“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:”
Mt. 28:19
“For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which He was betrayed, took bread…”
1 Cor. 11:23
.
.
Subsections
Baptism
Lord’s Supper
Local Church Membership: Not Necessary for Sacraments
Whether Sacraments may be Administered Privately
Sacraments in Extra-Ordinary Circumstances
7 Sacraments of Romanism
Christ’s Use of Sacraments
.
.
Order of Contents
How the Sacraments Work 4
. Not Bare, Memorialistic Signs 2
. Not ex Opere Operato 3
Articles 16+
Books 10
Historical Theology 3
Latin 5
Who Administers, & to Whom?
Ministers Alone are to Administer
Pastors may Administer outside their Congregation
Nature of & Rights to the Sacraments
OT Sacraments
Not Converting, but Confirming
Sacraments’ End vs. God’s
Invisible Church: Proper Right to Seals
Unbelievers in Church: Right to Sacraments?
Differences of Baptism & Supper
.
How the Sacraments Work
Intro
Rutherford, Samuel – ‘The Efficacy of the Sacraments’ (1644; RBO, 2014) in Due Right of Presbyteries (London, 1644), pp. 211-15
This is perhaps the best concise explanation of how the Sacraments work. Rutherford gives the standard, widely prevalent, vanilla reformed view of the Reformation. The Sacraments work:
(1) as signs
(2) as seals
(3) are instruments by which faith works
(4) they are means of grace to be used in obedience to Christ’s command
What is noteworthy about these distinctions is that one could not fully explain the sacraments without all four distinctions (the distinctions are necessary). Nor does one need more distinctions than these four in order to explain the Biblical material (these distinctions are sufficient to account for all of the Biblical data). Thus, one may rest assured that here is the Biblical view of how the Sacraments are means of grace. May it stir us up to greater faith in our Savior as we see Him represented and sealed to us in baptism and the Lord’s Supper!
.
1500’s
Ursinus, Zacharias – ‘Sacraments: The Savor of Death to Ungodly Partakers’ in Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism,
pp. 340, 350-51
Zanchi, Girolamo – Confession of the Christian Religion… (1586; Cambridge, 1599), pp. 99-115 & 295-97
Ch. 14, ’Of the Sacraments of the New Testament’
. On Aphorism 1
.
1600’s
Attersoll, William – ‘Word & Sacrament: Agreements & Differences’ from The Badges of Christianity... (London, 1606), bk. 1, ch. 1, pp. 1-13
Davenant, John – Question 23, ‘The Sacraments do Not Confer Grace by the Mere External Act, or Ex Opere Operato [Out of the Working of the Work]‘ in The Determinations, or Resolutions of Certain Theological Questions, Publicly Discussed in the University of Cambridge trans. Josiah Allport (1634; 1846), pp. 340-344 bound at the end of John Davenant, A Treatise on Justification, or the Disputatio de Justitia... trans. Josiah Allport (1631; London, 1846), vol. 2 Davenant is arguing against the Romanist Position.
Turretin, Francis – 8. ‘Do the sacraments of the New Testament work grace so physically that they effect and contain it ex opere operato, whether faith and devotion are present or not? Or are they rather efficacious signs and seals of grace? The former we deny; the latter we affirm against the Romanists.’ in Institutes of Elenctic Theology, tr. George M. Giger, ed. James Dennison Jr. (1679–1685; P&R, 1994), vol. 3, 19th Topic, p. 361 ff.
.
1800’s
Bannerman, James – The Church of Christ
‘Defective Views of the Sacraments: Bare Memorialism’, pp. 528-36
‘Defective Views of the Sacraments: Inherent Virtue’, pp. 536-50
.
Latin Article
1600’s
Voet, Gisbert – 1. Of Sacraments in General (Their Necessity, Cause, Efficacy & Effect, Absurd Questions about them, & their Number) in Syllabus of Theological Problems (Utrecht, 1643), pt. 1, section 2, tract 5 Abbr.
.
The Sacraments are Not Bare, Memorialistic Signs, but are Means of Grace
Quote
Samuel Rutherford
The Due Right of Presbyteries... (London, 1644), pt. 2, ch. 4, section 5, pp. 216-18
“When you [congregationalists] say that ‘a seal does not make a thing that was not, but confirm a thing that was,’ while you would seem to refute Papists, who vainly teach that sacraments do confer grace ex opere operato, by the deed done, yet do you make the sacrament but a naked sign and take part with Arminians and Socinians, whose very arguments in express words you use, for Socinius goes before you in this argument, and so does Smalcius follow him:
‘To obsignation and sealing there is required the trying of the thing, and some teaching or document; but that ceremony (a baptism) and that rite, though it be holy, does nothing to the remission of sins, but it does only shadow out, and as it were delineate and point forth remission of sins by the washing of water exponed in the Word of God.’
You say, ‘Sacraments do not make a thing that was not, but confirm a thing that was before;’ you can have no other meaning than to deny all causality and all real exhibition of grace in the sacraments: for if a sacrament make not a thing that was not before, or if God give not, and really produce, confer and exhibit grace, and a stronger measure of faith, and assurance of remission of sins, at the due and right use of the sacrament [that is with faith], the Sacrament is a naked sign, and not an exhibitive seal.
But if† Christ give and in the present exhibit as surely remission of sins, as the infant is washen with water, as our divines and the Palatinate [Heidelberg] Catechism teaches, yea and the [Belgic] confession thereof, and the Synod of Dort teaches, then by the sacrament of baptism, a thing is made that which it was not.
† [That is, this does not necessarily always occur, but if it does, then etc.]
It is true a civil seal, as I said before, adds no new lands to the owner of the charter, but if Christ by his seals rightly and in faith used, do not only confirm grace and pardon, but also really exhibit and give grace and pardon in a further degree, and a new measure of assurance to the conscience which there was not before, you go not a streas [star’s?] breadth from Arminians and Socinians, especially seeing Episcopius, Henricus Welsingius say that remission of sins is not sealed by baptism, but signified only, and the Remonstrants in their Apology, while they expone our communion with Christ in the Lord’s Supper, and will reject a physical union of our souls with the physical substance of Christ’s body, which we also reject, they say that communion signifies,
‘only a profession of one and the same worship, whereby Christians solemnly testify that they adhere to Christ as to be partaker of the table of devils and of devils themselves, 1 Cor. 10:18,20, is a testimony of a communion with the devils’:
But the Word of God says more, Gal. 3:17, ‘As many of you as are baptized have put on Christ;’ So Rom. 6:3, ‘Therefore we are buried with Him by baptism unto his death, that like as Christ was raised up from the dead, by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life,’ Eph. 5:26, ‘That He might sanctify and cleanse his Church with the washing of water by the Word,’ Tit. 3:5, and 1 Pet. 3:21, ‘The like figure whereunto even baptism does also now save us, etc.’
All this is more than a naked signification, otherwise manna saved Israel, and the water of the rock did wash them from their sins, and the sacrifice of bulls and goats did cleanse from sin, and open Heaven to sinners. Therefore by baptism and the Lord’s Supper something is made what it was not before, as by partaking of the table of devils, the partaker is really made a partaker with the devil, and an idolater; and his idolatry that he committed before was not only confirmed and signified to be what it was before. And in this civil seals and sacraments differ…”
.
Articles
1500’s
Musculus, Wolfgang – ‘Whether there be grace annexed unto the sacraments’ in Common Places of the Christian Religion (1560; London, 1563), ‘Of Sacramental Signs Generally’, folio 279.a-286.a
.
