Sacraments

Sacraments

Neither in the NT nor in the other Christian writings of the 1st cent. is there any trace of the use of a common name to designate those observances which were afterwards classified more or less comprehensively as sacraments. The word sacramentum (see W. Warde Fowler, The Religious Experience of the Roman People, London, 1911, p. 464 f., and notes 28-33), as applied to denominate such rites, occurs first in the famous letter (x. 97) of the Younger Pliny to the Emperor Trajan (circa, about a.d. 112); but its employment in that letter may be merely accidental. In Christian usage the term makes its earliest appearance in the Old Latin version and in Tertullian, and there stands as a rendering of , and as synonymous with mysterium. The word did not acquire its special reference to the Christian sacraments until later than this period. In the NT it is never applied to institutions or observances, the nearest approach to such a significance being in Eph 5:32, where St. Paul asserts regarding marriage, . An approximation to subsequent usage may perhaps be detected hi Ignatius; but even of the phrase deacons of the mysteries of Jesus Christ (Trall. ii. 3) Lightfoot says that a restriction of its reference to the Eucharist would be an anachronism.

The absence of any common name for the sacraments indicates the absence in this period of any defined sacramental concept. It is true that ideas as well as things must be already in existence before they receive a name; but it is also true that prior to their designation ideas remain uncrystallized. The kindred nature of the ecclesiastical rites known as mysteries and sacraments-their kindred nature as belonging to the externals of Christian practice-must obviously have been perceived from the first. Harnack, indeed, places the grouping together of Baptism and the Eucharist as among a series of the most important Christian customs and ideas whose origin is involved in obscurity and in all probability will never be cleared up (History of Dogma, Eng. translation , 7 vols., London, 1894-99, i. 132f.). Nevertheless, the affinity of these two principal sacraments appears to have been recognized from the earliest times. They are mentioned in conjunction as of the same order by the Didache (vii. 1, ix. 1, 5), and by Ignatius (Smyrn. viii. 1, 2, where the must include the eucharist [Lightfoot]). Both are referred to by implication in a manner exactly analogous in the parallel discourses of the Fourth Gospel on the New Birth and the Bread of Life (John 3, 6). An allusion to both may possibly underlie Joh 19:34, 1Co 12:13, Heb 10:22, 1Jn 5:6-8. Their connexion in the mind of St. Paul, when he conjoins the type of Baptism in the cloud and in the sea with the type of the Eucharist in the spiritual meat and spiritual drink of the wilderness (1Co 10:1-4), scarcely admits of question. And the primal picture of the life of the Christian community given in the Acts of the Apostles (Act 2:41-42; Act 2:46) exhibits these sacraments as united together in primitive observance. In one of the passages cited above (1Co 10:1-4) there is evidence, moreover, not only of the association of Baptism and the Eucharist in the mind of the Apostle himself, but also of the existence of a general sacramental idea in the minds of those to whom he writes; for the argument developed in the succeeding verses (1Co 10:5-12) seems to lose point unless it be directed against an improper and unethical application of certain views then prevailing as to the character and virtue possessed by these two sacraments in common.

The absence of any defined sacramental concept is naturally accompanied by the absence of any formulated doctrine of the sacraments in general. This does not mean, of course, that instruction as to the institution, purpose, and significance of individual sacraments was at any time neglected in the Apostolic Church. It is inconceivable that such instruction did not invariably find a place in the elementary teaching (Act 2:42; Act 18:26; Act 19:4) imparted to every believer concerning the first principles of the doctrine of Christ (Heb 6:1-2). The sacramental references in the Didache, Hermas, Barnabas, Ignatius, Clement of Rome, all assume that their readers are familiar with the doctrine of Baptism and the Eucharist. The allusive nature of the references to Baptism in St. Pauls Epistles plainly infers that those addressed had been carefully grounded in the relative doctrine. The same may be said regarding the reference to the Eucharist in 1Co 10:16-17; while the one example afforded of direct instruction upon the subject of the Lords Supper (1Co 11:17-34) expressly adverts to instruction previously given (1Co 11:23) as well as to supplementary instruction to be administered on a future occasion (1Co 11:34). But, in accordance with the educative order which rules in the history of the Church-truth and life first, explanations afterwards-the elaboration of sacramental doctrine belongs to a later period than that of the 1st century. Cyril [Catechetical Lectures] is the first church-teacher who treats of baptism, the oil, and the Eucharist, in their logical sequence, and in accordance with general principles (Harnack, iv. 293).

In these circumstances any discussion of the abstract subject of sacraments in connexion with the Apostolic Church has little primary material to deal with. It must presuppose the whole special study of particular sacramental observances; and it must confine itself almost exclusively to the general inferences to be drawn from that study. At the outset some definition of the more exact significance in which the term sacrament is used requires to be taken for granted; and for this purpose the definition provided by the Shorter Catechism (Q. 92) of the Westminster Assembly will be found to offer certain advantages. It is distinguished by extreme precision of statement. It postulates, as essential to the nature of a Christian sacrament, not only (1) the outward and sensible sign, and (2) the inward and spiritual grace thereby represented, sealed, and applied to believers, but also another constituent, one of great importance in differentiating the sacramental from the magical, namely, (3) the institution and command of Christ, which conjoins the inward and spiritual grace with the outward and sensible sign, and imposes upon participators the attitude of religious obedience. And it concentrates attention upon the two particular observances, which, in virtue of their special history, sanction, and rank, have always occupied a position apart from all others. If not the only Christian sacraments, Baptism and the Eucharist are at any rate by universal consent the Christian sacraments par excellence; and with the witness which may be adduced regarding them the apostolic authority of the whole system of sacramental practice and doctrine stands or falls. At the same time it must be borne in mind that there are other and cognate rites rooted in the soil of this period-chrism, laying on of hands, benediction, offices of common worship-which partake of a sacramental character, and cannot be left altogether out of account. (See separate articles, Baptism, Eucharist, Anointing, Ordination, etc.)

Whatever inferences may be drawn from a study of the sacraments in this period will be found to have an important bearing upon other and larger fields. One lesson taught by the science of comparative theology is that the ceremonial associated with any form of religion furnishes an illuminating index to the origins and contents of that religion. Our whole view of the nature of Christianity and of the history of the Church must be affected by the conclusions to which we come regarding sacramental practice and theory in the Apostolic Age; and these conclusions, in consequence, are themselves peculiarly liable to be biased by theological and ecclesiastical repossessions. The subject, therefore, is one which requires the exercise of candid and dispassionate judgment. It may be dealt with under two heads: (1) inferences as to sacramental observance, and (2) inferences as to sacramental doctrine.

1. Inferences as to sacramental observance

(a) The observance of sacramental rites was primitive and universal in the Apostolic Church. All the evidence available goes to establish this conclusion. There is no trace of a period anterior to the practice of sacramental rites; no record of the subsequent introduction of such a practice; no vestige of any controversy, like that concerning circumcision, upon the question of obligation or propriety. Direct references to sacramental rites may not be very numerous in the NT; in the case of the Eucharist they are admittedly scanty. But the references which do occur are of a sort which may be said to offer their actual infrequency as additional constructive proof, and to leave no manner of doubt that sacramental rites were from the first an integral part of the Christian way, that baptism was invariably enjoined upon converts to the faith, and that the breaking of bread, which at least comprised the Eucharist in its germinal form, was one (Act 20:6-7, 1Co 11:20) if not absolutely the chief purpose of Christian gatherings for worship. The only questions concerning the origin of Christian baptism, as an observance, relate to its connexion with and differentiation from antecedent kindred Jewish rites. Certainty as to the original form of the Eucharist is to some extent obscured by speculations with regard to the supposed primitive custom of the Christian Agape. But the prevalence of that custom in the Apostolic Church, a circumstance too generally taken for granted, is itself both hypothetical and supported only by somewhat meagre and equivocal evidence (P. Batiffol, tudes dhistoire et de thologie positive3, Paris, 1904, pp. 283-325). The term breaking of bread in Act 2:42; Act 2:46; Act 20:7 may refer to the Agape as well as to the Lords Supper; its reference to the latter, however, is not less obvious, but, on the contrary, more obvious, than its reference to the former. The attempt to maintain that St. Paul or any other teacher engrafted a commemorative or sacramental significance upon a custom which before was predominantly social and but vaguely religious credits innovation with a facility, speed, and completeness of accomplishment which are to the highest degree improbable.

Recent research has thrown interesting light upon the environment of pagan ideas and practice amid which the Gentile Churches were planted; but its results do not substantiate the hypothesis that Christian sacraments owe either inception or character to this source. The lineage of these sacraments is manifestly Jewish. Apostolic history exhibits no trace of any real nexus between them and the Hellenic mysteries; and their subsequent conflict with the mysteries of Isis and Mithra belongs to a phase of development posterior to the age of origins. Such general resemblances as their comparison with the mystery rites has discovered may be sufficient to furnish what Farnell has called adjacent anthropology with illustrations of certain laws in the evolution of religion from the human side. But these parallels, while remote and indecisive in themselves, are also accompanied by contrasts much too pronounced and significant to afford solid ground for any theories of definite borrowing or suggestion. It is true, indeed, that, at a later date, recognized analogies led to a deliberate adaptation of the mystery terminology; and the very name sacramentum, which seems to have been used of initiation into the third grade-the grade of miles-in the Mithraic cult, may itself have found entrance into the Church by this avenue (F. Cumont, Textes et monuments figurs relatifs aux mystres de Mithra, 2 vols., Brussels, 1895-99, ii. 318, n. [Note: . note.] 11). It is true also that, still later, there set in a marked tendency to imitate or compete with the accessories of mystery ceremonial. But the utmost influence upon the sacraments with which these pagan rites can be credited in the Apostolic Age is that of having provided the sacramental vocabulary with perhaps one or two convenient words then in current use and of having prepared the way, through familiarity with symbolic worship and its circle of ideas, for the reception of sacramental observances and teaching among Gentile Christians. To attribute to the mysteries any influence more germinal than this is to mistake the soil for the seed. Although the conclusion that the observance of sacramental rites was primitive and universal may appear to be elementary, important consequences follow from it. If such rites obtained from the first, the conception of primitive Christianity as a formless spiritual impulse, a mere community of religious experience which afterwards developed its own constitutional order and embodied its worship in appropriate ceremonies, is not tenable. Primitive Christianity was undoubtedly charismatic. It bore witness to the presence and power of the Holy Spirit dividing to every man severally as He willed. But the sacraments attest that primitive Christianity was ceremonial as well as charismatic. And such ceremonies carry with them the implication of some measure of corporate form, of common regulations, and of recognized administrative rule. The co-existence, moreover, of ceremonial side by side with charismatic life, especially with a charismatic life so universal and powerful as was manifested at the first, affords a proof of the vigour and stability of the ceremonies themselves. Such a combination could not have been maintained unless these ceremonies had been regarded either as of indispensable value, or as ordained by incontestable authority, or, which was in fact the case, as possessing both of these sanctions in the fullest measure.

(b) The observance of sacramental rites was regarded as of indispensable value in the Apostolic Church. For the earlier half of the 2nd cent. and for the closing years of the 1st this assertion will hardly be challenged. Evidence as to the high place assigned to Baptism and the Eucharist in the Didache, to Baptism in Hernias and Barnabas, to the Eucharist in Ignatius, and to the eucharistic service in Clement of Rome, is decisive and leaves no room for doubt. For NT times the conclusiveness of the evidence has been disputed. The mere prevalence, however, of these sacramental observances from the first itself affords strong presumption as to the exceptional reverence in which they were held. In the case of a religion old enough to possess traditional customs one can imagine rites of universal currency which, having become thus consuetudinary, are regarded as of but ceremonial significance. It is impossible to imagine such formalism in the case of a religion still in its infancy, of a religion so spiritual, moreover, and so intolerant of unreality as that of Christ. These rites must have been esteemed as primary, or they would not have been universally observed. That Baptism, for instance, was treated as indispensable is plain. Even one converted by a heavenly vision (Act 9:18; Act 22:16), even those upon whom the Holy Ghost had already fallen (Act 10:48), were required to receive it, while of those whose understanding and experience of the faith were discovered to be essentially defective (Act 19:1-7) the crucial question at once asked by the Apostle was-Into what then were ye baptized? To Baptism St. Paul habitually appeals as to a fact of cardinal religious importance (Rom 6:1-14, 1Co 6:11; 1Co 12:13, Gal 3:26-27, Col 2:11-12, Tit 3:5); and he includes it among a series of solemn witnesses to the unity which the Christian calling demands in a concatenation of ideas the most exalted conceivable (Eph 4:4-6). Regarding the Eucharist, again, it may be affirmed with confidence that St. Paul could never have expressed himself as he did in 1Co 11:17-34 had he reckoned its value to be secondary, or its sacredness to be negligible, or its obligation to be anything less than imperative upon all members of the Church. Support has been claimed upon various grounds for the contention that sacramental observance is not central in the NT. It has been pointed out that in the Acts and writings of the apostles the space devoted to sacramental subjects is extremely exiguous, that in many whole books neither one sacrament nor the other is mentioned, that such references as do occur are for the most part incidental. But it may be replied that the books of the NT do not purport to be comprehensive; that they are occasional or specific in their character; that not one of them is, or professes to contain, a systematic manual of first principles; that all of them assume the concurrent operation of evangelistic preaching and oral instruction; that, when read as addressed to churches in which sacramental observance was invariable and presupposed, they are at once perceived to be really interwoven with manifold allusions to the sacramental life unobserved before. The argument ex silentio is proverbially a perilous argument. It becomes convincing only when accompanied, as in this case it is not, by independent proof that silence must infer either ignorance or disregard. It may often with equal, if not greater, propriety be used to establish the very contrary of that which it has been cited to make good. Lakes remark applies most pertinently in this connexion: It is impossible to over-estimate the importance of realizing that, if we want to discover the central points of Christian doctrine, we must look not at those to which St. Paul devotes pages of argument, but at those which he treats as the premises accepted equally by all Christians (The Earlier Epistles of St. Paul, London, 1911, p. 233 n. [Note: . note.] ). It is not really paradoxical to maintain that the NT writers say little about sacramental observance just because sacramental observance was in their eyes a first principle. The emphasis laid in the NT upon the saving grace of faith is another reason adduced to depreciate the primitive importance of the sacraments. But saving graces and the means of grace are never placed in contrast in apostolic doctrine. The antithesis is gratuitous and imaginary. The relation between faith and sacrament remains exactly analogous to that which the Gospels represent as existing between faith and the instrumentality used by our Lord in the performance of His miracles. The faith involved in sacramental obedience is faith, not in outward rites, but in Him by whom these rites were appointed, whose instruments they also are. One particular passage (1Co 1:12-17) is frequently quoted as an indication that St. Paul disparaged Baptism as compared with preaching. Careful examination of the purpose of that passage leads to a conclusion entirely different. Had St. Paul not recognized the primary importance of Baptism as the sacrament of initiation into the Church, had he not supposed that his administration of it was more liable than his preaching to encourage the party watchword-I am of Paul, he would not have adverted to his apostolic practice in this connexion. He thanks God that he baptized few of the Corinthians himself, just because he knows the supreme incorporating significance of that ordinance, and perceives the misinterpretation which party-spirit might have put upon any special diligence shown by him as a minister of the actual rite of Baptism-lest any man should say that ye were baptized into my name (1Co 1:15).

