Gibson on Article XXV: Of the Sacraments

This Article has undergone considerable alteration since the publication of the series of 1553. In that year it began with a quotation from S. Augustine: ” Our Lord Jesus Christ hath knit together a company of new people, with sacraments most few in number, most easy to be kept, most excellent in signification, as is Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper.”^ Then followed the last paragraph of our present Article, with the insertion (after the words ” wholesome effect or operation ”) of the following words : ” and yet not that of the work wrought, as some men speak, which word, as it is strange and unknown to Holy Scripture : so it engendereth no godly, but a very superstitious sense.” ^ After this paragraph there stood what is now the Jirst clause, with which the whole Article was concluded. In 1563 it was brought into the form in which it now stands by means of the following alterations : ( 1 ) The quotation from S. Augustine and the clause condemning the theory of grace ex opere operato were omitted ; (2) the order of the two main paragraphs was reversed ; and (3) between them two fresh paragraphs were inserted on (a) the number of sacraments ordained

[…]

’ * ’ Idque non ex opere (ut quidam loquuntur) operato ; qua; vox ut peregrina est et sacris literis ignota, sic parit sensum minima pium, sed admodum superstitiosum. ”

by Christ, and (b) the five rites ” commonly called Sacraments.” ^

The origin of what now stands as the first clause may be found in the Confession of Augsburg,^ from which it was taken through the medium of the thirteen Articles of 1538, where we read: “Docemus, quod Sacramenta quae per verbum Dei instituta sunt, non tantum sint notae professionis inter Christianos, sed magis certa quaedam testimonia et efficacia signa gratiae et bonae voluntatis Dei erga nos, per quae Deus invisibiliter operatur in nobis, et suam gratiam in nos invisibiliter diffundit, siquidem ea rite susceperimus ; quodque per ea excitatur et confirmatur fides in his qui eis utuntur. Porro docemus, quod ita utendum sit sacramentis, ut in adultis, praeter veram contritionem, necessario etiam debeat accedere fides, quae credat praesentibus promissionibus, quae per sacramenta ostenduntur, exhibentur, et praestantur. Neque enim in illis verum est, quod quidem dicunt, sacramenta conferre gratiam ex opere operato sine bono motu utentis, nam in ratione utentibus necessarium est, ut fides etiam utentis accedat, per quam credat illis promissionibus, et accipiat res promissas, quae per sacramenta conferuntur.” ^ A comparison of this with the corresponding passage in the Confession of Augsburg shows the stronger position on the reality of sacramental grace which the Anglican

^ The addition may perhaps have been suggested by the fact that the Confession of Wiirtemberg contained a long section on the subject.

^ Con/, Augustana, art. xiii. : ” De usu Sacramentorum. De usu Sacramentorum docent, quod sacramenta instituta sint, non modo ut sint notae professionis inter homines, sed magis ut sint signa et testimonia voluntatis Dei erga nos, ad excitandam et confirmandam fidem in his qui utuntnr proposita. Itaque utendum est sacramentis, ita ut fides accedat, quae credat promissionibus, quse per sacramenta exhibentur et ostenduntur. Danmant igitur illos, qui docent, quod sacramenta ex opere ojjerato justificent, nee docent fidem requiri in usu sacramentorum, quae credat remitti peccata.”

iJl

MMMiMM

divines maintained. There is nothing in the purely Lutheran document answering to the ” efficacia signa gratiae,” which has been transferred from this unfinished series to our own Article.

The object of the Article is (1) to condemn the inadequate views of sacraments held by the Anabaptists, and to state their true position ; (2) to distinguish between the two ” Sacraments of the Gospel ” and the other five ” commonly called Sacraments ” ; and (3) to insist upon the necessity of a right disposition on the part of the recipients of them. It consists of four paragraphs, treating respectively of the following subjects, which shall be here considered separately :

1. The description of sacraments ordained of Christ.

2. The number of such sacraments.

3. The five rites ” commonly called Sacraments.”

4. The use of sacraments.

I. The Description of Sacraments ordained of Christ.

Sacraments ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men’s profession, bat rather they be certain sure witnesses, and effectual signs of grace and God’s goodwill towards us, by the which He doth work iuYisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our faith in Him.

Each phrase in this description requires careful consideration. Sacraments ordained of Christ are —

(a) Badges or tokens of Christian men’s profession (notfie professionis Christianorum). This was the regular phrase descriptive of sacraments among the Zwinglians,^ and adopted also by the Anabaptists,

^ The language of Zwingli himself sometimes gave to sacraments the lowest i)osition possible. In the Itatio Jidci he says boldly : ’* Credo,

who regarded the Eucharist and baptism as nothing more than such tokens. So we read in Archbishop Hermann’s Simplex ac pia deliheratio (which was translated into English in 1547), that they ” withdrawe from the sacramentes, which they wil to he nothyng els than outward sygnes of our profession and felowship, as the badges of capitaines be in warre ; thei deni that they be workes and ceremonies instituted of God for this purpose ; that in them we shulde acknowledge, embrace, and receyve thorough fayth the mercie of God and the merite and communion of Christ; and that God worketh by these signes and exhihiteth unto vs the gyftes in dede, which He offereth wyth these signes” ^ Similarly, the same view is condemned in the Eeformatio Legum JEcclesiasticarum, in the following words : ” Magna quoque temeritas illorum est, qui sacramenta sic extenuant ut ea pro nudis signis, et extemis tantum indiciis capi velint, quibus tanquam notis hominum Christianorum religio possit a caeteris intemosci, nee animadvertunt quantum sit scelus, hfec sancta Dei instituta mania et vacua credere.” ^ According to this Anabaptist theory, baptism was merely a ” mark of difference whereby Christian men are discerned from other that be not christened,” and the Eucharist was nothing more than “a sign of the love that

imo scio, omnia sacramenta tam abesse ut gratiam conferant, ut ne adferant quidem aut dispensent ” (see Niemeyer, Collectio ConfesHonum, p. 24), and elsewhere {De peccato originali declaratio) : ** Symbola igitur sunt externa ista rerum spiritualium et ipsa minime sunt spiritualia, nee quidquam spirituale in nobis perficiunt : sed sunt eorum qui spirituales sunt, quasi tesserae.” But his followers were to a great extent influenced by Calvin’s teaching, and in the Consensus Tigurinus (1549) they admit that they are more than “marks or badges of profession.” “Sunt quidem et hi sacramentorum fines ut notae sint ac tesserae Christianse professionis et societatis sive fraternitatis, ut sint ad gratiarum actionem incitamenta et exercitia fidei ac pise vitae, denique syngraphae ad id obligantes. Sic hie unus inter alia praecipuus ut per ea nobis gratiam suam testetur Deus, reprjesentat atque obsignet.” — Niemeyer, p. 193. * English translation (ed. 1548), fol. cxlii. ^ De Hceres. c. xvii.

