For the Lord's morsel was poison to Judas: not because he received an evil thing, but because he being evil received a good thing evilly. A little after: The sacrament of this thing, that is of the unity of the body and blood of Christ, is somewhere prepared on the Lord's table daily, somewhere by certain distances of days: and thereof is received to life to some, and to destruction to some. But the thing itself whereof it is a Sacrament, is received to life to all men, but to destruction [reconstructed: to no man], whoever is partaker of it. And a little before he had said: He shall not die who eats; but he who pertains to the power of the sacrament, not to the visible Sacrament: who eats within, not without: who eats with heart, not he who presses with tooth. Thus you hear everywhere that a Sacrament is so severed from its own truth by the unworthiness of the receiver, that there remains nothing but a vain and unprofitable figure. But that you may have not a sign void of truth, but the thing with the sign, you must conceive by faith the word which is there enclosed. So how much you shall by the Sacraments profit in communicating of Christ, so much profit shall you take of them.

If this be somewhat dark because of the shortness, I will set it out in more words. I say that Christ is the matter, or (if you will) the substance of all sacraments: forasmuch as in him they have all their perfection, and do promise nothing without him. So much less tolerable is the error of Peter Lombard, which does expressly make them causes of righteousness and salvation, of which they are parts. Therefore, bidding all causes farewell which man's wit does feign to itself, we ought to stay in this one cause. Therefore how much we are by their ministry helped to the nourishing, confirming, and increasing of the true knowledge of Christ in us, and to the possessing of him more fully, and to the enjoying of his riches, so much effectiveness they have with us. But that is done when we do with true faith receive that which is there offered. Do the wicked then (will you say) bring to pass by their unthankfulness that the ordinance of God be void and turn to nothing? I answer that that which I have said is not so to be taken, as though the force and truth of the Sacrament did hang upon the state or will of him that receives it. For that which God has ordained remains steadfast and keeps still his nature, however men do vary. But since it is one thing to offer, another to receive: nothing withstands but that the sign hallowed by the word of God may be in deed that which it is called, and keep his own force: and yet that there come thereby no profit to an evildoer and wicked man. But Augustine does in few words well resolve this question. If (says he) you receive carnally, it ceases not to be spiritual: but it is not to you. But as Augustine has in the aforesaid places shown that a Sacrament is a thing nothing worth, if it be severed from the truth thereof: so in another place he gives warning that even in the very conjoining there needs a distinction, lest we stick too much in the outward sign. As (says he) to follow the letter, and to take the signs in place of the things, is a point of a servile weakness: so to expound the signs unprofitably is a point of evil wandering error. He names two faults which are here to be avoided: The one when we so take the signs as though they were given in vain, and when with abasing or diminishing their secret significations by our enviousness, we bring to pass that they bring us no profit at all. The other, when in not raising our minds beyond the visible sign, we give away to the Sacrament the praise of all those good things which are not given us but of Christ only, and that by the Holy Ghost, which makes us partakers of Christ himself: and indeed by the help of the outward signs: which if they allure us to Christ, when they are wrested another way, the whole profit of them is unworthily overthrown.

Therefore let this remain certain, that there is no other office of the sacraments than that of the word of God: which is to offer and set forth Christ to us, and in him the treasures of heavenly grace: but they avail or profit nothing, unless being received by faith: even as wine, or oil, or any other liquor, though you pour it on largely, yet it will run beside and perish unless the vessel's mouth be open to receive it, and the vessel though it be wet round about on the outside, shall nevertheless remain empty and void within. Besides this we must beware, lest those things which have been written by the old writers somewhat too gloriously to amplify the dignity of sacraments, should lead us away into an error near to this: namely that we should think that there is some secret power knit and fastened to the sacraments, that they may of themselves give us the graces of the Holy Spirit, like as wine is given in a cup: whereas only this office is appointed to them by God, to testify and establish to us the goodwill of God toward us, and do profit no further unless the Holy Spirit join himself to them, which may open our minds and hearts, and make us partakers of this testimony, wherein also do clearly appear diverse and several graces of God. For the sacraments, as we have above touched, are that thing to us of God, which to men are messengers of joyful things, or earnests in establishing of bargains: which do not of themselves give any grace, but do tell and show us, and (as they be earnests and tokens,) do ratify to us those things that are given us by the liberality of God. The Holy Spirit (whom the sacraments do not in common without difference bring to all men, but whom the Lord peculiarly gives to them that be his) is he that brings the graces of God with him, which gives to the sacraments place in us, which makes them to bring forth fruit. But although we do not deny that God himself with the most present power of his Spirit is present with his own institution, lest the ministry which he has ordained of the sacraments should be fruitless and vain: yet we affirm that the inward grace of the Spirit, as it is severed from the outward ministry, so ought to be severally weighed and considered. God therefore truly performs in deed whatever he promises and figures in signs: neither do the signs want their effect, that the author of them may be proved true and faithful. The question here is only whether God works by his own and by inward power (as they call it) or does resign his office to outward signs. But we affirm, that whatever instruments he uses, his original working is nothing hindered thereby. When this is taught concerning the sacraments, both their dignity is honorably set out, and their use is plainly shown, and their profitableness is abundantly reported, and the best means in all these things is retained, that neither any thing be given to them which ought not, nor again any thing be taken from them which is not convenient to be taken from them. In the meantime that feigned device is taken away, whereby the cause of justification and power of the Holy Spirit is enclosed in elements as in vessels or wagons: and that principal force which has been omitted by others is expressly set out. Here also it is to be noted, that God inwardly works that which the minister figures and testifies by outward doing: lest that be drawn to a mortal man, which God claims to himself alone. The same thing also does Augustine wisely touch. How (says he) does both Moses sanctify, and God? Not Moses for God: but Moses with visible sacraments by his ministry, but God with invisible grace by his Holy Spirit: where also is the whole fruit of visible sacraments. For without this sanctification of invisible grace, what do those visible sacraments profit?

The name of Sacrament, as we have hitherto treated of the nature of it, does generally contain all the signs that ever God gave to men, to certify and assure them of the truth of his promises. Those he sometimes willed to remain in natural things, sometimes he delivered them in miracles. Of the first kind these be examples, as when he gave to Adam and Eve, the tree of life for an earnest of immortality, that they might assure themselves of it, so long as they did eat of the fruit thereof. And when he did set the heavenly bow for a monument to Noah and his posterity, that he would no more from thenceforth destroy the earth with overflowing of water. These Adam and Noah had for Sacraments. Not that the tree did give them immortality, which it could not give to itself: nor that the bow (which is but a striking back of a sunbeam upon the clouds against it) was of force to hold in the waters: but because they had a mark graven in them by the word of God, that they should be examples and seals of his testaments. And the tree was a tree before, and the bow a bow. When they were written upon with the word of God, then a new form was put into them, that they should begin to be that which they were not before. That no man should think these things spoken without cause, the bow itself is at this day also a witness of that covenant, which God made with Noah: which bow so often as we behold, we read this promise of God written in it, that the earth shall never be destroyed with overflowing of waters. Therefore if any foolish philosopher, to scorn the simplicity of our faith, does affirm that such variety of colors does naturally arise of reflected beams and a cloud set against them: let us grant it indeed, but let us laugh to scorn his senseless folly, which does not acknowledge God the Lord and governor of nature: which at his own will uses all the elements to the service of his own glory. If he had imprinted such tokens in the sun, the stars, the earth, stones, and such like, they should all have been Sacraments to us. Why are not uncoined and coined silver both of one value, since they are both one metal? Even because the one has nothing but nature: when it is struck with a common mark, it is made money, and receives a new valuation. And shall not God be able to mark his creatures with his word, that they may be made Sacraments, which before were naked elements? Of the second kind these were examples, when he showed to Abraham a light in a smoking oven: when he watered the fleece with dew, the earth remaining dry: again he watered the earth, the fleece being untouched, to promise victory to Gideon: when he drew the shadow of the dial 9 lines backward, to promise safety to Hezekiah. These things, when they were done to relieve and establish the weakness of their faith, were then also Sacraments.