(c) The observance of sacramental rites based itself in the Apostolic Church upon the authority of Christs institution. The question which concerns us here is not that as to the origin of these rites. The sacraments meet us upon the very threshold of the Apostolic Church; and the discussion of their institution and of their relation to contemporary Jewish customs belongs to the province of Gospel study. What we are here concerned with is the authority which secured or sanctioned their observance in the Church. Only one such authority-that of the apostles-can in the first instance be imagined. Whether that authority was official or not, it must still have been effective. The apostles were believed to know the mind of Christ. They were the companions of His ministry. They were the witnesses of His resurrection. Without their injunction or approval sacramental observance could not have been introduced. But their authority was not original. It was derivative. They were of Christ (Clem. Rom. Ep. ad Cor. i. 42). The things which they taught the Church to observe were the things which Christ commanded (Mat 28:20). Hence the sacraments must have been supposed to possess the authority of our Lord Himself; and this is the belief upon which sacramental observance was established. Apart altogether from historical criticism of their contents, the Gospels bear testimony to the convictions which held sway in the Apostolic Church. St. Matthews record (Mat 28:16-20), whatever view be taken as to the textually unassailable Trinitarian formula, proves that the Christian observance of Baptism was referred directly to the appointment of our Lord; and this conclusion is confirmed both by the description of baptism as in (, , ) the name of Jesus Christ (Act 2:38; Act 8:16; Act 10:48, etc.), and by the distinction insisted upon between Christian baptism and the baptism of John (Act 18:25; Act 19:3-5, Heb 6:2). The combined witness of the Synoptists leaves no doubt that our Lords own institution was believed to be the origin of the Eucharist. Luk 22:19 b, Luk 22:20 may be indebted in some way to 1Co 11:24-25; but there is no ground for the conjecture that St. Pauls account diverges at this point from the tradition of the Church at Jerusalem; while his own emphatic declaration-I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you (1Co 11:23)-whether referring to a special revelation or not, indicates clearly the supreme authority consistently presupposed as the foundation of sacramental observance. More than the bare command of Christ was contemplated as investing the sacraments with their authority. It was His command, surrounded in either case with circumstances of incomparable solemnity. If St. Matthew represents the belief of the primitive Church, Baptism was conceived of as an ordinance of the Risen Lord, delivered by Him on an occasion of transcending importance, decreed in the same breath with a claim to universal authority in heaven and on earth, associated with an imperial charge to make disciples of all the nations, and accompanied by a promise of His unfailing presence all the numbered days until the completion of the age. If the Synoptists and 1Co 11:23-26; 1Co 10:16-17 represent the belief of the primitive Church, the Eucharist was conceived of as an ordinance appointed by the Lord upon the eve of His sacrifice and in anticipation of it, upon an occasion of unique and consummating intimacy of self-revelation to His disciples, an occasion overshadowed, indeed, by the approaching betrayal and crucifixion, and therefore filled to overflowing with recollections inexpressibly moving and poignant, but consecrated also as the inauguration of the present communion of His body and blood, and radiant with the assurance which it contained of the impending triumph of His Kingdom. The sacraments, thus regarded as holy ordinances instituted by Christ, afford an indication that the idea of positive ordinance, side by side with and counter -balancing the idea of individual charismatic freedom, was part of the essence of Christianity from the first. For the new way, Christ had appointed beforehand certain definite rites which all life quickened by the Holy Spirit should observe. And the extraordinary solemnity of circumstance with which their appointment had been emphasized secured for these observances, even apart from discernment of their meaning or experience of their virtue, and without the original aid of any formulated sacramental theory, the homage of unquestioning practice. The sacraments of Christ may be said to resemble the words of Christ in this, that, while filled by Him with manifold grace and truth, the wealth of their contents would not be appropriated otherwise than gradually, and at the first, in consequence, their reception rested for its assurance chiefly upon the strength of that sovereign authority to which they owed their promulgation. In the apostolic belief that they were holy ordinances instituted by the Founder and King and Head of the Church we find the one sufficient explanation of their earliest prevalence. The faith of apostolic times saw the authority of our Lords Person standing as fountain-head at the beginnings of sacramental observance; and, were it not for the demand made upon faith by the miracles of Pentecost and the Resurrection, the credibility of this historic witness to the actual institution of the sacraments by Christ would never in all probability have been seriously challenged.

2. Inferences as to sacramental doctrine

(a) As ritual acts of faith and obedience towards God, the sacraments possessed the character of worship from the first. True sacraments are always capable of consideration under two aspects: a Godward aspect and a manward aspect. In the former they appear as acts of worship; in the latter they appear as means of grace. There is, indeed, a third aspect in which they are sometimes considered-that in which they become cognizable as forms of public or mutual self-expression. The last, however, is really an incidental accompaniment of the first, and quite subordinate to it. Only when the devotional life of the Church grows cold are the sacraments much thought of in this light. In the Apostolic Church they were not contemplated as formal means by which either the corporate religious consciousness or the decisions and experiences of personal religion received expression. That they did express such consciousness-the consciousness of blessings enjoyed, of the reality of the re-birth which is typified by the Churchs sacrament of initiation and of the participation in the Divine Life which is dramatised in its sacrament of communion (E. Underhill, The Mystic Way, London, 1913, p. 33 f.)-may be in a sense true; but this was not regarded as their purpose. The decisions and experiences of personal religion, indeed, could not fail to be shown forth or implied in the sacraments. Inasmuch as these observances were distinctive and elementary acts of Christian faith and love they became at once prominent tokens of the Christian profession; and to this circumstance, no doubt, they owe in some measure their investment with the designation sacramenta. In the case of the initiatory rite, the rupture with the past (Rom 6:2, Eph 4:20-22, Col 3:9, etc.) and the good confession in the sight of many witnesses (1Ti 6:12) and the new habit of life (Rom 6:4-6, Eph 4:23-24, Col 3:10, etc.) were circumstances so arresting that Baptism must always in those days have worn the complexion of an open avowal. In the case of the Eucharist, that rite which postulated devotion to Him whose memorial it was, in which also declared fellowship with the one Body was time after time renewed, participation became not only a badge of continued fidelity and an example in perseverance calculated to encourage others (Heb 10:24-25, where it is surely natural to understand as included a reference to the eucharistic service), but, at a later date, a criterion as well by which adherence to sound doctrine (Ignatius, Smyrn. vi.) might be tested. Nevertheless, as an observance of personal faith, neither Baptism nor the Eucharist was an act of self-expression otherwise than incidentally. Both, primarily, were solemn acts of worship performed towards God. But both did not fulfil this character in the same way. The germ of a future classification of rites into sacraments singular and sacraments capable of repetition is already latent in their divergent types. Baptism is worship in the form of definitive self-surrender to God in Christ, accompanied with repentance and acknowledgment of faith. It is the dedication of a living sacrifice, the acceptance of office in a holy priesthood, the response to a calling of God to become the lively stones of a spiritual house, and, indeed, to be a temple bodily through the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit. The Eucharist, on the other hand, as the distinctive Christian form of stated common worship, was to be taken part in continually. By it the worship of the Church was differentiated from the worship of the synagogue; and it became at an early date the central act of the whole Christian cultus. This aspect of the observance connected itself from the first with the offering of the thanksgiving in accordance with our Lords example; and the rapid specialization of the name , applied therefore to the sacrament regarded as worship, may be traced from St. Paul (1Co 14:16) through St. Clement of Rome (Ep. ad Cor. i. 41 [see Lightfoot]) to its precise and settled use in Ignatius (Eph. xiii. 1, Philad. iv. 1, Smyrn. vi., viii. 1) and in the Didache (ix. 1, 5). The Eucharist was the culminating point of Christian worship. Elements of service-lections, chants, homilies, and prayers-might be and were borrowed from the Jewish liturgy (L. Duchesne, Christian Worship, Eng. translation 4, London, 1912, p. 47 f.). But the eucharistic celebration was the new and vivifying principle, the centre round which these adopted elements ranged themselves (J. B. Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, pt. i., St. Clement of Rome, London, 1890, i. 393).

(b) In their aspect as means of grace the sacraments were regarded as symbolical but not merely symbolical, as effectual but not magical, as both sealing and applying the spiritual benefits which they outwardly represented but in a way not yet strictly defined nor yet explained in terms of relative doctrine. The sacraments were looked upon not only as human acts but also as Divine instruments. The grace of God wrought through them, and wrought by means of symbols. The method of instruction by parable habitually employed by our Lord on earth had already taught His disciples to view external nature as a shadow of the Kingdom of Heaven, and had encouraged the conviction that everything, in being what it is, is symbolic of something more (R. L. Nettleship, quoted by W. R. Inge, Christian Mysticism, London, 1899, p. 250). God omnipresent was so much in all their [the early Fathers] thoughts, that what to others would have been mere symbols, were to them designed expressions of His truth, providential intimations of His will. In this sense, the whole world, to them, was full of sacraments (R. Hooker, Works2, ed. J. Keble, Oxford, 1841, vol. i. p. xcii). In harmony with our Lords didactic method, and as a continuation of it, the sacraments instituted by Him took their place in the Church as permanent and embodied parables of the Kingdom. Symbolism was inherent in the use made by them of sensible signs. Their elements and their actions were filled with ideas both obvious and more recondite. The water, the bread, and the wine, and the whole ritual associated with them spoke eloquently of invisible things and spiritual processes. Illustrations of a tendency to pass even beyond the similitudes primarily suggested, and to elaborate particular details of the imagery for purposes of doctrine, may be found not only in the age succeeding the apostles (the Didache, Hermas, Barnabas, Ignatius), but already in the apostles writings themselves (1Pe 3:20-21, Rom 6:4, Col 2:12, 1Co 10:17, etc.). Care, however, must be taken not to read the modern acceptance of the term symbolical into the primitive view of the sacraments. According to modern habits of thought, symbols which speak outwardly to the senses operate upon the soul exclusively through the association of ideas. They make their address to the intellect, and only through the intellect influence the affections and the will. They are nothing more, in fact, than a language of signs. That this was not how the Apostolic Age regarded them, that they were always looked upon as having more than mere intellectual potency, research into the contemporary forms of popular religion claims to have established. Harnack, who both in History of Dogma and in Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries (Eng. translation , 2 vols., London, 1904) repeatedly emphasizes the assertion that the symbol was uniformly contemplated as possessing a vital and not only a figurative significance, thus represents the primitive view, at least in the field of Gentile Christianity: Although Christian worship is to be a worship in spirit and in truth, these sacraments [Baptism and the Lords Supper] are sacred transactions which operate on life. No doubt, the elements of water, bread, and wine, are symbols, and the scene of operations is not laid in externals; still, the symbols do actually convey to the soul all that they signify. Each symbol has a mysterious but real connection with the fact which it signifies Expansion of Christianity, i. 286). Lake goes so far as to express the opinion that this position [the purely symbolical view of the sacraments] has received its death-blow from the modern study of the history of religions (The Earlier Epistles of St. Paul, p. 389). Gentile Christians in contact with the pagan mysteries, and habituated to the conception that symbols carry with them vital effects, would not, unless expressly taught to do so, divest the sacraments of that deeper than emblematic significance which they naturally assumed them to contain; while for Jewish Christians a merely emblematic interpretation of the sacramental symbols would have appeared to attribute to these symbols the very character which stamped the legal worship, now abrogated because fulfilled in Christ, with imperfection-the character, namely, of a shadow of the good things to come, not the very image of the things (Heb 10:1; Heb 8:5, Col 2:17). When we find the Didache prescribing careful ceremonial in relation to Baptism (vii.) and applying to the Eucharist the Dominical word Give not that which is holy to the dogs (ix. 5), and Ignatius speaking of our Lord purifying the water by His suffering (Eph. xviii. 2) and exhorting Let your baptism remain as your arms, i.e. as your shield (Polyc. vi. 2), and describing the Eucharist as the medicine of immortality, the antidote that we should not die (Eph. xx. 2), we feel that we are in a region of sacramental ideas lying quite beyond the superficial theory of symbols. But we are really in the same region before we leave the canonical books. Those who contend that the purely symbolical is the only view of the sacraments entertained by NT writers cannot make good their contention except by denying a plain sacramental reference to John 3, 6, and by employing ingenious exposition to empty one after another the entire series of express NT references to Baptism and the Lords Supper of any other than a figurative implication. But there can be little doubt that the first readers of the Fourth Gospel would perceive in John 3 a direct allusion to Christian Baptism and in John 6 a direct allusion to the Eucharist; and, while all the express NT references to Baptism and the Lords Supper are quite compatible with higher than figurative conceptions of the sacraments, in the case of a number of them (e.g. Rom 6:1-14, 1Co 10:1-13; 1Co 10:16-17; 1Co 11:17-34; 1Co 12:13, Gal 3:26-27, Eph 4:5; Eph 5:26, Col 2:11-12, Tit 3:5, 1Pe 3:20-21, Heb 6:1-2) the straightforward interpretation is one clearly involving that higher sacramental conception, to which also the consensus of the whole series points and testifies.

