A (91). The Sacraments become effectual means of salvation, not from any virtue in them, or in him that doth administer them; but only by the blessing of Christ, and the working of his Spirit in them that by faith receive them.

A (92). A Sacrament is a holy ordinance instituted by Christ; wherein, by sensible signs, Christ and the benefits of the new covenant are represented, sealed, and applied to believers.

A (93). The Sacraments of the New Testament are Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper.

A word about the word sacraments. The Socinians were the first in the modern church to banish the use of this word,1 and many others among Evangelicals have done the same, preferring the word “ordinance.” On the one hand, the word ordinance is perfectly fine, as these were indeed ordained by God, or, to use the other word as a synonym, instituted by Christ. On the other hand, the word “sacrament” is equally fitting and perhaps more fitting, as it captures more of the essence of what these are. 

The word SACRAMENT is from the Latin sacramentum rooted in the verb sacro, which is to set apart as sacred, consecrate, dedicate, devote.2 In the centuries surrounding Christ’s life on earth, both before and after, the word had the connotation of both a monetary pledge and a sacred oath—the latter of which came into play in the military pledge among the Romans. Turretin chronciles both uses cited in Varro and Cicero.3 So the word was justified by the likes of Tertullian and Isidore on the grounds that if such an oath to the Roman imperium were held sacred and inviolable, how much more so between the parties of the covenant of grace.4 But the word began to be used as a catch-all for “mystery” such that anything sacred that was not doctrine fell under its heading. 

The Nature of Sacraments

The Reformed have used the language that sacraments are “signs and seals of the covenant of grace.” What does this mean and where in Scripture do we get this from? Let’s begin with Romans 4:11, a verse that is crucial at least because of how it uses both of those words:

“He [Abraham] received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was dto make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well.”

The idea of a sign is clear enough. Signs point beyond themselves. They may use words or symbols inside them, or the whole form may be the sign, by way of analogy. But, in any case, they represent in some way the substance of what they are pointing to. Such a sign is a sign both to the faithful and to God—not because God needs instruction from the sign, but that God considers this thing that He has marked out as special. So,

“The blood shall be a sign for you, on the houses where you are. And when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and no plague will befall you to destroy you, when I strike the land of Egypt” (Ex. 12:13).

Turretin’s openning statement on the sacraments captures what is going on here: [God] “has condescended to seal this covenant by sacraments as seals, that by them as badges he might distinguish and separate his people from the rest of the world.”5

We can see in the initiating passage in Genesis about circumcision that a sign is also a pledge or a token, so that the act of pointing makes the signer of that sign communicate the intention to ensure that the substance belongs to the one who follows the sign. 

“And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you” (Gen. 17:7, 10).

This forms the link between a sign and a seal. God is not merely acting at first and then everyone who sees the sign is acting later in response, but yet no bridge, no meeting place between the divine grace and the human participant. There is—in each such act—the divine establishing. As Swain put it, “A sign is what the sacrament is; a seal is what the sacrament does.”6 

As one more description, Turretin offers a view that follows directly what we have said of the relationship between the inward grace and the external means. He wrote,

“The matter of the sacrament is twofold: one external and sensible, the other internal and intelligible; the former is called a sign, the latter is the thing signified. That is perceived by the senses of the body and especially by the sight; but this by the mind, furnished with a fit instrument for it (to wit, faith). That is an element instituted by God in order to signify and seal grace; this is the grace of God in Christ or Christ with all his benefits.”7

 

The Number of Sacraments

Can we reduce the nature of the sacraments down to a few essential attributes? Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. These are what all of the churches coming out of the Reformation have traced out in Scripture.

For example, the Reformed theologian Johannes Wollebius gave this summary, 

“Three things are necessary for a sacrament: that it has been divinely instituted under the covenant of grace; that it have an external symbol appointed by God; that the promise of grace be connected with it.”8

I would say four is a better number, because to be instituted under the covenant of grace is to be instituted to and for the church in a special way. Let us take a moment to examine this list and show each point from Scripture. A true sacrament must be:

First, instituted by Christ through the apostolic Scriptures, with his accompanying promise to bless—“For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you” (1 Cor. 11:23; cf. Exod 20:24b; Matt 28:18-20; Luke 22:19).

Second, a visible representation, or symbol, of the gospel—“In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism” (Col. 2:11-12; cf. Acts 2.38; Rom 6:2-6; Luke 22:19-20; 1 Cor 10:16).

Third, be perpetually performed until the return of Jesus Christ, where they will be consummated in the kingdom of God: “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes” (1 Cor. 11:26; cf. Matt 28:20; Mark 14:25; Luke 22:19; 1 Cor 11:26; Rev. 19).

Fourth, be, in principle, for the whole church, and as a church—“The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread” (1 Cor. 10:16-17; cf. Matt 28:19; Eph. 4:5; 1 Cor. 11:18, 20, 29, 33).

So, for the early church and for the Reformed and Evangelical churches, there are two sacraments: Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Consider the institution passages in both cases in Matthew’s Gospel:

“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19).

“Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, ‘Take, eat; this is my body.’ And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, ‘Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Matt. 26:26-28)

Now Roman Catholicism teaches that there are seven sacraments. These are listed as 1. Baptism, 2. Confirmation, 3. Eucharist, 4. Penance, 5. Anointing of the Sick, 6. Holy Orders, and 7. Marriage. Now what is our argument against this list? It is simply the biblical criteria I just listed.