1600’s
Rutherford, Samuel – Rutherford’s Examination of Arminianism: the Tables of Contents with Excerpts from Every Chapter tr. Charles Johnson & Travis Fentiman (1638-1642; 1668; RBO, 2019), ch. 18, ‘On the Sacraments and Ecclesiastical Discipline’
section 5, ‘Whether baptism is only a solemn rite by which we are distinguished from others and brought into divine worship, and not rather by which grace is really conferred? We deny against the Remonstrants and Socinians.’, pp. 126-27
section 6, ‘Whether, in the Lord’s Supper, the death of Christ is only proclaimed and commemorated, and no spiritual gifts are actually sealed? We deny against the Remonstrants and Socinians.’, pp. 128-29
Turretin, Francis – 5. ‘Are the sacraments only marks and badges of our profession? Or are they also signs and seals of the grace of God concerning the remission of sins and the regeneration of the Spirit? We affirm against the Socinians and Romanists.’ in Institutes of Elenctic Theology, tr. George M. Giger, ed. James Dennison Jr. (1679–1685; P&R, 1994), vol. 3, 19th Topic, p. 350 ff.
.
1800’s
Bannerman, James – ‘Defective Views of the Sacraments: Bare Memorialism’ in The Church of Christ, vol. 2, pp. 528-36
.
The Sacraments do Not Work Automatically apart from Faith, or Ex opere operato
Article
1500’s
Musculus, Wolfgang – ‘Whether there be grace annexed unto the sacraments’ in Common Places of the Christian Religion (1560; London, 1563), ‘Of Sacramental Signs Generally’, folio 279.a-286.a
.
1600’s
Davenant, John – Question 23, ‘The Sacraments do Not Confer Grace by the Mere External Act, or Ex Opere Operato [Out of the Working of the Work]‘ in The Determinations, or Resolutions of Certain Theological Questions, Publicly Discussed in the University of Cambridge trans. Josiah Allport (1634; 1846), pp. 340-344 bound at the end of John Davenant, A Treatise on Justification, or the Disputatio de Justitia... trans. Josiah Allport (1631; London, 1846), vol. 2 Davenant is arguing against the Romanist Position.
Turretin, Francis – 8. ‘Do the sacraments of the New Testament work grace so physically that they effect and contain it ex opere operato, whether faith and devotion are present or not? Or are they rather efficacious signs and seals of grace? The former we deny; the latter we affirm against the Romanists.’ in Institutes of Elenctic Theology, tr. George M. Giger, ed. James Dennison Jr. (1679–1685; P&R, 1994), vol. 3, 19th Topic, p. 361 ff.
.
.
Articles
Anthology of the Post-Reformation
Heppe, Heinrich – Reformed Dogmatics ed. Bizer, trans. Thomson (1950; Wipf & Stock, 2007)
ch. 24, ‘Sacraments in General’, pp. 590-611
Heppe references and/or quotes Cocceius, Bullinger, Calvin, Olevian, Ursin, Boquin, Sohnius, Zanchi, Ames, Rijssen, Wolleb, Polanus, Trelcatius, Beza, Bucan, Wendelin, Leiden Synopsis, Crocius, Heidegger, Mastricht, Hottinger, the Helvetic Confession, Maresius, Piscator, Alsted, Turretin, the East Frisian Confession & Alting.
ch. 25, ‘Baptism’, pp. 611-27
ch. 26, ‘The Lord’s Supper’, pp. 627-57
.
1500’s
Melanchthon, Philip
ch. 23. ‘On Signs [Sacraments]’ in The Loci Communes of Philip Melanchthon… tr. Charles L. Hill (1521; Boston: Meador Publishing, 1944), pp. 238-43
Though Melanchthon (1497–1560) was a Lutheran, this work of his was the first ‘systematic theology’ of the Reformation, and, as it was very influential on reformed systematic theologies following shortly thereafter.
Melanchthon on Christian Doctrine, Loci Communes, 1555 tr. Clyde L. Manschreck (1555; NY: Oxford Univ. Press, 1965)
ch. 19. ‘Of the Sacraments’ 202-6
ch. 23. ‘Distinction between Ceremonies, Sacraments & Sacrifices’ 223-31
Zwingli, Ulrich – ‘The Sacraments’ in Commentary on True & False Religion eds. Jackson & Heller (1525; Labyrinth Press, 1981), pp. 179-84
Bucer, Martin – ch. 7, ‘The Administration of the Sacraments’ in On the Reign of Christ tr. Satre & Pauck in Melanchthon & Bucer in The Library of Christian Classics, vol. 19 (1550; 1557; London: SCM Press LTD, 1969), bk. 1, pp. 236-40
Vermigli, Peter Martyr – ch. 7, ‘Of Sacraments in General’ in The Common Places… (d. 1562; London: Henrie Denham et al., 1583), pt. 4, pp. 96-112
Calvin, John
Instruction in Faith (1537) tr. Paul T. Fuhrman (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1949)
26. ‘The Sacraments’ 67-68
27. ‘What the Sacrament is’ 68
10. ‘Of the Sacraments’ in Institutes of the Christian Religion: 1541 French Edition tr. Elsie A. McKee (1541; Eerdmans, 2009), pp. 495-510
14. ‘Of the Sacraments’ in Institutes of the Christian Religion tr. Henry Beveridge (1559; Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1845), vol. 3, bk. 4, pp. 299-327
Bullinger, Henry
The Decades ed. Thomas Harding (1549; Cambridge: Parker Society, 1850)
vol. 2, 3rd Decade, 6th Sermon, ‘Of the Sacraments of the Jews; of their sundry sorts of sacrifices, and certain other things pertaining to their Ceremonial Law’ 167-217
vol. 4, 5th Decade
9. ‘Of Sacraments’ in Questions of Religion Cast Abroad in Helvetia [Switzerland] by the Adversaries of the Same, & Answered… tr. John Coxe (1560; London, 1572), pp. 83-85
Musculus, Wolfgang – Common Places of the Christian Religion (1560; London, 1563)
‘Of Sacramental Signs Generally’ 271.a
What a sign is 271.a
The kinds of signs 271.a
‘What a Sacrament is’ 272.a
Whereof a sacramental sign does consist 272.a
Of the number of the sacramental signs of the New Testament 273.a
Why Christ did ordain outward sacraments 275.b
What manner of sacraments the Lord has instituted 276.b
Of the difference of the Sacraments of the Old & New Testament 277.a
Whether there be grace annexed unto the sacraments 279.a
Of the integrity or wholeness of sacraments 280.a
Beza, Theodore – A Brief & Pithy Sum of the Christian Faith made in Form of a Confession (London, 1565), ch. 4
30. The second mean which the Holy Ghost uses to make us rejoice in Jesus Christ and wherefore the Lord is not only content with the simple preaching of his Word
31. The definition of that which is called a Sacrament
32. The difference between the Sacraments of the Old Covenant and those of the New
33. Whereby the false sacraments be known from the true and the abuse of them from the right usage
34. Which things be common to the preaching of the Word and to the sacraments
35. What things belong properly to the sacraments having respect to the end wherefore they were ordained of God
36. How there is but two Sacraments in the Christian Church
37. The four points which be to be considered in the declaration of this matter
38. The first point is to understand what we do mean by the name of sign in this matter of Sacraments and wherefore the Lord did choose for signs the most vulgar and common things
40. From whence proceeds this alteration and the error of those which make a charm or sorcery of the sacramental words
42. The sacraments be no sacraments without the use of them
43. The second point is of the thing signified in the Sacraments
44. The third point is how Jesus Christ is joined with the signs
45. The distinction of signs and of the thing signified
46. The manner to communicate as well the signs of the Sacraments as the thing signified
50. The conclusion of the matter of the Sacraments
Viret, Pierre – A Christian Instruction… (d. 1571; London: Veale, 1573)
The Sum of the Principal Points of the Christian Faith
39. Of the Supper of our Lord, & of the True Use thereof 38-39
40. Of the Signification of the Signs of Bread & Wine in the Supper, and of the agreement & difference of them, with the things that they signify, and of the error of the popish transubstantiation 39-41
41. Of the Commemoration of the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ in the Supper 41
The Summary of the Christian Doctrine, set forth in Form of Dialogue & of Catechism
Of the Supper
Of the Conjunction of the Signs in the Supper with the Things that they signify
Of the Presence of the Body & Blood of Jesus Christ in the Supper
A Familiar Exposition of the Principal Points of the Catechism, and of the Christian Doctrine, made in Form of Dialogue
