Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 13.djvu/346

 SACRAMENTS

300

SACRAMENTS

this honour belongs to Peter Lombard (d. 1164) who in his fourth Book of Sentences (d. i, n, 2) defines a sacrament as a sacred sign which not only signifies but also causes grace, and then (d. ii, n. 1) enumerates the seven sacraments. It is worthy of note that, al- though the great Scholastics rejected many of his theological opinions (list given in app. to Migne edi- tion, Paris, ISll), this definition and enumeration were at once universally accepted, proof positive that he did not introduce a new doctrine, but merely ex- pressed in a convenient and precise formula what had always been held in the Church. Just as many doc- trines were beUeved, but not always accurately ex- pressed, until the condemnation of heresies or the development of religious knowledge called forth a neat and precise formula, so also the sacraments were accepted and used by the Church for centuries before Aristotelean philosophy, applied to the systematic explanation of Christian doctrine, furnished the ac- curate definition and enumeration of Peter Lombard. The earlier Christians were more concerned with the use of sacred rites than with scientific formula?, being like the pious author of the "Imitation of Christ", who wrote : " I had rather feel compunction than know its definition" (I, i).

Thus time was required, not for the develop- ment of the sacraments — except in so far as the Church may have determined what was left under her control by Jesus Christ — but for the growth of knowledge of the sacraments. For many centuries all signs of sacred things were called sacraments, and the enumeration of these signs was somewhat arbi- trary. Our seven sacraments were all mentioned in the "Sacred Scriptures, and we find all of them men- tioned here and there by the Fathers (see Theology; and articles on each sacrament). After the ninth century, writers began to draw a distinction between sacraments in a general sense and sacraments y)rop- erly so called. The ill-fated Abelard ("Introd. ad Theol.", I, i, and in the "Sic et Xon") and Hugh of St. Victor (De sacr., I, part 9, chap, viii; cf. Pourrat, op. cit., pp. 34, 35) prepared the way for Peter Lom- bard, who proposed the precise formula which the Church accepted. Thenceforward until the time of the so-called Reformation the Eastern Church joined with the Latin Church in saying: by sacraments proper we understand efficacious sacred signs, i. e. ceremonies which by Divine ordinance signify, contain and confer grace; and they are seven in number. In the history of conferences and councils held to effect the reunion of the Greek with the Latin Church, we find no record of objcu-tions made to the doctrine of seven sacraments. On the contrary, about 1576, when the Ileformors of Wittenberg, anxious to draw the Eastern Churches into their errors, sent a Greek translation of the Augsburg Confession to Jeremias, Patriarch of Constantinople, he replied: "The mys- teries received in this same Catholic Church of ortho- dox Christians, and the sacred ceremonies, are seven in number — just seven and no more" (Pourrat, op. cit., p. 289). The consensus of the Greek and Latin Churchfis on this subject is clearly shown by Arca- dius, "De con. ecc. Occident, et orient, in sept. sacr. admini.str." (1619); Goar (q. v.) in his " Euchologion " by Mart^ne (q. v.) in his work "De antiquis ecdcsiaj ritibus", by I^naudot in his "Perp6tuit6 de la foi sur sacraments" (1711), and this agreement of the two Churches funiishes recent writers (pjpiscopalians) with a strong argument in support of their appeal for the acceptance of seven sacraments (cf. Tanquerey, "De sacr.", i, 24; Potirrat, op. cit., pp. 84, 85).

(2) ProldHUint Errom. — Luther's capital errors, viz. private interpretation of the Scriptures, and jus- tification by faith alorif, logically led to a rejection of the Catholic doctrinr- on the sacraments (see Lt'tiiek; Grace). Glafily would he have swept them all away, but the words of Scripture were too convincing and

the Augsburg Confession retained three as "having the commantl of God and the promise of the grace of the New Testament". These three, baptism, the Lord's Supper, and penance were admitted by Luther and also by Cranmer in his "Catechism" (see Dix, "op. cit.", p. 79). Henry VIII protested against Luther's innovations and received the title "Defender of the Faith" as a reward for pubhshing the " As.scrtio septem sacramentorum" (recently re-edited by Rev. Louis O'Donovan, New York, 190S). Followers of Luther's princii>lcs surpassed their leader in opposi- tion to the sacraments. Once granted that they were merel}' "signs and testimonies of God's good will towards us", the reason for great reverence was gone. Some rejected all sacraments, since God's good will could be manifested without these external signs. Confession (penance) was soon dropped from the list of those retained. The Anabaptists rejected infant baptism, since the ceremony could not excite faith in children. Protestants generally retained two sacra- ments, baptism and the Lord's Supper, the latter being reduced by the denial of the Real Presence to a mere commemorative service. After the first fervour of destruction there was a reaction. Lutherans re- tained a ceremony of confirmation and ordination. Cranmer retained three sacraments, yet we find in the Westminster Confession: "There are two Sacra- ments ordained of Christ Our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord. "Those five commonly called sacraments, that is to say Con- firmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, are not to be counted for sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partlj' of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life al- lowed in the Scriptures but yet have not like nature of sacraments with Baptism and the Lord's Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God" (art. XXV). The Wittenberg theologians, by way of compromise, had shown a wilhngness to make such a distinction, in a second letter to the Patriarch of Constantinople, but the Greeks would have no compromise (Pourrat, loc. cit., 290).

For more than two centuries the Church of England theoretically recognized only two "sacraments of the Gospel" yet permitted, or tolerated other five rites. In practice these five "lesser sacraments" were ne- glected, especially penance and extreme unction. An- glicans of the nineteenth century would have gladly altered or abolished the twenty-fifth article. There has been a strong desire, dating chiefly from the Trac- tarian Movcsment, and the days of Pusey, Newman, Lyddon, (^tc. to reintroduce all of the sacraments. Many Eiiiscopalians and Anglicans to-day make heroic efforts to .show that the twenty-fifth article repudiated the lesser sacraments only in so far as they had "grown of the corrupt following of the Apostles, and were administered 'more Romamensium'", after the Roman fashion. Thus Morgan Dix reminded his contemporaries that the finst book of Edward yi al- lowed "auricular and secret confession to the priest", who could give absolution, as well as "ghostly coun- sel, advice, and comfort", but did not make the prac- tice obligatory: therefore the sacrament of Ab.solu- tion is not to be "obtruded upon men's consciences as a matter necessary to salvation" (op. cit., pp. 99, 101, 102, 103). He cites authorities who state that "one cannot doubt that a sacramental use of anointing the sick has been from the beginning", and adds, "There are not wanting, among tlic l)isliops of the American Church, some who concur in deploring the loss of this primitive ordinance and i)rc(licting its restoration among usatsoinci)n)pitiUs time" (ibid„p. 105). At a convention of I'^piscopalians held at Cincinnati, in 1910, unsuccessful (effort was marie to obtain aj)pro- bation for the; pracficf! of anointing the sick. High Church pastors and curates, especially in England,