There is no word in the Bible which corresponds to the word
sacrament. It is a Latin word; and, agreeably to its derivation, it was
applied by the early writers of the western church to any ceremony of
our holy religion, especially if it were figurative or mystical. But a
more confined signification of this word by degrees prevailed, and in
that stricter sense it has been always used by the divines of modern
times. Sacraments, says Dr. Hill, are conceived in the church of Rome to
consist of matter, deriving, from the action of the priest in
pronouncing certain words, a divine virtue, by which grace is conveyed
to the soul of every person who receives them. It is supposed to be
necessary that the priest, in pronouncing the words, has the intention
of giving to the matter that divine virtue; otherwise it remains in its
original state. On the part of those who receive the sacrament, it is
required that they be free from any of those sins, called in the church
of Rome mortal; but it is not required of them to exercise any good
disposition, to possess faith, or to resolve that they shall amend their
lives; for such is conceived to be the physical virtue of a sacrament
administered by a priest with a good intention, that, unless when it is
opposed by the obstacle of a mortal sin, the very act of receiving it is
sufficient. This act was called, in the language of the schools, _opus
operatum_, the work done independently of any disposition of mind
attending the deed; and the superiority of the sacraments of the New
Testament over the sacraments of the Old was thus expressed, that the
sacraments of the Old Testament were effectual _ex opere operantis_,
from the piety and faith of the persons to whom they were administered;
while the sacraments of the New Testament convey grace, _ex opere
operato_, from their own intrinsic virtue, and an immediate physical
influence upon the mind of him who receives them. This notion represents
the sacraments as a mere charm, the use of which, being totally
disjoined from every mental exercise, cannot be regarded as a reasonable
service. It gives men the hope of receiving, by the use of a charm, the
full participation of the grace of God, although they continue to
indulge that very large class of sins, to which the accommodating
morality of the church of Rome extends the name of venial; and yet it
makes this high privilege entirely dependent upon the intention of
another, who, although he performs all the outward acts which belong to
the sacrament, may, if he chooses, withhold the communication of that
physical virtue, without which the sacrament is of none avail.
The Socinian doctrine concerning the nature of the sacraments is founded
upon a sense of the absurdity and danger of the popish doctrine, and a
solicitude to avoid any approach to it, and runs into the opposite
extreme. It is conceived that the sacraments are not essentially
distinct from any other rites or ceremonies; that, as they consist of a
symbolical action, in which something external and material is employed
to represent what is spiritual and invisible, they may by this address
to the senses be of use in reviving the remembrance of past events, and
in cherishing pious sentiments; but that their effect is purely moral,
and that they contribute, by that moral effect, to the improvement of
the individual in the same manner with reading the Scriptures, and many
other exercises of religion. It is admitted, indeed, by the Socinians,
that the sacraments are of farther advantage to the whole society of
Christians, as being the solemn badges by which the disciples of Jesus
are discriminated from other men, and the appointed method of declaring
that faith in Christ, by the public profession of which Christians
minister to the improvement of one another. But in these two points, the
moral effect upon the individual, and the advantage to society, is
contained all that a Socinian holds concerning the general nature of the
sacraments. This doctrine, like all other parts of the Socinian system,
represents religion in the simple view of being a lesson of
righteousness, and loses sight of that character of the Gospel, which is
meant to be implied in calling it a covenant of grace. The greater part
of Protestants, therefore, following an expression of the Apostle, Rom.
iv, 11, when he is speaking of circumcision, consider the sacraments as
not only signs, but also seals, of the covenant of grace. Those who
apply this phrase to the sacraments of the New Testament, admit every
part of the Socinian doctrine concerning the nature of sacraments, and
are accustomed to employ that doctrine to correct those popish errors
upon this subject which are not yet eradicated from the minds of many of
the people. But although they admit that the Socinian doctrine is true
as far as it goes, they consider it as incomplete. For, while they hold
that the sacraments yield no benefit to those upon whom the signs
employed in them do not produce the proper moral effect, they regard
these signs as intended to represent an inward invisible grace, which
proceeds from him by whom they are appointed, and as pledges that that
grace will be conveyed to all in whom the moral effect is produced. The
sacraments, therefore, in their opinion, constitute federal acts, in
which the persons who receive them with proper dispositions, solemnly
engage to fulfil their part of the covenant, and God confirms his
promise to them in a sensible manner; not as if the promise of God were
of itself insufficient to render any event certain, but because this
manner of exhibiting the blessings promised gives a stronger impression
of the truth of the promise, and conveys to the mind an assurance that
it will be fulfilled. According to this account of the sacraments, the
express institution of God is essentially requisite to constitute their
nature; and in this respect sacraments are distinguished from what may
be called the ceremonies of religion. Ceremonies are in their nature
arbitrary; and different means may be employed by different persons with
success, according to their constitution, their education, and their
circumstances, to cherish the sentiments of devotion, and to confirm
good purposes. But no rite which is not ordained by God can be conceived
to be a seal of his promise, or the pledge of any event that depends
upon his good pleasure. Hence, that any rite may come up to our idea of
a sacrament, we require in it, not merely a vague and general
resemblance between the external matter which is the visible substance
of the rite, and the thing thereby signified, but also words of
institution, and a promise by which the two are connected together; and
hence we reject five of the seven sacraments that are numbered in the
church of Rome, because in some of the five we do not find any matter
without which there is not that sign which enters into our definition of
a sacrament; and in others we do not find any promise connecting the
matter used with the grace said to be thereby signified, although upon
this connection the essence of a sacrament depends.