15th Dialogue: Of the Sacraments of Baptism & of the Lord’s Supper
Of the Agreement and difference that is between Baptism and the Supper
Of the Supper, and why Jesus Christ did ordain two signs for the same
Of that which is Special in the Supper, wherein it differs from baptism, and howe that all that is very well represented in the bread and the wine
How we must Eat the body and flesh of Jesus Christ, and drink his blood in the Supper
Of the True spiritual eating and drinking
16th Dialogue
Of things without the which the Sacraments cannot be Sacraments
Of things which are to be Considered in the Word of God in all Sacraments, and in the signification of the same
Of things to Consider in the signs, and in the signification of them, in all Sacraments
17th Dialogue: Of the Communication of Jesus Christ as well in Baptism as in the Supper
18th Dialogue: Of the Presence of Jesus Christ in Heaven, & in the Supper & in his Church
Whether the Ascension of Jesus Christ be a true ascension or no, or else if he made himself only invisible
How that the Presence corporal of Jesus Christ in the Supper may have no place except he have an infinite body, or many
Of the Invisible Coming of the body of Jesus Christ
Of the Spiritual Coming of Jesus Christ
How that the Corporal presence of Jesus Christ in the Supper is contrary to the divine virtue that is in him to communicate his gifts and graces to his Church
Of the Spiritual & Divine presence of Jesus Christ in his Church, and of the virtue of the same
How that the Corporal presence of the body and of the blood of Jesus Christ is contrary to the true communion of them in the Supper
Whether a man may conclude of the words of Saint Paul, that a man may receive the body and the blood of Jesus Christ in the Supper to condemnation
Of the Principal difference that may be between the transubstantiation of the bread and of the wine into the body and the blood of Jesus Christ and the bodily conjunction of them together
Of the Union that is between Jesus Christ and his members, signified by the bread and the wine in the Supper
How the Supper is the Sacrament of union and of charity, and of the admonition that we have in the same
Prime, John – ‘Of the Sacraments in General’ in A Short Treatise of the Sacraments Generally, & in Special of Baptism & of the Supper (London: 1582) no page numbers
Prime (c.1549-1596) was a reformed Anglican clergyman and Oxford scholar.
Ursinus, Zachary
The Sum of Christian Religion: Delivered… in his Lectures upon the Catechism… tr. Henrie Parrie (Oxford, 1587)
1. What Sacraments are
2. What are the ends of Sacraments
3. In what Sacraments differ from sacrifices
4. In what sacraments agree with the Word, and in what they differ from it
5. How the sacraments of the Old & New Testament agree, and how they differ
6. What the sacramental union is
7. In what the things differ from the signs
8. What phrases and forms of speaking of the sacraments are usual unto the Church and Scripture
9. What is the right and lawful use of Sacraments
10. What the wicked receive in the use and administration of the Sacraments
11. How many sacraments there are of the New Testament
Certain Conclusions of the Sacraments, in general
The confirmation of such of the former conclusions, as most require it
A Collection of Certain Learned Discourses… (Oxford, 1600)
Rules & Axioms of Certain Chief Points of Christianity
23. Of the Sacraments
. An Answer to Some Arguments Against the Sacraments
Olevian, Caspar – ‘Of the Sacraments’ in A Catechism, or Brief Instruction in the Principles & Grounds of the True Christian Religion… (d. 1587; London, 1617), pp. 20-21
Olevian (1536–1587) was a significant German reformed theologian, and has been said to be a co-author of the Heidelberg Catechism along with Zacharias Ursinus (though this has been questioned).
Beza, Theodore, Anthony Faius & Students – Propositions & Principles of Divinity Propounded & Disputed in the University of Geneva by Certain Students of Divinity there, under Mr. Theodore Beza & Mr. Anthony Faius… (Edinburgh: Waldegrave, 1591)
55. ‘Of the Sacraments’ 160
56. ‘Of the Agreement & Difference between the Sacraments of the Old & New Testament’ 167
57. ‘Of the Numbers of the Sacraments of the New Testament’ 169-72
Virel, Matthew – 2. Of the Sacraments, ordained of God to be as it were seals of the Word, that we may with more assurance embrace the promises by Christ revealed in the Word in A Learned & Excellent Treatise Containing All the Principal Grounds of Christian Religion (London, 1594), bk. 3
Virel (1561-1595)
.
1600’s
Bucanus, William – 46. ‘Of the Sacraments in General’ in Institutions of Christian Religion... (London: Snowdon, 1606), pp. 615
What does this word ‘sacrament’ signify?
What is a sacrament?
Who is the author of the sacrament?
Why did God add the sacraments to the Word?
In what predicament is a sacrament?
What is the genus of a sacrament?
How many sorts of signs be propounded to be considered in the Scriptures?
Of how many essential parts does a sacrament consist?
What is the matter of the sacrament?
What is the outward matter?
Wherefore did God choose such common things in the ordering of the sacraments?
What is the inward matter?
What is the form common to all sacraments?
What manner of conjunction, or union of the signs and the things signified, is in the sacraments?
Whether are both the things and the signs offered unto us of God jointly together?
What is the manner of receiving the signs and the things signified?
In this treatise what do these things signify, really, substantially, corporally, sacramentally, spiritually?
Whether do all they enjoy the matter of the sacraments, which use visible signs?
Is it possible for a man to be guilty by means of the thing signified, who is not partaker of the same?
Is faith of the substance and essence of the sacraments?
Whence is the consecration, or the sanctification and blessing of the sacraments?
When is such consecration made?
Whether is there any change of the signs in the sacraments?
How manifold be the sacraments after the Fall?
What were the set and ordinary sacraments?
How did those two set sacraments differ?
What was circumcision?
Ought not such a sacrament seem to be ridiculous?
What was the manner of circumcision?
Which were the uses and ends of circumcision?
Wherefore were those infants to be cut off which were not circumcised the eighth day?
How long must it continue?
Why was Christ, who was conceived and born without sin, in whom also the covenant of the promised seed was fulfilled, and who came also to abolish circumcision, He Himself that circumcises other men’s hearts, why was He circumcised?
What does this word pascha, or Passover, signify?
What is the Passover, or the paschal lamb?
What was the manner of offering the Passover?
To what purpose and use are all these things which have been spoken of the paschal lamb?
Why did Christ appoint the Supper of the Lord instead of the sacrament of the paschal lamb?
Seeing there was only one lamb offered as a sacrifice for the redemption of the Church, why did God command a lamb to be killed in every house, as though every one of them should have had their sacrifices peculiar by themselves?
Why is Jesus Christ called the Lamb slain even from the beginning of the world, Rev. 13:8, seeing Paul says, ‘Now once in the latter end of the world was He made manifest to abolish sin by offering up of Himself? Heb. 9:26
Why was not the blood of the paschal lamb drunken or eaten, but only the posts were besprinkled with it?
Were there no more sacraments of the Old Testament?
Wherein do sacrifices and sacraments both agree and differ?
Whether is Christ now to be sacrificed, that his sacrifice once made upon the cross might be applied unto us?
Why were there so many sacraments and sacrifices instituted, seeing there is but one only Christ?
But what is the reason our forefathers had more sacraments than we have?
What manner of signs be sacraments?
What are the sacraments of the New Covenant?
