A few years ago I used my highlighter marker on page 350 of my copy of Zacharias Ursinus’ Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism. I was intrigued by something written under the subhead, “What is the lawful use of the sacraments.” Therein one finds these words:
…if the signs be received without faith, it is manifest that the sign and the thing signified do not continue united according to divine appointment. Of those who receive the sacraments it is said: “Circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law,” &c. (Rom. 2:25)
So here then is the equation:
{sacrament} + {faith} = {circumcision} + {keeping the law}
Now, for this equation to work I think it is beyond doubt that
{sacrament} = {circumcision}
So where does that leave us?
{faith} = {keeping the law}
Well, you may need to replace the = with &2248; The whole analogy is equivalent, not the constituent parts.
≈
While I do not have Ursinus’ Commentary in front of me right now one problem springs to mind. That would be question 21 of the Heidelberg Catechism itself.
“True faith is not only a sure knowledge, whereby I hold for truth all that God has revealed to us in His Word, but also a hearty trust, which the Holy Ghost works in me by the Gospel, that not only to others, but to me also, forgiveness of sins, everlasting righteousness, and salvation are freely given by God, merely of grace, only for the sake of Christ’s merits.”
It is hard to see how faith equals keeping the law from his definition of faith.
The moral law commands that we “hold for truth all that God has revealed to us in His Word,” and also to have “a hearty trust,…that not only to others, but to me also, forgiveness of sins, everlasting righteousness, and salvation are freely given by God, merely of grace, only for the sake of Christ’s merits.”
If you look at the Westminster Catechisms on the meaning of the prologue of the decalogue you will find what I think is pretty much a paraphrase of what I wrote above in regard to Heidelberg Catechism 21.