But our present purpose is, to discourse particularly of those Sacraments, which the Lord willed to be ordinary in his Church, to nourish his worshippers and servants into one faith and the confession of one faith. For (to use the words of Augustine) men can be congealed together into no name of religion either true or false, unless they be bound together with some fellowship of visible signs and Sacraments. Since therefore the most good Father foresaw this necessity, he did from the beginning ordain certain exercises of godliness for his servants, which afterward Satan, by turning them to wicked and superstitious worshippings, has many ways depraved and corrupted. Hereupon came those solemn professions of the Gentiles into their holy orders, and other bastard usages: which although they were full of error and superstition, yet they also were therewith a proof that men could not in profession of religion be without such outward signs. But because they neither were grounded upon the word of God, nor were referred to that truth to which all signs ought to be directed, they are unworthy to be rehearsed where mention is made of the holy signs which are ordained of God and have not swerved from their foundation, that is, that they should be helps of true godliness. They consist not of bare signs, as were the bow and the tree, but upon Ceremonies: or rather the signs that be here given are Ceremonies. But as it is above said, that they be on the Lord's behalf testimonies of grace and salvation: so they be again on our behalf marks of profession, by which we openly swear to the name of God, for our parts binding our faith to him. Therefore Chrysostom in one place fitly calls them covenantings whereby God binds himself in league with us, and we be bound to purity and holiness of life, because here is made a mutual form of covenanting between God and us. For as the Lord therein promises that he will cancel and blot out whatever guiltiness and penalty we have gathered by offending, and does reconcile us to himself in his only begotten Son: so we again on our behalf do by this profession bind ourselves to him to the following of godliness and innocence: so that a man may rightly say that such Sacraments are Ceremonies, by which God will exercise his people first to the nourishing, stirring up, and strengthening of faith inwardly, then to the testifying of religion before men.

And even these Sacraments also were diverse, after the diverse order of time, according to the distribution whereby it pleased the Lord to show himself after this or that manner to men. For to Abraham and his posterity Circumcision was commanded: to which afterward purifications, and Sacrifices, and other Ceremonies were added out of the law of Moses. These were the Sacraments of the Jews until the coming of Christ: at which coming, those being abrogated, two Sacraments were ordained, which now the Christian Church uses, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord. I speak of those that were ordained for the use of the whole Church. For as for the laying on of hands, whereby the ministers of the Church are entered into their office, as I do not unwillingly allow it to be called a Sacrament, so I do not reckon it among the ordinary Sacraments. As for the rest which are commonly called Sacraments, what they are to be accounted, we shall see by and by. However the old Sacraments also had respect to the same mark, to which ours tend, that is to direct and in a manner lead by the hand to Christ: or rather as images to represent him, and show him forth to be known. For whereas we have already taught, that they are certain seals with which the promises of God are sealed: and where it is most certain, that there was never offered any promise of God to men but in Christ: that they may teach us of some promise of God, they must needs show Christ. To which pertains that heavenly pattern of the tabernacle and of the worship in the law, which was given to Moses in the mount. One only difference there is, that those did shadow out Christ being promised, when he was yet looked for: these do testify him already given and delivered.

When these things shall all be particularly and each one severally declared, they shall be made much plainer. Circumcision was to the Jews a sign, whereby they were put in mind, that whatever comes of the seed of man, that is to say the whole nature of man, is corrupt, and has need of pruning. Moreover it was a teaching, and token of remembrance, whereby they should confirm themselves in the promise given to Abraham, concerning that blessed seed in whom all the nations of the earth were to be blessed, from whom they had their own blessing to be looked for. Now that healthful seed (as we are taught of Paul) was Christ, in whom alone they hoped that they should recover that which they had lost in Adam. Therefore Circumcision was to them the same thing which Paul says that it was to Abraham, namely the seal of the righteousness of Faith: that is to say, the seal whereby they should be more certainly assured, that their Faith, with which they looked for that seed, should be accounted to them of God for righteousness. But we shall upon a better occasion in another place go through with the comparison of Circumcision and Baptism. Baptisms and purifications did set before their eyes their own uncleanness, filthiness and pollution, with which they were defiled in their own nature: but they promised another washing, whereby all their filthiness should be wiped and washed away. And this washing was Christ, with whose blood we being washed do bring his cleanness into the sight of God, that it may hide all our defilings. Their Sacrifices did accuse them of their own wickedness, and therewith did teach, that it was necessary that there should be some satisfaction which should be paid to the judgment of God. That therefore there should be some one chief Bishop, a mediator between God and men, which should satisfy God by shedding of blood, and by offering of a Sacrifice which should suffice for the forgiveness of sins. This chief Priest was Christ: he himself shed his own blood: he himself was the Sacrifice: for he offered himself obedient to his Father to death: by which obedience he took away the disobedience of man, which had provoked the displeasure of God.

As for our Sacraments, they do so much more clearly present Christ to us, as he was more nearly shown to men, since he has been truly delivered of his Father such as he had been promised. For Baptism does testify to us that we are cleansed and washed: the Supper of thanksgiving testifies that we be redeemed. In water, is figured washing: in blood, satisfaction. These two things are found in Christ which (as John says) came in water and blood, that is to say that he might cleanse and redeem. Of which thing the Spirit of God also is a witness. Indeed there are three witnesses in one, Water, Blood, and Spirit. In water and blood we have a testimony of cleansing and redeeming: but the Spirit the principal witness brings to us assured credit of such witnessing. This high mystery has notably well been shown us in the cross of Christ, when water and blood flowed out of his holy side: which side for that cause Augustine rightfully called the fountain of our Sacraments: of which yet we must discuss somewhat more at large. There is no doubt but that more plentiful grace also of the Spirit does here show forth itself if you compare time with time. For that pertains to the glory of the kingdom of Christ, as we gather out of many places, but specially out of the Chapter 7 of John. In which sense we must take that saying of Paul, that under the law were shadows, but in Christ is the body. Neither is it his meaning to spoil of their effect the testimonies of grace, in which God's will was in the old time to prove himself to the Fathers a true speaker, even as at this day he does to us in Baptism and in the holy Supper. But only his purpose was by way of comparison to magnify that which was given us, lest any should think it marvelous, that the ceremonies of the law were abolished by the coming of Christ.

But that same school doctrine (as I may also briefly touch this by the way) is utterly to be hissed out, whereby there is noted so great a difference between the Sacraments of the old and new law, as though those did nothing but shadow out the grace of God, and these do presently give it. For the Apostle speaks no less honorably of those than of these, when he teaches that the Fathers did eat the same spiritual meat which we eat, and expounds that same meat to be Christ. Who dare make that an empty sign, which delivered to the Jews a true communion of Christ? And the ground of the cause which the Apostle there handles, does plainly fight on our side. For, that no man trusting upon a cold knowledge of Christ, and empty title of Christianity, and outward tokens, should presume to despise the judgment of God: he shows forth examples of God's severity to be seen in the Jews: that we should know that the same pains which they have suffered, hang over us, if we follow the same faults. Now that the comparison might be fit, it was necessary that he should show that there is no inequality between us and them in those good things of which he did forbid us to boast falsely. Therefore first he makes us equal in the Sacraments, and leaves to us not so much as any small piece of prerogative, that might encourage us to hope of escaping unpunished. Neither verily is it lawful to give any more to our Baptism, than he in another place gives to circumcision, when he calls it the seal of the righteousness of Faith. Whatever therefore is at this day given us in our Sacraments, the same thing the Jews in old time received in theirs, that is to say Christ with his spiritual riches. What power our Sacraments have, the same they also felt in theirs: that is to say, that they were to them seals of God's good will toward them, into the hope of eternal salvation. If they had been apt expositors of the Epistle to the Hebrews, they would not have so been blinded. But when they read there, that sins were not cleansed by the ceremonies of the law, indeed that the old shadows had no availing force to righteousness: they neglecting the comparison which is there handled, while they took hold of this one thing, that the law of itself nothing profited the followers of it, thought simply that the figures were void of truth. But the Apostle's meaning is to bring the ceremonial law to nothing, until it come to Christ, upon whom alone hangs all the effectualness of it.