How many sacraments are there of the Christian Church?
Why were there diverse sacraments under the Law from these which be now under the Gospel?
How do the sacraments of the Old & New Testament agree?
Of what sort be the sacramental speeches?
How do the sacraments of the Old and New Testament differ?
Do not the sacraments of the Old Testament differ from ours in the effect, because those did only shadow forth and signify grace, which these offer present unto us?
Why then does Paul say, Gal. 4:9. that the sacraments of the fathers were weak and beggarly, and carnal elements which were not able to sanctify the conscience because of their weakness and unprofitableness? Heb. 7:19 & 9:10
Did the fathers eat the flesh of Christ seeing that as yet it had no being actually and corporally in the nature of things?
Do the sacraments give remission of sins, and do they confer or contain grace, and are they ordained to justify and to regenerate, or whether is grace tied to the sacraments?
Whether do the sacraments imprint any stamp or any spiritual work in soul, and that such as cannot be blotted out?
To whom does it belong to administer the sacraments?
Whence do the sacraments receive their power and excellency?
But whether do the ministers to whom is committed the lawful administration of the sacraments and are called God’s fellow-workers, deliver also with their hands the matter of the sacrament?
Where and when ought the sacraments to be administered?
Which ought to be the form and manner of administration?
To whom are the sacraments to be administered?
Wherein do the Word and sacraments agree?
Wherein do the Word and sacraments differ?
What ought they to do who are deprived of liberty to come to the holy assemblies of the Church wherein the ordinary dispensation of the Word and sacraments is performed?
How do sacraments differ from miracles?
What is the end of sacraments?
Which is the right use of the sacraments?
What be the effects of the sacraments?
What punishment does remain for contemners of the sacraments?
What is contrary to this doctrine?
Yates, John – ch. 3, ‘Of the Sacraments’ in A Model of Divinity, Catechistically Composed… (1622), pp. 329-35
Yates (†1657) was a reformed, English minister in St Andrews in Norwich.
Ames, William – ch. 36, ‘The Sacraments’ in The Marrow of Theology tr. John D. Eusden (1623; Baker, 1997), bk. 1, pp. 196-99
Ames (1576-1633) was an English, puritan, congregationalist, minister, philosopher and controversialist. He spent much time in the Netherlands, and is noted for his involvement in the controversy between the reformed and the Arminians. Voet highly commended Ames’s Marrow for learning theology.
Rivet, Andrew – 43. ‘On the Sacraments in General’ in Synopsis of a Purer Theology: Latin Text & English Translation Buy (1625; Brill, 2016), vol. 3, pp. 94-136
Wolleb, Johannes – 22. ‘The Seals or Sacraments of the Covenant of Grace in General’ in Abridgment of Christian Divinity (1626) in ed. John Beardslee, Reformed Dogmatics: J. Wollebius, G. Voetius & F. Turretin (Oxford Univ. Press, 1965), bk. 1, pp. 120-29
Wolleb (1589–1629) was a Swiss reformed theologian. He was a student of Amandus Polanus.
Twisse, William – ‘The First Catechism, Touching the Sacraments’ in A Brief Catechetical Exposition of Christian Doctrine Divided into Four Catechisms… (London, 1632), pp. 3-13
Twisse was a Westminster divine.
Palmer, Herbert – ‘Questions & Answers Tending to Explain the Sacraments’ in An Endeavor of making the Principles of Christian Religion, namely the Creed, the Ten Commandments, the Lord’s Prayer & the Sacraments, Plain & Easy (London, 1644), pp. 39-47 This is a table.
Palmer was a Westminster divine.
Maccovius, John – ch. 17, ‘On the Sacraments’ in Scholastic Discourse: Johannes Maccovius (1588-1644) on Theological & Philosophical Distinctions & Rules (1644; Apeldoorn: Instituut voor Reformatieonderzoek, 2009), pp. 259-65
Maccovius (1588–1644) was a Polish, reformed theologian.
Leigh, Edward – ch. 7. Of the Sacraments in A System or Body of Divinity… (London, A.M., 1654), bk. 8, pp. 655-62
Rijssen, Leonard – ch. 17, ‘The Sacraments’ in A Complete Summary of Elenctic Theology & of as Much Didactic Theology as is Necessary tr. J. Wesley White MTh thesis (Bern, 1676; GPTS, 2009), pp. 222-42
Rijssen (1636?-1700?) was a prominent Dutch reformed minister and theologian, active in theological controversies.
Turretin, Francis – Institutes of Elenctic Theology, tr. George M. Giger, ed. James Dennison Jr. (1679–1685; P&R, 1994), vol. 3, 19th Topic
1. ‘What is a sacrament as to the name and as to the thing?’ 337
2. ‘Was it necessary that sacraments should be instituted in the church and is their use necessary? We distinguish.’ 343
3. ‘What is the nature of the sign required in a sacrament?’ 345
4. ‘Is the essential and internal form of the sacraments placed in the relation of the sign to the thing signified and in their merely relative union (schetike)? We affirm against the Romanists.’ 348
5. ‘Are the sacraments only marks and badges of our profession? Or are they also signs and seals of the grace of God concerning the remission of sins and the regeneration of the Spirit? We affirm against the Socinians and Romanists.’ 350
6. ‘Is the sacramental word a declarative and concionative (concionale) word or is it the consecratory which is operative? The former we affirm; the latter we deny against the Romanists.’ 354
7. ‘Whether the intention of the minister (at least of doing what the church does) is necessary to the essence and efficacy of the sacrament. We deny against the Romanists.’ 357
8. ‘Do the sacraments of the New Testament work grace so physically that they effect and contain it ex opere operato, whether faith and devotion are present or not? Or are they rather efficacious signs and seals of grace? The former we deny; the latter we affirm against the Romanists.’ 361
9. ‘Does the difference between the sacraments of the Old and New Testaments consist in this—that the former adumbrate and the latter contain grace; that the former have the figure, the latter have the body itself? We deny.’ 369
10. ‘Is a mark (i.e., a spiritual and indelible sign) impressed upon the soul in the three sacraments, baptism, confirmation and order? We deny against the Romanists.’ 375
van Mastricht, Peter – ch. 3, ‘The Sacraments of the Church’ in Theoretical Practical Theology (2nd ed. 1698; RHB), vol. 5, pt. 1, bk. 7
Heidegger, Johann H. – 25. ‘On External Worship, Especially about the Sacraments’ in The Concise Marrow of Theology tr. Casey Carmichael in Classic Reformed Theology, vol. 4 (1697; RHB, 2019), pp. 177-85
.
1700’s
à Brakel, Wilhelmus – 38. ‘The Sealing of the Believer by the Holy Spirit & by Means of the Sacraments’ in The Christian’s Reasonable Service, vol. 2 ed. Joel Beeke, trans. Bartel Elshout Buy (1700; RHB, 1992/1999), pp. 469-87
a Brakel (1635-1711) was a contemporary of Voet and Witsius and a major representative of the Dutch Further Reformation.
.
1800’s
Binnie, William – ‘The Sacraments: Baptism & the Lord’s Supper’ in The Church, pp. 68-82
Buchanan, James – ‘The Sacramentalism of the Tractarian Movement’ in On the “Tracts for the Times” (1843), pp. 61-74 in the context of the Oxford Tractarian Movement of the mid-1800’s
Vos, Geerhardus – ch. 3, ‘Word & Sacraments’ in Reformed Dogmatics tr: Richard Gaffin 1 vol. ed. Buy (1896; Lexham Press, 2020), vol. 5, ‘Ecclesiology, the Means of Grace, Eschatology’, pt. 2, ‘Means of Grace’, pp. 921-54
.
1900’s
Berkhof, Louis – ‘The Sacraments in General’ in Systematic Theology (1950) 12 paragraphs
.