The sacraments, while regarded as more than empty symbols, while looked upon as really effectual, and tending to combine with the nature of dramatic the nature also of (in the sense of the Fourth Gospel) permanent in the Church, were not, however, thought of as having any kind of magical affinity. The precise meaning of the word magic is difficult to define; and in this connexion its elasticity has led to a controversial use much to be deprecated. The characterization of sacramental theory as magical too often takes the place of serious argument. But the spiritually effectual and the magical are not synonymous terms. The really salient feature of magic, which has been ingeniously defined as the strategy of animism (F. Cumont, Les Religions orientales dans le paganisme romain, Paris, 1906, p. 224), may be recognized in its claim to possess the secret of commanding unseen powers. From the sacraments this feature is excluded by the institutional authority which they assert. The sacraments obey; they do not command. They operate not of necessity, but through the unconstrained agency of the Holy Spirit, who chooses them as His instruments. Their virtue resides not in material elements or ritual actions, but in the covenant of promise attached to their faithful observance. To magic, unless the name be stretched beyond its legitimate connotation, the sacraments of the Apostolic Church have no more substantial resemblance than prayer has to incantation. It is beyond doubt that in the world which Christianity entered the practice of magic and the circle of ideas associated with it were familiar. But the stories of Simon Magus (Act 8:5-24), of Elymas the sorcerer (Act 13:6-12), of the damsel possessed of a spirit of divination (Act 16:16-18), of the magicians of Ephesus (Act 19:13-19), as well as the condemnations of idolatry and sorcery contained in the Epistles (Gal 5:20, 1Pe 4:3, 1Co 10:14, Col 3:5; cf. Rev 9:20-21; Rev 18:23), illustrate the attitude of antagonism which the Church assumed towards magic from the first. Nor was this antagonism that of rivalry. Christianity was in no true sense a mystery-religion. Its sacramental system differed fundamentally from that of the mystery rites (but see J. E. Harrisons derivation of , Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion, Cambridge, 1903, p. 153 f.). Except when forced into seclusion as a religio illicita, it worked openly. It knew of no magical secrets to be kept from all but the initiated. It knew only of life-giving secrets to be declared. In the Apostolic Church no trace exists of the disciplina arcani; and even when, at a later date, that disciplina was introduced, it was introduced in connexion with the institution of the catechumenate, and was employed as a method of education, as a device of rhetoric, as an expedient for the promotion of reverence, and, not as implying any esoteric cult (see Batiffol, tudes dhistoire et de thologie positive, pp. 1-41). It is perhaps only fair to add that, in the opinion of some competent scholars, the mysteries themselves, in their ultimate forms, and as understood by cultivated votaries, seem to have outgrown their original magic, and to have approximated, at least, to a sacramental character. The Christian polemic directed against them in the early centuries implies alleged resemblances. In the sacraments of Mithra, Tertullian and other Apologists perceived a diabolic parody of the usages of the Church (S. Dill, Roman Society from Nero to Marcus Aurelius, London, 1904, p. 613). Modern apology will incline rather to interpret such resemblances as disclosing in the sacramental system of the faith a Divine adaptation to the experienced requirements of human nature, a Divine response to the longing of the human heart for assured cleansing, for help in the pursuit of holiness, and for the promise of eternal life. That which the more refined mystery conceptions sought after, the sacraments actually supplied. It may well be that, not only in the syncretistic philosophies of the Roman Empire, but also in its conflict of religions, the Spirit of Truth was secretly at work, opening many doors of prepared receptiveness for the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven. From any alliance with magic the Christian sacraments, at any rate, were safeguarded from the first by the personal relation which they involved as between members of the Church and the Person of her living and exalted Head, by the predominant emphasis laid upon the grace of Christian faith as an indispensable condition of every spiritual blessing, and by the intensely ethical requirements which were invariably associated with their observance.

The effect ascribed to the sacraments was partly of the nature of Divine assurance and promise. They operated so as to establish or confirm a new relationship of privilege which contained in posse a dower of future blessings-grace to be realized in this age and the hope of the world to come. The specific use of the word to designate the initiatory rites-a use common in post-apostolic times-does not yet appear as conventional. But the idea-more probably connected with Jewish revelation than with mystery conceptions-is already found in St. Pauls Epistles (2Co 1:21-22, Eph 1:13; Eph 4:30). Baptism is the outward sign of the Divine calling and election. By it those sealed are marked by God as His. They are enrolled in a nation from the midst of nations. They are made members of the Body of Christ. And the gift of the Holy Spirit accompanying their initiation is a gift of the Holy Spirit of promise, the earnest () of an inheritance. The Lords Supper, again, is a seal of the New Covenant in Christs blood, an assurance of eternal life now, an anticipation of the Parousia, a promise of resurrection, a pledge of the Messianic triumph, a foretaste of the great Supper of the Kingdom of Heaven (Mat 26:28-29, Mar 14:24-25, Luk 22:20; Luk 22:16-18, Joh 6:54, 1Co 11:26; also Mat 22:1-13, Luk 14:15-24). But the actual bestowal of the blessings represented by the sacraments was also regarded as an effect of their observance. They operated respectively as veritable means of their own distinctive grace. And they accomplished this not through any natural psychological process-an explanation which really reverts to the theory of empty symbols-but by the power of the Holy Ghost. They acted not upon intellect only, but upon the person, upon life. Baptism was the actual occasion of those effects which it represented-of the forgiveness of sin (Act 2:38; Act 22:16, Eph 5:26, Tit 3:5), of the gift of the Holy Spirit (Act 2:38, 1Co 12:13), of the dying and burial with Christ (Rom 6:3-4, Col 2:12), and of regeneration (Joh 3:5, Tit 3:5). The Eucharist was the actual occasion of the communication and communion of the body of Christ and of the blood of Christ (1Co 10:16) and of all that was represented by the ministration and reception of the bread and wine in the sacrament (see also Joh 6:53-58, and Ignatius, Rom. vii. 3, Philad. iv. 1, Smyrn. vi.). How the sacraments become thus effectual; what relation exists between the elements and that which is bestowed through them; in particular, what the body and blood of Christ precisely signify, and how such sacred realities ought to be conceived of as related to the consecrated bread and wine-these are questions which do not expressly emerge in this period. But, although no theory of sacramental grace is formulated as yet, the materials for its future construction are already provided. Among the prolegomena of sacramental theory, the doctrine of the Incarnation must always hold the place of supreme importance. That doctrine, not so much in its bearing upon the earthly life of our Lord as in its bearing upon His heavenly state and ministry, and in the conclusions to be drawn from it as to the perpetuity of the human nature assumed, as to the permanent relation of that human nature to His Divinity, as to its glorification, as to its endowment with the power of the Holy Spirit in full measure, and as to its potential omnipresence, constitutes the very basis of the whole sacramental fabric. And not only was that doctrine, uncodified as yet in creeds, and waiting still to be followed into its consequences, fundamental in the faith and teaching of the Apostolic Church, but certain aspects of it, which, as challenged by Docetic tendencies, receive marked prominence in the Johannine writings (Joh 1:14, 1Jn 4:2, 2Jn 1:7) and prominence at least not less marked in the Epistles of Ignatius, are the very aspects which look in the direction of sacramental theology, and in the light of which sacramental theology was afterwards developed (e.g. see Justin Martyr, Apol. i. 66, and J. H. Srawleys comment, The Early History of the Liturgy, Cambridge, 1913, p. 35). In one place, indeed, in which Ignatius refers to Docetic separatists in such terms as to suggest that the Eucharist implies the reality of Christs flesh (Smyrn. vi.), the doctrine of the Incarnation and the doctrine of the Eucharist are brought into a closeness of contact which illustrates the derivation of the sacramental principle from the contents of the truth that the Word became Flesh and dwelt among us. In the two natures united in our Lords Person, the two parts of the sacrament, its outward sign and its invisible grace, found their analogy. Our Lords bodily presence was in fact the compendium of all sacraments; and all sacraments were the virtual extension of our Lords bodily presence and activity. Of doctrine such as this the foundation had been laid already in the Apostolic Age, and the material provided. But it was left to subsequent centuries of constructive faith and devout reflexion to rear upon that foundation and with that material the doctrinal edifice of the sacramental system.

(c) Although either sacrament was regarded as the specific means of its own appropriate grace, both had a common reference to the whole way of salvation in Christ; and, while the complexity of this reference permitted certain aspects of it to receive peculiar prominence from time to time, there is no sufficient ground for the assumption that all were not equally implied in the nature of the institutions from the first. Baptism and the Lords Supper had each its own distinctive purpose in the economy of grace. But they possessed in common similar general relations to the entire scheme of redemption. Both were means towards the fulfilment of the mystical union with Christ. Both had respect to the sacrifice offered by Him on the Cross. Both were inseparably connected with the cardinal fact of the Resurrection. Both looked up to a Prince and a Saviour by the right hand of God exalted. Both were dependent for their vitality upon the operation of the Holy Ghost sent forth from Him. Both had in view the constitution and service of the body corporate and the communion of saints. Both belonged to a new and spiritual order which bore witness to the one hope of the coming and kingdom of the Christ of God. Their common outlook was thus not in one direction only but in many-an outlook so comprehensive that it is strictly accurate to describe the blessings represented, sealed, and applied by them as being nothing less than Christ and the benefits of the New Covenant (Shorter Catechism, Q. 92). This manifoldness of the sacramental outlook is, indeed, made evident in the facility with which each succeeding modern hypothesis as to what was central in primitive Christianity can claim the witness of the sacraments for its support. If, e.g., the gospel of the Kingdom was mainly eschatological in its contents, there is no difficulty in showing that the sacraments looked forward to a Kingdom yet to come, of which they were the seals. If, on the other hand, the gospel of the Kingdom was mainly spiritual in its contents, it is equally easy to demonstrate that the sacraments as means of grace find their purpose in a Kingdom of God realizing itself gradually here and now. It may quite well be that at different periods, in different Churches, and by different teachers, particular aspects of the sacraments-whether the personal aspect or the corporate, the commemorative, the mystical, the ethical, or the prophetic-may have been given superior prominence. The Pauline theology may have laid more stress upon their relation to Christs death, and the Johannine upon their relation to Christs life; but it is not necessary to assume that only one aspect can be primitive, that all others were superinduced and represent deflexions from the original ordinance. It seems to be more reasonable to attribute the real variety of meaning and purpose which may be assigned to the sacraments to the intrinsic wealth of the sacraments themselves. If they were, as the Apostolic Church believed, the very institution of Christ Himself, it is not surprising to find that they exhibit the same many-sidedness of significance which characterized all the words which Christ spoke and the same many-sidedness of effect which characterized all the works which He performed. As holy ordinances instituted by Christ they combine simplicity with mysterious depth; and from many sparkling facets, with iridescent doctrine, they reflect the light.

Literature.-In addition to books cited above see Literature appended to articles Baptism, Eucharist, Eschatology; articles Sacraments, Baptism, Eucharist, Symbol, Magic, Mystery in other Dictionaries and Encyclopaedias; A. V. G. Allen, Christian Institutions, Edinburgh, 1898; P. Batiffol, Primitive Catholicism, Eng. translation , London, 1914; W. Beyschlag, NT Theology, Eng. translation , Edinburgh, 1895; C. Clemen, Primitive Christianity and its Non-Jewish Sources (the introduction to which contains an extensive bibliography), do., 1912; L. R. Farnell, The Evolution of Religion, London, 1905, Sacrificial Communion in Greek Religion, J. Hibbert Journal ii. [1903-04] 306 ff.; Percy Gardner, Origin of the Lords Supper, London, 1893, Exploratio Evangelica, do., 1899, The Growth of Christianity, do., 1907; T. R. Glover, The Conflict of Religions in the Early Roman Empire, do., 1909; E. Hatch, Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages upon the Christian Church, do., 1890; J. R. Illingworth, Divine Immanence, do., 1898; F. B. Jevons, An Introduction to the Study of Comparative Religion, New York, 1908; H. A. A. Kennedy, St. Paul and the Mystery-Religions, do., 1913; A. Loisy, The Christian Mystery, J. Hibbert Journal x. [1911-12] 45 ff.; Lux Mundi10, ed. C. Gore, London, 1890, pp. 401-433; A. C. McGiffert, History of Christianity in the Apostolic Age, Edinburgh, 1897; W. M. Ramsay, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the NT, London, 1915; W. Sanday, The Life of Christ in Recent Research, Oxford, 1907.

Roger S. Kirkpatrick.

Fuente: Dictionary of the Apostolic Church

Sacraments

Sacraments are outward signs of inward grace, instituted by Christ for our sanctification (Catechismus concil. Trident., n.4, ex S. Aug. “De Catechizandis rudibus”). The subject may be treated under the following headings: I. The necessity and the nature of the sacramental system II. The nature of the sacraments of the new law III. The origin (cause) of the sacraments IV. The number of the sacraments V. The effects of the sacraments VI. The minister of the sacraments VII. The recipient of the sacraments

I. NECESSITY AND NATURE

(1) In what sense necessary

Almighty God can and does give grace to men in answer to their internal aspirations and prayers without the use of any external sign or ceremony. This will always be possible, because God, grace, and the soul are spiritual beings. God is not restricted to the use of material, visible symbols in dealing with men; the sacraments are not necessary in the sense that they could not have been dispensed with. But, if it is known that God has appointed external, visible ceremonies as the means by which certain graces are to be conferred on men, then in order to obtain those graces it will be necessary for men to make use of those Divinely appointed means. This truth theologians express by saying that the sacraments are necessary, not absolutely but only hypothetically, i.e., in the supposition that if we wish to obtain a certain supernatural end we must use the supernatural means appointed for obtaining that end. In this sense the Council of Trent (Sess. VII, can. 4) declared heretical those who assert that the sacraments of the New Law are superfluous and not necessary, although all are not necessary for each individual. It is the teaching of the Catholic Church and of Christians in general that, whilst God was nowise bound to make use of external ceremonies as symbols of things spiritual and sacred, it has pleased Him to do so, and this is the ordinary and most suitable manner of dealing with men. Writers on the sacraments refer to this as the necessitas convenientiae, the necessity of suitableness. It is not really a necessity, but the most appropriate manner of dealing with creatures that are at the same time spiritual and corporeal. In this assertion all Christians are united: it is only when we come to consider the nature of the sacramental signs that Protestants (except some Anglicans) differ from Catholics. “To sacraments considered merely as outward forms, pictorial representations or symbolic acts, there is generally no objection”, wrote Dr. Morgan Dix (“The sacramental system”, New York, 1902, p. 16). “Of sacramental doctrine this may be said, that it is co-extensive with historic Christianity. Of this there is no reasonable doubt, as regards the very ancient days, of which St. Chrysostom’s treatise on the priesthood and St. Cyril’s catechetical lectures may be taken as characteristic documents. Nor was it otherwise with the more conservative of the reformed bodies of the sixteenth century. Martin Luther’s Catechism, the Augsburg, and later the Westminster, Confessions are strongly sacramental in their tone, putting to shame the degenerate followers of those who compiled them” (ibid., p. 7, 8)

(2) Why the sacramental system is most appropriate

The reasons underlying a sacramental system are as follows: Taking the word “sacrament” in its broadest sense, as the sign of something sacred and hidden (the Greek word is “mystery”), we can say that the whole world is a vast sacramental system, in that material things are unto men the signs of things spiritual and sacred, even of the Divinity. “The heavens show forth the glory of God, and the firmament declareth the work of his hands” (Ps. xviii, 2). The invisible things of him [i.e. God], from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity” (Romans 1:20). The redemption of man was not accomplished in an invisible manner. God renewed, through the Patriarchs and the Prophets, the promise of salvation made to the first man; external symbols were used to express faith in the promised Redeemer: “all these things happened to them [the Israelites] in figure” (1 Corinthians 10:11; Hebrews 10:1). “So we also, when we were children, were serving under the elements of the world. But when the fullness of time was come, God sent his Son, made of a woman” (Galatians 4:3-4). The Incarnation took place because God dealt with men in the manner that was best suited to their nature. The Church established by the Saviour was to be a visible organization (see CHURCH: The Visibility of the Church): consequently it should have external ceremonies and symbols of things sacred. The principal reason for a sacramental system is found in man. It is the nature of man, writes St. Thomas (III:61:1), to be led by things corporeal and semse-perceptible to things spiritual and intelligible; now Divine Providence provides for everything in accordance with its nature (secundum modum suae conditionis); therefore it is fitting that Divine Wisdom should provide means of salvation for men in the form of certain corporeal and sensible signs which are called sacraments. (For other reasons see Catech. Conc. Trid., II, n.14.)