But they will object those things which are read in Paul concerning the circumcision of the letter, that it is in no estimation with God, that it gives nothing, that it is vain. For such sayings seem to press it down far beneath Baptism. Not so. For the very same might rightfully be said of Baptism. Indeed the same is said, first of Paul himself, where he shows that God regards not the outward washing whereby we enter into profession of religion, unless the mind within be both cleansed and continue in cleanness to the end: again of Peter, when he testifies that the truth of Baptism stands not in the outward washing, but in a good witnessing of conscience. But he seems also in another place utterly to despise the circumcision made with hand, when he compares it with the circumcision of Christ. I answer that even in this place nothing is abated of the dignity of it. Paul there disputes against them, which required it as necessary when it was now abrogated. Therefore he warns the faithful, that leaving the old shadows they should stand fast in the truth. These masters (says he) instantly call upon you, that your bodies may be circumcised. But you are spiritually circumcised according to the soul and body. You have therefore the deliverance of the thing in deed, which is much better than the shadow. A man might take exception to the contrary and say, that the figure is not therefore to be despised because they had the thing in deed: forasmuch as that putting off of the old man of which he there spoke, was also among the Fathers, to whom yet outward circumcision had not been superfluous. He prevents this objection, when he by and by adds, that the Colossians were buried with Christ by Baptism. Whereby he signifies that at this day Baptism is the same to Christians, which circumcision was to the old people: and therefore that circumcision cannot be enjoined to Christians without wrong done to Christ.

But that which follows and which I even now alleged, is harder to resolve, that all the Jewish ceremonies were shadows of things to come, and that in Christ is the body: but most hard of all is that which is treated in many chapters of the Epistle to the Hebrews, that the blood of beasts attained not to consciences: that the law had a shadow of good things to come, not an image of things: that the followers of it obtained no perfection of the ceremonies of Moses: and such other. I go back to that which I have already touched, that Paul does not therefore make the ceremonies shadowy, because they had no sound thing in them: but because the fulfilling of them was after a certain manner hung in suspense until the delivering of Christ. Again I say that this is to be understood not of the effectiveness, but rather of the manner of signifying. For until Christ was manifestly showed in the flesh, all the signs did shadow him out as absent, however he did inwardly utter to the faithful the presence of his power and of himself. But this we ought chiefly to mark, that in all those places Paul does not speak simply, but by way of contention. Because he strove with the false Apostles, which would have godliness to consist in the ceremonies only without any respect of Christ: to confute them, it sufficed only to treat, of what value ceremonies are by themselves. This mark also the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews followed. Let us therefore remember that here is disputed of ceremonies, not as they be taken in their own and natural signification, but as they be wrested to a false and wrongful exposition: not of the lawful use of them, but of the abuse of superstition. What marvel is it therefore if ceremonies being severed from Christ, are unclothed of all force? For all signs whatever they be, are brought to nothing, when the thing signified is taken away. So when Christ had to do with them which thought that manna was nothing else but meat for the belly, he applies his speech to their gross opinion, and says that he ministers better meat, which may feed souls to hope of immortality. But if you require a plainer solution, the sum of all tends to this: First, that all that furniture of ceremonies, which was in the law of Moses, is a vanishing thing and of no value, unless it be directed to Christ. Secondly, that they so had respect to Christ, that when he at length was manifestly showed in the flesh, they had their fulfilling. Finally, that it behoved that they should be taken away by his coming, even as a shadow vanishes away in the clear light of the sun. But because I do yet defer longer discourse of that matter to that place where I have purposed to compare Baptism with circumcision, therefore I do now more sparingly touch it.

Perhaps also those immeasurable praises of the Sacraments, which are read in the old writers concerning our signs, deceived those miserable Sophisters. As this of Augustine: That the Sacraments of the old law did only promise the Savior, but ours do give salvation. When they marked not that these and such other forms of speaking were spoken: they also published their excessive doctrines, but in a clean contrary sense from the writing of the old Fathers. For Augustine meant no other thing in that place, than as the same Augustine writes in another place, That the Sacraments of the law of Moses did foretell of Christ, but ours do tell of him present. And against Faustus: That those were promises of things to be fulfilled, these were tokens of things fulfilled: as if he should say, that those figured him when he was looked for, but ours do as it were show him present which has been already delivered. Moreover he speaks of the manner of signifying, as also he shows in another place. The law (says he) and the Prophets had Sacraments, foretelling of a thing to come: but the Sacraments of our time do testify that that is already come, which those did declare to be to come. But what he thought of the thing and effectiveness, he expounds in many places: as when he says, that the Sacraments of the Jews were in signs, diverse: but in the thing signified, equal with ours: diverse in visible form, but equal in spiritual power. Again: In diverse signs is all one faith: so in diverse signs, as in diverse words: because words change their sounds by times: and truly words are nothing but signs. The Fathers did drink the same spiritual drink, for they drank not the same bodily drink. See therefore, faith remaining one, the signs varied. To them the rock was Christ: to us that is Christ which is set upon the altar. And they drank for a great Sacrament, the water flowing out of the rock: what we drink, the faithful know. If you consider the visible form, they drank another thing: if an understandable signification, they drank the same spiritual drink. In another place, in the mystery the same is their meat and drink which is ours: but the same in signification, not in form: because the very same Christ was figured to them in the rock, and showed to us in the flesh. Howbeit in this behalf also we grant that there is some difference. For both Sacraments do testify that the fatherly good will of God and the graces of the Holy Spirit are offered us in Christ: but our Sacraments testify it more clearly and brightly. In both is a delivering of Christ: but in these more plenteous and fuller, namely as that difference of the old and new Testament bears, of which we have treated before. And this is it that the same Augustine meant (whom we more often allege as the best and most faithful witness of all the old writers) where he teaches, that when Christ was revealed, Sacraments were ordained both in number fewer, in signification higher, in force more excellent. Of this thing also it is expedient that the readers be briefly warned, that whatever the Sophisters have triflingly taught concerning the work wrought, is not only false, but disagrees with the nature of the Sacraments, which God has ordained, that the faithful being void and needy of all good things should bring nothing there but beggary. Therefore it follows that in receiving them, these men do nothing whereby they may deserve praise: or that in this doing (which in their respect is merely passive) no work can be ascribed to them.

Alongside the preaching of the Gospel, there is another aid of the same kind: the sacraments. A clear teaching about them is very necessary for us, so that we may learn both the purpose for which they were ordained and how they are to be used. First, we should consider what a sacrament is. It seems to me that this will be a plain and fitting definition: a sacrament is an outward sign by which the Lord seals to our consciences the promises of His goodwill toward us, to sustain the weakness of our faith — while we in turn testify our godliness toward Him, before Him and the angels and before other people. We can also define it more briefly: a testimony of God's favor toward us, confirmed by an outward sign, accompanied by our own mutual testimony of godliness toward Him. Whichever of these definitions you prefer, neither differs in meaning from Augustine's definition — that a sacrament is a visible sign of a sacred thing, or a visible form of invisible grace. But our definition expresses the matter better and more precisely. The brevity of Augustine's definition leaves some obscurity by which many less experienced readers are misled, and so I thought it better to state the matter more fully so that no doubt remains.

It is not hard to see why ancient writers used the word 'sacrament' in this way. Whenever the old Latin translator rendered the Greek word mysterion — that is, mystery — especially in discussing divine matters, he translated it sacramentum. So in Ephesians: 'That He might make known to us the mystery of His will' (Ephesians 1:9; 3:2). Again: 'If you have indeed heard of the administration of God's grace that was given to me for you, that by revelation the mystery was made known to me.' To the Colossians: 'The mystery that has been hidden from ages and generations but has now been revealed to His saints, to whom God chose to make known the riches of this mystery' (Colossians 1:26; 1 Timothy 3:16). Again to Timothy: 'Great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh.' He chose not to say 'secret,' lest the word seem too small for so great a subject. He therefore used 'mystery' in place of 'secret' — but a holy secret. The word is found in this sense among the ecclesiastical writers as well. It is well known that what is called a sacrament in Latin is called a mystery in Greek — and this equivalence of two words for one thing settles all dispute. From this it came about that the word was applied to those signs that make a reverent representation of high and spiritual things. Augustine also notes this in one place: 'It would take too long,' he says, 'to discuss the diversity of signs, which when they pertain to divine things are called sacraments.'

