Paragraph 1

Paragraph 2

Paragraph 3

Paragraph 4

Paragraph 5

Paragraph 6

Paragraph 7

Paragraph 1

Paragraph 2

Paragraph 3

Paragraph 4

Paragraph 5

Paragraph 6

Paragraph 1

Paragraph 2

Paragraph 3

Paragraph 4

Paragraph 5

Paragraph I

Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace,(a) immediately instituted by God,(b) to represent Christ and his benefits, and to confirm our interest in him;(c) as also, to put a visible difference between those that belong unto the church and the rest of the world;(d) and solemnly to engage them to the service of God in Christ, according to his word.(e)

a Rom. 4:11 ; Gen. 17:7,10. b Matt. 28:19; 1 Cor. 11:23. c 1 Cor. 10:16; 1 Cor. 11:25,26; Gal. 3:17. d Rom. 15:8; Exod. 12:48; Gen. 34:14. e Rom. 6:3,4; 1 Cor. 10:16,21.

“Seals” here refers to the guarantee of a promise. A seal was something that certified and authenticated the accompanying statement. A sign, very much like what we think of as a sign today, was a symbol that represented something. In this case, the sacraments are representations of God’s Covenant of Grace and are additionally guarantees of that covenant and its promises. These sacraments were given by God. Just as he gave Abraham a seal, He also gave us seals.

The sacraments carry four functions:

1. They point to the Savior and His redeeming work

2. They attest to our relationship with Christ

3. They set us apart from the world

4. They mark us as committed to Christ

Paragraph II

There is in every sacrament a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified; whence it comes to pass, that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other.(f)

f Gen. 17:10; Matt. 26:27,28; Tit. 3:5.

Confusingly the term “sacramental union” used here has nothing to do with the same term in Lutheranism. In Lutheranism, and generally in a lot of theological writings, this term refers to the Lutheran concept of the “real presence”. The Divines are not attempting to substantiate “real presence” here, rather they are using the same term to refer to a different idea. Essentially section two is an aside that lends us some understanding in better understanding the Bible. Sometimes in Scripture a sacrament and the thing it signifies are interchanged. God calls circumcision “my covenant”, Paul says that baptism is the “washing of regeneration”, and Peter says that baptism saves you. In this section the Divines are asserting that when we read about the signs and seals in these passages, the writer has interchanged that term with the thing it actually signifies.

Paragraph III

The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments, rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither doth the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that doth administer it,(g) but upon the work of the Spirit,(h) and the word of institution; which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers.(i)

g Rom. 2:28,29; 1 Pet. 3:21. h Matt. 3:11; 1 Cor. 12:13. i Matt. 26:27,28; Matt. 28:19,20.

The word “exhibited” here means “to show” and “present”. In the minutes of the WCF they used the word a few times. One instance of its use is in reference to a report that was written and they complained that this report was never “exhibited” to them. So, put another way, the sacraments show us Christ’s grace. This grace that the sacraments present is not conferred by any power in the sacraments themselves, but through the work of the Spirit.

The Divines also point out that the one administering the sacraments is not at all a part of this conferal, and the sacraments efficacy does not depend upon the minster’s own personal holiness or intentions. This is a direct contradiction to the concept of sacraments in Roman Catholicism. In the RCC the one administering the sacraments is in fact part of the equation and if they are unfit to administer them, than those sacarments are nullified.

The Holy Spirit uses “the word of institution” in the administering of the sacraments. This phrase just means the instructions that God has given in administering the sacarments, for example in Matthew 26 we see instructions in how to administer the sacrament of communion. These words of institution are authoritative and also carry a promise of benefits to those who receive worthily. For example, the communion wine is a sign of Christ’s blood which was poured out “for the forgiveness of sins” and in the Great Commission we see baptism is tied to discipleship.

Paragraph IV

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 Matt. 28:19; 1 Cor. 11:20,23; 1 Cor. 4:1; Heb. 5:4.

There are two sacraments ordained by Christ for His Church, baptism and communion. This is at odds with the Roman Catholic sacramental system, which I believe has seven sacraments. These two sacraments must be administered by an ordained minister. We are not to be like the Corinthians who administered the sacraments for themselves and did so carelessly and greedily.

