What is the difference between ordinances and sacraments?

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.

It can scarcely be necessary to observe that circumcision and the passover were types, whilst baptism and the Lord's Supper are symbols; and symbols only. The type looks forward, and is prophetic; the symbol, as it were, looks back, and is figuratively expressive of a known truth, i.e., is historical. The two sacraments, viz., baptism and the Lord's Supper, are of similar import to circumcision (which signified the cutting off of the flesh), and the passover (which was typical of the expiatory death of Christ); but, the atonement having taken place, Christians commemorate the Lord's Supper in the blessing of accomplished redemption, and hence it has to them the character of the peace-offering. But the sacraments are not operative and efficacious in themselves. Whilst in the Lord's Sapper we have communion with the Lord as to His death, and its value to us, nevertheless one main object of the sacrament is to mark off and separate the Christian profession from non-Christianity, and that by signs significative of Christ's death.

This is essential to the meaning and nature of a sacrament, rightly understood. Marriage is not a sacrament, though it is, and was from the first, a divine institution. It does not distinguish Christianity from Judaism or from heathenism, for the relationship exists in these. There are in fact two "sacraments" only, using the term-in the proper sense, the term itself no doubt being merely ecclesiastical, though expressing the two New Testament ordinances, and not necessarily in a wrong sense. Confirmation is not regarded as a sacrament in the Anglican body, though it is retained as a rite. Still, not a trace of it is to be found in the Scripture. The word episterizo occurs four times, all in the Acts; and it is impossible to read those passages with an unbiassed mind, and not see that the meaning is no ritual process, but morally and spiritually to strengthen or establish. Thus Parkhurst says in his Lexicon: "In the New Testament it is used only in a figurative and spiritual sense for confirming persons in their adherence to the gospel, notwithstanding opposition and persecution." These occurrences are Acts 14:22; Acts 15:32 and 41; Acts 18:28; the last text being, "And after he had spent some time there, he departed and went over all the country of Galatia and Phrygia in order, strengthening all the disciples." And in Acts 15:82, Judas and Silas, the prophets, exhorted and confirmed the brethren. Now the so-called "Bishop" is the person who "confirms" — doubtless for the sake (as is so often said) of decency and order. but this human view of decency and order has utterly overthrown God's order, and made human authority in the church paramount to Scriptural authority, generally with the flimsiest pretence, and often without say at all.

Never in scripture is either the Lord's baptism or Supper treated as a mystery, "the great spiritual mystery," as these men say of the latter. There are mysteries in abundance, once hidden, now made plain, precious, practical. Sacraments are not included in that category. One initiatory, the other constant, they had their wise and good place as His institutions; but, being external forms, they afforded a handle to religious imagination; and Christendom has made them into calves of gold to worship its own handiwork. If divine order is prized by believers, how can they depart from the holy and beautiful simplicity of that feast Christ bequeathed to us, and took care to give in three Gospels, and to reveal afresh to and by the apostle Paul? A more systematic and chilling departure can hardly he conceived than these "Readings" disclose to one imbued with the unworldly order of the scripture accounts. Are we not to believe His will therein reflected for us to follow? Let us hold fast the traditions as Paul delivered them to us.

In the New Testament, where all is plain and simple, we only read of two sacraments, or divine institutions, as connected with a saved people — baptism and the Lord's supper But in both the Greek and Latin churches the number had been greatly increased and variously stated by different theologians. It was no longer a question of divine revelation, but of the human imagination. Some speak of as many as twelve sacraments; but in the Western church the mystical number of seven was ultimately established, as corresponding with the idea of the sevenfold gifts of the Holy Ghost. And these were — baptism, confirmation, the eucharist, penance, extreme unction, ordination, and matrimony.*

I learn that the Lord has left two rites, or ordinances, both significative of His death; one initiatory, the other of continual observance in the church of God — baptism and the Lord's supper.17

Christ has left us two signs: one of His death and resurrection, baptism; the other, the memorial of His death, the breaking of bread. It is sad that it is called an ordinance if more is meant than the Lord's institution. When Jesus said "Do this in remembrance of me," surely He meant that it should be done; but by these words He only gave a motive, and did not establish an ordinance.

There were directions for order, and simple ordinances clearly referred to, as two, baptism and the Lord's supper; both telling of Christ's death (one initiatory, the other continual), of man judged, for Christ had been rejected, and of redemption accomplished in His death. I refer to them now simply to shew that I acknowledge them fully and their value.

356 The point of the sacraments, so called, only remains. Mr. A.'s statements are on the same wretched legal ground - man makes a covenant with God in them. I reply, If he does, he is lost, for he will certainly fail, and there can be no consequence of failure (for it is sin) but condemnation; for man's entering into a covenant is not grace - the grace of God. I account baptism and the Lord's supper to be precious institutions of the Lord Jesus: one as admitting publicly in the church on the principle of the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ; the other, spiritual fellowship of His death in the unity of the body, as sitting by grace in heavenly places.

There are two rites or ordinances in Christianity: (1) Baptism, which puts the baptised person on ground of profession; (2) the Lord's Supper on the line of privilege. The truth of the latter was clearly given to Gentile believers through the Apostle Paul, "I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you" (1 Cor. 11:23), It is primarily a memorial feast, having its inauguration and type in the memorial and ordinance of the Passover. In Exodus 12. we get the type; the slain lamb, unleavened bread and bitter herbs speak of the character of the passover feast; while the girded loins, shoes and staff set forth the pilgrim features of the participators. It would seem that it was the custom of the Jews to "break bread" and "drink of the cup of consolation" for their departed parents (Jer. 16:7; also Deut. 26:14; Job 42:11, and Hosea 9:4). This "mourning feast" would have significance to a godly Jew familiar with the Hebrew scriptures.

Further, it is alleged that these ordinances are signs of the state of him who partakes of them - not of an object of his faith. This is entirely contrary to scripture. We are baptised to Christ's death and raised in baptism - not baptised because we are dead and risen. It is objective: what is represented in baptism? I am figuratively buried into death and rise again, not as a witness that I am. The principle is false and mischievous. "Arise and be baptised, and wash away thy sins," not because faith has washed away. It is the outward public sign of that whereto Christ's death and resurrection are available, a witness of that - not that the person has availed himself of them: that may or may not be true. To receive of the Lord's supper, I do not go because I have remembered Christ's death, or have fed upon Him, but to remember Him there.