Christians ought to have among themselves one to another.” Our Article condemns this view of sacraments as ” notse professionis ” (not only in the Article before us, but also in XXVII. and XXVIII.), as not in itself untrue, but simply as inadequate. As Hooker says, they are ” marks of distinction to separate God’s own from strangers.” But they are not only this. Far more important is it to remember that they are —

(h) Certain sure witnesses […] of grace and

God’s goodwill towards us. This view of sacraments as ” witnesses ” (testimonia) is one to which special prominence was given by both Lutheran and Calvinistic divines upon the Continent. Sometimes they spoke as if they were witnesses chiefly of past mercies, outward acts testifying to God’s redeeming love, and assuring us of it in order to excite and confirm our faith in Him.^ Sometimes, however, they regarded them also as witnesses of present blessings, testifying by outward ceremonies to that blessing which the grace annexed to the sacrament confers.* So also our own Hooker speaks of them as ” marks whereby to know when GxkI doth impart the vital or saving grace of Christ unto all that are capable thereof”;^ and, in the Order for

-So the Apology for the Confession of Augsburg: ” Sacramentuni est cerenionia vel opus, in quo Deus nobis exhibet hoc, quod ofTert anncxa cereraonise gratia.”

Holy Communion we are reminded that the holy

mysteries are ” pledges of His love,” and that by them

God ” assures us of His favour and goodness towards us.”

But this is not all. They are also to be regarded as —

(c) Effectual signs of grace (efficacia signa). An ” effectual sign ” is a sign that carries its effect with it. As the Church Catechism teaches us, it is something more than a mere ” pledge.” It is also ” a means whereby we receive the same” spiritual grace, of which it is ” an outward visible sign.” A sacrament, then, is ” not only a picture of grace, but a channel of grace.” It ” not only typifies, but conveys.” As Hooker puts it, the sacraments are ” means effectual whereby God, when we take the sacraments, delivereth into our hands that grace available unto eternal life, which grace the sacraments represent or signify.” This phrase, ” effectual signs of grace,” first makes its appearance, as we have already seen, in the incomplete formulary of 1538, and it marks out very clearly the determination of the Anglican Divines to insist upon the truth that the sacraments are real means of grace

(d) By means of these effectual signs God doth work invisibly in us. In them ” it pleaseth God to communicate by sensible means those blessings which are incomprehensible.” * Once more the words seem to have been inserted with the express purpose of laying stress on the reality of the Divine gifts which man

[…]

• Hooker, I.e.

^mmm

receives from God in and through the sacraments/ in which He ” embraceth us, and offereth Himself to be embraced by us.”^

(e) Lastly, by them God doth not only qiiioken, but also strengthen and confirm our faith in

Him. In this phrase it appears to be natural to refer the first expression ” quicken ” (eoccitat) to the action of God’s grace in Holy Baptism, and the second, ” strengthen and confirm ” (confirmat), to the action of the same grace in the Eucharist.

We have now gone through the description of sacraments ordained of Christ point by point. But before passing on to consider the next paragraph of the Article, it will be well to cite the definitions given in the Church Catechism and in the Homily on Common Prayer and the Sacraments, and to compare them with that in the Article before us. If we take the most familiar of them, viz. that in the Catechism, as the standard, and refer the other two to it, it will easily be seen that, though the forms are different, and belong to different dates,^ yet in each case the savie five points are brought out.

According to the Church Catechism a sacrament is “(1) an outward visible sign of (2) an inward spiritual grace given unto us, (3) ordained by Christ Himself as

• Homily on Common Prayer avd the Sacramenls^ p. 376 seq. (S.P.C.K.).

^ The Article to 1553 (or indeed to 1538) ; the Homily in question to the early years of Elizabeth*s reign ; the part of the Catechism treating of the sacraments to 1604.

(4) a means whereby we receive the same, and (5) a pledge to assure us thereof.”

According to the Homily, sacraments, ” according to the exact signification,” are “(1) visible signs (3) expressly commanded in the New Testament, (4 and 5) whereunto is annexed the promise of (2) free forgiveness of our sins, and of our holiness and joining with Christ.” ^

To the same effect the Article says that sacraments (3) “ordained of Christ are … (5) certain sure witnesses, and (4) effectual (1) signs of (2) grace and God’s goodwill towards us, (4) by the which He doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our faith in Him.”

There are, of course, differences of detail, e,g. the Homily leaves us free to look for the outward sign anywhere “in the New Testament,” whereas the Catechism, with which agrees the Article,^ requires it to be ordained ” by Christ Himself.” The Catechism leaves the nature of the inward spiritual grace undefined. The Homily accurately makes it include, not only pardon, but sanctification and incorporation in Christ. Thus the different descriptions may be regarded as supplementing each other, and for teaching purposes none should be lost sight of.

II. The Number of SacrarMnts ordained of Christ

There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord.

•* Though tlie first paragraph does not mention the outward sign as “ordained by Christ Himself,” yet the phrases used in the second and third paragraphs, “ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel,” and “any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God,” indicate agreement with the Catechism on this point.

%i^

mm

In considering this statement it will be convenient (a) to trace out the history of the word sacrament, and (b) to endeavour to set forth the precise difference between England and Rome on the number of the sacraments.