(3) Existence of sacred symbols

(a) No sacraments in the state of innocence. According ot St. Thomas (III:61:2) and theologians generally there were no sacraments before Adam sinned, i.e., in the state of original justice. Man’s dignity was so great that he was raised above the natural condition of human nature. His mind was subject to God; his lower faculties were subject to the higher part of his mind; his body was subject to his soul; it would have been against the dignity of that state had he been dependent, for the acquisition of knowledge or of Divine grace, on anything beneath him, i.e., corporeal things. For this reason the majority of theologians hold that no sacraments would have been instituted even if that state had lasted for a long time.

(b) Sacraments of the law of nature. Apart from what was or might have been in that extraordinary state, the use of sacred symbols is universal. St. Augustine says that every religion, true or false, has its visible signs or sacraments. “In nullum nomen religionis, seu verum seu falsum, coadunari homines possunt, nisi aliquo signaculorum seu sacramentorum visibilium consortio colligantur” (Cont. Faust., XIX, xi). Commentators on the Scriptures and theologians almost unanimously assert that there were sacraments under the law of nature and under the Mosaic Law, as there are sacraments of greater dignity under the Law of Christ. Under the law of nature — so called not to exclude supernatural revelation but because at that time there existed no written supernatural law — salvation was granted through faith in the promised Redeemer, and men expressed that faith by some external signs. What those signs should be God did not determine, leaving this for the people, most probably to the leaders or heads of families, who were guided in their choice by an interior inspiration of the Holy Ghost. This is the conception of St. Thomas, who says that, as under the law of nature (when there was no written law), men were guided by interior inspiration in worshiping God, so also they determined what signs should be used in the external acts of worship (III:60:5, ad 3). Afterwards, however, as it was necessary to give a written law: (a) because the law of nature had been obscured by sin, and (b) because it was time to give a more explicit knowledge of the grace of Christ, then also it became necessary to determine what external signs should be used as sacraments (III:60:5, ad 3; III:61:3, ad 2) This was not necessary immediately after the Fall, by reason of the fullness of faith and knowledge imparted to Adam. But about the time of Abraham, when faith had been weakened, many had fallen into idolatry, and the light of reason had been obscured by indulgence of the passions, even unto the commission of sins against nature, God intervened and appointed as a sign of faith the rite of circumcision (Genesis 17; ST III:70:2, ad 1; see CIRCUMCISION).

The vast majority of theologians teach that this ceremony was a sacrament and that it was instituted as a remedy for original sin; consequently that it conferred grace, not indeed of itself (ex opere operato), but by reason of the faith in Christ which it expressed. “In circumcisione conferebatur gratia, non ex virtute circumcisionis, sed ex virtute fidei passionis Christi futurae, cujus signum erat circumcisio — quia scilicet justitia erat ex fide significata, non ex circumcisione significante” (ST III:70:4). Certainly it was at least a sign of something sacred, and it was appointed and determined by God himself as a sign of faith and as a mark by which the faithful were distinguished from unbelievers. It was not, however, the only sign of faith used under the law of nature. It is incredible, writes St. Augustine, that before circumcision there was no sacrament for the relief (justification) of children, although for some good reason the Scriptures do not tell us what that sacrament was (Cont. Jul., III, xi). The sacrifice of Melchisedech, the sacrifice of the friends of Job, the various tithes and oblations for the service of God are mentioned by St. Thomas (III:61:3, ad 3; III:65:1, ad 7) as external observances which may be considered as the sacred signs of that time, prefiguring future sacred institutions: hence, he adds, they may be called sacraments of the law of nature.

(c) Sacraments of the Mosaic Law. As the time for Christ’s coming drew nearer, in order that the Israelites might be better instructed God spoke to Moses, revealing to him in detail the sacred signs and ceremonies by which they were to manifest more explicitly their faith in the future Redeemer. Those signs and ceremonies were the sacraments of the Mosaic Law, “which are compared to the sacraments which were before the law as something determined to something undetermined, because before the law it had not been determined what signs men should use” (ST III:61:3, ad 2). With the Angelic Doctor (I-II:102:5) theologians usually divide the sacraments of this period into three classes: The ceremonies by which men were made and signed as worshippers or ministers of God. Thus we have (a) circumcision, instituted in the time of Abraham (Genesis 17), renewed in the time of Moses (Leviticus 12:3) for all people; and (b) the sacred rites by which the Levitical priests were consecrated. The ceremonies which consisted in the use of things pertaining to the service of God, i.e. (a) the paschal lamb for all the people, and (b) the loaves of proposition for the ministers. The ceremonies of purification from legal contamination, i.e. (a) for the people, various expiations, (b) for the priests, the washing of hands and feet, the shaving of the head, etc. St. Augustine says the sacraments of the Old Law were abolished because they had been fulfilled (cf. Matthew 5:17), and others have been instituted which are more efficacious, more useful, easier to administer and to receive, fewer in number (“virtute majora, utilitate meliora, actu faciliora, numero pauciora”, Cont. Faust., XIX, xiii). The Council of Trent condemns those who say that there is no difference except in the outward rite between the sacraments of the Old Law and those of the New Law (Sess. VII, can. ii). The Decree for the Armenians, published by Order of the Council of Florence, says that the sacraments of the Old Law did not confer grace, but only prefigured the grace which was to be given by the Passion of Christ. This means that they did not give grace themselves (i.e. ex opere operato) but only by reason of the faith in Christ which they represented — “ex fide significata, non ex circumcisione significante” (ST I-II:102:5)

II. NATURE OF THE SACRAMENTS OF THE NEW LAW

(1) Definition of a sacrament

The sacraments thus far considered were merely signs of sacred things. According to the teaching of the Catholic Church, accepted today by many Episcopalians, the sacraments of the Christian dispensation are not mere signs; they do not merely signify Divine grace, but in virtue of their Divine institution, they cause that grace in the souls of men. “Signum sacro sanctum efficax gratiae” — a sacrosanct sign producing grace, is a good, succinct definition of a sacrament of the New Law. Sacrament, in its broadest acceptation, may be defined as an external sign of something sacred. In the twelfth century Peter Lombard (d. 1164), known as the Master of the Sentences, author of the manual of systematized theology, gave an accurate definition of a sacrament of the New Law: A sacrament is in such a manner an outward sign of inward grace that it bears its image (i.e. signifies or represents it) and is its cause — “Sacramentum proprie dicitur quod ita signum est gratiae Dei, ei invisibilis gratiae forma, ut ipsius imaginem gerat et causa existat” (IV Sent., d.I, n.2). This definition was adopted and perfected by the medieval Scholastics. From St. Thomas we have the short but very expressive definition: The sign of a sacred thing in so far as it sanctifies men – “Signum rei sacrae in quantum est sanctificans homines” (III:60:2).

All the creatures of the universe proclaim something sacred, namely, the wisdom and the goodness of God, as they are sacred in themselves, not as they are sacred things sanctifying men , hence they cannot be called sacraments in the sense in which we speak of sacraments (ibid., ad 1um). The Council of Trent includes the substance of these two definitions in the following: “Symbolum rei sacrae, et invisibilis gratiae forma visibilis, sanctificandi vim habens” — A symbol of something sacred, a visible form of invisible grace, having the power of sanctifying (Sess. XIII, cap.3). The “Catechism of the Council of Trent” gives a more complete definition: Something perceptible by the senses which by Divine institution has the power both to signify and to effect sanctity and justice (II, n.2). Catholic catechisms in English usually have the following: An outward sign of inward grace, a sacred and mysterious sign or ceremony, ordained by Christ, by which grace is conveyed to our souls. Anglican and Epscopalian theologies and catechisms give definitions which Catholics could accept.

In every sacrament three things are necessary: the outward sign; the inward grace; Divine institution. A sign stands for and represents something else, either naturally, as smoke represents fire, or by the choice of an intelligent being, as the red cross indicates an ambulance. Sacraments do not naturally signify grace; they do so because they have been chosen by God to signify mysterious effects. Yet they are not altogether arbitrary, because in some cases, if not in all, the ceremonies performed have a quasi-natural connection with the effect to be produced. Thus, pouring water on the head of a child readily brings to mind the interior purification of the soul. The word “sacrament” (sacramentum), even as used by profane Latin writers, signified something sacred, viz., the oath by which soldiers were bound, or the money deposited by litigants in a contest. In the writings of the Fathers of the Church the word was used to signify something sacred and mysterious, and where the Latins use sacramentum the Greeks use mysterion (mystery). The sacred and mysterious thing signified is Divine grace, which is the formal cause of our justification (see GRACE), but with it we must associate the Passion of Christ (efficient and meritorious cause) and the end (final cause) of our sanctification, viz., eternal ife. The significance of the sacraments according to theologians (e.g. ST III:60:3) and the Roman Catechism (II, n.13) extends to these three sacred things, of which one is past, one present, and one future. The three are aptly expressed in St. Thomas’s beautiful antiphon on the Eucharist: “O sacrum convivium, in quo Christus sumitur, recolitur memoria passionis ejus, mens impletur gratia, et futurae gloriae nobis pignus datur — O sacred banquet, in which Christ is received, the memory of the passion is recalled, the soul is filled with grace, and a pledge of future life is given to us”.

(2) Errors of Protestants

Protestants generally hold that the sacraments are signs of something sacred (grace and faith), but deny that they really cause Divine grace. Episcopalians, however, and Anglicans, especially the Ritualists, hold with Catholics that the sacraments are “effectual signs” of grace. In article XXV of the Westminster Confession we read: Sacraments ordained of God be not only badges or tokens of Christian men’s profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses and effectual signs of grace and God’s good will towards us by which He doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken but strengthen and confirm our faith in Him (cf. art. XXVII). “The Zwinglian theory”, writes Morgan Dix (op.cit., p.73), “that sacraments are nothing but memorials of Christ and badges of Christian profession, is one that can by no possible jugglery with the English tongue be reconciled with the formularies of our church.” Mortimer adopts and explains the Catholic formula “ex opere operato” (loc. cit., p. 122). Luther and his early followers rejected this conception of the sacraments. They do not cause grace, but are merely “signs and testimonies of God’s good will towards us” (Augsburg Confessions); they excite faith, and faith (fiduciary) causes justification. Calvinists and Presbyterians hold substantially the same doctrine. Zwinglius lowered still further the dignity of the sacraments, making them signs not of God’s fidelity but of our fidelity. By receiving the sacraments we manifest faith in Christ: they are merely the badges of our profession and the pledges of our fidelity. Fundamentally all these errors arise from Luther’s newly-invented theory of righteousness, i.e. the doctrine of justification by faith alone (see GRACE). If man is to be sanctified not by an interior renovation through grace which will blot out his sins, but by an extrinsic imputation through the merits of Christ, which will cover his soul as a cloak, there is no place for signs that cause grace, and those used can have no other purpose than to excite faith in the Saviour. Luther’s convenient doctrine on justification was not adopted by all his followers and it is not baldly and boldly proclaimed by all Protestants today; nevertheless they accept its consequences affecting the true notion of the sacraments.

(3) Catholic Doctrine

Against all innovators the Council of Trent declared: “If anyone say that the sacraments of the New Law do not contain the grace which they signify, or that they do not confer grace on those who place no obstacle to the same, let him be anathema” (Sess. viii, can.vi). “If anyone say that grace is not conferred by the sacraments ex opere operato but that faith in God’s promises is alone sufficient for obtaining grace, let him be anathema” (ibid., can. viii; cf. can.iv, v, vii). The phrase “ex opere operato”, for which there is no equivalent in English, probably was used for the first time by Peter of Poitiers (D. 1205), and afterwards by Innocent III (d. 1216; de myst. missae, III, v), and by St. Thomas (d. 1274; IV Sent., dist. 1, Q.i, a.5). It was happily invented to express a truth that had always been taught and had been introduced without objection. It is not an elegant formula but, as St. Augustine remarks (In Ps. cxxxviii): It is better that grammarians should object than that the people should not understand. “Ex opere operato”, i.e. by virtue of the action, means that the efficacy of the action of the sacraments does not depend on anything human, but solely on the will of God as expressed by Christ’s institution and promise. “Ex opere operantis”, i.e. by reason of the agent, would mean that the action of the sacraments depended on the worthiness either of the minister or of the recipient (see Pourrat, “Theology of the Sacraments”, tr. St. Louis, 1910, 162 sqq.). Protestants cannot in good faith object to the phrase as if it meant that the mere outward ceremony, apart from God’s action, causes grace. It is well known that Catholics teach that the sacraments are only the instrumental, not the principal, causes of grace. Neither can it be claimed that the phrase adopted by the council does away with all dispositions necessary on the part of the recipient, the sacraments acting like infallible charms causing grace in those who are ill-disposed or in grievous sin. The fathers of the council were careful to note that there must be no obstacle to grace on the part of the recipients, who must receive them rite, i.e. rightly and worthily; and they declare it a calumny to assert that they require no previous dispositions (Sess. XIV, de poenit., cap.4). Dispositions are required to prepare the subject, but they are a condition (conditio sine qua non), not the causes, of the grace conferred. In this case the sacraments differ from the sacramentals, which may cause grace ex opere operantis, i.e. by reason of the prayers of the Church or the good, pious sentiments of those who use them.