Marriage may seem to fulfill the first, second, and third on that aforementioned list of requirements for a sacrament, yet not the fourth—and, upon closer inspection, that fourth point (for the whole church) begins to shape how one sees the sense of the first three. In fact, the very passage to which one may appeal to show that marriage tells the gospel (Eph. 5:22-33) also teaches us that marriage is a creation ordinance, and so is not given exclusively to the church.

The Sacraments as Effectual Means

We spoke of the link between sign and seal in Genesis 17 especially. There is a helpful analogy to marriage here. Just as the ring is an ongoing sign of the marriage bond, and the pronouncement of the minister; and just as the vows made by the husband and wife, are not merely words, but in the act of speaking there is a doing.

There are promises made, witnesses, and all in the sight of God and with the blessing of God.

So as in marriage, as there is the external ceremony—including pronouncements, vows, and rings—and the bond which follows and grows, so here, as Turretin explains, 

“There is a twofold efficacy … ascribed to the sacraments according to us: the one is moral [natural] and objective, by which the sacraments make present to our mind that object, to signify and seal which they are destined (by which means, faith is either excited or confirmed and, it mediating, hope and sanctification are increased); the other covenantal, by which God (sealing by the sacraments his promise or covenant) confers the very things promised upon the believing soul or even a greater sense and perception of these already conferred and produces by both greater operations.”9

In the simplest and most familiar narrative passages we cannot escape the divine nearness in the sacraments. If not explicitly so, at least the significance itself challenges what we mean by dismissing them as mere symbols. John the Baptist said, “I baptize you with water for repentance” (Matt. 3:11). Now even if we speak of the distinction between John’s baptism and that which Christ instituted, nonetheless, baptism was never conceived in order to do nothing but symbolize. It was always tied to some newness of life. 

More on the substance of what the word itself signifies, consider Paul’s statement that, “in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit” (1 Cor. 12:13). Clearly the Actor here is God.

Now it is important to catch the qualifiers that the answer to Question 91 gives. What is the effectiveness of this grace? NOT FROM AY VIRTUE IN THEM (that is, in the physical properties or objects taken in themselves), OR IN HIM THAT DOTH ADMINISTER THEM. In these two negative qualifiers, both the Roman Catholic mechanism for this grace and their priesthood are removed from the power. And incidentally, if a Romanist wants to argue that it is in the power of their priesthood, then they either have to argue that they infallibly know that no other individuals or groups are in any real sense “Christian” or they have to go back on their orthhodox position against the Donatists. It was the Donatist error that suggested that the ministers who perform the sacraments must be pure, as those churches alone were pure. Likewise, the Roman Catholic view of this sacramental grace working “from the working of the works” (ex opero operata) is rejected by these words. The trouble with this formula of Rome is not merely that it reduces that which is spiritual to that which is physical, but also that such working always works, as Turretin said, “by virtue of the external action,” that is, “without any motion, devotion, piety or faith; or any other preparation on the part of the recipient.”10

But ONLY BY THE BLESSING OF CHRIST, AND THE WORKING OF HIS SPIRIT IN THEM THAT BY FAITH RECEIVE THEM. One thing that Reformed Presbyterians and Reformed Baptists will always agree on is that without faith, the sacraments will not profit. Then of course we will begin to disagree as to the relationship between that faith and the grace in the sacrament. Baptists will make it about the timing of one’s profession—both for the sake of the believer’s response and sense of what it means to be saved, and for the integrity of the ministry that would do its best to ensure the relative purity of the church. We do not begrudge our Baptist brethren this care, but we would only ask whether the Scriptures ever suggest that such levels of introspection and control are what the sacraments were given to do.

At the turn of the sixteenth century, William Ames wrote that, 

“The form of a sacrament is the union between the sign and the things signified . . . The union is neither physical nor yet imaginary; it is rather a spiritual relation by which the things signified are really communicated to those who rightly use the signs.”11

This makes much more sense when we remember that these are signs and seals of one covenant of grace, so that the same God who promised the same substance of Christ from the first continues to do so from the Old to the New. Note the language from the beginning, even about the covenant through Noah to all creation: “God said, ‘This is the sign of the covenant that I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all future generations’” (Gen. 9:12). Yet there was a distinct covenant of grace announced first to Abraham, saying even of the sign: “This is my covenant … and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you” (Gen. 17:10, 11). If God infallibly remembers the covenant to all creation, how much more will He remember that which is sealed in His Son’s blood for His beloved.

_________________________________

1. cf. Turretin, Institutes, III.19.1.3.

2. Logeion

3. Turretin, Institutes, III.19.1.4.

4. cf. Tertullian, To the Martyrs, 3 [FC 40:22; PL 1.697]; Isidore, Etymologiarum, 9.3 [PL 82.347].

5. Turretin, Institutes, III.19.1.1.

6. Swain, Systematic Theology III lectures on Ecclesiology and the Sacraments (2016), 44.

7. Turretin, Institutes, III.19.1.10.

8. Johannes Wollebius, Compendium Theologiae Christianae, 127. 

9. Turretin, Institutes, III.19.8.5.

10. Turretin, Institutes, III.19.8.2.

11. William Ames, The Marrow of Theology, 198.