Paragraph V

The sacraments of the Old Testament, in regard of the spiritual things thereby signified and exhibited, were, for substance, the same with those of the New.(l)

l 1 Cor. 10:1-4.

There is continuity in the sacraments between that of Old Testament believers and New Testament believers.

For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea; and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and all ate the same spiritual food; and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them, and the rock was Christ.

Paragraph I

Our Lord Jesus, in the night wherein he was betrayed, instituted the sacrament of his body and blood, called the Lord’s Supper, to be observed in his church, unto the end of the world, for the perpetual remembrance of the sacrifice of himself in his death; the sealing all benefits thereof unto true believers, their spiritual nourishment and growth in him, their further engagement in and to all duties which they owe unto him; and, to be a bond and pledge of their communion with him, and with each other, as members of his mystical body.

This first section of the chapter is largely a paraphrasing of Paul’s own words and nine points about communion:

1. The sacrament of communion was instituted by Jesus himself This is important because communion is a replacement of the Passover meal and only God could replace something like Passover.

2. Jesus instituted the sacrament of His body and blood The focus is not on the makeup of the elements, this is not a sacrament of bread and wine or wheat and grapes. The emphasis is on the reality that these elements represent. “This is my body which is for you.” “This cup is the new covenant in my blood.”

3. Communion is to be observed within the Church Chapter three will go over this in greater detail, but communion is not an individual thing, but corporate.

4. Communion shall be observed until the ‘end of the world’ Twice Jesus told His disciples to remember Him, which signifies ‘the perpetual remembrance of the sacrifice of himself in his death’. Paul also recognized this and repeated the two calls himself and then ends by saying, ‘as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.’ (1 Cor. 11:24-26)

5. A remembrance of the benefits Christ won for believers Communion is not only a remembrance of His sacrifice but also of the benefits we have because of that sacrifice. Jesus gave Himself up in our places and this sacrament reminds us of that and is why Paul said that the communion cup is a “cup of blessing”. (1 Cor. 10:16)

6. Communion is for our ‘spiritual nourishment and growth’ The supper was not for bodily nourishment and growth, Paul had to correct the Corinthians on this because they were eating their fill at the communion table. Likewise, when Jesus instituted the sacrament of communion, He and his disciples did not sit down to the communion mean, rather it wasn’t until after supper that Christ instituted communion. VanDixhoorn says, “the Lord’s supper is like a good sermon: it is intended as food for the soul”

7. Communion reminds us that we owe all things to Christ and ought engage in them for His sake This is not out of the Bible, but rather is a point the Divines felt was obvious nonetheless. A man is bound to serve one master and for the Christian the sacrament of communion reiterates and reminds us who our one master is. As Paul said in 1 Corinthians 10:21, “you cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.”

8. This sacrament symbolizes our communion with Christ When we take communion we ‘drink of one Spirit’ (1 Cor. 12:13) and engage in a ‘fellowship in the blood of Christ’ and ‘in the body of Christ’ (1 Cor. 10:16)

9. This sacrament symbolizes our communion with one another ‘Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.’ (1 Cor. 10:17)

Paragraph II

After going into some detail with regards to what communion is the Divines take a moment to explain what it is not:

In this sacrament, Christ is not offered up to his Father; nor any real sacrifice made at all, for remission of sins of the quick or dead; but only a commemoration of that one offering up of himself, by himself, upon the cross, once for all: and a spiritual oblation of all possible praise unto God, for the same: so that the popish sacrifice of the mass (as they call it) is most abominably injurious to Christ’s one, only sacrifice, the alone propitiation for all the sins of his elect.

Communion is not a re-sacrifice of Christ. Communion is not a figurative or symbolic sacrifice. There is no remission of sins, for either the living or the dead, that occurs during communion.

These points are made because of the Roman mass, which is believed to involve the literal body and blood of Christ, and is a re-sacrifice, by priests for the cleansing of sins. This cannot be so, as Hebrews 9:25,26 tell us that God had no intention of merely replacing animals with Christ in temple sacrifices. Furthermore, Jesus ‘has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.’ The only Christian sacrifice was made on the cross.