From the definition we have set out, we understand that a sacrament never exists without a preceding promise — rather, it is joined to the promise as a kind of supplement, designed to confirm and seal the promise itself and make it more fully ratified in our experience. The Lord foresaw this need because of our ignorance and weakness — though to speak precisely, He intended it not so much to confirm His holy word as to establish us in faith in it. For God's truth is in itself sound and certain enough, and cannot receive better confirmation from any other source than from itself. But our faith, being small and weak, unless it is supported on every side and upheld by every means, is quickly shaken, wavers, staggers, and even collapses. And here the merciful Lord, in His great tenderness, accommodates Himself to our capacity: since we are by nature earthly creatures, always clinging to the ground and stuck in the flesh — unable to conceive of anything spiritual — He is pleased to guide us to Himself through earthly elements, and to present a mirror of spiritual gifts in the very things of the flesh. For if we had no bodies, says Chrysostom, He would have given us these things in their naked spiritual form. But since our souls are placed within bodies, He gives us spiritual things under visible ones. This is not because such gifts are inherent in the natural properties of the things used in the sacraments — but because God has appointed those things as signs pointing to the gifts.

This is what is commonly said: that a sacrament consists of the word and the outward sign. But we must understand 'the word' to mean not something whispered without meaning or faith — as if a magical incantation had power to consecrate the element by sound alone — but something preached so that it enables people to understand what the visible sign means. What was typically done under papal tyranny was therefore a profound profaning of the mysteries. It was thought sufficient if the priest mumbled the words of consecration while the people stood gazing in bewilderment without understanding anything. In fact, they deliberately ensured that no part of the teaching would reach the people — everything was spoken in Latin before those who had no knowledge of it. Superstition then went so far that they believed the consecration was not properly performed unless done in a barely audible hoarse whisper that only a few could hear. But Augustine teaches something very different about the sacramental word. 'Let the word be added to the element,' he says, 'and a sacrament is made. For whence comes this great power in the water, to touch the body and wash the soul, but through the word? Not because it is spoken, but because it is believed. For in the word itself, the passing sound is one thing and the abiding power is another.' 'This is the word of faith which we preach,' says the apostle (Romans 10:8). And so in Acts it is said, 'He cleansed their hearts by faith' (Acts 15:9). And Peter the apostle says: 'Baptism now saves you — not the removal of dirt from the body, but the pledge of a good conscience toward God' (1 Peter 3:21). 'This is the word of faith which we preach — by which, without doubt, baptism is also sanctified so that it may cleanse.' You see that Augustine requires preaching so that faith may arise from it. We need not labor much to prove this, since it is plain what Christ did, what He commanded, what the apostles followed, and what the purer church observed. From the very beginning it has been evident that whenever God offered any sign to the holy fathers, it was joined by an inseparable bond to teaching — without which our senses would be left bewildered by a bare outward spectacle. Therefore when we hear mention of the sacramental word, let us understand it as the promise — proclaimed aloud by the minister — which may lead the people by the hand to wherever the sign points and directs us.

Nor should we listen to those who attempt to combat this with a double-pronged argument that is clever but unsound. They say: either we know, or we do not know, that the word of God preceding the sacrament is the true will of God. If we know it, we learn nothing new from the sacrament that follows. If we do not know it, neither will the sacrament teach it, since all its force rests in the word. The brief answer is this: the seals attached to patents and other public documents are in themselves nothing — they would be useless if there were nothing written on the parchment. Yet when added to written documents, they do confirm and ratify what is written. Nor can they say that this analogy was invented by us recently — Paul himself used it, calling circumcision a seal, precisely in the course of arguing that circumcision did not establish righteousness for Abraham but was a seal of the covenant through faith by which he had already been justified (Romans 4:11). And what, I ask, should trouble anyone in our teaching that the promise is sealed by the sacraments, when it is plain that even promises themselves confirm one another? For the clearer a promise is, the better it sustains faith. The sacraments bring the clearest of promises, and they have this distinct advantage over the word alone: they vividly picture the promises before us as if painted on a panel. Nor should we be troubled by the objection sometimes raised — the distinction between sacraments and seals on legal documents: that while both use physical elements of this world, the former cannot adequately seal the promises of God, which are spiritual and eternal, as the latter are attached to seal princes' grants concerning passing and fragile things. For a faithful person, when the sacraments are before his eyes, does not remain fixed on the outward physical sight — through those graduated steps of proportion I have described, he rises with spiritual understanding to the high mysteries hidden in the sacraments.

And since the Lord calls His promises 'covenants' and His sacraments 'seals of covenants,' an analogy may rightly be drawn from human covenants. What can the killing of a sow accomplish if no words precede it? For sows are killed all the time without any deeper mystery. What does the joining of right hands accomplish, when hands are often joined in enmity? But when words have gone before, such signs seal the terms of agreements — even though those agreements were first conceived, made, and settled in words. Therefore sacraments are exercises that make the trustworthiness of God's word certain to us — and because we are earthly by nature, they are presented through earthly things, to instruct us according to our limited capacity and to lead us by the hand as teachers guide children. For this reason Augustine calls a sacrament a 'visible word,' because it represents the promises of God as if painted on a panel and sets them before our sight in a vivid image. Other comparisons may also be used to illustrate sacraments more clearly — for example, calling them pillars of our faith. For as a building stands on its foundation, yet is made more secure by pillars set beneath it, so faith rests on the word of God as on a foundation, but when sacraments are added, it rests yet more firmly on them as on supporting columns. Or we might call them mirrors in which we may behold the riches of God's grace that He gives us — for as we have said, in them He reveals Himself to us as fully as our limited capacity allows, and testifies His goodwill and love toward us even more expressly than He does through His word alone.

Their argument does not hold when they attempt to prove that sacraments are not testimonies of God's grace on the grounds that they are also given to the wicked — who feel no greater favor from God by receiving them, but only bring more serious condemnation on themselves. By the same reasoning, the Gospel — which is heard and despised by many — would not be a testimony of God's grace; nor would Christ Himself, who was seen and known by many but received by very few. We can see the same in legal documents: a large portion of people mock and scoff at the authentic royal seal, even when they know it comes from the prince to express his will. Others disregard it as something irrelevant to them. Others even detest it. So given this equal parallel, the analogy I used above should become all the more fitting. It is certain, then, that the Lord offers us mercy and a pledge of His grace in both His holy word and in the sacraments — but this is received only by those who receive the word and sacraments with genuine faith. Just as Christ is offered by the Father for the salvation of all, yet is not acknowledged and received by all. Augustine, intending to express the same point, said that the effectiveness of the word is demonstrated in the sacrament — not because it is spoken, but because it is believed. Therefore Paul, when speaking to the faithful, treats of sacraments in a way that includes communion with Christ in them — as when he says: 'All of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.' And again: 'We who were baptized into Christ are all one body and one Spirit.' But when speaking of the wrong use of sacraments, he allows them nothing more than cold and empty signs. By this he indicates that however the wicked and hypocrites, through their perverseness, may suppress, obscure, or obstruct the working of God's grace in the sacraments, this does not prevent those sacraments — wherever and whenever it pleases God — from bearing true testimony to union with Christ, and from the Spirit of God Himself delivering and fulfilling what they promise. We conclude, therefore, that sacraments are rightly called testimonies of God's grace and as it were certain seals of the goodwill He bears toward us — which, by sealing it to us, sustain, nourish, confirm, and increase our faith. The objections some raise against this conclusion are too trivial and weak. They say that if our faith is good, it cannot be made better — for they define faith as that which, without wavering, steadfastly and without withdrawal, rests on the mercy of God. Such people would have done better to pray with the apostles that the Lord would increase their faith, rather than carelessly claiming such a perfection of faith that no child of Adam has ever attained or ever will attain in this life. Let them answer: what kind of faith did the man have who said, 'I believe — help my unbelief'? Even that faith, though it was only a beginning, was genuine faith and could be made better when unbelief was removed. But they are refuted by no more certain argument than their own conscience. For if they admit they are sinners — which they cannot deny whether they want to or not — they must trace that back to the imperfection of their faith.