(a) The history of live word sacrament. — The word Scvcrainentttm is a familiar classical one, with two well-defined uses. It means either (1) a gage of money laid down by parties who went to law, or (2) the military oath taken by soldiers to be true to their country and general. The idea which is common to both these meanings is that of a sacred pledge. The earliest occurrence of the word in connection with Christianity and Christian associations is in Pliny’s famous letter to the Emperor Trajan, in which he says that the Christians of Bithynia bound themselves sacramento not to commit any wrong.i It may be a matter of doubt to what precisely Pliny was referring, but there can be no doubt that his use of the word ” sacrament ” is little more than an accident. It can scarcely have been the word which the Bithynian Christians used. In a letter at the beginning of the second century from a Roman governor to a Roman emperor the word can only be interpreted in its classical sense of an oath or obligation. Ecclesiastical Latin was not yet in existence: indeed, it is almost certain that there was as yet no Latin-speaking Church ; and thus, though it is interesting to find the word employed in connection with a Christian rite, yet later associations which have grown up round it must not be suffered to influence our interpretation of it. As an ecclesiastical term, its true home is North Afrim, which

[…]

was the first Latin-speaking Church. Here we find it used from the first as the equivalent of the Greek fivarijpiop, and as such it is employed with a wide latitude of meaning, for either a religious rite or a religious truth ; generally, however, with the idea that some sacred meaning lies under a visible sign. So Tertullian (200) uses the word again and again, sometimes of the military oath,i sometimes of a sacred truth, or a mystery, sometimes of a sacred rite, and even of the rite of infanticide with which the Christians were charged.2 Similarly with Cyprian (250) it means a sacred symbol, a sacred bond, or a sacred truth.^ From North Africa the word passed into the common language and familiar speech of Western Christendom through the Latin versions of the Scripture, in which it appears in several passages always as the rendering of fivarijpiov^ In Patristic writers the same latitude in the use of the term, which has been already noticed, may constantly be

’ De Specta4Mii8, xxiv. Scorpiaee, iv.

[…]

appears in the Vulgate (1) in the Old Testament in Dan. ii. 18, 30, 47, iv. 6 (A.V. 9), each time as the equivalent of Np, a secret (Greek fivirHifnov) ; and also in Tobit xU. 7 ; Wisd. ii. 22, vi. V* (A.V. 22); in all of which places it represents the same Greek word, fiwrriipioy, as it does also (2) in the eight passages in which it is found in the New Testament, viz. Eph. i. 9, iii. 3, 9, v. 32 ; Col. i. 27 ; 1 Tim. iii. 16 ; Eev. i. 20, xvii. 7. It is also found occasionally in other passages in the ” Old Latin,” e.g. in Rom. xvi. 25.

t. ’

^

observed. It is used frequently of sacred truths, as well as of sacred rites of mystic meaning. Even as late as the eleventh century it is applied by S. Bernard to the rite of feet washing.^ But in comparatively early times there had been a tendency to contrast the sacraments or sacred rites of the Jews with those of the Christian Church, and to point to the former as numerous and burdensome, and the latter as few in number. Thus Augustine, in the passage quoted in the ordinal Article of 1553, says that ” under the new dispensation our Lord Jesus Christ has knit together His people in fellowship, by sacraments which are very few in number, most easy in observance, and most exceUent in significance, as baptism solemnised in the name of the Trinity, the Communion of His Body and Blood, and also whatever else is commended to us in Canonical Scripture, apart from those enactments which were a yoke of bondage to God’s ancient people, suited to their state of heart and to the times of the prophets, and which are found in the books of Moses.” ^ Elsewhere in his book on Christian Doctrine he draws a similar contrast, pointing out how ” our Lord Himself and apostolic practice have handed down to us a few significant rites (s^/na) in place of many, and these at once very easy to perform, most majestic in their significance, and most sacred in their observance. Such as the Sacrament of Baptism, and the Celebration of the Body and Blood of the Lord.” ’ From this contrast between the multipUcity of sacred rites imposed upon the Jews and the fewness of those enjoined in the gospel to Christians, there grew up m time a disposition to use the word scuyrarMntum more particularly of those rites which could claim the authority of the New Testament, and to speak of the ” Sacraments

[…]

’ See above, p. 580.

of the Church ” as limited in number. So in the East, “Dionysius the Areopagite ” (c. 500), who is followed by later writers, describes in his book on the Ecclesiastical Hierarchies six Christian fjLvarijpui, Baptism, the Eucharist, Unction, Orders, Monastic Profession, and the Rites for the Dead. In the West, Paschasius Eadbert and Rhabanus Maurus, in the ninth century, both speak of four sacraments. Baptism, Unction, the Body, and the Blood of the Lord. Not till the eleventh century is the number fixed at the mystic number seve7i, to correspond with the sevenfold gifts of the Spirit. The earliest writer to speak of this number (so far as is known) is Gregory of Bergamo, in his book, De Etwharistia. In this he says definitely that the sacraments of the Church instituted by our Saviour were seven-,’ but in the next chapter he speaks of three, Baptism, Unction, and the Eucharist, as more worthy, and contradicts what he has said before, by maintaining that of these three, only the first and third were instituted by the Redeemer Himself, for unction has only apostolic authority. A few years later than Gregory was Peter Lombard, to whom it is generally stated that

• Dc Corpore et Sanguine Domini^ iii. 2. - De Clericorum Inatitutione, I. xxiv,

• Peter Lombard became Bishop of Paris in 1159, and died in 1164.

r«i

■^a

*■■

II

the limitation of the number to seven is due. It is found in his writings/ and it was probably through his influence that it became generally accepted. From him it passed into the writings of the schoolmen, Aquinas ^ and others. It was laid down in the ” decree to the Armenians” sent in the name of Pope Eugenius iv. from the Council of Florence (1439) ;» and was definitely adopted by the Council of Trent at the seventh session of the Council (1547), when the following canon was passed : ” If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the new law were not all instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord ; or that they are more or less than seven, viz. Baptism, Confirmation, the Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Orders, or Matrimony; or even that any one of these seven is not truly and properly a sacrament : let him be anathema.” * It will be seen from this brief sketch that our Reformers had a double use of the word before them. On the one hand, there was the wider sense given to it by the Fathers ; on the other, the more restricted scholastic use. They

[…]

pp. 434 and 437.