Books
1500’s
Calvin, John – A Treatise on the Sacraments of Baptism & the Lord’s Supper (Edinburgh: John Johnstone, 1837) 200 pp. No ToC or Index
Jewel, John – Treatise II, ‘On the Sacraments’ in Two Treatises: I. On the Holy Scriptures; II. On the Sacraments (d. 1571; Oxford: Parker, 1840), pp. 118-251
Jewel was a Calvinistic Anglican bishop.
Bullinger, Henry – Sermons on the Sacraments (d. 1575) 300 pp. ToC
Bullinger (1504-1575), the Swiss reformer, gives four sermons on the sacraments. The first two are on the sacraments in general. The third is on Baptism and the fourth in on the Lord’s Supper.
Beza, Theodore – The Other Part of Christian Questions & Answers, which is Concerning the Sacraments… (London, 1580) 330 pp. ToC
Rollock, Robert – Some Questions & Answers about God’s Covenant & the Sacrament That Is a Seal of God’s Covenant: With Related Texts ed. Aaron C. Denlinger Buy (Pickwick, 2016) 106 pp.
.
1600’s
Attersoll, William – The Badges of Christianity, or a Treatise of the Sacraments Fully Declared out of the Word of God, wherein the Truth itself is Proved, the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches Maintained & the Errors of the Churches of Rome are Evidently Convinced… (London, 1606)
Rogers, Daniel – A Treatise of the Two Sacraments of the Gospel: Baptism & the Supper of the Lord… 3rd ed. (London, 1635) 395 pp. No ToC Index
Rogers (1573-1652) was an English puritan, presbyterian and covenanter.
Bedford, Thomas – A Treatise of the Sacraments According to the Doctrine of the Church of England, Touching that Argument Collected out of the Articles of Religion, the Public Catechism, the Liturgy & the Book of Homilies. With a sermon preached… (London, 1638)
Bedford (-1653) was a reformed, English minister.
Hopkins, Ezekiel – The Doctrine of the Two Sacraments in Works (Philadelphia: Leighton Publications, 1867), vol. 2, pp. 299-359
Calamy, Edmund – A Practical Discourse Concerning Vows, with a Special Reference to Baptism & the Lord’s Supper (London, 1697) 310 pp.
Calamy (1671–1732) was an English presbyterian and church historian, significantly influenced by Baxter.
.
Historical Theology
On the Early Church
Article
1500’s
Vermigli, Peter Martyr – ‘A Comparison of the Sacraments of the Fathers with Ours’ in 16. ‘Of the Likeness & Unlikeness of the Old & New League or Covenant’ in The Common Places… (London: Henrie Denham et al., 1583), pt. 2, pp. 586-99
.
On the Post-Reformation
Articles
Cunningham, William
‘Sacramentalism’ in Historical Theology (1863), vol. 2, pp. 121-32
‘Zwingli & the Doctrine of the Sacraments’ in Reformers & the Theology of the Reformation (1862), pp. 212-91
.
Books
Holifield, E. Brooks – The Covenant Sealed: the Development of Puritan Sacramental Theology in Old & New England, 1570-1720 (Yale University Press, 1974) 255 pp. ToC
MacLeod, Ian – The Sacramental Theology & Practice of the Reverend John Willison (1680-1750) PhD diss. (1994)
.
Latin Articles
1600’s
Alsted, Johann H.
Distinctions through Universal Theology, taken out of the Canon of the Sacred Letters & Classical Theologians (Frankfurt: 1626)
ch. 25, ‘Sacraments in General’, pp. 120-25
ch. 26, ‘Sacraments of the Old Testament’, pp. 125-28
Wendelin, Marcus Friedrich
ch. 20, ‘Of the Sacrifices & Sacraments in General’ in Christian Theology (Hanau, 1634; 2nd ed., Amsterdam, 1657), bk. 1, ‘Knowledge of God’, pp. 325-41
ch. 21, ‘Of the Offer & of the Covenant in the Old [Testament]’ in Christian Theology (Hanau, 1634; 2nd ed., Amsterdam, 1657), bk. 1, ‘Knowledge of God’, pp. 341-53
Voet, Gisbert
1. Of Sacraments in General (Their Necessity, Cause, Efficacy & Effect, Absurd Questions about them, & their Number) in Syllabus of Theological Problems (Utrecht, 1643), pt. 1, section 2, tract 5 Abbr.
Select Theological Disputations (Utrecht, 1659 / 1667)
vol. 3
77. Benedictions, Consecrations & Sacraments 1076
78. Appendix: Some Problems [8 Problems & Answers] 1090-1100
vol. 4
‘On the use & abuse of the divine name in the reading, hearing and application of Scripture, in the perception of the sacraments and public and private prayers’ in 50. ‘A Syllabus of Questions on the Decalogue’, ‘On the 3rd Commandment’, p. 783
Wettstein, Gernler & Buxtorf – 12. External Calling, where is of the Gospel & the Sacraments in General in A Syllabus of Controversies in Religion which come between the Orthodox Churches & whatever other Adversaries, for material for the regular disputations… customarily held in the theological school of the academy at Basil (Basil, 1662), pp. 41-45
.
Who is to Administer the Sacraments, & How Far?
.
That Ministers Alone are to Administer the Sacraments
Order of Quotes
Wolleb
Rutherford
WCF
Leigh
Rijssen
.
1600’s
Johannes Wolleb
Abridgment of Christian Divinity (London, 1626) in ed. John Beardslee, Reformed Dogmatics: J. Wollebius, G. Voetius & F. Turretin (Oxford Univ. Press, 1965), ch. 22, ‘The Seals or Sacraments…’, p. 121; ch. 23, p. 129.
“VI. The agents by whom sacraments are administered, are ministers who have been legitimately called.”
“III. …The instrumental cause [of baptism] is a legitimately called minister.
IV. Therefore we do not regard baptism by a layman [privatus], or by a woman, as valid, as the papists do. If there is no circumstance in a worldly government when a private citizen may do anything without authoization, how much less could such a corruption in his Church please Christ?”
.
Samuel Rutherford
The Due Right of Presbyteries (1644), pt. 1, pp. 454-455
“2. There is no such moral necessity of the sacraments as there is of the ministry of the Word, and consequently of some use of the keys where a scandalous person may infect the Lord’s flock. For where vision ceases the people perish, but it is never said, where baptism ceases the people perish; and therefore uncalled ministers in case of necessity, without ordination or calling from a presbytery, may preach and take on them the holy ministry and exercise power of jurisdiction, because the necessity of the souls of a congregation in a remote island requires so, but I hope no necessity in any [of] the most extraordinary case requires that a midwife may baptize, or that a private man remaining a private man may celebrate the Lord’s Supper to the Church without any calling from the Church.”
.
Westminster Confession of Faith 1646
ch. 27.4
“There be only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the gospel, that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord; neither of which may be dispensed by any but by a minister of the word, lawfully ordained.[k]
[k] Mt. 28:19; 1 Cor. 11:20,23′ 1 Cor. 4:1; Heb. 5:4″
.
Edward Leigh
bk. 8, ‘Of Oridnances, or Religious Duties’ in ch. 7, ‘Of the Sacraments’ in A System or Body of Divinity… (London, 1654)
“XI. Whether any other but a minister. lawfully called and ordained, may administer the sacraments, baptism and the Lord’s Supper?