But they say: Philip told the eunuch that he could be baptized if he believed with all his heart. What room is there for baptism to strengthen faith when faith already fills the whole heart? I ask them in return: do they not feel a good portion of their hearts empty of faith? Do they not daily acknowledge new growth? A pagan philosopher boasted that he had grown old still learning. We Christians would be three times miserable if we grow old and make no progress — we whose faith should advance through every stage of life until it reaches full maturity. Therefore in this passage, 'to believe with all the heart' does not mean to believe in Christ with perfect completeness, but only to embrace Him from the heart and with a sincere mind — not to be full of Him, but to hunger and thirst and long after Him with fervent affection. This is how Scripture speaks: it says a thing is done 'with the whole heart' when it means it is done sincerely and wholeheartedly. Of this sort are these sayings: 'I have sought You with my whole heart'; 'I will praise You with my whole heart'; and similar ones. On the other side, where Scripture rebukes deceitful people, it reproaches them with having a divided heart. They then argue further that if faith is increased by sacraments, the Holy Spirit is given in vain — since it is the Spirit's work to begin, sustain, and perfect faith. To this I grant that faith is the Spirit's own proper work — enlightened by Him, we know God and the treasures of His goodness, and without His light our mind is so blind it can see nothing, so dull it perceives nothing of spiritual things. But where they set out one benefit of God, we consider three. First, the Lord teaches and instructs us through His word. Then He strengthens us through the sacraments. Finally, He shines into our minds with the light of His Holy Spirit and opens an entry for the word and sacraments into our hearts — which otherwise would only strike our ears and stand before our eyes without moving anything within.

On the matter of the confirmation and increase of faith, I want to be clear — and I believe I have already stated this plainly — that when I assign this ministry to the sacraments, I do not mean that there is some perpetual secret force inherent in them by which they can on their own advance or confirm faith. Rather, they are ordained by the Lord precisely for the purpose of establishing and increasing faith. But they perform this purpose only when the inward teacher, the Spirit, accompanies them — by whose power alone hearts are pierced, affections are moved, and entry is opened for the sacraments into our souls. If He is absent, the sacraments can do no more for our minds than sunlight shining on blind eyes or a voice sounding to deaf ears. Therefore I distinguish between the Spirit and the sacraments in this way: the power of working belongs to the Spirit, and to the sacraments belongs only the ministry — and that ministry is empty and pointless without the Spirit's working, but deeply effectual when He works inwardly and exerts His power. It is now clear in what sense a godly mind is strengthened in faith through sacraments — in the same way that eyes see by the brightness of the sun and ears hear by the sound of a voice. Eyes perceive no light unless they have natural sight to be illuminated; ears are knocked at in vain by any voice unless they are naturally equipped to hear. But if it is true — as it must be settled among us — that what sight does in our eyes for seeing light and what hearing does in our ears for perceiving sound is exactly what the Holy Spirit does in our hearts for conceiving, sustaining, cherishing, and establishing faith: then these two things follow equally: that sacraments profit nothing without the power of the Holy Spirit, and that in hearts already taught by that inward teacher, the sacraments may make faith both stronger and more fully developed. The one difference is this: the capacity for hearing and sight is naturally placed in ears and eyes, while Christ — beyond the measure of nature — works the same capacity in our minds by special grace.

This also resolves objections that trouble some people: that if we attribute the increase or confirmation of faith to creatures, we are doing wrong to the Spirit of God, whom we should acknowledge as the sole author of faith. We do not thereby take away any praise from Him either for confirming or increasing faith. Rather, we affirm that even this work of increasing and confirming faith is nothing other than His inward illumination preparing our minds to receive the confirming that is presented by the sacraments. If this is still too obscure, a comparison will make it very clear. If you intend to persuade someone to do something by argument, you will gather every reason that might draw him to your view and lead him to accept your counsel. But you will have made no progress unless he also has a sharp and penetrating mind capable of weighing your arguments, an open and teachable disposition, and such confidence in your integrity and wisdom that it predisposes him to agree. For there are many stubborn minds that no reasoning can bend — and where trust is doubted and authority is despised, little good is accomplished even with a willing learner. But where all those things are present, they will truly bring it about that the listener takes the counsel you offer — counsel he might otherwise have laughed off. The Spirit works the same way in us. So that the word may not beat our ears in vain, so that the sacraments may not strike our eyes to no effect, He shows us that it is God who speaks through them, softens the stubbornness of our hearts, and shapes them toward the obedience the Lord's word requires. Finally, He carries those outward words and sacraments from the ears into the soul. Therefore both the word and the sacraments confirm our faith by setting before our eyes the heavenly Father's goodwill toward us — on the knowledge of which all the stability of our faith rests and by which its strength increases. The Spirit confirms it by engraving that same confirmation in our minds and making it effective. Meanwhile, the Father of lights cannot be prevented — just as He illuminates our bodily eyes with the rays of the sun, so He illuminates our minds through the sacraments, as through an intermediate brightness.

The Lord illustrated this property of His outward word when in the parable He called it seed. Just as seed cast on barren, untilled ground will do nothing but die, but thrown on cultivated and well-prepared soil will bring forth fruit in great abundance — so the word of God, if it falls on a hardened heart, will be as fruitless as seed sown on sand. But if it falls on a soul cultivated by the hand of the heavenly Spirit, it will be most fruitful. But if the analogy between seed and the word holds, and we say that grain sprouts, grows, and ripens from the seed — why may we not say that faith takes its beginning, increase, and perfection from the word of God? Paul expresses both aspects well in different places. When he wishes to remind the Corinthians how powerfully God used his labor, he boasts of having the ministry of the Spirit — as though the power of the Holy Spirit were bound to his preaching with an inseparable knot, to illuminate and thoroughly move the mind. But in another place, when he means to show them what force the word of God has in itself when preached by human beings, he compares the ministers themselves to farmers who, once they have done their work of tilling, can do nothing more. But what does tilling, sowing, and watering accomplish unless what is sown receives life from heaven's gift? He therefore concludes that both the one who plants and the one who waters are nothing — all must be ascribed to God, who alone gives the increase. Therefore the apostles, in their preaching, bring forth the power of the Spirit to the degree that God uses the instruments He has ordained for the communication of His spiritual grace. Yet we must always maintain the distinction, remembering what belongs to human beings and what belongs to God alone.

The sacraments are such confirmations of our faith that when the Lord intends to remove confidence in the very things promised through the sacraments, He removes the sacraments themselves. When He strips Adam of the gift of immortality and drives him away, He says: 'Let him not eat of the fruit of life, lest he live forever.' What is He saying? Could that fruit have restored to Adam the incorruption he had now lost? No. But it is as if He said: 'Lest he retain a false hope by keeping hold of the sign of my promise, let that be removed from him which might still bring him some expectation of immortality.' In the same way, when the apostle urges the Ephesians to remember that they had been strangers to the covenants, foreigners from the fellowship of Israel, without God, without Christ — he says they had no part in circumcision. By this figure of speech he indicates they had been excluded from the promise itself, since they had not received the sign of the promise. To the other objection — that God's glory is conveyed to creatures, and thereby diminished, when so much power is attributed to the sacraments — our answer is ready: we attribute no power to the creatures themselves. We say only that God uses means and instruments as He sees fit, so that all things may serve His glory, since He is Lord and ruler of all. Just as He nourishes our bodies through bread and other food, illuminates the world through the sun, and warms it through fire — yet bread, the sun, and fire are nothing in themselves except as God distributes His blessings to us through these instruments — so He nourishes faith spiritually through the sacraments, whose only office is to set His promises before our eyes, and indeed to serve as pledges of them. Just as we must not fasten our confidence in other creatures — which by God's generosity are ordained for our use and serve as the means by which He delivers His gifts — nor admire or praise them as the causes of our good: so neither should our confidence rest in the sacraments, nor God's glory be transferred to them. Leaving all things else, both our faith and our praise should rise up to Him — the author of the sacraments and of all things.