• Gone. Trid. Sess. VII. canon 1 : “Si quia dixerit sacramenta novne legis non suisse omnia a Jesu Christo Domino nostro instituta ; aut esse plura vel pauciora quam septem, videlicet Baptismum, Confirmationem, Eucharistiam, PtEnitentiam, extremam Unctionera, Ordinem, et Matrimonium, aut etiam aliquod honim septem, non esse vere, et proprie sacramentiim, anathema sit.” It should be mentioned that the Greek Church agrees with the Roman in reckoning the sacraments of the Church as seven in number ; for though the Confession of Cyril Lucar says that only two sacraments were ordained of Christ (c. xv., see Kimmel’s Lihri Symbolici, p. 34), the “Orthodox Confession recognises the iirrd. fiv<rHipia T7J5 iKKX-ncLai (q. xcviii. ib. p. 170 seq.), as does also the Confession of Dositheos (Decret. xv. ih. p. 448) ; and see also ’ ’ the Longer Catechism of the Russian Church ” (Blackmore’s Doctrine of the Russian Church, p. 84). The Confession of Metrophanes Critopulus calls Baptism, the Eucharist, and Penance tA rpbt aumjpla¥ dvayKoia fivcn/jpia. See Winer, Confessions of Christendom, p. 241.

recognised frankly that it was largely a question of definition. What they were concerned for was that Baptism and the Eucharist, as the two great rites ordained for all Christians by Christ Himself, should be put on a different footing from all others.^ The medieval teaching about the seven sacraments might seem to obscure this ; and therefore they felt that if the word was to be restricted to a limited number of rites, it would be well to restrict it to these two. But they

» According to the teaching of the earlier period, during the Reformation three sacraments were recognised as pre-eminent. Baptism, the Eucharist, and Penance. These alone are mentioned in the Ten Articles of 1536, while in the ” Institution of a Christian Man,” or ” the Bishops’ Book,” issued in the following year, they are expressly separated off from the others, and it is said that “although the sacraments of Matrimony, of Confirmation, of Holy Orders, and of Extreme Unction have been of long time past received and approved by the common consent of the Catholic Church to have the name and dignity of sacraments, as indeed they are well worthy to have … yet there is a difference in dignity and necessity between them and the other three sacraments, that is to say, the sacraments of Baptism, of Penance, and of the Altar, and that for divers causes, ” etc.— See Formularies of FaUh, p. 128. In 1540 a series of questions was propounded, probably by the Archbishop of Canterbury, to a number of Bishops and Divines, and their answers revealed a great variety of opinions on the number of the sacraments, and the proper use of the word (see the answers in Burnet, “Records,” Nos. xxi. and Ixii., and cf. Dixon, vol. il p. 303 seq.), Cranmer and others denied that it should be rigidly used of seven. However, in the reactionary ” King’s Book ” of 1543 the whole passage on the number of sacraments in the Bishops’ Book is entirely rewritten, and the medieval view is more rigidly adhered to (see Formularies of Failh, p. 293). In the HefornuUio Legum Ecdesiasticarum, as might be expected, a great change of view is manifest, as the following extract will show: “Ad sacramenti perfectionem tria concurrere debent. Primum evidens est et illustris nota, quae manifesto cerni possit, secundum est Dei proraissum, quod extemo signo nobis reprwsentatur et plane confirraatur. Tertium est Dei praeceptura quo necessitas nobis imponitur, ista partim faciendi, ^rtim commemorandi : quae tria cum authoritate Scripturarum in Baptismo solum occurrant, et Eucharistia, nos haec duo sola pro veris et propriis novi testamenti sacramentis ponimus. ”—/><; Sacram/mtis, c. ii. Similarly in the Catechism published with the Articles in 1553, only two sacraments are expressly recognised.

\i

II-

I’

\v. ■

I -I

were perfectly willing to extend it to other rites also— indeed, to ” anything whereby an holy thing is signified ”

provided that it was made clear that the word was

only used in a general sense. Thus the Article before us, after speaking of the five rites, “commonly called Sacraments,” ^ proceeds, not to deny the name to them altogether, but only to assert that they ” have not the liJce nature of sacraments with Baptism and the Lord’s Supper,” i.e. they are not to be put on a level with them. Still clearer, perhaps, is the teaching of the Homily on Common Prayer and the Sacraments, which puts the matter so admirably that the passage must be quoted

here in full.

“As for the number of them, if they should be considered according to the exact signification of a sacrament, namely for visible signs, expressly commanded in the New Testament, whereunto is annexed the promise of free forgiveness of our sin, and of our holiness and joining in Christ, there be but two, namely. Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord. For although Absolution hath the promise of forgiveness of sin, yet by the express word of the New Testament it hath not this promise annexed and tied to the visible sign, which is imposition of hands. For this visible sign’ (I mean laying on of hands) is not expressly commanded in the New Testament to be used in Absolution, as the visible signs in Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are ; and therefore Absolution is no such sacrament as Baptism and the Communion are. And though the ordering of ministers hath His visible

» It cannot be said that this expression discourages the application of the name to them, any more than it can be maintained that the parallel form of expression in the Prayer Book, “The Nativity of our Lord, or the Birthday of Christ, cmmwidy called Christmas Day,” discourages the use of the popular name for the festival.

sign and promise, yet it lacks the promise of remission of sin, as all other sacraments except the two above named do. Therefore neither it, nor any other sacrament else, be such sacraments as Baptism and the Communion are. But in a general acceptation the name of a sacrament may be attributed to anything whereby an holy thing is signified. In which understanding of the word the ancient writers have given this name, not only to the other fi\Qy commonly of late years taken and used for supplying the number of the seven sacraments ; but also to divers and sundry other ceremonies, as to oil, washing of feet, and such like ; not meaning thereby to repute them as sacraments in the same signification that the two forenamed Sacraments are. Dionysius ; Bernard, De Cosna Domini, et Ablut pedum” ^

It is perfectly clear from this that in some sense other sacraments are recognised by those who are responsible for the Homilies besides the two great ones, Baptism and the Communion.

