Orders.

Orders or ordination is made a sacrament, because instituted or commanded by Christ, and because therein the supernatural power of consecrating the body and blood of Christ and of forgiving sin is conferred. It is thus defined: “Ordo sacer et sacramentum divinitus institutum, quo tribuitur potestas consecrandi corpus et sanguinem Domini, nec non remittendi et retinendi peccata.” On this subject the Council of Trent says: “Si quis dixerit, per sacram ordinationem non dari Spiritum Sanctum, ac proinde frustra episcopos dicere: Accipe Spiritum Sanctum; aut per eam non imprimi characterem; vel eum, qui sacerdos semel fuit, laicum rursus fieri posse; anathema sit.”³ The right and power to ordain belong exclusively to prelates, for they alone possess the apostolical prerogative of communicating the Holy Spirit by the imposition of hands. The Apostles, however, had only the power of communicating miraculous gifts. They neither claimed nor pretended to exercise the power of conferring the sanctifying or saving influences of the Spirit. As the Church of Rome claims for its clergy a power far above that of angels or archangels, so it claims for its bishops powers far transcending those of the Apostles.

Matrimony.

Matrimony is declared to be a sacrament because, although not instituted by Christ, it was made by Him the symbol of the mystical union between the Church and its divine head; and because by its due celebration divine grace is conferred upon the contracting parties. It is thus defined: “Sacramentum novæ legis, quo significatur conjunctio Christi cum Ecclesia, et gratia confertur ad sanctificandam viri et mulieris legitimam conjunctionem, ad uniendos arctius conjugum animos, atque ad prolem pie sancteque in virtutis officiis et fide christiana instituendam.”⁴

Extreme Unction.

This is defined to be a sacrament wherein by the anointing with oil (per unctionem olei benedicti) and prayer in the prescribed form, by the ministration of a priest, grace is conferred to the baptized dangerously ill, whereby sins are remitted and the strength of the soul is increased. “Si quis dixerit, sacram infirmorum unctionem non conferre gratiam, nec remittere peccata, nec alleviare infirmos; sed jam cessasse, quasi olim tantum fuerit gratia curationum; anathema sit.” “Si quis dixerit, presbyteros Ecclesiæ, quos B. Jacobus adducendos esse infirmum inunguendum hortatur, non esse sacerdotes ab Episcopo ordinatos, sed ætate seniores, in quavis communitate; ob idque proprium extremæ unctionis ministrum non esse solum sacerdotem; anathema sit.”⁵

Reasons for fixing the Number of the Sacraments at Seven.

It is a work of supererogation for Romanists to assign any reason for making the number of the sacraments seven, and neither more nor less, other than the decision of the Church. If the Church be infallible her judgment on the question is decisive; if it be not infallible no other reason is of any avail. They admit that there is no authority from Scripture on this point, and on no subject in dispute between them and Protestants, can appeal be made with less show of reason to the testimony of tradition. Romish theologians, therefore, while they claim common consent in support of their doctrine on this subject, avail themselves of all the collateral aid they can command. Thomas Aquinas says that there is an analogy between the natural and spiritual life of man. He is born; he is strengthened; he is nourished; he needs means of recovery from illness; he needs to propagate his race; to live under the guidance of legitimate authority; and to be prepared for his departure from this world. The sacraments provide for all these necessities of his spiritual life. He is born in baptism; strengthened by confirmation; nourished by the Lord’s Supper; recovered from spiritual illness by penance; the Church is continued by holy matrimony; the sacrament of orders provides for the Christian a supernaturally endowed guide; and extreme unction prepares him for death. Thus through the seven sacraments all his spiritual wants are supplied.

Then again as there are seven cardinal virtues, there should be seven sacraments. Besides seven is a sacred number: there are seven days in the week; every seventh year was Sabbatical; and there were seven golden candlesticks, and seven stars in the right hand of Christ. It is not wonderful therefore that there should be seven sacraments. It is obvious that all this amounts to nothing. The two sacraments instituted by Christ for the definite purpose of “signifying, sealing, and applying to believers,” the benefits of redemption, stand alone in the New Testament. No other ordinance has the same characteristics or the same design. Admitting, therefore, that the Fathers and the Church were unanimous in calling any number of other sacred institutions sacraments, that would not prove that they belong to the same category as baptism, and the Lord’s Supper.