(4) Proofs of the Catholic Doctrine

In examining proofs of the Catholic doctrine it must be borne in mind that our rule of faith is not simply Scripture, but Scripture and tradition.

(a) In Sacred Scripture we find expressions which clearly indicate that the sacraments are more than mere signs of grace and faith: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (John 3:5); “He saved us, by the laver of regeneration, and renovation of the Holy Ghost” (Titus 3:5); “Then they laid their hands upon them, and they received the Holy Ghost” (Acts 8:17); “He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life . . . For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed” (John 6:55-56). These and similar expressions (see articles on each sacrament) are, to say the least, very much exaggerated if they do not mean that the sacramental ceremony is in some sense the cause of the grace conferred.

(b) Tradition clearly indicates the sense in which they have been interpreted in the Church. From the numerous expressions used by the Fathers we select the following: “The Holy Ghost comes down from heaven and hovers over the waters, sanctifying them of Himself, and thus they imbibe the power of sanctifying” (Tertullian, De bapt., c. iv). “Baptism is the expiation of sins, the remission of crimes, the cause of renovation and regeneration” (St. Gregory of Nyssa, “Orat. in Bapt.”). “Explain to me the manner of nativity in the flesh and I will explain to you the regeneration of the soul . . . Throughout, by Divine power and efficacy, it is incomprehensible; no reasoning, no art can explain it” (ibid.) “He that passes through the fountain [Baptism] shall not die but rises to new life” (St. Ambrose, De sacr., I, iv). “Whence this great power of water”, exclaims St. Augustine, “that it touches the body and cleanses the soul?” (Tr. 80 in Joann). “Baptism”, writes the same Father, “consists not in the merits of those by whom it is administered, nor of those to whom it is administered, but in its own sanctity and truth, on account of Him who instituted it” (Cont. Cres., IV). The doctrine solemnly defined by the Council of Trent had been announced in previous councils, notably at Constantinople (381; Symb. Fid.), at Mileve (416; can.ii) in the Second Council of Orange (529; can. xy); and in the Council of Florence (1439; Decr. pro. Armen., see Denzinger-Bannwart, nn. 86, 102, 200, 695). The early Anglican Church held fast to the true doctrine: “Baptism is not only a sign of profession and a mark of difference, whereby christened men are discerned from those that be not christened, but is also a sign of regeneration or New-Birth, whereby as by an instrument they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the church” (Art. XXVII).

(c) Theological argument. — The Westminster Confession adds: “The Baptism of children is in any wise to be retained in the church as most agreeable with the institution of Christ”. If Baptism does not confer grace ex opere operato, but simply excites faith, then we ask: (1) Of what use would this be if the language used be not understood by the recipient, i.e. an infant or an adult that does not understand Latin? In such cases it might be more beneficial to the bystanders than to the one baptized. (2) In what does the Baptism of Christ surpass the Baptism of John, for the latter could excite faith? Why were those baptized by the Baptism of John rebaptized with the Baptism of Christ? (Acts 19). (3) How can it be said that Baptism is strictly necessary for salvation since faith can be excited and expressed in many other ways? Finally Episcopalians and Anglicans of today would not revert to the doctrine of grace ex opere operato unless they were convinced that the ancient faith was warranted by Scripture and Tradition.

(5) Matter and Form of the sacraments

Scholastic writers of the thirteenth century introduced into their explanations of the sacraments terms which were derived from the philosophy of Aristotle. William of Auxerre (d. 1223) was the first to apply to them the words matter (materia) and form (forma). As in physical bodies, so also in the sacramental rite we find two elements, one undetermined, which is called the matter, the other determining, called the form. For instance, water may be used for drinking, or for cooling or cleansing the body, but the words pronounced by the minister when he pours water on the head of the child, with the intention of doing what the Church does, determines the meaning of the act, so that it signifies the purification of the soul by grace. The matter and form (the res et verba) make up the external rite, which has its special significance and efficacy from the institution of Christ. The words are the more important element in the composition, because men express their thoughts and intentions principally by words. “Verba inter homines obtinuerunt principatum significandi” (St. Augustine, De doct. christ.”, II, iii; ST III:60:6). It must not be supposed that the things used for the acts performed, for they are included in the res, remarks St. Thomas (ST III:60:6, ad 2) have no significance. They too may be symbolical, e.g. anointing the body with oil relates to health; but their significance is clearly determined by the words. “In all the compounds of matter and form the determining element is the form: (ST III:60:7).

The terminology was somewhat new, the doctrine was old; the same truth had been expressed in former times in different words. Sometimes the form of the sacrament meant the whole external rite (St. Augustine, “De pecc. et mer.”, xxxiv; Conc. Milev., De bapt.). What we call the matter and form were referred to as “mystic symbols”; “the sign and the thing invisible”; the “word and the element” (St. Augustine, tr. 80 in Joann.). The new terminology immediately found favour. It was solemnly ratified by being used in the Decree for the Armenians, which was added to the Decrees of the Council of Florence, yet has not the value of a conciliar definition (see Denzinger-Bannwart, 695; Hurter, “Theol. dog. comp.”, I, 441; Pourrat, op.cit., p. 51). The Council of Trent used the words matter and form (Sess. XIV, cap. ii, iii, can. iv), but did not define that the sacramental rite was composed of these two elements. Leo XIII, in the “Apostolicae Curae” (13 Sept., 1896) made the scholastic theory the basis of his declaration, and pronounced ordinations performed according to the ancient Anglican rite invalid, owing to a defect in the form used and a lack of the necessary intention on the part of the ministers. The hylomorphistic theory furnishes a very apt comparison and sheds much light on our conception of the external ceremony. Nevertheless our knowledge of the sacraments is not dependent on this Scholastic terminology, and the comparison must not be carried too far. The attempt to verify the comparison (of sacraments to a body) in all details of the sacramental rite will lead to confusing subtilities or to singular opinions, e.g., Melchior Cano’s (De locis theol., VIII, v.3) opinion as to the minister of Matrimony (see MARRIAGE; cf. Pourrat, op.cit., ii).

III. ORIGIN (CAUSE) OF THE SACRAMENTS

It might now be asked: in how far was it necessary that the matter and form of the sacraments should have been determined by Christ?

(1) Power of God

The Council of Trent defined that the seven sacraments of the New Law were instituted by Christ (Sess. VII, can.i). This settles the question of fact for all Catholics. Reason tells us that all sacraments must come originally from God. Since they are the signs of sacred things in so far as by these sacred things men are sanctified (ST III:60:2); since the external rite (matter and form) of itself cannot give grace, it is evident that all sacraments properly so called must originate in Divine appointment. “Since the sanctification of man is in the power of God who sanctifies”, writes St. Thomas (ST III:60:2), “it is not in the competency of man to choose the things by which he is to be sanctified, but this must be determined by Divine institution”. Add to this that grace is, in some sense, a participation of the Divine nature (see GRACE) and our doctrine becomes unassailable: God alone can decree that by exterior ceremonies men shall be partakers of His nature.

(2) Power of Christ

God alone is the principal cause of the sacraments. He alone authoritatively and by innate power can give to external material rites the power to confer grace on men. Christ as God, equally with the Father, possessed this principal, authoritative, innate power. As man He had another power which St. Thomas calls “the power of the principal ministry” or “the power of excellence” (III:64:3). “Christ produced the interior effects of the sacraments by meriting them and by effecting them. . . The passion of Christ is the cause of our justification meritoriously and effectively, not as the principal agent and authoritatively but as an instrument, inasmuch as His Humanity was the instrument of His Divinity” (III:64:3; cf. III:13:1, III:13:3). There is theological truth as well as piety in the old maxim: “From the side of Christ dying on the cross flowed the sacraments by which the Church was saved” (Gloss. Ord. in Rom.5: ST III:62:5). The principal efficient cause of grace is God, to whom the Humanity of Christ is as a conjoined instrument, the sacraments being instruments not joined to the Divinity (by hypostatic union): therefore the saving power of the sacraments passes from the Divinity of Christ, through His Humanity into the sacraments (ST III:62:5). One who weighs well all these words will understand why Catholics have great reverence for the sacraments. Christ’s power of excellence consists in four things: (1) Sacraments have their efficacy from His merits and sufferings; (2) they are sanctified and they sanctify in His name; (3) He could and He did institute the sacraments; (4) He could produce the effects of the sacraments without the external ceremony (ST III:64:3). Christ could have communicated this power of excellence to men: this was not absolutely impossible (III:64:4). But, (1) had He done so men could not have possessed it with the same perfection as Christ: “He would have remained the head of the Church principally, others secondarily” (III:64:3). (2) Christ did not communicate this power, and this for the good of the faithful: (a) that they might place their hope in God and not in men; (b) that there might not be different sacraments, giving rise to divisions in the Church (III:64:1). This second reason is mentioned by St. Paul (1 Corinthians 1:12-13): “every one of you saith: I indeed am of Paul; and I am of Apollo; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? Was Paul then crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?”

(3) Immediate or Mediate Institution

The Council of Trent did not define explicitly and formally that all the sacraments were instituted immediately by Christ. Before the council great theologians, e.g. Peter Lombard (IV Sent., d. xxiii), Hugh of St. Victor (De sac. II, ii) Alexander of Hales (Summa, IV, Q. xxiv, 1) held that some sacraments were instituted by the Apostles, using power that had been given to them by Jesus Christ. Doubts were raised especially about Confirmation and Extreme Unction. St. Thomas rejects the opinion that Confirmation was instituted by the Apostles. It was instituted by Christ, he holds, when he promised to send the Paraclete, although it was never administered whilst He was on earth, because the fullness of the Holy Ghost was not to be given until after the Ascension: “Christus instituit hoc sacramentum, non exhibendo, sed promittendo” (III. Q.lxii, a.1, ad 1um). The Council of Trent defined that the sacrament of Extreme Unction was instituted by Christ and promulgated by St. James (Sess. XIV, can.i). Some theologians, e.g. Becanus, Bellarmine, Vasquez, Gonet, etc. thought the words of the council (Sess. VII, can.i) were explicit enough to make the immediate institution of all the sacraments by Christ a matter of defined faith. They are opposed by Soto (a theologian of the council), Estius, Gotti, Tournely, Berti, and a host of others, so that now nearly all theologians unite in saying: it is theologically certain, but not defined (de fide) that Christ immediately instituted all the sacraments of the New Law. In the decree “Lamentabili”, 3 July, 1907, Pius X condemned twelve propositions of the Modernists, who would attribute the origin of the sacraments to some species of evolution or development. The first sweeping proposition is this: “The sacraments had their origin in this that the Apostles, persuaded and moved by circumstances and events, interpreted some idea and intention of Christ”, (Demzinger-Bannwart, 2040). Then follow eleven propositions relating to each of the sacraments in order (ibid., 2041-51). These propositions deny that Christ immediately instituted the sacraments and some seem to deny even their mediate institution by the Saviour.

(4) What does Immediate Institution Imply? Power of the Church.

Granting that Christ immediately instituted all the sacraments, it does not necessarily follow that personally He determined all the details of the sacred ceremony, prescribing minutely every iota relating to the matter and the form to be used. It is sufficient (even for immediate institution) to say: Christ determined what special graces were to be conferred by means of external rites: for some sacraments (e.g. Baptism, the Eucharist) He determined minutely (in specie) the matter and form: for others He determined only in a general way (in genere) that there should be an external ceremony, by which special graces were to be conferred, leaving to the Apostles or to the Church the power to determine whatever He had not determined, e.g. to prescribe the matter and form of the Sacraments of Confirmation and Holy Orders. The Council of Trent (Sess. XXI, cap. ii) declared that the Church had the power to change the “substance” of the sacraments. She would not be claiming power to alter the substance of the sacraments if she used her Divinely given authority to determine more precisely the matter and form in so far as they had not been determined by Christ. This theory (which is not modern) had been adopted by theologians: by it we can solve historical difficulties relating, principally, to Confirmation and Holy Orders.

(5) May we then say that Christ instituted some sacraments in an implicit state?

That Christ was satisfied to lay down the essential principles from which, after a more or less protracted development, would come forth the fully developed sacraments? This is an application of Newman’s theory of development, according to Pourrat (op.cit., p.300), who proposes two other formulae; Christ instituted all the sacraments immediately, but did not himself give them all to the Church fully constituted; or Jesus instituted immediately and explicitly Baptism and Holy Eucharist: He instituted immediately but implicitly the five other sacraments (loc.cit., p.301). Pourrat himself thinks the latter formula too absolute. Theologians probably will consider it rather dangerous, and at least “male sonans”. If it be taken to mean more than the old expression, Christ determined in genere only the matter and the form of some sacraments, it grants too much development. If it means nothing more than the expression hitherto in use, what is gained by admitting a formula which easily might be misunderstood?