We are now in a position to pass to the consideration of the next point :

(b) The precise difference between England and Borne on the number of the sa/yraments, — It is largely but not entirely a question of definition — not entirely, for, even admitting the Eoman description of sacraments, we could not accept the Tridentine statement upon them. The real difference appears to be this : Rome says that the sacraments of the new law are neither more nor less than seven, and that they were all instituted by Christ. The Anglican Church maintains that the word should either be restricted to two rites with outward visible signs ordained by Christ Himself,^ or else that sacraments are

fi\

-a

k1

not seven, but innumerable. Two points in the Roman position may be added, as they are sometimes overlooked. First, though the Tridentine divines have committed the Roman Church to the position that all the seven sacraments were instituted by Christ Himself,^ yet they have never asserted that in every case the outward visible sign is of His institution; secondly, they asserted definitely that all the seven are not to be regarded as exactly on the same level of equality. “If anyone shall say that these seven sacraments are equal to each other in such wise as that one is not in any way more worthy than another: let him be anathema.”* When these two points are remembered, it will be found that the difference between the two branches of the Church on this matter is comparatively small.

f/

III. The Jive Rites ” commonly called Sacram^nis”

[…]

only as generally necessary to salvation,” is not made in answer to the question, “How many sacraments are there?” but “How many sacraments hath Christ (/rdained in His Church ? ” Moreover it is not said absolutely that these are “two only,” but “two only as generally necessary for salvation,” i.«. as necessary for all men. Cf. Taylor’s Dis^uisive /rata Popery, p. 240. “It is none of the doctrine of the Church of England that there are two sacraments only; but that of those rituals commanded in Scripture, which the ecclesiastical use calls sacraments (by a word of art), two only are generally necessary to salvation.” So Archbp. Seeker in his Lectures (xxxv.), “Our Catechism doth not require it to be said absolutely that the sacraments are Uco only, but two only necessary to salvation, leaving persons at liberty to comprehend more things under the name if they please, provided that they insist not on the necessity of them, and of dignifying them with this title.”

1 Before the Council of Trent it was regarded as an open question whether they were all instituted by Christ; and some divines, as Bonaventura, Hugo, and Durandus, have questioned whether Confirmation and Unction were instituted by Him.

’ (Jow. TiideiU, Seas. VII. canon iii.

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 (a prava apostolorum

imitatione), partly are states of life allowed (probati) in the Scriptures: but yet have not the like nature of Sacraments with Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God.

It cannot be said that the account given in this paragraph of the five rites is quite exact. It is said

that they are (1) such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the apostles, ie. from a

bad imitation of them, a prava apostolorum imitaiione. This would well apply, as will be shown below, to Extreme Unction, and perhaps also is intended to refer to Penance in its medieval form, in view of the superstitions connected with it. (2) They are partly states

of life allowed in the Scriptures. ”Allowed,” it

must be remembered, meant a good deal more in the sixteenth century than it does now. It did not stand for ” permitted,” but was equivalent to ” approved of ” (Latin, prohati)} Thus ” states of life allowed in the Scriptures ” involves no lack of appreciation of the rites so described. The phrase may be taken to refer to Matrimony and Holy Orders, both of which can be spoken of as ” states of life.” But it cannot include Confirmation, which is

^(1

• So in Art. XXXV. of 1553 it is said that the ** Book of prayers and ceremonies of the Church of England ” ought to be received and allowed ” (approbandi). In XXXVI. of the same series, that ’ ’ the civil magistrate is ordained and allowed (probatus) of God.” A similar use of the word is found in the Baptismal Service in the Book of Common Prayer: “He favourably alloweth this charitable work of ours” ; and cf. Ps. xi. 6 (P.B.V. “the Lord alloweth the righteous”), and S. Luke xi. 48, 1 Thess. ii. 4 in the A.V.

A%

not a ” state of life ” at all. Nor does it seem probable that this apostolic ordinance, which the Church of England has always maintained and insisted upon, can be included under the first head.^ It remains, then, that the description is somewhat carelessly drawn, and that one of the five rites is not really included in it This, however, is not a matter of great importance, for Confirmation, equally with the others, fails to answer to the description of ” Sacraments of the Gospel ” ; for although it is an apostolic rite, with its ” outward visible sign ” and its ” inward spiritual grace,” yet as it is only traceable to the Acts of the Apostles (see Acts viii. 17, xix. 6, and cf. Heb. vi. 2), we cannot positively say that it was ” ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel,” or that it has an ” outward visible sign ordained by Christ

Himself.”

It will also be found that each of the other rites fails to answer to the restricted definition. Penance, of which absolution is the ” form in which its chief force consists,” 2 most certainly was ” ordained by Christ Himself” (see S. John xx. 23), but it cannot honestly be said to have ” any visible sign or ceremony ordained of

1 It is possible^ however, as Dr. Mason thinks, that Confirmation is intended to be described as having grown out of ’* the cormpt following of the apostles,” since ’* in the oflScial language of the time, Confinnation meant distinctly the rite of unction, after a certain form, with a chrism elaborately compounded.” See ” The relation of Confirmation to Baptism,” p. 426. I cannot, however, think that this view is probable, since “Confirmation” had been deliberately retained as the official title of the rite of laying on of hands in the Prayer Books of 1549, 1562, and 1559. It is curious to notice that at the Hampton Court Conference in 1604, the Puritans complained that this phrase in the Articles involved a contradiction with the teaching of the Prayer Book, and that their complaint was dismissed as a “mere cavil.” Cardwell’s History of Conferences, p. 182.

[…]

■It

God.” Orders, again, was “ordained by Christ Himself” on the same occasion (S. John xx. 21-23). It has its ” inward spiritual grace,” and from the days of the Apostles has had as its ” outward visible sign ” the laying on of hands. But once more the outward visible sign cannot be traced back to the Gospel, or to our Lord’s own ordinance. Moreover, the grace given in it is official, rather than for the personal sanctification of the recipient. Matrimony is “an honourable estate, instituted of God in the time of man’s innocency, signifying unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and His Church ” ; and though ” Christ adorned and beautified ” it ” with His Presence,” ^ it cannot be said that it was ordained of Him in the Gospel, nor has it any ” outward visible sign ” of Divine appointment.^ Extreme Unction may seem to require further consideration ; for whereas the other four rites are retained and ” had in reverend estimation ” by the Church of England, this one has been entirely disused, and no authority whatever is given for the application of oil to the sick by the formularies of this branch of the Church. The Scriptural authority that is pleaded for the rite is, of course, the injunction of S. James in his Epistle.