The argument some draw from the very word 'sacrament' itself is not very strong. They say: the word 'sacrament,' among its various recognized meanings, has one that fits signs — namely, the solemn oath by which a soldier pledges his allegiance to his commander upon entering military service. Just as soldiers by this military oath bind their loyalty to their commander and declare themselves his soldiers, so by our signs we declare Christ our commander and testify that we serve under His banner. They add comparisons to illustrate the point. Just as a toga distinguished Romans from Greeks who wore cloaks, and as the different ranks at Rome were marked by different signs — senators from knights by the purple-edged toga and pointed shoes, knights from commoners by a ring — so we bear our signs to distinguish us from those who are outside the faith. But from what has been said above, it is sufficiently clear that the ancient writers who gave the name 'sacrament' to the signs had no concern for how the word was used in Latin literature — they coined a new meaning for their own purposes, by which they designated simply 'holy signs.' If we examine the matter more closely, it appears that they applied this word in a similar way to how they shifted the meaning of 'faith' to the sense in which it is now used. For whereas 'faith' originally meant keeping one's promises, they transferred the word to mean the firm confidence or assurance one has of the truth itself. Similarly, whereas 'sacrament' was the soldier's act of pledging himself to his commander, they made it the commander's act of receiving soldiers into his service. For in the sacrament, the Lord promises that He will be our God and that we will be His people. But we will set aside such subtleties, since I think I have shown plainly enough that the early writers meant nothing other than to signify that these are signs of holy and spiritual things. We accept the comparisons they offer from outward marks and tokens — but we do not allow what is secondary in the sacraments to be presented as the primary, indeed the only, thing. The first and primary purpose is to serve our faith before God; the secondary purpose is to testify our confession before people. The comparisons mentioned apply only to this secondary purpose. But let the primary purpose stand firm — for otherwise, as we have already demonstrated, the mysteries would be cold and empty unless they served as aids to our faith and additions to doctrine ordained for the same end.

We must also be warned that just as some people weaken and completely undermine the proper use of the sacraments, so on the other side there are those who attribute to the sacraments some unknown secret virtues that are nowhere said by God to be placed in them. This error dangerously deceives the simple and uninformed, since it teaches them to seek God's gifts where they cannot be found, and gradually draws them away from God to embrace mere illusion in place of His truth. The scholastic schools have taught with great consensus that the sacraments of the new law — those now in use in the Christian church — justify and give grace, as long as we do not place an obstacle of mortal sin in the way. It is impossible to overstate how pernicious and deadly this opinion is — all the more so because for many ages it has prevailed to the great harm of the church over much of the world. It is truly a diabolical teaching. For by promising righteousness apart from faith, it drives souls headlong into destruction. And by locating the cause of righteousness in the sacraments, it binds the wretched minds of people — already too much bent toward earth on their own — with a superstition that leads them to rest in the sight of a physical thing rather than in God Himself. Would to God we had not proved both of these things so thoroughly in experience — for then they would scarcely need such extensive proof. But what is a sacrament received without faith but the surest path to the church's destruction? Since nothing is to be expected from the sacrament apart from the promise, and the promise threatens wrath toward the faithless no less than it offers grace to the faithful — whoever thinks more is given to him by the sacraments than what he receives by faith through the word of God is deceived. From this another conclusion also follows: the confidence of salvation does not hang on receiving the sacrament, as though justification consisted in it. We know justification rests in Christ alone and is communicated to us no less through the preaching of the Gospel than through the sealing of the sacrament — and cannot truly stand without it. So true is what Augustine also writes: that invisible sanctification may exist without a visible sign, and a visible sign may exist without true sanctification. For as he writes elsewhere, people put on Christ in two ways — sometimes only to the point of receiving the sacrament, and sometimes all the way to the sanctification of life. The first can be true of both good and bad people; the second belongs only to the good and godly.

From this — if it is properly understood — comes the distinction Augustine has often noted between the sacrament and the thing of the sacrament. This distinction means not merely that the sign and the truth it points to are both contained there, but that they do not so cohere that they cannot be separated — and that even when they are joined, the thing must always be distinguished from the sign, so we do not give to one what belongs to the other. He speaks of the separation when he writes that the sacraments produce in the elect alone the reality they signify. Again, when writing about the Jews: 'When the sacraments were common to all, the grace was not common — which is the power of the sacraments.' 'So also now, the washing of regeneration is common to all, but the grace itself, by which the members of Christ are regenerated along with their Head, is not common to all.' Again, in another place on the Lord's Supper: 'We also at this day receive visible food. But the sacrament is one thing, and the power of the sacrament another. What is this — that many receive from the altar and die, and die in the very act of receiving? For the morsel of the Lord was poison to Judas — not because he received an evil thing, but because, being evil, he received a good thing evilly.' A little later: 'The sacrament of this thing — that is, of the unity of the body and blood of Christ — is prepared on the Lord's table daily in some places, at set intervals in others. From it some receive life and some receive destruction. But the thing itself, of which it is a sacrament, is received unto life by all who receive it, and unto destruction by no one, whoever partakes of it.' And just before this he had said: 'He shall not die who eats — but he who pertains to the power of the sacrament, not merely the visible sacrament; who eats inwardly, not outwardly; who eats with the heart, not he who merely presses it with his teeth.' You hear everywhere, then, that a sacrament is so severed from its own truth by the unworthiness of the receiver that nothing remains but a vain and unprofitable sign. But to have not a sign void of truth but the thing together with the sign, you must receive by faith the word enclosed therein. So much as you profit through the sacraments in union with Christ, so much benefit you will take from them.

If this is somewhat difficult because of its brevity, I will state it at greater length. I say that Christ is the matter — or if you prefer, the substance — of all sacraments, since in Him they have all their perfection and promise nothing apart from Him. This makes the error of Peter Lombard all the more intolerable, for he expressly makes the sacraments causes of righteousness and salvation, of which they are only parts. Therefore, setting aside all the causes that human ingenuity invents for itself, we ought to rest in this one source. So much as we are helped by the sacraments in nourishing, confirming, and increasing the true knowledge of Christ in us — in possessing Him more fully and enjoying His riches — so much effectiveness they have for us. But this happens only when we receive with genuine faith what is offered there. Do the wicked then, you might ask, by their ungratefulness make God's ordinance void and empty? I answer that what I have said should not be taken to mean that the force and truth of the sacrament depend on the condition or willingness of the receiver. For what God has ordained remains firm and keeps its own character regardless of how people may vary. But since offering is one thing and receiving is another, nothing prevents the sign — hallowed by the word of God — from being in reality what it is called and retaining its own proper force, while at the same time bringing no benefit to an evil and wicked person. Augustine settles this question neatly in a few words: 'If you receive it carnally, it does not cease to be spiritual — but it is not so to you.' And just as Augustine has shown in the passages cited that a sacrament is worthless when severed from its truth, so in another place he warns that even when joined together a distinction is still necessary, lest we be too captivated by the outward sign. 'To follow the letter and take signs in place of the things they signify,' he says, 'is a mark of slavish weakness. But to interpret signs unprofitably is a mark of wandering error.' He names two faults to be avoided here. The first is when we treat signs as though they were given in vain, and by belittling or diminishing their hidden meaning we ensure they bring us no benefit at all. The second is when, by failing to lift our minds above the visible sign, we transfer to the sacrament the praise for all those good things that come to us only through Christ, by the Holy Spirit who makes us partakers of Christ Himself — and indeed by means of the outward signs. If those signs draw us to Christ, but we twist them in a different direction, all their benefit is shamefully wasted.

Let this remain certain: the sacraments have no other office than the word of God — to offer and present Christ to us, and in Him the treasures of heavenly grace. But they profit nothing unless received by faith — just as wine, oil, or any other liquid, however generously poured, will run off and be wasted unless the vessel's mouth is open to receive it, and the vessel, though wet on the outside, remains empty and void within. Beyond this, we must be careful that the somewhat exaggerated praises the ancient writers heaped on the sacraments to honor their dignity do not lead us into a similar error: namely, supposing that some secret power is tied and fastened to the sacraments so that they may of themselves deliver the graces of the Holy Spirit, as wine is poured into a cup. Their only God-appointed office is to testify and confirm God's goodwill toward us — and they profit no further unless the Holy Spirit joins Himself to them to open our minds and hearts and make us partakers of that testimony, in which also the distinct and varied graces of God shine clearly. For the sacraments are to us from God what heralds of good news or pledges in the sealing of agreements are among people — they do not of themselves convey any grace, but they announce, show, and as pledges and tokens ratify for us the things given to us by the generosity of God. The Holy Spirit — whom the sacraments do not bring to all people indiscriminately, but whom the Lord gives specifically to those who are His — is the one who brings the graces of God with Him, who gives the sacraments their place in us, and who causes them to bear fruit. Although we do not deny that God Himself, by the most immediate power of His Spirit, is present with His own institution — lest the ministry of the sacraments He has ordained be fruitless and vain — yet we affirm that the inward grace of the Spirit, being distinct from the outward ministry, must be weighed and considered separately. God therefore truly performs in reality what He promises and figures in signs — nor are the signs without their effect, so that the Author of them may be shown to be true and faithful. The question here is simply whether God works by His own inward power, as it is called, or delegates His work to outward signs. We affirm that whatever instruments He uses, His original working is in no way diminished or replaced by them. When sacraments are taught in this way, their dignity is set out with proper honor, their use is plainly explained, their benefit is fully described, and the best path through all these things is maintained — so that nothing is attributed to them that should not be, and nothing is taken away from them that should not be taken away. At the same time, the invented device is removed by which the cause of justification and the power of the Holy Spirit are locked up in physical elements as in vessels or vehicles — and the primary reality that others have omitted is clearly set forth. It should also be noted here that God works inwardly the very thing the minister figures and testifies through outward actions — lest that be transferred to a mortal person which God claims for Himself alone. Augustine wisely touches on this same point: 'How is it that both Moses sanctifies and God sanctifies?' he asks. 'Not Moses instead of God, but Moses through visible sacraments by his ministry — and God through invisible grace by His Holy Spirit. And there also is the entire fruit of visible sacraments. For apart from this sanctification by invisible grace, what do visible sacraments accomplish?'