Additionally, communion is a commemoration of an offering, not a ‘commemorative offering’. There is no offering being made, for ‘He … offered one sacrifice for sins for all time’ and then He sat at the Father’s right hand. (Hebrews 10:12)

Paragraph III

The confession now gives directions for communion:

The Lord Jesus hath, in this ordinance, appointed his ministers to declare his word of institution to the people; to pray, and bless the elements of bread and wine, and thereby to set them apart from a common to an holy use; and to take and break the bread, to take the cup, and (they communicating also themselves) to give both to the communicants; but to none who are not then present in the congregation.

These instructions are pulled right from the four Gospels in which we read of the night when Christ instituted communion. The Divines took three primary elements from these passages:

1. Word of institution As we discussed in XXVII the ‘word of institution’ means the words given by God for the administering of the sacraments. These words are not powerful or imbued with some mystical qualities, but they are nonetheless so important that Christ reappeared to Paul so that the apostle would have the right words to say. (1 Cor. 11:23)

2. Prayer Our prayers are so important. In communion the prayer of the minister should include the blessing of the elements and that God set apart the elements for this holy purpose.

3. Distribution of the elements The minister is to break the bread and take the cup and give the supper to all who are communing with Christ, including himself, but to none who are not there.

Paragraph IV

Private masses, or receiving this sacrament by a priest, or any other, alone; as likewise, the denial of the cup to the people, worshiping the elements, the lifting them up, or carrying them about, for adoration, and the reserving them for any pretended religious use; are all contrary to the nature of this sacrament, and to the institution of Christ.

Where chapter three leaves off, chapter four begins. Communion is not to be given in private or outside of the corporate church. This meal is to celebrate communion with Christ and with others who follow Him. A private communion cannot be a celebration of our union one with another. The Divines also refute private communion because it is not ever shown in scriptures positively (or at all). In the scriptures communion is described as gathering ‘together to break bread’. Never do we see Paul or another describe a private communion, and the closest we get is the individualist communion practices of the Corinthians which Paul is quick to stop. Finally the Divines recognized the historic relationship between the practice of private communion and the abominably Roman mass. In Roman theology, communion is a life-line to grace and can restore a sinner to Christ because it is a re-sacrifice of Christ.

The Divines also condemn the witholding of the elements. In Roman mass the wine was historically only consumed by the priests. They also condemn to worshiping and adoration of the elements. The practice of worshiping and lifting up the elements is one that is still practiced today in Eastern Orthodox, Roman, Anglican, and some Lutheran churches. Historically, not participating in this idolatry was considered an act of non-conformity by both the Roman and Anglican churches.

Paragraph V

The outward elements in this sacrament, duly set apart to the uses ordained by Christ, have such relation to him crucified, as that, truly, yet sacramentally only, they are sometimes called by the name of the things they represent, to wit, the body and blood of Christ; albeit, in substance and nature, they still remain truly and only bread and wine, as they were before.

Just as explained in chapter 27, the thing being signed is interchangeable with the sign. This is what was referred to by the Divines as “sacramental union” in chapter 27. This is important because of what we go over in the next few sections, which is the idea of transubstantiation; that Christ is literally and bodily present in the sacrament of communion.

Paragraph VI

That doctrine which maintains a change of the substance of bread and wine, into the substance of Christ’s body and blood (commonly called transubstantiation) by consecration of a priest, or by any other way, is repugnant, not to Scripture alone, but even to common sense, and reason; overthroweth the nature of the sacrament, and hath been, and is, the cause of manifold superstitions; yea, of gross idolatries.

Here when the divines say that doctrine they are referring not only to transubstantiation but also to all other such doctrines. There is metouisiosis which is essentially the same as transubstantiation but the term used by the Eastern Orthodox. There is also consubstantiation which is the idea that the sacraments are both fully symbol and the thing symbolized, the bodily presence of Christ is in, with, and under the elements, like water in a sponge. This idea is held by some Anglicans, some Methodists, and all Lutherans (although the Lutherans would reject the use of the term and instead insist upon the term “Sacramental Union”). Consubstantiation is not quite such a horrendous doctrine as transubstantiation, but it does have its own slew of problems including idolatry, but also the effective destruction of Christ’s humanity, as they assert that Christ was not a normal human because even in His human body Christ can be omnipresent.