” Is any among you sick ? let him call for the elders

• Tlie Book of Common Prayer. The Order for the Solemnization of Holy Matrimony.

^ In Eph. V. 32, after speaking of the union in marriage, S. Paul says t6 fjLwrrfipioy rovro fjJya iarlv, which is rendered by the Vulgate ’ Sacramentom hoc magnum est,” and consequently by the Douay version, ’ This is a great sacrament.” It is, however, perfectly obvious that the Apostle’s use of the word fivanfipiov in this connection (“This mystery is great,” R.V.) has no real bearing on the question whether marriage is a “sacrament” in the later technical sense of the word, though, as Bishop EUicott notes (in loe.), the very fact of the comparison which the Apostle makes (“but I am speaking in reference to Christ and His Church”) “does place marriage on a far holier and higher basis than modem theories are disposed to admit”

t I

of the Church ; and let them pray over him, auointing him with oil in the name of the Lord : and the prayer of faith shall save him that is sick, and the Lord shall raise him up ; and if he have committed sins, it shall be forgiven him” (v. 14, 15).^ It may be granted that this looks very much like an injunction to the Church for all time; but even so, if this were allowed, it would not give the imction a right to be regarded as a Sacrament of the Gospel, for it is not ** ordained by Christ Himself.” We find, however, in the writings of early Fathers so remarkable and complete a silence upon the subject that we can only conclude that it was not regarded by them as enjoining a rite to be continued after the ‘xapio-fmra lafidrcov (1 Cor. xiL 9) had disappeared from the Church. There is, indeed, a constant stream of testimony to the use of oil for healing purposes by Christians in early ages ; ^ but there is no evidence for its application as a religious rite until we come to the well-known letter of Innocent i. to Decentius, bishop of Eugubium, early in the fifth century. Decentius had written to ask whether the bishop might anoint the sick. Innocent replies, and, referring to the passage in S. James, tells him that he might do so, that the oil should be blessed by the bishop and used by all Christians in their hour of need, and that it is ” a kind of sacrament.” ^ Now, even if it be

• The only other passage in the New Testament where such unction can possibly be referred to is S. Mark vi. 13, where it is said that the Apostles •‘anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them” ; but this is so definitely for hecUitig, that it is not generally regarded by Roman divines as ’* the sacrament of Unction.”

admitted that the letter is genuine, it is clear that it is fatal to any claim for this religious unction to be regarded as jnimUive ; for, as Bishop Harold Browne truly says, “If extreme unction were then a sacrament of the Church, it is impossible that one bishop should have asked this question of another ; or if he did, that the other should not at once have reminded him that it was a well-known sacrament of immemorial usage.” ^ Further, it appears from the letter that even when the blessing of the oil was restricted to the bishop, it was still regarded as immaterial by whom the unction was administered ; ^ nor do we meet with any injunction to the priest to administer it himself before the ninth century.

Again, whereas the original intention of the unction had been primarily for the saving of the sick person’s life, by degrees this dropped out of sight, and the rite came to be regarded as part of the preparation for death, and was only administered when all hope of recovery seemed to have passed away; and thus that

sacerdotibus, sed et omnibus uti Christianis licet, in sua aut in suorum necessitate ungendum. Caeterum illud superfluum esse videmus adjectum, ut de episcopo ambigatur, quod presbyteris licere non dubium est. Nam ideirco presbyteris dictum est, quia episcopi occupationibus aliis impediti, ad omnes languidos ire non possunt. Cffiterum si episcopus aut potest aut dignum ducit, aliquem a se visitandum, et benedicere et tangere chrismate, sine cunctatione potest, cujus est chrisma conficere. Nam poenitentibus istud infundi non potest, quia genus est sacramenti. Nam quibus reliqua sacramenta negantur, quomodo unum genus putatur posse concedi ? ”

which had been originally simply ” the last unction ” (extrema unctio), as being (presumably) applied after the unctions in Baptism and Confirmation, came to be looked upon as nothing but “unctio in extremis,” and was deferred imtil death seemed imminent. The subject was considered by the Council of Trent at its fourteenth Session, in 1551, when it was laid down that “this sacred unction of the sick was instituted by Christ our Lord, as truly and properly a sacrament of the new law, hinted at, indeed, in Mark, but recommended and promulgated to the faithful by James the apostle and brother of the Lord.” The unction was said to ” represent the grace of the Holy Ghost with which the soul of the sick person is invisibly anointed.” The ” effect of this sacrament” was further said to be “the grace of the Holy Ghost, whose anointing cleanses away sins, if there be any still to be expiated, and the remains of sin; relieves and strengthens the soul of the sick, by exciting in him a great confidence in the Divine mercy, whereby the sick being relieved, bears more easily the inconveniences and pain of sickness; and more readily resists the temptations of the devil, who lies in wait for his heel ; ^ and sometimes obtains bodily health, when it is expedient for the welfare of his soul.” It is also said that “this unction is to be applied to the sick, but especially to those who lie in such danger as to seem placed at their departure from this life : whence also it is called the sacrament of the dying.” But it is added that ” if the sick should recover, after having received this unction, they may again be aided by the succour of this sacrament when they fall into another like danger of death.” 2 These quotations show how far the Roman

• The reference is to the Vulgate of Gen. iii. 15.

[…]

use has departed from the intention of the rite described by S. James, and how what was originally a practice enjoined for life has become a ” sacrament of the dying,” only administered at the present day after the Viaticum has been received.^ Turning now to the consideration of the practice in the Church of England, it may be noticed that the “Bishops’ Book” of 1537 contains a section devoted to the subject in which various abuses and superstitions connected with the rite are noticed,^ though the practice is retained, and men are to be taught to repute it ” among the other sacraments of the Church.” But it is clearly stated that ” the grace conferred in this sacrament is the relief and recovery of the disease and sickness wherewith the sick person is then diseased and troubled, and also the remission of his sins if he be then in sin.” » All this passage was considerably modified in the “King’s Book” of 1543, which refers far less to the prospect of restoration to bodily health, and is, as might be expected, decidedly more medieval in tone.* When the first English Prayer Book was pub-

» It is clear from the language of S. Thomas that in the thirteenth century extreme unction was administered hef(yre the Eucharist was given to the sick, for he says: “Per jKcnitentiam et extremam unctionem praeparatur homo ad digne sumendum corpus Ch.i&t.”—Sunwm, III. Q. Ixv. art. 3.