([Margin Note:] Thus the Augsburg Confession says, ‘De ordine ecclesiastico docent ecclesiae nostrae, quod nemo in ecclesia debeat publice docere, aut sacramenta administrare, nisi rite vocatus, quae confessionis verba opposita sunt calumniis pontificiorum, qui dic•t omnia in ecclesiis nostris confuse et sine ordine geri et cuivis in ecclesia docendi potestatem apud nos concedi.’ [Johann] Gerhard, Common Places, ‘On the Ecclesiastical Minister’, ch. 3, sect. 1, ‘Res inter se perpetuo nexu conjunctae, pascere ecclesiam salutis doctrina, et sacramenta administraro.’ Calvin, Catechism of the Christian Religion. See Master [Richard] Baxter’s, Infant Church-Membership, part 2, errour 2 & 3)
It is held by the reformed Churches, and by the soundest protestant writers, that neither of these sacraments may be dispensed by any, but by a minister of the Word, lawfully ordained.
1. God has appointed the ministers of the Word, lawfully called and ordained, and no other to be stewards and dispensers of the mysteries of Christ, 1 Cor. 4:1; Tit. 1:5,7.
2. He has appointed them to be pastors or shepherds, to feed the flock of God, Jer. 3:15; Eph. 4:11; Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:2; much of this feeding consists in the dispensation of the sacraments.
3. Christ gives a commission to the apostles to teach and baptize, and extends the same commission to all teaching ministers to the end of the world, Mt. 28:19,20; Eph. 4:11-13.
Neither of the sacraments have efficacy, unless they be administred by him that is lawfully called thereunto, or a person made public and clothed with authority by ordination. This error in the matter of baptism is begot by another error of the absolute necessity of baptism. Mr. [Alexander] Henderson’s second paper to the king.
The Scripture joins together the preaching of the Word and dispensations of the seals, both belonging to the officers who have received commission from Jesus Christ, Mt. 28:19; 1 Cor. 1. Mr. [John] Ball.
Heb. 5:4, ‘No man takes this honour but he which is called, as was Aaron;’ which sentence does manifestly shut out all private persons from administration of baptism, seeing it is a singular honor in the Church of God. [Thomas] Cartwright, 2nd Reply [to John Whitgift], 11th Tractate.
The example of Zipporah either was rash or singular, and also no way like women’s baptizing; circumcision was then commanded [to] the head of the family, baptism belongs only to ministers, Mt. 28; she circumcised her son when he was not in danger of death, as these [do that] baptize.”
.
Leonard Rijssen
ch. 17, ‘The Sacraments’, pp. 224-25 in Wesley White, A Translation with Introduction to A Summary of Elenctic Theology by Leonard Rijssen a Masters thesis (GPTS, 2009)
“Controversy 3 – Can the sacraments, especially baptism, be administered by anyone, including women? We deny against the Papists, Socinians, Arminians, and Anabaptists.
Arguments:
1. Christ gave the power of administering the sacraments only to the apostles and ministers of the Church (Mt. 28:19).
2. And these alone are stewards and dispensers of the mysteries of God (1 Cor. 4:1).
3. The administration of the sacraments is joined with the preaching of the Word; thus, whoever cannot do one, cannot do the other
4. Calling is required (Jn. 1:33, 1 Cor. 1:17).
5. It is forbidden for women to speak in the Church or to do any ecclesiastical duty (1 Cor. 14:34-35).
Objections
1. Zippora circumcised her son (Ex. 4:25). Reply: Their relation to circumcision is one thing and their relation to baptism another, and the fact that it was done by a woman is not approved.
2. Philip the deacon baptized (Acts 8:38). Reply: First, he was a deacon. Later, he was an evangelist (Acts 21:8).
3. So did Ananias (Acts 9:18). Reply: He had a special command (v. 10), nor is there proof that he was not a minister.”
.
Articles
1500’s
Viret, Pierre – A Christian Instruction… (London: Veale, 1573), The Sum of the Principal Points of the Christian Faith
37. Of the administration of the Sacraments and to whom it belongs 37
Cartwright, Thomas
8. ‘That the Sacraments ought Not to be Privately Administred, nor by Women’ in A Short Reply unto M. Doctor’s Brief Answer… in A Reply to an Answer made of M. Doctor Whitgift Against the Admonition to the Parliament ([1573]), pp. 223-34
11th Tract, ‘Against the Corruptions in Doctrine Touching the Holy Sacraments’ in The Rest of the Second Reply of Thomas Cartwright Against Master Doctor Whitgift’s Second Answer Touching the Church Discipline (Basel, 1577)
.
1600’s
Gillespie, George – ch. 6, ‘Whether any Other but a Minister, Lawfully Called & Ordained, may Administer the Sacraments, Baptism & the Lord’s Supper’ in A Treatise of Miscellany Questions... (Edinburgh, 1649), pp. 86-91
.
Latin Article
1600’s
Voet, Gisbert – Appendix: On the Ministers of the Sacraments in Syllabus of Theological Problems (Utrecht, 1643), pt. 1, section 2, tract 5 Abbr.
.
Pastors may Administer the Sacraments outside of their Own Congregation
Article
Rutherford, Samuel
ch. 17, ‘Whether or no some do warrantably teach that a pastor has no pastoral power to preach and administrate the sacraments without the bounds of his owne congregation? and from whence essentially is the calling of a pastor?’ in A Peaceable & Temperate Plea… (London, 1642), pp. 260-71
Rutherford gives 4 arguments and answers numerous interspersed objections from the Independents and congregationalists. Here is Rutherford’s proposition and 4 arguments:
“We hold that a pastor may officiate as a pastor without his own congregation.”
1. That which the brotherhood and communion of sister-churches requires to be done, that pastors may lawfully do.
2. If ministers may labor to convert unbelieving strangers and to add them to their flock, that they may enlarge Christ’s Kingdom, then they may exercise pastoral acts over and above others than these of their own charge.
3. Believers of diverse congregations are members of a visible politic body and are to keep Church-communion together in exhorting, rebuking and comforting one another, and so may eat bread at the Lord’s Table and be made one body, 1 Cor. 10:27, but by this [congregationalist] doctrine they may not eat at one Table of the Lord.
4. The special ground of the congregationalist position is that ordination and election of pastors are all one, and that pastors have essentially their calling from the election of the people; but there be wide differences betwixt ordination of a pastor which essentially makes him a pastor, and the people’s choosing him to be their pastor.
Question 1, ‘If pastors may perform ministerial acts in any other congregation than their own?’ in The Due Right of Presbyteries... (London, 1644), pt. 2, ch. 4, section 5, pp. 204-10
.
Quote
Samuel Rutherford
A Survey of the Survey of that Sum of Church Discipline… (London, 1658), bk. 4, ch. 10, p. 470
“Pastors cannot excommunicate those of another congregation, or heathen; Therefore, [according to a congregationalist] they cannot teach them as pastors. It follows not, ex negatione speciei, non sequitur negatio generis [out of the negation of a species the negation of a genus does not follow]: This is not a man, therefore this is not a living creature. So:
1. A single pastor, he alone cannot excommunicate an offender of his own congregation; for one man is not a Church, therefore he cannot preach as a pastor to this offender. The conse∣quence is most false…
2. Paul and Barnabas preach as sent pastors authorized both by God, and the laying on of hands, and praying of the prophets at Antioch, Acts 13; but they have no power to excommunicate the gentiles, who are yet no members of the Church, nor baptized. Paul, Acts 16:15, is sent to preach to Macedonia, without their choosing him to be their pastor; and yet Paul could not cast out those that were no members until they should be member.”
.
The Nature of & Rights to the Sacraments
.