Regardless of the term used, the Divines assert that it is contrary to both Scripture and common sense to suggest that the bread and wine are changed, in any sense, into the body and blood of Christ. Theologically we know this to be true because we know that Christ’s body was offered up once only and that his blood was spilled at the Cross and not again afterwards. Such doctrines are contrary to Scripture because after the resurrection Christ asserts that his body is just as ours is (Luke 24:39), Peter tells the Jews in Act 3 (verse 21) that Heaven has taken Christ and that He will not return until the last day, Paul tells the Corinthians (1 Cor,. 11:24-26) that we take communion in remembrance of Jesus and it’d be an odd thing to be remembering Christ if He was in fact bodily present in communion. These doctrines are also contrary to common sense because we should not need a simile to identify a metaphor. They are also contrary because we know what true transubstantiation looks like, Jesus turned water from one substance into another, wine, and when He did that he performed a true miracle and that miracle was tangible. The water literally became wine, it looked like wine and it tasted like wine and it had the intoxicating effects of wine. But the so called miracle that occurs in the various masses and services held by those who believe in the bodily presence of Christ is results in blood that tastes like wine and flesh that tastes like bread. Williamson calls this a “lying sign and wonder.”

Although not a slamdunk argument in and of itself, VanDixhoorn also points out that in additional to all the above, the superstitions and idolatry that historically accompanies these doctrines is a condemnation of them. It is because of these various forms of real presence in which Christ is bodily present in the elements that Catholics historically withheld the cup from believers and that even today the elements are venerated and worshiped as if they were God.

Paragraph VII

Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements, in this sacrament, do then also, inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally but spiritually, receive, and feed upon, Christ crucified, and all benefits of his death: the body and blood of Christ being then, not corporally or carnally, in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet, as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.

Spurning the various doctrines which claim a physical presence in the sacrament of communion was not enough, the Divines thought it best to also spurn the doctrines commonly called memorialism as well. Christ is not bodily present in the elements, but neither is He absent. The Divines are supporting “that old Calvinistic doctrine” as VanDixhoorn puts it, which is the doctrine that Christ is united spiritually with partakers in communion. Calvin famously said, “the Spirit truly unites things separated in space.” Christ is present “really, but spiritually” in the sacrament. Spiritual things are not artificial things, we might sometimes like the ability to understand these mysteries or discern them as reality, but this is a human failing not a doctrinal one. The Divines sum it up well, Christ is as “present to the faith of believers in that ordinance as the elements themselves are [present] to their outward senses.”

Paragraph VIII

Although ignorant and wicked men receive the outward elements in this sacrament; yet, they receive not the thing signified thereby; but, by their unworthy coming thereunto, are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, to their own damnation. Wherefore, all ignorant and ungodly persons, as they are unfit to enjoy communion with him, so are they unworthy of the Lord’s table; and cannot, without great sin against Christ, while they remain such, partake of these holy mysteries, or be admitted thereunto.

And lastly, we must address the fence around the table. Over the weekend, Alistair jumped a fence to go play with some tin farm animals and the lot next to Jolly Cone. The fence was a wonderful suggestion to “stay out”, but a fence is passive and, as my son proved, if someone wishes to ignore it they generally can. Sometimes fences are a warning to stay away but there is no harm in ignoring the fence, Alistair did not get in trouble for ignoring the fence, but he was kindly asked to leave. Unlike that fence, the fence around the Lord’s Table is one with teeth and it warns of the harm to trespassers. Those who trespass this fence are “guilty of the body and blood of the Lord” (1 Cor. 11:27-29). VanDixhoorn describes the unbeliever partaking of communion to be coming to the Father’s table without being invited by His Son.

Williamson points out another benefit of the metaphorical fence, it relinquishes the person who constructs the fence of guilt for any harm. If you do not have a fence, or at least signs that say “no trespassing”, on your property line it’s going to be difficult to persuade a jury that you are not guilty of any harm done to someone on your property. But if you do have a fence or a sign, than the trespasser is the one who bears the guilt of harm. Likewise, this fence around the table is not only a warning for those unworthy of the Table, but ensures that any who ignore the warning and still partake of the elements bears the full guilt for their actions.