2 *‘No man ought to think that by receiving of this sacrament of anointing the sick man’s life shall be made shorter, but rather that the same shall be prolonged thereby,— considering the same is instituted for the recovery of health both of the soul and body. Second, that it is an evU custom to defer the administration of this sacrament unto such time as the sick persons be brought by sickness unto extreme peril and jeopardy of life, and be in manner in despair to live any longer. Thirdly, that it is lawful and expedient to administer this said sacrament unt every good Christian man in the manner and form before rehearsed, so oft and whensoever any great and perilous sickness and malady shall fortune unto them.”— ormWan of Faith, p. 127

’«

lished in 1549, a simple form of anointing was provided to be used ” if the sick person desire it.” It was, however, entirely omitted in the Second Prayer Book in 1552, and has never been restored. If any justification be needed for this complete disuse of the practice, it may reasonably be found in the absence of any early authority for it, and the entire lack of evidence from early writers that the words of S. James were regarded as enjoining a rite to be of lasting obligation in the Church.

IV. The use of Sacraments.

The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried about ; but that we should duly (rite) use them. And in such only as worthily receive the same have they a wholesome effect or operation. But they that receive them unworthily, purchase to themselves damnation, as S. Paul saith.

There is a slight difficulty concerning the first words used here, because Baptism cannot possibly be ” carried about,” nor does there appear ever to have been any superstitious practice of ” gazing upon ” it. The custom of carrying about the Eucharist is referred to again in Article XXVIII., and it is easy to see that, in view of the superstitions of the day, it may well have been thought necessary to point out that this holy sacrament

was not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, or

to be carried about ; and the probability is that the words are intended to refer specially to it.^ This inter-

pretation is confirmed by the fact that S. Paul’s words in 1 Cor. XI. 29, to which allusion is made in the following sentence, are spoken only of the Eucharist

It will scarcely be denied that the medieval system was exposed to serious danger of leading men to rest content with the mechanical act of receiving the sacraments, and of encouraging them to look on them almost

[…]

won. But It would seem superfluous to add proof of these statements here, for no Christian will be found to cieny them.

[…]

purchase to themselves damnation, as S. Paul

Saitn, It will be sufficient to remind the reader that the damnation spoken of here and in the Authorised Version of 1 Cor. xi. 29 (the passage alluded to), is not necessarily final condemnation. It is rather that “judgment with which we are chastened of the Lord, t£t wemaynot be condemned with the wwld” (ver 32)- ie the Apostle is speaking of a temporal chastisement,’ the object of which was to wean the unworthy communicant from his sm. and lead him to repentance, so that he might escape what is commonly called “damnation.” Ihe mistranslation, which is found in the Book of Common Prayer, as well as in the Articles and the Authorised Version, has happily been altered in the Eevis Version of 1881. It may be said in extenuation of It that “damnation ” was by no means so strong a term m the sixteenth century as it is now ; but all the same the rendering of ta as “judicium” by the

• See Wright’s BihU Word Book, p. 181.

(il

Vulgate in the passage in question ought to have prevented the mistranslation, the practical consequences of which have certainly been serious.

A few words may be added in conclusion concerning the doctrine of grace ex opere operato, for it will be remembered that the phrase was expressly condemned in the clause corresponding to that now under consideration, in the Article of 1553. It may therefore be fairly asked, why was the condemnation of it removed in 1563 ? Does the Church of England hold the doctrine, or does it not ? In answer to this it may be pointed out that the phrase was an ambiguous one, capable of a perfectly innocent sense, and of expressing a real truth, but capable also of a meaning which was grossly superstitious. It was originally used by medieval Theologians, and after them by the Council of Trent (Session VII. canon viii.), to describe the nature of the effects which the ” seven sacraments ” produce. In the technical language of the schools, man can by his perversity and wilful hardness ” put a bar ” (ponere obicem) against their effect,^ and certain dispositions, as faith and repentance, are required on the part of the recipient. But the grace comes not from them, but from Christ Himself through the sacraments of His institution ; for, as our own Article XXVI. points out, the sacraments are ” effectual because of Christ’s institution and promise, although they be administered by evil men.” It was to guard this truth that the phrase that grace comes ex opere operato was invented ; and it was intended to indicate that ” grace

18 conferred by virtue of the sacramental act instituted by God for this end, not by the merits of the minister or the recipient.” i But while, as employed by careful and instructed Theologians, the phrase meant nothing more than this, yet in the mouths of ignorant and ill-instructed persons it was easily capable of ” no godly but a very superstitious sense,” and might be taken to imply that the grace was so tied to the sacraments that the sacramental act became almost of the nature of a magical charm, bringing grace to the recipient ex opere operato, whatever his spiritual condition might be.^ It was this* which led to the condemnation of the phrase in 1553. But by the time of the revision of 1563 it had been made abundantly clear that this superstitious use was not the only one which the phrase conveyed. Consequently there was a danger lest the language of the

’ So Bellarmine {De Sacram. ii. 1) explains it : ” Id quod active et proxime atque instrumentaliter efficit gratiam justificationis est sola actio Ilia externa, quae sacraraentu.u dicitur, et hfec vocatur opus opercUum, accipiendo passive (operatum), ita ut idem sit sacramentum conferre gratiam ex opere operato, quod conferre gratiam ex vi ipsius actionis sacramentelis a Deo ad hoc institute, non ex merito agentis vel

suscipientis Voluntas, fides, et pcenitentia in suscipiente adulto

necessano requiruntur ut dispositiones ex parte subjecti, non ut causae activ^e, non enim fides et pcenitentia efficiunt gratiam sacramentalem neque dant efficaciam sacramenti, sed solum toUunt obstacula, qu« impedirent ne Sacramento suani efficiam exercere possent, unde in pueris, ubi non requiritur dispositio, sine his rebus fit justificatio.” And, among modems, see the careful stotement of Moehler, Syvibolism, p. 198.