On the Relation of Old & New Testament Sacraments
Articles
1500’s
Musculus, Wolfgang – ‘Of the difference of the Sacraments of the Old & New Testament’ in Common Places of the Christian Religion (1560; London, 1563), ‘Of Sacramental Signs Generally’, folio 277.a-279.a
Beza, Theodore – 32. The difference between the Sacraments of the Old Covenant & those of the New in A Brief & Pithy Sum of the Christian Faith made in Form of a Confession (London, 1565), ch. 4
Ursinus, Zachary – 5. How the Sacraments of the Old & New Testament Agree & how they Differ in The Sum of Christian Religion: Delivered… in his Lectures upon the Catechism… tr. Henrie Parrie (Oxford, 1587), Of Sacraments
Beza, Theodore, Anthony Faius & Students – 56. ‘Of the Agreement & Difference between the Sacraments of the Old & New Testament’ in Propositions & Principles of Divinity Propounded & Disputed in the University of Geneva by Certain Students of Divinity there, under Mr. Theodore Beza & Mr. Anthony Faius… (Edinburgh: Waldegrave, 1591), pp. 167-69
.
1600’s
Bucanus, William – Institutions of Christian Religion... (London: Snowdon, 1606), locus 46. ‘Of the Sacraments in General’, pp. 680-82
How do the sacraments of the Old and New Testament differ?
.
Latin Article
1600’s
Alsted, Johann H. – ch. 26, ‘Sacraments of the Old Testament’ in Distinctions through Universal Theology, taken out of the Canon of the Sacred Letters & Classical Theologians (Frankfurt: 1626), pp. 125-28
.
The Sacraments are Not Converting, but Confirming Ordinances
Article
Rutherford, Samuel – The Divine Right of Church Government… (London, 1646)
p. 280 of ch. 6, Question 2
pp. 516-27 in ch. 23, Question 19
.
On the Sacraments’ End vs. God’s End
Quote
1600’s
Samuel Rutherford
The Divine Right of Church Government… (London, 1646), ch. 23, pp. 525-26
“Neither Word nor sacraments, nor anything on the part of the Almighty can be intended in vain, though the end of the ordinance be not obtained.
I should have expected some such divinity from the pen of Arminians and Socinians who make God to intend the salvation of all and every one in both the promises of the Gospel, precepts and sacraments, and yet He falls from this end: so you may read, in Arminius, Anti-Perkins, p. 60, that God is disappointed in his end, in both Law and Gospel, and God shooting beside his mark misses the salvation of many, say the Remonstrants at the Synod of Dort, p. 216, and in their confession, ch. 7, sect. 3; and because Socinus thought it hard thus to take from God wise intentions, he did no less than blasphemously deprive Him of his omniscience: So Socians, Contra Puccium, ch. 10, and in Theological Lectures, ch. 11, made all things that are contingently to come uncertain to God:
But if you speak of intentio operis, non operantis [the end of the work, not of the worker], that the Supper, in its nature, is ordained…”
.
The Invisible Church has the Proper Right to the Seals of the Covenant
Articles
Rutherford, Samuel
The Due Right of Presbyteries… (London, 1644), pt. 1, ch. 9, section 9
1st Question, ‘Whether the members of the visible Church be only visible saints, sons and daughters of the Lord God Almighty, temples of the Holy Spirit, etc.”, pp. 242-55
Rutherford makes 10 distinctions and 3 conclusions:
1st Distinction. Any who blamelessly professes Christ is ecclesiastically, in foro Ecclesiae, a true and valid member of the Church-visible, having ecclesiastical power valid for that effect: but, except he be a sincere believer, he is not morally and in foro Dei, a living member of the invisible Church.
2nd Distinction. That which is unseen is the form and essence of an invisible Church, and that which is visible must be the essential form of a visible Church.
3rd Distinction. The invisible Church catholic is the principal, prime and native subject of all the privileges of Christians, the covenant promises, titles of spouse, bride, redeemed, temple of the Holy Spirit, etc.
4th Distinction. A seen profession is the ground of members’ admission to the visible Church. Hence there is a satisfaction of the conscience of the Church in admitting of members, either in the judgement of charity, or in the judgment of verity.
5th Distinction. There is a satisfaction in the judgment of charity positive, when we see signs which positively assure us that such an one is regenerate: and there is a satisfaction negative when we know nothing on the contrary which has a latitude, for I have a negative satisfaction of the regeneration of some, whose persons or behaviour I know neither by sight nor report. This is not sufficient for the accepting of a Church-membership, therefore somewhat more is required.
6th Distinction. There be three ranks of men here considerable: 1. Some professedly and notoriously flagitious and wicked; little charity may exclude these. 2. Some professedly sanctified and holy, little charity may accept and welcome such to the visible Church. 3. Some betwixt these two, of whom we have neither a certainty full and satisfactory to the conscience that they are regenerate; nor have we any plerophory or persuasion, that they are in the state of nature.
7th Distinction. It is no less sin to sadden the heart of a weak one, and to break the bruised reed, than out of over-plus of strong charity to give the hand to an hypocrite, as a true Church-member.
8th Distinction. Materially it is all one not to admit members of such a Church to your church, as to separate from such a Church and to excommunicate such members: for it is a negative and authoritative leaving of such to Satan, if it be not a positive excommunication.
9th Distinction. There is a visibility of the Church by: writing; 2. by synods which meet for consultation; 3. by martyrdom; 4. the seen profession of many churches; and these being without the bounds of a congregation, it is not justice to restrict all visibility to one single congregation.
10th Distinction. Visible security, backsliding, over-swaying predominants tolerated may consist with the Church-membership of a visible Church.
1st Conclusion: These two be far different: (1) there or in this company there is a true Church [Affirmed], and (2) this determinate company of such persons by name is a true Church [Denied].
2nd Conclusion: The invisible and not the visible Church is the principal, prime, and only proper subject with whom the covenant of grace is made, to whom all the promises do belong, and to whom all titles, styles, properties and privileges of special note in the Mediator do belong. (6 arguments)
3rd Conclusion: A visible profession of the truth and doctrine of godliness is that which essentially constitutes a visible church, and every member of the visible church; only our [congregationalist] Brethren and we differ much about the nature of this profession which is required in members added to the Church. (10 arguments)
Question 2, ‘Whether or no our [congregationalist] Brethren prove by valid aguments the constitution of the Church-visible to be only of visible saints, of sanctified washen and justified persons’, pp. 255-68
Through the whole section Rutherford answers the postive reasons of the congregationalists for their view.
A Survey of the Survey of that Sum of Church-Discipline… (London, 1658), bk. 1
ch. 18, ‘Answer to Mr. Hooker’s Arguments, That the invisible Church is not the first subject of the Seals’
.
Do Unbelievers in the Church have a Right to the Sacraments? Only in a qualified way. Or on the Conditionality of the Sacraments.
Quotes, 1600’s
Samuel Rutherford
The Due Right of Presbyteries… (1644), ch. 4, section 5, pp. 195-6
“Peter clearly insinuates that all who have received the Holy Ghost are to be baptized, Acts 8:47, as Philip, Acts 8:37, and that if the eunuch believed, he might be baptized. So that faith, to speak properly, does give us right to the seals; and to speak accurately, a visible profession of faith does not give a man right to the seals of grace, but only it does notify and declare to the Church that the man has right to the seals because he believes, and that the Church may lawfully give to him the seals, and that profession is a condition required in the right receivers of the seals in an ecclesiastical way;
But faith gives the right to these seals, and because the faith of the believer goes with the believer, when he goes to another visible congregation than his own, that faith giveth him right to the seals in all places and in all congregations: for faith gives right to receive Christ sacramentally, not in one congregation only, but in all, and a visible profession does, as a condition notify this faith, and Church-right in all congregations.”
.
Henry Jeanes
The Want of Church-Government… (London, 1650), p. 60 Jeanes was an English presbyterian.
“A second general attribution of the Lord’s Supper, from whence it is endeavored [by opponents] to conclude to the sinfulness of giving it, in any case, unto such as are known by the minister to be unworthy receivers [though they have not been convicted by the Session of elders], is, its being a seal of the Covenant of Grace, the righteousnesse of faith. For hence think some, it follows that administration of the Lord’s Supper unto known scandalous and wicked persons, is a practical and visible lie, a confirmation of an untruth, because it seals the Covenant and promises to those who have visibly no share in them.