The word 'sacrament,' as we have treated of its nature thus far, in its broadest sense includes all the signs God has ever given to people to certify and confirm the truth of His promises. Sometimes He willed these to remain in natural things; sometimes He gave them through miracles. Examples of the first kind: when He gave Adam and Eve the tree of life as a pledge of immortality, so they could assure themselves of it as long as they ate of its fruit. And when He set the rainbow in the sky as a memorial for Noah and his descendants that He would never again destroy the earth with a flood. These were sacraments to Adam and Noah — not because the tree could give immortality (it could not give it to itself), nor because the rainbow (which is only the reflection of sunlight off clouds) had power to hold back the waters. But because a mark was graven on them by the word of God so that they should serve as signs and seals of His covenant. The tree was already a tree, and the rainbow already a rainbow. When the word of God was inscribed on them, a new form was given to them so that they began to be what they were not before. That no one should think this said without reason — the rainbow is to this day a witness of the covenant God made with Noah. As often as we see it, we read in it this promise of God written: the earth will never be destroyed by flood again. Therefore if some foolish philosopher, mocking the simplicity of our faith, claims that this variety of colors arises naturally from the reflection of sunlight through clouds — let us grant it. But let us also laugh at his senseless folly, which fails to acknowledge God as Lord and governor of nature, who uses all the elements at His own will in the service of His own glory. Had He imprinted such tokens on the sun, the stars, the earth, stones, and similar things, all of these would be sacraments to us. Why is uncoined silver different in value from coined silver when the metal is identical? Because the one has nothing but its natural property; when struck with a public mark, it becomes currency and receives a new value. Can God not mark His creatures with His word so that they become sacraments — which were previously bare elements? Examples of the second kind: when He showed Abraham a flaming torch in a smoking oven; when He made the fleece wet with dew while the ground remained dry, and then the ground wet while the fleece remained dry, to promise victory to Gideon; and when He moved the shadow on the sundial back ten steps to promise safety to Hezekiah. These things, done to support and establish the weakness of their faith, were sacraments as well.

But our present purpose is to discuss specifically those sacraments that the Lord willed to be ordinary in His church — to gather His worshipers and servants into one faith and the confession of one faith. For, to use Augustine's words, people cannot be bound together under any name of religion — true or false — unless they are joined by some fellowship of visible signs and sacraments. Since the most good Father foresaw this necessity, He ordained from the beginning certain exercises of godliness for His servants — which Satan has since corrupted in many ways by turning them into wicked and superstitious worship. From this arose the solemn initiations of the pagans into their religious orders, and other counterfeit practices — which, though full of error and superstition, were also evidence that people in the profession of religion could not do without such outward signs. But because these were neither grounded in the word of God nor directed toward that truth toward which all signs ought to point, they deserve no mention alongside the holy signs ordained by God that have not departed from their foundation — that is, that they should be aids to true godliness. These sacraments consist not of bare signs, like the rainbow and the tree, but of ceremonies — or rather, the signs given here are ceremonies. As stated above, they are on the Lord's side testimonies of grace and salvation; and on our side, they are marks of profession by which we publicly swear allegiance to the name of God, binding our faith to Him. Chrysostom fittingly calls them in one place covenants by which God binds Himself to us in a league, and we bind ourselves to purity and holiness of life — because a mutual covenant is formed between God and us. For just as the Lord promises there to blot out and cancel whatever guilt and penalty we have accumulated through our offenses, and reconciles us to Himself in His only-begotten Son — so we in turn by this profession bind ourselves to Him in the pursuit of godliness and innocence. Therefore one may rightly say that such sacraments are ceremonies by which God intends to exercise His people — first for the nourishing, stirring up, and strengthening of faith inwardly, and then for the testifying of religion before other people.

These sacraments also varied according to the different periods of time — that is, according to the arrangement by which it pleased the Lord to reveal Himself in different ways to people at different times. To Abraham and his descendants, circumcision was commanded. To this were afterward added the purifications, sacrifices, and other ceremonies out of the law of Moses. These were the sacraments of the Jews until the coming of Christ. At His coming, those were abolished, and two sacraments were established that the Christian church now uses: baptism and the Lord's Supper. I am speaking of those ordained for the use of the whole church. As for the laying on of hands — by which ministers of the church are set apart for their office — I do not object to calling it a sacrament, though I do not count it among the ordinary sacraments. What the other things commonly called sacraments are to be considered, we shall see shortly. In any case, the ancient sacraments also pointed to the same goal as ours — to direct and as it were lead by the hand to Christ, or rather to represent Him as in a picture and bring Him to be known. For since we have already taught that the sacraments are seals by which God's promises are sealed, and since it is absolutely certain that no promise of God was ever offered to people except in Christ — to teach us anything about God's promise, the sacraments must necessarily point to Christ. Belonging to this is the heavenly pattern of the tabernacle and its worship given to Moses on the mountain. There is only one difference: the ancient sacraments portrayed Christ as still promised, still awaited; ours testify to Christ as already given and delivered.

When each of these sacraments is explained individually, this will become much clearer. Circumcision was a sign to the Jews that whatever comes from human seed — that is, the entire nature of humanity — is corrupt and in need of purification. It was also a teaching and a reminder by which they were to confirm themselves in the promise given to Abraham concerning the blessed seed in whom all the nations of the earth were to be blessed — the seed from whom they themselves looked for their blessing. Now that saving seed — as Paul teaches — was Christ, in whom alone they hoped to recover what had been lost in Adam. Therefore circumcision was for them what Paul says it was for Abraham: a seal of the righteousness of faith — that is, a seal by which they would be more certainly assured that their faith in looking for that seed would be reckoned to them by God as righteousness. We will draw the full comparison between circumcision and baptism at a better opportunity elsewhere. The washings and purifications set before their eyes their own uncleanness, filth, and pollution — the defilement of their own nature — while promising another washing that would completely wipe away all that filth. That washing was Christ, with whose blood we are washed and so bring His cleanness before God, so that it may cover all our defilements. The sacrifices accused them of their own wickedness and taught at the same time that some satisfaction must be paid to the judgment of God. There must therefore be some great high priest — a mediator between God and people — who would satisfy God by the shedding of blood, offering a sacrifice sufficient for the forgiveness of sins. That high priest was Christ. He shed His own blood. He was Himself the sacrifice — for He offered Himself in obedience to His Father unto death, and by that obedience He removed the disobedience of humanity that had provoked God's displeasure.

As for our sacraments, they present Christ to us all the more clearly as He was revealed more fully once He had been truly delivered by the Father as He had been promised. For baptism testifies to us that we are cleansed and washed; the Lord's Supper testifies that we are redeemed. In water, washing is signified; in blood, satisfaction. Both of these are found in Christ — who, as John says, came by water and blood — that is, to cleanse and to redeem. The Spirit of God is also a witness of this. Indeed there are three witnesses in one: water, blood, and Spirit. In water and blood we have the testimony of cleansing and redemption; but the Spirit, as the primary witness, brings us certain confidence in that testimony. This profound mystery has been remarkably shown us in the cross of Christ, when water and blood flowed from His holy side — which side Augustine rightly called the fountain of our sacraments. But we must discuss this further at greater length elsewhere. There is no doubt that a more abundant grace of the Spirit also manifests itself here when we compare the two eras. This belongs to the glory of Christ's kingdom, as we gather from many passages, especially from John 7. In this sense we must understand Paul's statement that under the law were shadows, but in Christ is the substance. His intention is not to strip the testimonies of grace of their effectiveness — by which God in ancient times proved Himself a faithful God to the fathers, even as He does to us today in baptism and the Lord's Supper. His purpose was only to magnify by comparison what has been given to us, so that no one should wonder that the ceremonies of the law were abolished by the coming of Christ.