Article might appear to condemn a real truth. Hence the clause was wisely omitted by Archbishop Parker,^ and nothing whatever was said either to sanction or to condemn the phrase. The superstition which it was desired to guard against was efifectually excluded by the statement that “in such only as duly receive” the sacraments ” have they a wholesome effect or operation ” ; while the truth which the phrase had been originally intended to express was secured by the language of the following Article, which states ” that they are effectual because of Christ’s institution and promise, although they be administered by evil men.”

» Cf. Hardwick, pp. 129, 130.

Notes

• See Hardwick, p. 270.
• ” Baptism testifies that we have been cleansed au^ washed ; the Encharistic Supper that we have been redeemed.” — Calvin’s Institutes, IV. xiv. 22. ” Circumcision is nothing ; so is baptism nothing ; the communion of the Lord’s Supper is nothing : they are rather testimonies and seals of the Divine will towards thee ; through them is thy conscience assured, if it ever doubted, of the graciousness and the goodwill of God in thy regard.” — Melancthon, quoted by Moehler, Sipribolism, p. 202 (Eng. Tr.). Cf. the 13th Article of the Confession of Augsburg, quoted above, p. 587.
• Eccl. Polity, Bk. V. c. Ivii.
• Bp. Alexander. ^ Bp. A. Forbes. ^ Hooker, I. c.
• These words, as well as “efficacia signa,” have nothing corresponding to them in the Confession of Augsburg, being first inserted in the joint Confession of 1538. It is curious, liowever, to find something very similar to them in the Catifessio Bdgiea (1562). ” Sunt enim sacramenta signa ac symbola visibilia renim intemarum et invisibilium, per qutp, ceu per media, Deus ipse virtute Spiritus Sancti in nobis operatnr.” — Art. XXXIII. (On this Confession see vol. i. p. 10.)
• Homily on Common Prayer and the SacranierUs, p. 376 (S.P.C.K.).
• Cyprian uses it twice of tbe military oath: De lapsis, xiii.; Ep. Ixxiy. Elsewhere with wide latitude of meaning. Of Baptism, Up, Ixxiii. ; of the Eucharist, De zelo et livore, xvii., De lapsis, xxv. ; of the Passover, De unitate, viii. ; of a sacred bond, Fp. lix., De unitate, vi. etc. ; of doctrines, De Dominica Oratione, ix., Testim. Free/, etc. See the very careful note on his use of the word, which was “in many instances used with intentional vagueness,” in Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica, vol. iv. p. 253.
• Gregory became Bishop of Bergamo in 1133, and died in 1146. His book, De Eucharistia, was first published in 1877, and since then has been included in Hurter’s Sanctorum Patrum Opuscula Seleda, vol. xxxix.
• De Euch, c. xiii. : ” Verum ne quis occasione dictoruni existimet tot esse sacramenta ecclesiae, quot sunt quibus congruit sacramenti vocabuluni, scire debemus ea solum esse ecclesiae sacramenta a servatore nostro Jesu instituta quae in medicinam nobis tributa fuere, et haec numero adimplentur septenario.”
• De Euch. c. xiv. : “Tria siquidem in ecclesia gerimus sacramenta quffi sacramentis aliis putantur non immerito digniora, scilicet baptisraum, chrisma, corpus et sanguis Domini. Quorum trium primum et ultimum ex ipsius Redemptoris institutione percepimus, ex apostolica vero traditioue illud quod medium posuimus.”
• Homily on Common Prayer and the Sacraments, p. 376 scq, (S.P.C.K.). ^ It must be remembered that the statement of the Catechism, “Two
• E.g. Tertullian, Ad Scapulam^ c iv. ; Vita Eugenia^ c. xi. (Rosweyd, 343).
• Ep. ad DeceiU. §8: “Sane quoniam de hoc, sicuti de cieteris, consulere voluit dilectio tua … quod in beati apostolis Jacobi epistola conscriptum est : Si infiimvA aiiquis in vobis est^ etc. : quod non est dubium de fidelibus segrotantibus aecipi vel intelligi debere, qui sancta oleo chrismatis perungi possunt, quod ab epis(!opo confectum, non solum
• Exposition of the ThiHy-Nine Articles, p. 588.
• Even after the days of Innocent i. the oil was frequently blessed by laymen, and even women. Thus S. Monegund (570) on her deathbed “blessed oil and salt,” which were afterwards given to the sick; see Greg. Turon. Viicc Patrum, c. xix. In 813 the Council of Chalons lays down that the sick ought to be anointed by the presbyters with oil which is blessed by the bishop (canon xlviii.). To the same effect, Hincmar (852), Capit. 5, and others about the same time. See the Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, vol. ii. p. 2004.
• 76. p. 125.
• See Formularks of Faith, pp. 123-128 and 290-293.
• Britton {ITmw SaeraineiitaleSj p. 97 seq.) argues that the plural “sacraments” may have been intended to refer to the two parts of the Eucharist which are spoken of in the Prayer Books of 1552 and 15f»9 as the Sacraments of His Blessed Body and Blood ” (second exhortation to come to the Holy Communion). The word is altered into the singular in the edition of 1604.
• Cf. the answer of the bishops at the Savoy Conference in 1661 to the objection of the Puritans to the statement that every child is regenerate in Baptism. ’* Seeing that God’s sacraments have their effects where the receiver doth not ’ ponere obicem,’ put any bar against them (which children cannot do) ; we may say in faith of every child that is baptized, that it is regenerated by God’s Holy Spirit.” — Cardwell’s History of Conferences, p. 356.
• This superstitious sense is indicated in the language of the Thirteen Articles of 1.538, where the phrase is condemned (Art. IX.): “Neque enim in illis verum est, quod quidam dicunt, sacramento conferre gratiam ex opere operato sine bono motu vierUis, nam in ratione utentibus necessarium est ut fides etiam utentis accedat, per quam credat illis promissionibus et accipiat res promissas quae per sacramento conferantur.” So in tlie “Apology for the Confession of Augsburg”: “Damnamus totum populum scholasticorum doctorum qui docent quod sacramento non ponenti obicem conferant gratiam ex opere operato sine bono motu utentis.” Winer’s Confessions of Christendom, p. 246. 40