IV. NUMBER OF THE SACRAMENTS

(1) Catholic Doctrine: Eastern and Western Churches

The Council of Trent solemnly defined that there are seven sacraments of the New Law, truly and properly so called, viz., Baptism, Confirmation, Holy Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Orders, and Matrimony. The same enumeration had been made in the Decree for the Armenians by the Council of Florence (1439), in the Profession of Faith of Michael Palaelogus, offered to Gregory X in the Council of Lyons (1274) and in the council held at London, in 1237, under Otto, legate of the Holy See. According to some writers Otto of Bamberg (1139), the Apostle of Pomerania, was the first who clearly adopted the number seven (see Tanquerey, “De sacr.”). Most probably 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, although the great Scholastics rejected many of his theological opinions (list given in app. to Migne edition, Paris, 1841), this definition and enumeration were at once universally accepted, proof positive that he did not introduce a new doctrine, but merely expressed in a convenient and precise formula what had always been held in the Church. Just as many doctrines were believed, but not always accurately expressed, 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 Aristotelian philosophy, applied to the systematic explanation of Christian doctrine, furnished the accurate definition and enumeration of Peter Lombard. The earlier Christians were more concerned with the use of sacred rites than with scientific formulae, 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 development 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 and knowledge of the sacraments. For many centuries all signs of sacred things were called sacraments, and the enumeration of these signs was somewhat arbitrary. Our seven sacraments were all mentioned in the Sacred Scriptures, and we find them all mentioned 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 properly so called. The ill-fated Abelard (“Intro. ad Theol.”, I, i, and in the “Sic et Non”) and Hugh of St. Victor (De sacr., I, part 9, chap. viii; cf. Pourrat, op.cit., pp.34, 35) prepared the way for Peter Lombard, 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 objections made to the doctrine of seven sacraments. On the contrary, about 1576, when the Reformers 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 mysteries received in this same Catholic Church of orthodox 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 Churches on this subject is clearly shown by Arcadius, “De con. ecc. occident. et orient. in sept. sacr. administr.” (1619); Goar (q.v.) in his “Euchologion” by Martene (q.v.) in his work “De antiquis ecclesiae ritibus”, by Renaudot in his “Perpetuite de la foi sur sacrements” (1711), and this agreement of the two Churches furnishes recent writers (Episcopalians) with a strong argument in support of their appeal for the acceptance of seven sacraments.

(2) Protestant Errors

Luther’s capital errors, viz. private interpretation of the Scriptures, and justification by faith alone, logically led to a rejection of the Catholic doctrine on the sacraments (see LUTHER; GRACE). Gladly would he have swept them all away, but the words of Scripture were too convincing and the Augsburg Confession retained three as “having the command 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 publishing the “Assertio septem sacramentorum” (re-edited by Rev. Louis O’Donovan, New York, 1908). Followers of Luther’s principles surpassed their leader in opposition to the sacraments. Once granted that they were merely “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 sacraments, 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 retained a ceremony of Confirmation and ordination. Cranmer retained three sacraments, yet we find in the Westminster Confession: “There are two Sacraments 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 Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, are not to be counted for sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed 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 signs or ceremony ordained by God (art.XXV). The Wittenberg theologians, by way of compromise, had shown a willingness 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 neglected, especially Penance and Extreme Unction. Anglicans of the nineteenth century would have gladly altered or abolished the twenty-fifth article. There has been a strong desire, dating chiefly from the Tractarian Movement, and the days of Pusey, Newman, Lyddon, etc. to reintroduce all of the sacraments. Many Episcopalians and Anglicans today 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 first book of Edward VI allowed “auricular and secret confession to the priest”, who could give absolution as well as “ghostly counsel, advice, and comfort”, but did not make the practice obligatory: therefore the sacrament of Absolution 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 the bishops of the American Church, some who concur in deploring the loss of thiss primitive ordinance and predicting its restoration among us at some propitious time” (ibid., p.105). At a convention of Episcopalians held at Cincinnati, in 1910, unsuccessful effort was made to obtain approbation for the practice of anointing the sick. High Church pastors and curates, especially in England, frequently are in conflict with their bishops because the former use all the ancient rites. Add to this the assertion made by Mortimer (op.cit., I, 122) that all the sacraments cause grace ex opere operato, and we see that “advanced” Anglicans are returning to the doctrine and the practices of the Old Church. Whether and in how far their position can be reconciled with the twenty-fifth article, is a question which they must settle. Assuredly their wanderings and gropings after the truth prove the necessity of having on earth an infallible interpreter of God’s word.

(3) Division and Comparison of the Sacraments

(a) All sacraments were instituted for the spiritual good of the recipients; but five, viz. Baptism, Confirmation, Penance, the Eucharist, and Extreme Unction, primarily benefit the individual in his private character, whilst the other two, Orders and Matrimony, primarily affect man as a social being, and sanctify him in the fulfillment of his duties tiowards the Church and society. By Baptism we are born again, Confirmation makes us strong, perfect Christians and soldiers. The Eucharist furnishes our daily spiritual food. Penance heals the soul wounded by sin. Extreme Unction removes the last remnant of human frailty, and prepares the soul for eternal life, Orders supplies ministers to the Church of God. Matrimony gives the graces necessary for those who are to rear children in the love and fear of God, members of the Church militant, future citizens of heaven. This is St. Thomas’s explanation of the fitness of the number seven (III:55:1). He gives other explanations offered by the Schoolmen, but does not bind himself to any of them. In fact the only sufficient reason for the existence of seven sacraments, and no more, is the will of Christ: there are seven because He instituted seven. The explanations and adaptations of theologians serve only to excite our admiration and gratitude, by showing how wisely and beneficently God has provided for our spiritual needs in these seven efficacious signs of grace.

(b) Baptism and Penance are called “sacraments of the dead”, because they give life, through sanctifying grace then called “first grace”, to those who are spiritually dead by reason of original or actual sin. The other five are “sacraments of the living”, because their reception presupposes, at least ordinarily, that the recipient is in the state of grace, and they give “second grace”, i.e. increase of sanctifying grace. Nevertheless, since the sacraments always give some grace when there is no obstacle in the recipient, it may happen in cases explained by theologians that “second grace” is conferred by a sacrament of the dead, e.g. when one has only venial sins to confess receives absolution and that “first grace” is conferred by a sacrament of the living (see ST III:72:7 ad 2; III:79:3). Concerning Extreme Unction St. James explicitly states that through it the recipient may be freed from his sins: “If he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him” (James 5:15).

(c) Comparison in dignity and necessity. The Council of Trent declared that the sacraments are not all equal in dignity; also that none are superfluous, although all are not necessary for each individual (Sess. VII, can.3, 4). The Eucharist is the first in dignity, because it contains Christ in person, whilst in the other sacraments grace is conferred by an instrumental virtue derived from Christ (ST III:56:3) To this reason St. Thomas adds another, namely, that the Eucharist is as the end to which the other sacraments tend, a centre around which they revolve (ST III:56:3). Baptism is always first in necessity; Holy Orders comes next after the Eucharist in the order of dignity, Confirmation being between these two. Penance and Extreme Unction could not have a first place because they presuppose defects (sins). Of the two Penance is the first in necessity: Extreme Unction completes the work of Penance and prepares souls for heaven. Matrimony has not such an important social work as Orders (ST III:56:3, ad 1). If we consider necessity alone — the Eucharist being left out as our daily bread, and God’s greatest gift — three are simply and strictly necessary, Baptism for all, Penance for those who fall into mortal sin after receiving Baptism, Orders for the Church. The others are not so strictly necessary. Confirmation completes the work of Baptism; Extreme Unction completes the work of Penance; Matrimony sanctifies the procreation and education of children, which is not so important nor so necessary as the sanctification of ministers of the Church (ST III:56:3, ad 4).

(d) Episcopalians and Anglicans distinguish two great sacraments and five lesser sacraments because the latter “have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained by God” (art. XXXV). Then they should be classed among the sacramentals since God alone can be the author of a sacrament (see above III). On this point the language of the twenty-fifth article (“commonly called sacraments”) is more logical and straightforward than the terminology of recent Anglican writers. The Anglican Catechism calls Baptism and Eucharist sacraments “generally (i.e. universally) necessary for salvation”. Mortimer justly remarks that this expression is not “entirely accurate”, because the Eucharist is not generally necessary to salvation in the same way as Baptism (op.cit., I, 127). The other five he adds are placed in a lower class because, “they are not necessary to salvation in the same sense as the two other sacraments, since they are not necessary for everyone” (loc.cit., 128). Verily this is interpretation extraordinary; yet we should be grateful since it is more respectful than saying that those five are “such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures” (art. XXV). Confusion and uncertainty will be avoided by accepting the declaration of the Council of Trent (above).

V. EFFECTS OF THE SACRAMENTS

(1) Catholic Doctrine

(a) The principal effect of the sacrament is a two-fold grace: (1) the grace of the sacrament which is “first grace”, produced by the sacraments of the dead, or “second grace”, produced by the sacraments of the living (supra, IV, 3, b); (2) The sacramental grace, i.e., the special grace needed to attain the end of each sacrament. Most probably it is not a new habitual gift, but a special vigour or efficacy in the sanctifying grace conferred, including on the part of God, a promise, and on the part of man a permanent right to the assistance needed in order to act in accordance with the obligations incurred, e.g., to live as a good Christian, a good priest, a good husband or wife (cf. ST III:62:2).

(b) Three sacraments, Baptism, Confirmation and Orders, besides grace, produce in the soul a character, i.e., an indelible spiritual mark by which some are consecrated as servants of God, some as soldiers, some as ministers. Since it is an indelible mark, the sacraments which impress a character cannot be received more than once (Conc. Trid., sess. VII, can.9; see CHARACTER).

(2) How the sacraments cause Grace: Theological controversies.

Few questions have been so hotly controverted as this one relative to the manner in which the sacraments cause grace (ST IV, Sent., d.1, Q.4, a.1.).

(a) All admit that the sacraments of the New Law cause grace ex opere operato, not ex opere operantis (above, II, 2, 3).

(b) All admit that God alone can be the principal cause of grace (above 3, 1).

(c) All admit that Christ as man, had a special power over the sacraments (above, 3, 2).

(d) All admit that the sacraments are, in some sense, the instrumental causes either of grace itself or of something else which will be a “title exigent of grace” (infra e). The principal cause is one which produces an effect by a power which it has by reason of its own nature or by an inherent faculty. An instrumental cause produces an effect, not by its own power, but by a power which it receives from the principal agent. When a carpenter makes a table, he is the principal cause, his tools are the instrumental causes. God alone can cause grace as the principal cause; sacraments can be no more than his instruments “for they are applied to men by Divine ordinance to cause grace in them” (ST III:62:1). No theologian today defends Occasionalism (see CAUSE) i.e. the system which taught that the sacraments caused grace by a kind of concomitance, they being not real causes but the causae sine quibus non: their reception being merely the occasion of conferring grace. This opinion, according to Pourrat (op.cit., 167), was defended by St. Bonaventure, Duns Scotus, Durandus, Occam, and all the Nominalists, and “enjoyed a real success until the time of the Council of Trent, when it was transformed into the modern system of moral causality”. St. Thomas (III:62:1, III:62:4; and “Quodlibeta”, 12, a, 14), and others rejected it on the ground that it reduced the sacraments to the condition of mere signs.

(e) In solving the problem the next step was the introduction of the system of dispositive instrumental causality, explained by Alexander of Hales (Summa theol., IV, Q. v, membr. 4), adopted and perfected by St. Thomas (IV Sent., d. 1, Q. i, a. 4), defended by many theologians down to the sixteenth century, and revived later by Father Billot, S.J. (“De eccl. sacram.”, I, Rome, 1900). According to this theory the sacraments do not efficiently and immediately cause grace itself, but they cause ex opere operato and instrumentally, a something else — the character (in some cases) or a spiritual ornament or form — which will be a “disposition” entitling the soul to grace (“dispositio exigitiva gratiae”; “titulus exigitivus gratiae”, Billot, loc.cit.). It must be admitted that this theory would be most convenient in explaining “reviviscence” of the sacraments (infra, VII, c). Against it the following objections are made: From the time of the Council of Trent down to recent times little was heard of this system. The “ornament”, or “disposition”, entitling the soul to grace is not well explained, hence explains very little. Since this “disposition” must be something spiritual and of the supernatural order, and the sacraments can cause it, why can they not cause the grace itself? In his “Summa theologica” St. Thomas does not mention this dispositive causality: hence we may reasonably believe that he abandoned it.

(f) Since the time of the Council of Trent theologians almost unanimously have taught that the sacraments are the efficient instrumental cause of grace itself. The definition of the Council of Trent, that the sacraments “contain the grace which they signify”, that they “confer grace ex opere operato” (Sess. VII, can.6, 8), seemed to justify the assertion, which was not contested until quite recently. Yet the end of the controversy had not come. What was the nature of that causality? Did it belong to the physical or to the moral order? A physical cause really and immediately produces its effects, either as the principal agent or as the instrument used, as when a sculptor uses a chisel to carve a statue. A moral cause is one which moves or entreats a physical cause to act. It also can be principal or instrumental, e.g., a bishop who in person successfully pleads for the liberation of a prisoner is the principal moral cause, a letter sent by him would be the instrumental moral cause, of the freedom granted. The expressions used by St. Thomas seem clearly to indicate that the sacraments act after the manner of physical causes. He says that there is in the sacraments a virtue productive of grace (III:62:4) and he answers objections against attributing such power to a corporeal instrument by simply stating that such power is not inherent in them and does not reside in them permanently, but is in them only so far and so long as they are instruments in the hands of Almighty God (loc.cit., ad um and 3 um). Cajetan, Suarez, and a host of other great theologians defend this system, which is usually termed Thomistic. The language of the Scripture, the expressions of the Fathers, the Decrees of the councils, they say, are so strong that nothing short of an impossibility will justify a denial of this dignity to the sacraments of the New Law. Many facts must be admitted which we cannot fully explain. The body of man acts on his spiritual soul; fire acts, in some way, on souls and on angels. The strings of a harp, remarks Cajetan (In III, Q.lxii) touched by an unskilled hand, produce nothing but sounds: touched by the hands of a skilful mmusician they give forth beautiful melodies. Why cannot the sacraments, as instruments in the hands of God, produce grace?

Many grave theologians were not convinced by these arguments, and another school, improperly called the Scotistic, headed by Melchior Cano, De Lugo, and Vasquez, embracing later Henno, Tournely, Franzelin, and others, adopted the system of instrumental moral causality. The principal moral cause of grace is the Passion of Christ. The sacraments are instruments which move or entreat God effectively and infallibly to give his grace to those who receive them with proper disposotions, because, says Melchior Cano, “the price of the blood of Jesus Christ is communicated to them” (see Pourrat, op. cit., 192, 193). This system was further developed by Franzelin, who looks upon the sacraments as being morally an act of Christ (loc.cit., p.194). The Thomists and Suarez object to this system: Since the sacraments (i.e. the external rites) have no intrisic value, they do not, according to this explanation, exert any genuine causality; they do not really cause grace, God alone causes the grace: the sacrament do not operate to produce it; they are only signs or occasions of conferring it. The Fathers saw something mysterious and inexplicable in the sacraments. In this system wonders cease or are, at least, so much reduced that the expressions used by the Fathers seem altogether out of place. This theory does not sufficiently distinguish, in efficacy, the sacraments of the Gospel from the sacraments of the Old Law. Nevertheless, because it avoids certain difficulties and obscurities of the physical causality theory, the system of moral causality has found many defenders, and today if we consider numbers alone, it has authority in its favour.

