What is sacramentalism?

The word" sacrament" is from the Latin sacramentum, the military oath of allegiance administered to the Roman soldiers, and is thus an ecclesiastical and not a Scriptural term. In the Latin translation it is used as the equivalent of the Greek word mysterion, mystery. It is so used in Eph. 5:32, where speaking of marriage the Apostle says, "this is a great mystery." Hence the Roman Catholics make matrimony a sacrament. The absurdity of this is evident when it is seen that the usual ecclesiastical sense of the word would be gone if the Greek word mysterion, is always to be considered as meaning a sacrament; for instance, "the mystery of the gospel," "the mystery of godliness," "the mystery of iniquity," etc. Yet if not always, with what authority in Eph. 5:32? The Catechism of the Church of England tells us that "a sacrament is an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace," etc., "as a means whereby we receive the same." According to the Prayer-book, therefore, the elements in the Sacraments are channels or vehicles of divine grace. But the above definition of a Sacrament is erroneous, for the "inward and spiritual grace" is not necessary to the definition of a Sacrament, and is mischievously false if we are to regard the water in baptism, or the bread and wine in the Lord's Supper, as its channels or vehicles. Yet everyone knows that baptismal regeneration is the teaching of the Prayer-book, and as to the Lord's Supper, the Catechism, in answer to the question "What is the inward part, or thing signified?" replies, "The body and blood of Christ, which are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's Supper." but the import of a sacrament in no way depends upon any subjective effort in the individual. Sacraments have also been compared with the tree of life in the garden of Eden, or with that in Rev. 22:2. These, however, in no way represent the death of Christ, and this would be moreover to maintain the opus operatum, to make them operative in themselves, a theory rejected by nearly all the Reformers.

1882 118 How are we then to define a sacrament, so that the definition may be what a definition should be, viz., adequate, yet devoid of superfluous conditions? A sacrament is an ordinance instituted by Christ Himself, and which exhibits, in a symbolical form, the way, or the meritorious cause, of our salvation. Hence the Anglican body rightly says, there are two sacraments and two only. One of these is subjective, the other objective. Baptism, the subjective, and the initiatory rite of the church, signifies that death and resurrection in and with Christ is the process of salvation. "Know ye not that so many of us as have been baptized unto Jesus Christ have been baptized unto His death? Therefore we have been buried with Him by baptism unto death." (Rom. 6:3-4). "Buried with Him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with Him," etc. (Col. 2:12). "For ye have died, and your life is hid with Christ in God." (Col. 3:3.) "Verily, verily I say unto you, He that heareth My word, and believeth on Him that sent Me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but is passed from death unto life." (John 5:24.) Death and resurrection is the fundamental principle of the gospel — on the part of Christ it is the meritorious cause of our salvation, on our part it is the necessary process; and of this truth baptism is the symbol. The Lord's Supper is the ordinance in which the sacrificial death of Christ is symbolically presented to us, as forming the subject-matter of the church's communion with the Lord, and with each other, and that in peace with God. The Lord's Supper is particularly connected with the church as the body of Christ "For we being many are one bread (loaf), and one body" (1 Cor. 10:17); but we are baptized into one body, not by water, but by the Holy Ghost.

The fundamental error here is twofold: first, in confounding, as already said, the natural and the spiritual spheres. Water cannot cleanse a soul, nor impart spiritual life. It may be "an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace," but not "a means whereby we receive the same." Secondly, in confounding heaven and the kingdom of heaven, or again, the kingdom of heaven and the Church. And from these last two, Protestantism has not in general, any more than Rome, escaped. The distinction between the two leaves a place of privilege and conditional blessing, which is not the Church, and yet which is not the world either, save as it is untrue to its character, and the principles of the world may leaven it. And this is what Scripture attests would happen, and history shows has happened.

Nor are we sacramentalists because we cannot grant this (C. 21). Our brother may find, if he please to look, whether in the Episcopal prayer-book, or the Westminster Confession of Faith, that a sacrament is understood to be an ordinance that conveys the grace it signifies. Thus if baptism is figuratively (as they hold) "the washing of regeneration," it imparts this grace — it regenerates. This, assuredly, I do not hold. And yet I do hold that there is a congruity between the figurative meaning and what is accomplished by the baptismal act.

The common factor of these two signs is that they both speak of death. Baptism reminds us of the death of Jesus Christ for us, with which we are identified. The Breaking of Bread also reminds us of the Lord’s death every first day of the week. He gave His life for us, so that we can pass from death unto life. Another thing that both signs have in common is that they have neither a secret nor a mystical power. The actions themselves are and remain outward actions. They do not effect any change in our inner person. We do not become different persons either through baptism or by participating in the Breaking of Bread. No-one will enter heaven simply on the ground of his having been baptized or having taken part in the Breaking of Bread. Both signs are outward signs; however, they have a profound spiritual significance.