sacrament. It is a Latin word; and, agreeably to its derivation, it was
applied by the early writers of the western church to any ceremony of
our holy religion, especially if it were figurative or mystical. But a
more confined signification of this word by degrees prevailed, and in
that stricter sense it has been always used by the divines of modern
times. Sacraments, says Dr. Hill, are conceived in the church of Rome to
consist of matter, deriving, from the action of the priest in
pronouncing certain words, a divine virtue, by which grace is conveyed
to the soul of every person who receives them. It is supposed to be
necessary that the priest, in pronouncing the words, has the intention
of giving to the matter that divine virtue; otherwise it remains in its
original state. On the part of those who receive the sacrament, it is
required that they be free from any of those sins, called in the church
of Rome mortal; but it is not required of them to exercise any good
disposition, to possess faith, or to resolve that they shall amend their
lives; for such is conceived to be the physical virtue of a sacrament
administered by a priest with a good intention, that, unless when it is
opposed by the obstacle of a mortal sin, the very act of receiving it is
sufficient. This act was called, in the language of the schools, _opus
operatum_, the work done independently of any disposition of mind
attending the deed; and the superiority of the sacraments of the New
Testament over the sacraments of the Old was thus expressed, that the
sacraments of the Old Testament were effectual _ex opere operantis_,
from the piety and faith of the persons to whom they were administered;
while the sacraments of the New Testament convey grace, _ex opere
operato_, from their own intrinsic virtue, and an immediate physical
influence upon the mind of him who receives them. This notion represents
the sacraments as a mere charm, the use of which, being totally
disjoined from every mental exercise, cannot be regarded as a reasonable
service. It gives men the hope of receiving, by the use of a charm, the
full participation of the grace of God, although they continue to
indulge that very large class of sins, to which the accommodating
morality of the church of Rome extends the name of venial; and yet it
makes this high privilege entirely dependent upon the intention of
another, who, although he performs all the outward acts which belong to
the sacrament, may, if he chooses, withhold the communication of that
physical virtue, without which the sacrament is of none avail.
The Socinian doctrine concerning the nature of the sacraments is founded
upon a sense of the absurdity and danger of the popish doctrine, and a
solicitude to avoid any approach to it, and runs into the opposite
extreme. It is conceived that the sacraments are not essentially
distinct from any other rites or ceremonies; that, as they consist of a
symbolical action, in which something external and material is employed
to represent what is spiritual and invisible, they may by this address
to the senses be of use in reviving the remembrance of past events, and
in cherishing pious sentiments; but that their effect is purely moral,
and that they contribute, by that moral effect, to the improvement of
the individual in the same manner with reading the Scriptures, and many
other exercises of religion. It is admitted, indeed, by the Socinians,
that the sacraments are of farther advantage to the whole society of
Christians, as being the solemn badges by which the disciples of Jesus
are discriminated from other men, and the appointed method of declaring
that faith in Christ, by the public profession of which Christians
minister to the improvement of one another. But in these two points, the
moral effect upon the individual, and the advantage to society, is
contained all that a Socinian holds concerning the general nature of the
sacraments. This doctrine, like all other parts of the Socinian system,
represents religion in the simple view of being a lesson of
righteousness, and loses sight of that character of the Gospel, which is
meant to be implied in calling it a covenant of grace. The greater part
of Protestants, therefore, following an expression of the Apostle, Rom.
iv, 11, when he is speaking of circumcision, consider the sacraments as
not only signs, but also seals, of the covenant of grace. Those who
apply this phrase to the sacraments of the New Testament, admit every
part of the Socinian doctrine concerning the nature of sacraments, and
are accustomed to employ that doctrine to correct those popish errors
upon this subject which are not yet eradicated from the minds of many of
the people. But although they admit that the Socinian doctrine is true
as far as it goes, they consider it as incomplete. For, while they hold
that the sacraments yield no benefit to those upon whom the signs
employed in them do not produce the proper moral effect, they regard
these signs as intended to represent an inward invisible grace, which
proceeds from him by whom they are appointed, and as pledges that that
grace will be conveyed to all in whom the moral effect is produced. The
sacraments, therefore, in their opinion, constitute federal acts, in
which the persons who receive them with proper dispositions, solemnly
engage to fulfil their part of the covenant, and God confirms his
promise to them in a sensible manner; not as if the promise of God were
of itself insufficient to render any event certain, but because this
manner of exhibiting the blessings promised gives a stronger impression
of the truth of the promise, and conveys to the mind an assurance that
it will be fulfilled. According to this account of the sacraments, the
express institution of God is essentially requisite to constitute their
nature; and in this respect sacraments are distinguished from what may
be called the ceremonies of religion. Ceremonies are in their nature
arbitrary; and different means may be employed by different persons with
success, according to their constitution, their education, and their
circumstances, to cherish the sentiments of devotion, and to confirm
good purposes. But no rite which is not ordained by God can be conceived
to be a seal of his promise, or the pledge of any event that depends
upon his good pleasure. Hence, that any rite may come up to our idea of
a sacrament, we require in it, not merely a vague and general
resemblance between the external matter which is the visible substance
of the rite, and the thing thereby signified, but also words of
institution, and a promise by which the two are connected together; and
hence we reject five of the seven sacraments that are numbered in the
church of Rome, because in some of the five we do not find any matter
without which there is not that sign which enters into our definition of
a sacrament; and in others we do not find any promise connecting the
matter used with the grace said to be thereby signified, although upon
this connection the essence of a sacrament depends.