Recently both of these systems have been vigorously attacked by Father Billot (op.cit., 107 sq.), who proposes a new explanation. He revives the old theory that the sacraments do not immediately cause grace itself, but a disposition or title to grace (above e). This disposition is produced by the sacraments, neither physically nor morally, but imperatively. Sacraments are practical signs of an intentional order: they manifest God’s intention to give spiritual benefits; this manifestation of the Divine intention is a title exigent of grace (op.cit., 59 sq., 123 sq.; Pourrat, op.cit., 194; Cronin in reviews, sup. cit.). Father Billot defends his opinions with remarkable acumen. Patrons of the physical causality gratefully note his attack against the moral causality, but object to the new explanation, that the imperative or the intentional causality, as distinct from the action of signs, occasions, moral or physical instruments (a) is conceived with difficulty and (b) does not make the sacraments (i.e. the external, Divinely appointed ceremonies) the real cause of grace. Theologians are perfectly free to dispute and differ as to the manner of instrumental causality. Lis est adhuc sub judice.

VI. MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENTS

(1) Men, Not Angels

It was altogether fitting that the ministration of the sacraments be given, not to the angels, but to men. The efficacy of the sacraments comes from the Passion of Christ, hence from Christ as a man; men, not angels, are like unto Christ in His human nature. Miraculously God might send a good angel to administer a sacrament (ST III:64:7).

(2) Ordination Requirements for the Ministers of Particular Sacraments

For administering Baptism validly no special ordination is required. Any one, even a pagan, can baptize, provided that he use the proper matter and pronounce the words of the essential form, with the intention of doing what the Church does (Decr. pro Armen., Denzinger-Bannwart, 696). Ony bishops, priests, and in some cases, deacons may confer Baptism solemnly (see BAPTISM). It is now held as certain that in Matrimony the contracting parties are the ministers of the sacrament, because they make the contract and the sacrament is a contract raised by Christ to the dignity of a sacrament (cf. Leo XIII, Encycl. “Arcanum”, 10 Febr., 1880; see MATRIMONY). For the validity of the other five sacraments the minister must be duly ordained. The Council of Trent anathematized those who said that all Christians could administer all the sacraments (Sess. VII, can.10). Only bishops can confer Sacred Orders (Council of Trent, sess. XXIII, can.7). Ordinarily only a bishop can give Confirmation (see CONFIRMATION). The priestly Order is required for the valid administration of Penance and Extreme Unction (Conc. Trid., sess. XIV, can.10, can.4). As to the Eucharist, those only who have priestly Orders can consecrate, i.e. change bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. Consecration presupposed, any one can distribute the Eucharistic species but, outside of very extraordinary circumstances this can be lawfully done only by bishops, priests, or (in some cases) deacons.

(3) Heretical or Schismatic Ministers

The care of all those sacred rites has been given to the Church of Christ. Heretical or schismatical ministers can administer the sacraments validly if they have valid Orders, but their ministrations are sinful (see Billot, op.cit., thesis 16). Good faith would excuse the recipients from sin, and in cases of necessity the Church grants jurisdiction necessary for Penance and Extreme Unction (see EXCOMMUNICATION: V, Effects of Excommunication).

(4) State of Soul of the Minister

Due reverence for the sacraments requires the minister to be in a state of grace: one who solemnly and officially administers a sacrament, being himself in a state of mortal sin, would certainly be guilty of a sacrilege (cf. ST III:64:6). Some hold that this sacrilege is committed even when the minister does not act officially or confer the sacrament solemnly. But from the controversy between St. Augustine and the Donatists in the fourth century and especially from the controversy between St. Stephen and St. Cyprian in the third century, we know that personal holiness or the state of grace in the minister is not a prerequisite for the valid administration of the sacrament. This has been solemnly defined in several general councils including the Council of Trent (Sess VII, can.12, ibid., de bapt., can.4). The reason is that the sacraments have their efficacy by Divine institution and through the merits of Christ. Unworthy ministers, validly conferring the sacraments, cannot impede the efficacy of signs ordained by Christ to produce grace ex opere operato (cf. St. Thomas, III:64:5, III:64:9). The knowledge of this truth, which follows logically from the true conception of a sacrament, gives comfort to the faithful, and it should increase, rather than diminish, reverence for those sacred rites and confidence in their efficacy. No one can give, in his own name, that which he does not possess; but a bank cashier, not possessing 2000 dollars in his own name, could write a draft worth 2, 000, 000 dollars by reason of the wealth of the bank which he is authorized to represent. Christ left to His Church a vast treasure purchased by His merits and sufferings: the sacraments are as credentials entitling their holders to a share in this treasure. On this subject, the Anglican Church has retained the true doctrine, which is neatly proved in article XXVI of the Westminster Confession: “Although in the visible church the evil be ever mingled with the good, and sometimes the evil hath the chief authority in the ministration of the Word and Sacraments, yet forasmuch as they do not the same in their own name, but in Christ’s, and do minister by His commission and authority, we may use their ministry both in hearing the Word of God and in receiving the Sacraments. Neither is the effect of Christ’s ordinance taken away by their wickedness nor the grace of God’s gifts from such as by faith, and rightly, do receive the sacraments ministered unto them; which be effectual, because of Christ’s institution and promise, although they be administered by evil men” (cf. Billuart, de sacram., d.5, a.3, sol.obj.)

(5) Intention of the Minister

(a) To be a minister of the sacraments under and with Christ, a man must act as a man, i.e. as a rational being; hence it is absolutely necessary that he have the intention of doing what the Church does. This was declared by Eugene IV in 1439 (Denzinger-Bannwart, 695) and was solemnly defined in the Council of Trent (Sess.VII, can.II). The anathema of Trent was aimed at the innovators of the sixteenth century. From their fundamental error that the sacraments were signs of faith, or signs that excited faith, it followed logically that their effect in no wise depended on the intention of the minister. Men are to be “ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the mysteries of God” (1 Corinthians 4:1), and this they would not be without the intention, for it is by the intention, says St. Thomas (III:64:8, ad 1) that a man subjects and unites himself to the principal agent (Christ). Moreover, by rationally pronouncing the words of the form, the minister must determine what is not sufficiently determined or expressed by the matter applied, e.g. the significance of pouring water on the head of the child (ST III:64:8). One who is demented, drunk, asleep, or in a stupor that prevents a rational act, one who goes through the external ceremony in mockery, mimicry, or in a play, does not act as a rational minister, hence cannot administer a sacrament.

(b) The necessary object and qualities of the intention required in the minister of the sacrament are explained in the article INTENTION. Pourrat (op.cit., ch.7) gives a history of all controversies on this subject. Whatever may be said speculatively about the opinion of Ambrosius Catherinus (see POLITI, LANCELOT) who advocated the sufficiency of an external intention in the minister, it may not be followed in practice, because, outside of cases of neccessity, no one may follow a probable opinion against one that is safer, when there is question of something required for the validity of a sacrament (Innoc. XI, 1679; Denzinger-Bannwart, 1151).

(6) Attention in the Minister

Attention is an act of the intellect, viz. the application of the mind to what is being done. Voluntary distraction in one administering a sacrament would be sinful. The sin would however not be brave, unless (a) there be danger of making a serious mistake, or (b) according to the common opinion, the distraction be admitted in consecrating the Eucharistic species. Attention on the part of the minister is not necessary for the valid administration of a sacrament, because in virtue of the intention, which is presupposed, he can act in a rational manner, notwithstanding the distraction.

VII. RECIPIENT OF THE SACRAMENTS

When all conditions required by Divine and ecclesiastical law are complied with, the sacrament is received validly and licitly. If all conditions required for the essential rite are observed, on the part of the minister, the recipient, the matter and form, but some non-essential condition is not complied with by the recipient, the sacrament is received validly but not licitly; and if the condition wilfully neglected be grave, grace is not then conferred by the ceremony. Thus baptized persons contracting Matrimony whilst they are in the state of mortal sin would be validly (i.e. really) married, but would not then receive sanctifying grace.

(1) Conditions for valid reception

(a) The previous reception of Baptism (by water) is an essential condition for the valid reception of any other sacrament. Only citizens and members of the Church can come under her influence as such; Baptism is the door by which we enter the Church and thereby become members of a mystical body united to Christ our head (Catech. Trid., de bapt., nn.5, 52).

(b) In adults, for the valid reception of any sacrament except the Eucharist, it is necessary that they have the intention of receiving it. The sacraments impose obligations and confer grace: Christ does not wish to impose those obligations or confer grace without the consent of man. The Eucharist is excepted because, in whatever state the recipient may be, it is always the body and blood of Christ (see INTENTION; cf. Pourrat, op.cit., 392).

(c) For attention, see above, VI, 6. By the intention man submits himself to the operation of the sacraments which produce their effects exopere operato, hence attention is not necessary for the valid reception of the sacraments. One who might be distracted, even voluntarily, during the conferring, e.g. of Baptism, would receive the sacrament validly. It must be carefully noted, however, that in the case of Matrimony the contracting parties are the ministers as well as the recipients of the sacraments; and in the sacrament of Penance, the acts of the penitent, contrition, confession, and willingness to accept a Penance in satisfaction, constitute the proximate matter of the sacraments, according to the commonly received opinion. Hence in those cases such attention is required as is necessary for the valid application of the matter and form.

(2) Conditions for the Licit Reception

(a) For the licit reception, besides the intention and the attention, in adults there is required:for the sacraments of the dead, supernatural attrition, which presupposes acts of faith, hope, and repentance (see ATTRITION and JUSTIFICATION);for the sacraments of the living the state of grace. Knowingly to receive a sacrament of the living whilst one is in the state of mortal sin would be a sacrilege.

(b) For the licit reception it is also necessary to observe all that is prescribed by Divine or ecclesiastical law, e.g. as to time, place, the minister, etc. As the Church alone has the care of the sacraments and generally her duly appointed agents alone have the right to administer them, except Baptism in some cases, and Matrimony (supra VI, 2), it is a general law that application for the sacraments should be made to worthy and duly appointed ministers. (For exceptions see EXCOMMUNICATION.)

(3) Reviviscence of the Sacraments

Much attention has been given by theologians to the revival of effects which were impeded at the time when a sacrament was received. The question arises whenever a sacrament is received validly but unworthily, i.e. with an obstacle which prevents the infusion of Divine grace. The obstacle (mortal sin) is positive, when it is known and voluntary, or negative, when it is involuntary by reason of ignorance or good faith. One who thus receives a sacrament is said to receive it feignedly, or falsely (ficte), because by the very act of receiving it he pretends to be properly disposed; and the sacrament is said to be validum sed informe — valid, but lacking its proper form, i.e. grace or charity (see LOVE). Can such a person recover or receive the effects of the sacraments? The term reviviscence (reviviscentia) is not used by St. Thomas in reference to the sacraments and it is not strictly correct because the effects in question being impeded by the obstacle, were not once “living” (cf. Billot, op.cit., 98, note). The expression which he uses (III:69:10), viz., obtaining the effects after the obstacle has been removed, is more accurate, though not so convenient as the newer term.

(a) Theologians generally hold that the question does not apply to Penance and the Holy Eucharist. If the penitent be not sufficiently disposed to receive grace at the time he confesses his sins the sacrament is not validly received because the acts of the penitent are a necessary part of the matter of this sacrament, or a necessary condition for its reception. One who unworthily receives the Eucharist can derive no benefit from that sacrament unless, perhaps, he repent of his sins and sacrilege before the sacred species have beeen destroyed. Cases that may occur relate to the five other sacraments.

(b) It is certain and admitted by all, that if Baptism be received by an adult who is in the state of mortal sin, he can afterwards receive the graces of the sacrament, viz. when the obstacle is removed by contrition or by the sacrament of Penance. On the one hand the sacraments always produce grace unless there be an obstacle; on the other hand those graces are necessary, and yet the sacrament cannot be repeated. St. Thomas (III:69:10) and theologians find a special reason for the conferring of the effects of Baptism (when the “fiction” has been removed) in the permanent character which is impressed by the sacrament validly administered. Reasoning from analogy they hold the same with regard to Confirmation and Holy Orders, noting however that the graces to be received are not so necessary as those conferred by Baptism.

(c) The doctrine is not so certain when applied to Matrimony and Extreme Unction. But since the graces impeded are very important though not strictly necessary, and since Matrimony cannot be received again whilst both contracting parties are living, and Extreme Unction cannot be repeated whilst the same danger of death lasts, theologians adopt as more probable the opinion which holds that God will grant the graces of those sacraments when the obstacle is removed. The “reviviscence” of the effects of sacraments received validly but with an obstacle to grace at the time of their reception, is urged as a strong argument against the system of the physical causality of grace (supra, V, 2), especially by Billot (op.cit., thesis, VII, 116, 126). For his own system he claims the merit of establishing an invariable mode of causality, namely, that in every case by the sacrament validly received there is conferred a “title exigent of grace”. If there be no obstacle the grace is conferred then and there: if there be an obstacle the “title” remains calling for the grace which will be conferred as soon as the obstacle is removed (op.cit., th.VI, VII). To this his opponents reply that exceptional cases might well call for an exceptional mode of causality. In the case of three sacraments the character sufficiently explains the revival of effects (cf. ST III:66:1, III:69:9, III:69:10). The doctrine as applied to Extreme Unction and Matrimony, is not certain enough to furnish a strong argument for or against any system. Future efforts of theologians may dispel the obscurity and uncertainty now prevailing in this interesting chapter.