In order to avoid a widespread error right from the start we should emphasize that eating of the loaf and drinking from the cup is not a sacrament (i.e. a means of grace). By participating in the Breaking of Bread those concerned experience no change in themselves. The Breaking of Bread is neither mystic nor does it bring about any spiritual development in the hearts of those taking part. There is indeed spiritual significance in the act, but the Bible does not teach that people are changed thereby.

But I must prove my statements as to Dr. O'Brien. First, the change of terms on which the whole argument depends, and the petitio principii involving the whole question. "All who believe baptism to be a sacrament must believe that what is outward and visible is connected with something inward and invisible, that what is material is connected with something spiritual - not merely as an outward, but as an effectual sign thereof: that is, a sign by which, or through which, as the channel or means or instrument (whether sole or concurrent) these inward or spiritual effects are wrought." Why so? Because that is the definition of a sacrament (which is not a scriptural word) given in the system which is attacked as false. A sacrament, in the catechism which teaches baptismal regeneration so called, is an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace given unto us as a means whereby we receive the same. Of course, if a sacrament confers the grace of which it is a sign, so that it is an effectual sign, it does confer it. If I call it a sacrament (and a sacrament means conferring the grace and I must add, if this be the grace signified), the grace is conferred.

"I profess also, that there are truly and properly seven sacraments of the new law, instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord, and for the salvation of mankind, though all are not necessary for every one; namely, baptism, confirmation, eucharist, penance, extreme unction, orders, and matrimony, and that they confer grace; and of these, baptism, confirmation, and orders cannot be reiterated without sacrilege.

Baptism (see Matt. 28:19), for infants or adults, imparts sanctifying grace and erases original sin. The Catholic believer keeps sanctifying grace only through "spiritual battle" (following the program of good works). Confirmation (see John 14:26) is the completion of baptism, the giving of the Holy Spirit in a fuller outpouring. Children who have been baptized are confirmed at age 12. The Holy Eucharist (see Matt. 26:26‑28; John 6:35‑58) is also called Holy Communion and is the most important sacrament of the Catholic Church. During Mass, through the miracle of transubstantiation, Christ is re‑presented as an unbloody sacrifice for sins. Penance (confession or reconciliation) (see John 20:19‑23) is how a Roman Catholic is forgiven by God - through the ministry of a priest - for the sins he commits after baptism. Anointing of the Sick (see Jas. 5:14,15) was formerly called Extreme Unction. In performing this sacrament, the priest lays hands on the sick or dying believer, prays over him or her in the faith of the Church, and anoints the believer with oil blessed, if possible, by the bishop. Holy Orders (see I Tim. 3: 1; 2 Tim. 1:6; Titus 2: 15) is the sacrament through which Catholic ministers are ordained at three levels: bishops, presbyters (priests) and deacons. Only bishops can confer the Sacrament of Holy Orders." Matrimony (see Gen. 2:18, 21‑25; Eph. 5:22,33) is the sacrament in which Christ joins a Christian man and woman in a grace - giving, lifelong union. Divorce and remarriage cut the Catholic off from eucharistic communion but not from the Church.

Of the Seven Sacraments, the two most significant concerning doctrinal differences with Protestants are the Holy Eucharist and Penance. Roman Catholics believe that when the priest consecrates the bread and wine during the Mass, these elements are transformed into the actual body and blood of Christ. Catholics call this transubstantiation.

I deny entirely what is called sacramental grace. That we are blessed in communion with Christ, in partaking in the faith of the Lord's supper, I gladly recognize. He is present with two or three, gathered together in His name, in that special and blessed remembrance of His death according to His grace; in which He in sovereign goodness cares that we should remember Him. The soul enjoys fellowship with Him, and in the most excellent way. But it is not grace in the elements. I do not believe there is any grace in the bread or the wine. It is a mere mischievous superstition. There is in scripture no consecration of elements, though they are appropriated with thanksgiving; since they are to represent Christ's body and blood, and hence to be reverently used in doing so, "discerning the Lord's body." But what we break is bread, and nothing else. The history even of the progress to Romanist views is easily traced, though of no importance. We must have "what was from the beginning," or else not abide in the Son and in the Father.

I deny entirely what is called "sacramental grace." That we are blessed in communion with Christ, in partaking in the faith of the Lord's supper, I gladly recognise. He is present with two or three, gathered together in His name, in that special and blessed remembrance of His death, according to His grace, in which He, in sovereign goodness, cares that we should remember Him: the soul enjoys fellowship with Him, and in the most excellent way. But it is not grace in the elements. I do not believe there is any grace in the bread or the wine. It is a mere mischievous superstition. There is in scripture no consecration of elements, though they are appropriated with thanksgiving; since they are to represent Christ's body and blood, and hence to be reverently used in doing so, "discerning the Lord's body." But what we break is bread, and nothing else. The history even of the progress to Romanist views is easily traced, though of no importance. We must have "what was from the beginning," or else not abide in the Son and in the Father.