That scholastic teaching must also be briefly dismissed here: the view that draws such a sharp distinction between the sacraments of the old and new covenants as to say that the former only shadowed God's grace while the latter actually convey it. For the apostle speaks no less honorably of the former than of the latter when he teaches that the fathers ate the same spiritual food that we eat — and then identifies that food as Christ. Who would dare call an empty sign what delivered to the Jews true communion with Christ? And the very ground of the apostle's argument there plainly supports our position. To prevent anyone from trusting in a superficial knowledge of Christ, an empty Christian title, and outward tokens — and then daring to despise the judgment of God — Paul holds up examples of God's severity toward the Jews, so that we might know the same punishments they suffered await us if we follow the same faults. For the comparison to work, it was necessary for him to show that there is no inequality between us and them in those good things about which he was warning us not to boast falsely. Therefore he first places us on equal footing with them in the sacraments, leaving us not even the slightest advantage that might tempt us to hope for escaping unpunished. Indeed, it is not lawful to claim any more for our baptism than he elsewhere attributes to circumcision, which he calls the seal of the righteousness of faith. Therefore, whatever is given to us in our sacraments today, the Jews received the same in theirs of old — namely, Christ with all His spiritual riches. Whatever power our sacraments have, they also experienced in theirs — that is, they were seals of God's goodwill toward them and grounds for hope of eternal salvation. Had those who held the contrary position read the letter to the Hebrews carefully, they would not have been so confused. When they read there that sins were not cleansed by the ceremonies of the law, and that the ancient shadows had no inherent power for righteousness — they neglected the comparison the apostle is drawing, and fastening on this one point alone, that the law itself profited nothing for those who followed it, concluded simply that the figures were empty of truth. But the apostle's purpose is to bring the ceremonial law to nothing considered in itself apart from Christ — on whom alone all its effectiveness depends.

But they will object those statements of Paul about 'circumcision of the letter' — that it counts for nothing before God, that it gives nothing, that it is vain. Such statements seem to depress circumcision far below baptism. Not so. The very same could rightly be said of baptism. In fact the same is said — first by Paul himself, when he shows that God does not regard the outward washing by which we enter the profession of religion unless the mind within is cleansed and continues in cleanness. Again by Peter, when he testifies that the truth of baptism does not consist in the outward washing but in a good witness of conscience. But Paul seems also in another place to dismiss outward circumcision entirely, when he contrasts it with the circumcision of Christ. I answer that even in that passage nothing is taken away from its dignity. Paul there argues against those who insisted circumcision was still necessary after it had been abolished. Therefore he warns the faithful to leave the old shadows behind and stand firm in the truth. 'These teachers,' he says, 'are urgently pressing you to have your bodies circumcised. But you are spiritually circumcised according to soul and body. You therefore have the reality itself, which is far better than the shadow.' One might object in reply that the figure should not be despised just because they now have the reality — since the putting off of the old man of which Paul speaks was also present among the fathers, to whom outward circumcision was nonetheless not superfluous. He prevents this objection when he immediately adds that the Colossians were buried with Christ through baptism — by which he indicates that baptism is today to Christians what circumcision was to the ancient people. Therefore circumcision cannot be imposed on Christians without doing wrong to Christ.

But what follows — and what I just cited — is harder to resolve: that all the Jewish ceremonies were shadows of things to come and that in Christ is the substance. Hardest of all is what is treated over many chapters in the letter to the Hebrews: that the blood of animals could not reach the conscience; that the law had a shadow of good things to come, not the image of the things themselves; that those who followed the Mosaic ceremonies obtained no perfection by them; and similar statements. I return to what I have already touched on: Paul does not call the ceremonies shadows because they had no solid substance in them, but because their fulfillment was, in a certain sense, held in suspension until the delivering of Christ. Again, I say this is to be understood as referring to the manner of signifying, not to the effectiveness. For until Christ was visibly manifested in the flesh, all the signs pointed to Him as absent — yet He did inwardly communicate to the faithful the presence of His power and of Himself. But above all, we must note that in all those passages Paul is not speaking in absolute terms but in a polemical context. Because he was contending against false apostles who wanted godliness to consist in ceremonies alone without any regard for Christ, it was sufficient to address only what ceremonies are worth in themselves — and so refute them. The author of the letter to the Hebrews followed the same approach. We should therefore remember that the debate in those passages is about ceremonies — not as they are understood in their own proper meaning, but as they have been twisted to a false and distorted use; not about their lawful use, but about the abuse of superstition. Is it any wonder, then, that ceremonies separated from Christ are stripped of all power? For all signs whatever, when the thing they signify is removed, are reduced to nothing. So when Christ addressed those who thought manna was nothing but food for the stomach, He accommodated His speech to their crude understanding and said He provides better food — that which nourishes souls to the hope of immortality. If you want a plainer summary, this is the substance of it all: First, the whole apparatus of ceremonies in the law of Moses is a fleeting and worthless thing unless directed to Christ. Second, they did point to Christ in such a way that when He was at last visibly revealed in the flesh, they had their fulfillment. Finally, they had necessarily to be removed at His coming, just as a shadow vanishes in the clear light of the sun. But since I am reserving the fuller discussion of this matter for the place where I have planned to compare baptism with circumcision, I treat it only briefly here.

Perhaps also the excessive praises of the sacraments found in the ancient writers misled those miserable scholastics — such as Augustine's statement that the sacraments of the old law only promised the Savior, but ours give salvation. Without noting the intent of such expressions, they published their extreme doctrines in a sense completely opposite to what the ancient fathers meant. For Augustine in that passage intended nothing other than what he writes elsewhere: that the sacraments of Moses' law foretold Christ, while ours tell of Christ as already present. And against Faustus: that those were promises of things to be fulfilled, while these are tokens of things already fulfilled — as if to say, the former portrayed Christ as still awaited, while ours present Him as already delivered. Moreover, he is speaking of the manner of signifying, as he also explains in another place: 'The law and the prophets had sacraments foretelling a thing to come; but the sacraments of our time testify that what those announced as coming has already come.' What he thought about the substance and effectiveness he explains in many places: for example, when he says that the sacraments of the Jews were diverse in signs but equal in the thing signified; diverse in visible form but equal in spiritual power. Again: 'In diverse signs is the same faith — just as in diverse words, because words change their sounds across time, and words are after all nothing but signs. The fathers drank the same spiritual drink, though they did not drink the same physical drink. You see, therefore, that faith remaining one, the signs varied. To them the rock was Christ; to us that which is set on the altar is Christ. They drank as a great sacrament the water flowing from the rock; what we drink, the faithful know. If you consider the visible form, they drank different things; if the spiritual meaning, they drank the same spiritual drink.' And in another place: 'In the mystery, their food and drink are the same as ours — the same in signification, not in form — because the very same Christ who was figured to them in the rock was shown to us in the flesh.' However, we also grant that there is some difference here. For both sets of sacraments testify that the fatherly goodwill of God and the graces of the Holy Spirit are offered to us in Christ — but our sacraments testify this more clearly and brightly. In both is a giving of Christ, but in ours more abundantly and fully — consistent with that difference between the old and new covenants which we have already discussed. And this is what the same Augustine means (whom we cite more often as the best and most faithful witness of all the ancient writers) when he teaches that after Christ was revealed, sacraments were ordained that are fewer in number, higher in meaning, and more excellent in power. Readers should also be briefly warned of this: whatever the scholastics have trifled about with their doctrine of 'the work worked' is not only false but contrary to the very nature of the sacraments, which God ordained so that the faithful — empty and poor in all good things — would bring nothing there but their beggary. It follows, then, that in receiving the sacraments people do nothing by which they can earn praise — since in this act, which on their part is entirely passive, no work can be attributed to them.