For answer: The Lord’s Supper may be said to be a seal of the Covenant, or promise of grace, either absolutely, or conditionally.
The truth of the Covenant and promises in themselves, our obligation to gratitude and obedience, are sealed absolutely by the Lord’s Supper; but interest in the Covenant and promises of grace, the Lord’s Supper seals unto those that partake thereof, but conditionally, so they believe: Unto wicked men the promises are as propounded, so sealed but conditionally.
Sacramenta (says [William] Ames) non sunt testimonia completa et absoluta nisi credentibus. They are (says Rutherford) seals unto the wicked, not in actu secundo [by the following act of exercised power], but only in actu primo [in their first act of being, apart from that being exercised]. See Mr. [Stephen] Marshall in his Defence of Infant Baptism Against Tombs, [1646,] pp. 117-8.”
.
Samuel Rutherford
A Survey of the Survey of that Sum of Church-Discipline Penned by Mr. Thomas Hooker (1658)
ch. 16, ‘Of the Principal & Prime Subject of All the Privileges of Special Note Bestowed in the Mediator Christ upon the Church’, pp. 77-81
“…it becometh not Mr. Hooker with Arminians and Socinians to impeach the wisdom of the Holy One, because He appoints the giving of the seals, baptism to Judas and to Magus, who have no right, true and real in foro Dei [in the court of God], in the Decree of God, and in his holy intention, as I spake [on] pp. 248, 249, to the seals, and the grace sealed; nor to the engraven Law, and God’s teaching of the heart, and to perseverance;
..
Again, God giveth a right to the seals to hypocrites; that is, he commandeth the Church to give the seals to Magus, whether such really or hypocritically believe; this is a right not properly inherent in visible members, for their profession, yea, or their supposed conversion:
1. Because all saving and real right to ordinances is relative to election to glory, and flows from the merit of Christ’s death; but visible professors, as such, of whose society Magus and Judas are, have not any saving and real right, as chosen and redeemed in Christ, by grant of our [Congregationalist] Brethren.
2. A right flowing only from an external profession, and from composed hypocrisy in Magus, is no true right; a lie cannot give a true right: I offend that Mr. Hooker so anxiously contends for a charter to such bastards as Magus.
3. It is a favor to hear the Gospel and partake of the seals; and jus activum, ‘an active right’ the Church and ministers have to call and admit to the seals all who profess as Magus, that the elect in the visible Church may be converted, but it is not a right proprie dictum ne quidem Ecclesiasticum [properly said with certainty to the Church], that they have who are such hypocrites as Judas and Magus; for the command and revealed Will of God most unproperly is said to give Magus a right to the seals: Except [for] Mr. Hooker, never [a] divine so spake; the command reveals the right, but gives none.
As also the right of visible professors is jus passivum, and a conditional and passive right; for Magus and Judas have no right to be visible members, or to partake of the seals, yea or to profess the Covenant and Name of God, Ps. 50:16, but upon condition of faith: for God cannot command sin and an hypocritical profession: yea, He forbids [their] treading in his courts, Isa. 1:12-13, except they repent and believe, vv. 16, 17; therefore Magus sins in professing, and in being baptized: he remaining rotten. But the Church sins not, but does the command of Christ in calling, inviting all that profess, whether they be really, or in the judgement of charity, converts or no.
Which distinction not being observed, our [congregationalist] Brethren and Mr. Hooker mistake the nature of an ecclesiastical right; for the Lord in the command gives to all visible professors, such as Peter, who really believe, both the ecclesiastic and external right to the seals which He decreed to give them, and the same internal and real right which they have by faith, and no other than according to his eternal decree, they have given them in time by real believing.
But for hypocrites, as Magus, they have no right ecclesiastic to the seals, but a sort of active and permissive right, by which they claim room in the visible Church, and the seals from the Church. Therefore taking the Church-visible as only visible, as contra-distinguished from the invisible and really believing: and as visibility is common to both Peter and Magus, and their external profession obvious to the eye of man, so the visible Church hath no right that is true and real to the seals.
So I retort the Argument upon Mr. Hooker: True real believers, as Peter, and hypocrites, as Magus, have either one and the same Church-right to membership and seals, or another, and diverse. The same right they cannot have:
1. Because the right of truly and really believing ones, is according to the decree of election, such as the Lord ordained to be purchased to them by the merits of Christ, and also according to the Lord’s revealed Will. He who believes hath right to eat of the Tree of Life, and to membership and seals: But this right Magus and hypocrites have not, for they have no part in Christ.
2. The right that believers, as Peter and John, have, is by fulfilling of the condition. He who believes, and loves to be reformed, hath right to the Covenant, promises, to perseverance, to the anointing that teacheth all things. These are promised and decreed to them, Jer. 31:33-34 & 32:38-40; Isa. 54:10-11 & 59:20-21; compared with Acts 13:47-48; Jn. 6:44-46 & 6:37 & 10:26-27; and to them only, not to Magus and to reprobates.
3. Magus, and such like wooden and tree-legs, might claim the same life, living membership, lively and vital operations, and to have the anointing, and to be kept through faith unto salvation by the power of God, 1 Pet. 1:4 and to have the fear of God put in their hearts, that they should not depart from God, as Jer. 31:39-40, if they have the same right to membership and the seals in their substance and grace signified with sound believers. And this is most absurd.”
.
ch. 18, ‘Answer to Mr. Hooker’s Arguments, that the Invisible Church is Not the First Subject of the Seals’, p. 88
“4. A graceless man, as [Simon] Magus [Acts 8:9-13; 18-24], hath thus far right to demand the seals, that he may say to the Church, ‘You sin in withholding the seals, and therefore I require you baptize me, as Christ hath commanded you’: but he cannot say, ‘I have right, even external, to receive Baptism, and I sin not in receiving it.’
And Mr. Hooker’s argument to prove it is naught:
‘Why’, saith he, ‘Graceless men have the command of God to challenge the seals’; Magus hath the command of God to challenge, and to receive the Lord’s Supper.
[Rutherford:] A command absolute he has none: show me such a command: Magus, Judas, eat and drink at the Lord’s Supper, challenge, claim and receive Baptism; All Israel eat the Passover, be ye real believers or hypocrites, be ye self-triers, and prepared or not, be ye clean or unclean. I confess there were no better right to challenge the seals than such a command, if any such were; but if Mr. Hooker or any of his read such a command, I pray I may see and read also.
But Magus has only a conditional command, which gives him no true and real right, save only conditionally, to wit, Magus, receive the seals and the Lord’s Supper. So thou believe and examine thyself: if not, thou hast no right to the seals, but eatest and drinkest thine own damnation. And because these graceless men fulfill not the condition, and believe not, Mr. Hooker’s argument is wa[…]ry;
They have right from the command of God, which is the b[irth?]right: that is, they have no right at all from a conditional command, they not fulfilling the condition, but such right as robbers have to the traveler’s purse; yea, they have no command of God, but the contrary: a severe discharge, Isa. 1:13, ‘Bring no more vain oblations.’ Mt. 22:12, ‘Friend, how camest thou in hither, not having a wedding garment?’ ‘He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself,’ 1 Cor. 11:29.”
.
On the Similarities & Differences between Baptism & the Lord’s Supper
Article
1500’s
Ursinus, Zachary – 3. What the Supper differs from Baptism in The Sum of Christian Religion: Delivered… in his Lectures upon the Catechism… tr. Henrie Parrie (Oxford, 1587), Of the Lord’s Supper
.
.
.
Related Pages
Baptism of the Children of Adherents
Frequency of the Lord’s Supper
Preparation for the Lord’s Supper
Administration Administration of the Lord’s Supper