———————————–

D.J. KENNEDY Transcribed by Marie Jutras

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XIIICopyright © 1912 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightNihil Obstat, February 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, D.D., CensorImprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York

Fuente: Catholic Encyclopedia

Sacraments

SACRAMENTS

1. The term.Although applied by common consent to certain institutions of the NT, the word sacrament (Lat. sacramentum) is not a Scriptural one. In classical Lat. sacramentum (fr. sacrare, to consecrate) is used esp. in two senses: (a) passively, as a legal term, to denote a sum of money deposited by the parties to a suit, which was forfeited by the loser and appropriated to sacred uses; (b) actively, as a military term, to denote the oath taken by newly enlisted soldiers. When it came to be applied to Christian uses, the word retained the suggestions of both of those earlier employments. A sacrament was something set apart for sacred purposes; it was also, in certain cases, of the nature of a vow of self-consecration, resembling the oath of the Roman soldier (cf. Tertullian: We were called to the warfare of the living God in our very response to the sacramental words, ad Mart. iii.). But the application and history of the word in the Christian Church were determined chiefly by the fact that in the Old Lat. and Vulg. [Note: Vulgate.] VSS [Note: SS Versions.] it was repeatedly employed (mysterium, however, being employed more frequently) to render the Gr. mystrion, a mystery. [Thus Vulg. [Note: Vulgate.] tr. [Note: translate or translation.] St. Pauls This mystery is great (Eph 5:32) by Sacramentum hoc magnum est;a rendering that had not a little to do with the subsequent erection of marriage into a sacrament.] This identification of the idea of a sacrament with that of a mystery was carried still further by Tertullian, and was greatly fostered by the fact that about this time a tendency was rapidly growing in the Church to an assimilation of Christian worship to the Mystery-worship of the Grco-Roman world (see art. Mystery). Tertullian (end of 2nd cent. and beginning of 3rd) is the first writer to apply the name sacrament to Baptism, the Eucharist, and other rites of the Christian Church.

When Pliny (c [Note: circa, about.] . a.d. 112), in his account of the worship of the Christians of Bithynia, describes them at their morning meetings as binding themselves by a sacramentum to commit no kind of crime (Ep. x. 96), it has been suggested by some that he was using the word in the Christian sense, and was referring either to the baptismal vow or to participation in the Eucharist. The fact, however, that we do not find such a use of the word, even in Christian writers, for nearly a century afterwards makes this extremely unlikely; and the probability is that Pliny intended it in the old Roman sense of an oath or solemn obligation.

2. Nature and number.(1) Though used especially of Baptism and the Eucharist, the application of the term by Christian writers was at first exceedingly loose, for it was taken to describe not only all kinds of religious ceremonies, but even facts and doctrines of the Christian faith. The vagueness of prevailing notions is illustrated by Augustines remark that signs pertaining to things Divine are called sacraments, and by his well-known definition of a sacrament as the visible form of an invisible grace. It is otherwise illustrated by the fact that Hugo of St. Victor (12th cent.) enumerates about 30 sacraments that had been recognized in the Church. The Council of Trent defined the nature of a sacrament more closely, by laying it down that not all signs of sacred things have sacramental value, and that visible forms are sacraments only when they represent an invisible grace and become its channels. It further delimited the sacramental area by re-enacting in its 7th session (1547) a decision of the Council of Florence (1439) in which effect was for the first time authoritatively given to the suggestion of Peter Lombard (12th cent.) and other Schoolmen that the number of the sacraments should be fixed at 7, namely, Baptism, Confirmation, the Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Orders, and Matrimonya suggestion that was evidently influenced by the belief that 7 was a sacred number.

(2) In the Reformed Churches criticism of this scheme was based on the fact that it proceeds on no settled principle. The number 7 is perfectly arbitrary; while the definition of a sacrament is still so vague that anything but an arbitrary selection of particulars is impossible. While, therefore, the Reformers retained the term sacrament as a convenient one to express the general idea that has to be drawn from the characteristics of the acts classed together under this namea term, moreover, that is sanctioned by the usage of the Church from the days of Tertullianthey found the distinguishing mark of a sacrament in the fact of its being instituted by Christ Himself and enjoined by Him upon His followers. And as Baptism and the Lords Supper are the only two rites for which this can be claimed, it follows that there are only two sacraments in the proper sense of the word. The uniqueness that belongs to these as resting upon Christs personal appointment and being bound up with His own words (Mat 28:19, Mar 16:1-20[16]; Mat 26:26; Mat 26:29||, 1Co 11:23-25) justifies us in separating them from all other rites and ceremonies whatsoever, however seemly and suggestive any of these may appear to be, and raises them to the dignity of forming an integral part of the historical revelation of God in Christ, and so of being not signs merely, but in very truth, in Augustines phrase, the word made visible. A justification of this segregation of Baptism and the Lords Supper from all other rites, and their association together under a common name, is furnished in the NT by Act 2:41-42 and 1Co 10:1-4. A further justification may perhaps be found in the fact that St. Paul traces an analogy between Circumcision and the Passoverthe two most distinctive rites of the Old Covenanton the one hand, and Baptism (Col 2:11) and the Lords Supper (cf. 1Co 5:7 with 1Co 11:26) respectively, on the other.

3. Efficacy.According to the Roman view, sacraments are efficacious ex opere operato, i.e. by a power inherent in themselves as outward acts. The Reformed doctrine, on the other hand, maintains that though they are Divinely appointed channels of the heavenly grace, their benefits to the recipient are contingent upon subjective spiritual conditions, and above all upon the exercise of faith in Christ Himself. See, further, Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Laying on of Hands.

J. C. Lambert.

Fuente: Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible

Sacraments

sakra-ments:

1. The Term:

The word sacrament comes from the Latin sacramentum, which in the classical period of the language was used in two chief senses: (1) as a legal term to denote the sum of money deposited by two parties to a suit which was forfeited by the loser and appropriated to sacred uses; (2) as a military term to designate the oath of obedience taken by newly enlisted soldiers. Whether referring to an oath of obedience or to something set apart for a sacred purpose, it is evident that sacramentum would readily lend itself to describe such ordinances as Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. In the Greek New Testament, however, there is no word nor even any general idea corresponding to sacrament, nor does the earliest history of Christianity afford any trace of the application of the term to certain rites of the church. Pliny (circa 112 AD) describes the Christians of Bithynia as binding themselves by a sacramentum to commit no kind of crime (Epistles x.97), but scholars are now pretty generally agreed that Pliny here uses the word in its old Roman sense of an oath or solemn obligation, so that its occurrence in this passage is nothing more than an interesting coincidence.

It is in the writings of Tertullian (end of 2nd and beginning of 3rd century) that we find the first evidence of the adoption of the word as a technical term to designate Baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and other rites of the Christian church. This Christian adoption of sacramentum may have been partly occasioned by the evident analogies which the word suggests with Baptism and the Lord’s Supper; but what appears to have chiefly determined its history in this direction was the fact that in the Old Latin versions (as afterward in the Vulgate) it had been employed to translate the Greek , musterion, a mystery (e.g. Eph 5:32; 1Ti 3:16; Rev 1:20; Rev 17:7) – an association of ideas which was greatly fostered in the early church by the rapidly growing tendency to an assimilation of Christian worship with the mystery-practices of the Greek-Roman world.

2. Nature and Number:

Though especially employed to denote Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, the name sacraments was for long used so loosely and vaguely that it was applied to facts and doctrines of Christianity as well as to its symbolic rites. Augustine’s definition of a sacrament as the visible form of an invisible grace so far limited its application. But we see how widely even a definition like this might be stretched when we find Hugo of Victor (12th century) enumerating as many as 30 sacraments that had been recognized in the church. The Council of Trent was more exact when it declared that visible forms are sacraments only when they represent an invisible grace and become its channels, and when it sought further to delimit the sacramental area by reenacting (1547) a decision of the Council of Florence (1439), in which for the first time the authority of the church was given to a suggestion of Peter Lombard (12th century) and other schoolmen that the number of the sacraments should be fixed at seven, namely, Baptism, Confirmation, the Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Orders, and Matrimony – a suggestion which was supported by certain fanciful analogies designed to show that seven was a sacred number.

The divergence of the Protestant churches from this definition and scheme was based on the fact that these proceeded on no settled principles. The notion that there are seven sacraments has no New Testament authority, and must be described as purely arbitrary; while the definition of a sacrament is still so vague that anything but an arbitrary selection of particulars is impossible. It is perfectly arbitrary, for example, to place Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, which were instituted by Christ as ordinances of the church, in the same category with marriage, which rests not on His appointment but on a natural relationship between the sexes that is as old as the human race. While, therefore, the Reformers retained the term sacrament as a convenient one to express the general idea that has to be drawn from the characteristics of the rites classed together under this name, they found the distinguishing marks of sacraments (1) in their institution by Christ, (2) in their being enjoined by Him upon His followers, (3) in their being bound up with His word and revelation in such a way that they become the expressions of divine thoughts, the visible symbols of divine acts. And, since Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are the only two rites for which such marks can be claimed, it follows that there are only two New Testament sacraments. Their unique place in the original revelation justifies us in separating them from all other rites and ceremonies that may have arisen in the history of the church, since it raises them to the dignity of forming an integral part of the historical gospel. A justification for their being classed together under a common name may be found, again, in the way in which they are associated in the New Testament (Act 2:41, Act 2:42; 1Co 10:1-4) and also in the analogy which Paul traces between Baptism and the Lord’s Supper on the one hand, and Circumcision and the Passover – the two most distinctive rites of the Old Covenant – on the other (Col 2:11; 1Co 5:7; 1Co 11:26).

3. Institution by Christ:

The assumption made above, that both Baptism and the Lord’s Supper owe their origin as sacraments of the church to their definite appointment by Christ Himself, has been strongly challenged by some modern critics.

(1) In regard to Baptism it has been argued that as Mar 16:15 f occurs in a passage (Mar 16:9-20) which textual criticism has shown to have formed no part of the original Gospel, Mat 28:19, standing by itself, is too slender a foundation to support the belief that the ordinance rests upon an injunction of Jesus, more especially as its statements are inconsistent with the results of historical criticism. These results, it is affirmed, prove that all the narratives of the Forty Days are legendary, that Mat 28:19 in particular only canonizes a later ecclesiastical situation, that its universalism is contrary to the facts of early Christian history, and its Trinitarian formula foreign to the mouth of Jesus (see Harnack, History of Dogma, I, 79, and the references there given). It is evident, however, that some of these objections rest upon anti-supernatural pre-suppositions that really beg the question at issue, and others on conclusions for which real premises are wanting. Over against them all we have to set the positive and weighty fact that from the earliest days of Christianity Baptism appears as the rite of initiation into the fellowship of the church (Act 2:38, Act 2:41, et passim), and that even Paul, with all his freedom of thought and spiritual interpretation of the gospel, never questioned its necessity (compare Rom 6:3 ff; 1Co 12:13; Eph 4:5). On any other supposition than that of its appointment by our Lord Himself it is difficult to conceive how within the brief space of years between the death of Jesus and the apostle’s earliest references to the subject, the ordinance should not only have originated but have established itself in so absolute a manner for Jewish and Gentile Christians alike.

(2) In the case of the Lord’s Supper the challenge of its institution by Christ rests mainly upon the fact that the saying, This do in remembrance of me, is absent from the Mark-Matthew text, and is found only in the Supper-narratives of Paul (1Co 11:24, 1Co 11:25) and his disciple Luke (Luk 22:19). Upon this circumstance large structures of critical hypothesis have been reared. It has been affirmed that in the upper room Jesus was only holding a farewell supper with His disciples, and that it never occurred to Him to institute a feast of commemoration. It has further been maintained that the views of Jesus regarding the speedy consummation of His kingdom make it impossible that He should have dreamed of instituting a sacrament to commemorate His death. The significance of the feast was eschatological merely; it was a pledge of a glorious future hour in the perfected kingdom of God (see Mat 26:29 and parallels). And theory has even been advanced that the institution of this sacrament as an ordinance of the church designed to commemorate Christ’s death was due to the initiative of Paul, who is supposed to have been influenced in this direction by what he had seen in Corinth and elsewhere of the mystery-practices of the Greek world.

All these hypothetical fabrics fall, of course, to the ground if the underlying assumption that Jesus never said, This do in remembrance of me, is shown to be unwarrantable. And it is unwarrantable to assume that a saying of Jesus which is vouched for by Paul and Luke cannot be authentic because it does not occur in the corresponding narratives of Matthew and Mark. In these narratives, which are highly compressed in any case, the first two evangelists would seem to have confined themselves to setting down those sayings which formed the essential moments of the Supper and gave its symbolic contents. The command of its repetition they may have regarded as sufficiently embodied and expressed in the universal practice of the church from the earliest days. For as to that practice there is no question (Act 2:42, Act 2:46; Act 20:7; 1Co 10:16; 1Co 11:26), and just as little that it rested upon the belief that Christ had enjoined it. Every assumption of its having originated in the church from the recollection of intercourse with Jesus at table, and the necessity felt for recalling His death, is precluded (Weizsacker, Apostolic Age, II, 279). That the simple historical supper of Jesus with His disciples in the upper room was converted by Paul into an institution for the Gentile and Jewish churches alike is altogether inconceivable. The primitive church had its bitter controversies, but there is no trace of any controversy as to the origin and institutional character of the Lord’s Supper.

4. Efficacy:

In the New Testament the sacraments are presented as means of grace. Forgiveness (Act 2:38), cleansing (Eph 5:25 f), spiritual quickening (Col 2:12) are associated with Baptism; the Lord’s Supper is declared to be a participation in the body and blood of Christ (1Co 10:16). So far all Christians are agreed; but wide divergence shows itself thereafter. According to the doctrine of the Roman church, sacraments are efficacious ex opere operato, i.e. in virtue of a power inherent in themselves as outward acts whereby they communicate saving benefits to those who receive them without opposing any obstacle. The Reformed doctrine, on the other hand, teaches that their efficacy lies not in themselves as outward acts, but in the blessing of Christ and the operation of His Spirit, and that it is conditioned by faith in the recipient. The traditional Lutheran doctrine agrees with the Reformed in affirming that faith is necessary as the condition of saving benefits in the use of the sacraments, but resembles the Roman teaching in ascribing the efficacy of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, not to the attendant working of the Holy Spirit, but to a real inherent and objective virtue resident in them – a virtue, however, which does not lie (as the Roman church says) in the mere elements and actions of the sacraments, but in the power of the divine word which they embody. See BAPTISM; &LORD’S SUPPER.

Literature.

Candlish, The Christian Sacraments; Lambert, The Sacraments in the New Testament; Bartlet, Apostolic Age, 495 ff; Hodge, Systematic Theology, III, chapter xx.

Fuente: International Standard Bible Encyclopedia