It is, however, notorious that no such general consent can be pleaded in support of the seven sacraments of the Romanists. The simple facts on this subject are, — (1.) As already remarked, in the early Church every sacred rite was called a sacrament. Then their number was indefinite. (2.) The preeminence of baptism and the Lord’s Supper over all other sacred rites being recognized, they were called, as by Augustine, the chief sacraments. (3.) When attention was directed to the fact that something is true of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, which is true of no other sacred ordinances or rites, that they, and they only, of external ceremonies were appointed to be “means of grace,” then they were declared in this light to be the only Christian sacraments. Justin Martyr,⁶ Cyril of Jerusalem,⁷ and Augustine,⁸ so speak of them.⁹ (4.) As a ritualistic spirit increased in the Church, first one and then another rite was assumed to be a “means of grace,” not always, however, the same rites, and thus the number of sacraments was increased. (5.) For centuries, however, no definite number was admitted by anything like general consent. Some made the number three; the Pseudo Dionysius in the sixth century made six. Peter Damiani, the friend of Gregory VII., made twelve. “Ratherius, Bishop of Verona († 974), Fulbert, Bishop of Chartres († 1028), Bruno, Bishop of Wurzburg († 1045), Rupert, Abbot of Deutz († 1135), admitted only baptism and the Lord’s Supper; others, as Theodulf, Bishop of Orleans († 821), Agobard, Bishop of Lyons († 840), Lanfranc, Bishop of Canterbury († 1089), Hildebert, Bishop of Tours († 1134), Hugo, of St. Victor († 1141), call them ‘duo sanctæ ecclesiæ sacramenta.’”¹⁰ (6.) It is certain, says the writer just quoted, that Peter Lombard († 1164) is the first who enumerated the seven sacraments as held by the Romanists. He gives no reason for fixing on the number seven; but that which was already on hand in the traditional sanctity, attributed to that number. It was regarded as the symbol of universality and perfection. This was sufficient for deciding on an arbitrary number. What has been said is enough to show that Romanists have not even any plausible ground for their appeal to common consent in support of their doctrine on this subject. Such appeal on their theory is unnecessary. If the Church be infallible, and if the Church testifies that Christ ordained matrimony, extreme unction, etc., to be sacraments; that testimony is decisive. If, however, the Church, in the papal sense of the word, be the very reverse of infallible, then its testimony, so far as the faith of Christians is concerned, amounts to nothing.

---

← Chapter 20. The Means of Grace, § 2. The Sacraments. Their Nature · Contents · Chapter 20. The Means of Grace, § 4. The Efficacy of the Sacraments →

Footnotes

1. Sess. xiv. canon 6; Streitwolf, vol. i. p. 68. ↩

2. Perrone, Prælectiones Theologicæ, De Poenitentia, V. i. 155; edit. Paris, 1861, vol. ii. p. 351, a. ↩

3. Sess. xxiii. canon 4; Streitwolf, vol. i. p. 88. ↩

4. Perrone, ut supra, De Matrimonio, 1. vol. ii. p. 407. ↩

5. Conc. Trident. sess. xiv. “De sacramento extremæ unctionis,” can. 2, 4; Streitwolf, vol. i. pp. 70, 71. ↩

6. Apologia I [II.] Ad Antoninum Pium, 65, 66; Works, edit. Commelinus, Heidelberg, 1593, p. 76. ↩

7. Catechesis Mystagogicœ Quinque, Schram, Analysis Patrum, Augsburg, 1789, vol. x. pp. 250-268. ↩

8. Enarratio in Psalmum ciii. 14; Works, edit. Benedictines, Paris, 1836, vol. iv. p. 1626, d. ↩

9. Perrone in his Prælectiones Theologicæ, De Sacramentis in genere, i. 14; edit. Paris, 1861, vol. ii. p. 217; refers to these and tries to explain the facts away. ↩

10. Herzog’s Real-Encyklopädie, Art. “Sacramente,” vol. xiii., p. 241. The writer of the elaborate article in Herzog refers to the thorough investigation of this question in the Dissertation by G. L. Hahn, entitled, Doctrinæ Rom. de numero Sacramentorum septenaris rationes historicæ, Vratial. 1859. ↩