Scotus Academicus, Tomus nonus: De Sacramentis in genere

Remark 1. All Catholics agree among themselves that there are seven Sacraments of the New Law, namely Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Order, and Matrimony; but all the more recent heretics oppose this septenary number of the Sacraments. In assigning the number of the Sacraments of the New Law, they not only quarrel among themselves, but are tossed about with such instability of mind that the author of each sect does not agree even with himself. For Luther, who at the beginning of his book On the Babylonian Captivity had said that only three were to be admitted, namely Baptism, Penance, and Bread, adds that, if we wish to speak according to the usage of Scripture, we shall profess only one Sacrament and three sacramental signs: for, he says, the Eucharist and Penance are commemorative of the Passion and of the adoption of Baptism. Finally, near the end of the book he asserts that, properly speaking, only two Sacraments are to be admitted, namely Baptism and Bread. Hence it follows that the Lutherans do not agree among themselves about the number of the Sacraments: some admit only two, namely Baptism and the Eucharist, while others admit three, adding Penance to these two. Calvin, however, does acknowledge three, namely Baptism, the Supper, and the laying on of hands by which the Ministers of the Church are initiated; for although in book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 18, §19, he says that there are only two, namely Baptism and the Supper, nevertheless in chapter 11, §20, he says:

Two Sacraments were instituted which the Christian Church now uses, Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. I speak, however, of those which were instituted for the use of the whole Church; for the laying on of hands by which the Ministers of the Church are initiated into their office, although I would reluctantly allow it to be numbered as a Sacrament, I do not therefore number among the ordinary Sacraments.

Melanchthon, however, appears altogether uncertain in this matter. At first he admitted only two with Luther, later three; but finally, in the Theological Places published in the year 1502, he adds ordination, or the calling to the ministry of the Gospel. Then, in the Places published in 1758, he inclines to admit Matrimony among the Sacraments; for he maintains that it is a sign of a sacred thing, having a divine command and an attached promise:

Yet one thing is lacking for it to be a Sacrament, namely that it was instituted before Christ’s Incarnation. But how slight this reason is, no one can fail to see: for what prevents the Lord Christ from having been able to promote an already existing thing, which was a sign and prophecy of His future Incarnation, to the dignity of a Sacrament?

Remark 2. Three things above all are required for the nature of a Sacrament of the New Law: namely, that it be a sign divinely instituted, ordered to conferring internal sanctification upon man; further, that it have the power and efficacy of conferring justifying grace; and finally, that there be a divine command and divine institution of frequenting this sign, so that the effect signified by it may be obtained. Hence there are many signs of a sacred thing which, although called Sacraments by the Holy Fathers, do not properly claim this name for themselves, but only improperly and in a broader signification. Thus Saint Augustine, in book 1 of Against Faustus, chapter 11, calls the sign of the cross a Sacrament; and in On the Creed, chapter 2, he calls the ceremonies of Baptism, exorcisms, and similar rites Sacraments. And in book 2 of On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, chapter 26, he calls the blessed bread customarily given to Catechumens a sacrament—not properly and strictly, but, as I said, broadly and improperly—because the Sacraments properly so called of the New Law have the promise and efficacy of grace, as well as institution from Christ; whereas the aforesaid things are not of this kind. Here, moreover, the discussion is only of Sacraments properly so called.

Remark 3. Three principal matters arise for examination in this question: first, whether the Lord Christ truly designated and instituted seven sensible signs effectively productive of sanctifying grace, and whether their septenary number can clearly be gathered from the written or handed-down word of God; second, whether these signs are fewer than seven, as the heretics of our time deny, as was mentioned in the first remark; finally, whether those sacred signs are more than seven, as some of the Holy Fathers seem to have taught, when some appear to attribute the power and efficacy, and the name, of a Sacrament to the washing of feet, others to blessed water, and some to eulogiae, or blessed bread. Although these three matters indeed converge upon one and the same point, nevertheless, for greater clarity and a more evident dissertation and discussion, I shall examine them under three distinct conclusions.

First conclusion. — There are truly seven Sacraments of the New Law.

This Conclusion is gathered from Sacred Scripture, as follows: a Sacrament is a sacred sign, or sacred rite divinely instituted, to which a promise of grace and a power of sanctifying implanted by God are attached; but from Sacred Scripture it is not obscurely gathered that there are seven such sacred rites, in which a promise of power for conferring grace has been implanted; therefore, etc. The major is clear. The minor is proved, first, concerning Baptism. For in the last chapter of Mark, the Lord Christ, sending the Apostles to convert the nations and spread the Gospel, says: Go, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, etc. He adds: Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved. Hence Saint Paul, in Ephesians 5, considering the greatness of the Lord Christ’s love for His Church, says: Christ loved the Church and delivered Himself for her, that He might sanctify her, cleansing her with the washing of water in the word of life. — The same is gathered concerning Confirmation from Acts 8, verses 17 and following verse 19, where we read that the Holy Spirit was infallibly conferred through the laying on of the Apostles’ hands. This effect would certainly not have been infallible through the application of such a sign unless the Lord Christ had so ordained; nor would the Apostles have consistently used this sign for that effect if they had not been so taught by their most loving Teacher and Master. — The rite of the Eucharist is clearly handed down in Matthew 17 and 1 Corinthians 11: Taking bread and giving thanks, He broke it and said: Take, etc. The promise of grace is in John 6: Whoever eats this bread will live forever. — The rite of Penance and the power of conferring sanctifying grace are found in John 20, where Christ addresses the Disciples and says: Receive the Holy Spirit: whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven them, etc. — Saint James opens up the rite of Extreme Unction and its power of conferring grace in chapter 5, when he says: Is anyone among you sick? Let him bring in the presbyters of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith will save the sick man; and if he is in sins, they will be forgiven him.

Saint Paul hands down the institution, rite, and power of conferring grace of the Sacrament of Order in 1 Timothy 4, in these words: Do not neglect the grace that is in you, which was given to you through prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the presbyterate. And in 2 Timothy 1: I remind you to rekindle the grace that is in you through the laying on of my hands.

Finally, the rite of Matrimony is found in Matthew 19 in these words: What God has joined, let no man separate. The promise of grace, however, is gathered from Ephesians 5, where the Apostle, speaking of Matrimony, says: This is a great Sacrament; but I speak in Christ and in the Church. By these words he signifies that Matrimony is a great Sacrament in Christ and in the Church, insofar as the union of man and woman signifies the union of Christ with the Church, and consequently the grace that is bestowed in its presence. Christ has a twofold union with the Church: one according to nature, which was effected through the Incarnation, by which Christ, as Head of the Church, is assimilated in nature to the other members; the second through grace and charity, by reason of which He is called the Bridegroom of the Church. Matrimony signifies both unions: the first insofar as it is a natural union between man and woman; the second insofar as it is the spiritual union of man and woman through grace and charity, which is contracted in Matrimony.

The same truth is gathered from the unwritten word, or from Tradition, by which we know that this septenary number of the Sacraments has flowed down to us from divine institution and Apostolic teaching through an everywhere perpetual and uninterrupted observance. Since it cannot be shown when these sacred rites first began to be frequented in the Church after the Apostles, it must necessarily be admitted that they were derived from the Lord Christ and the Apostles, according to this rule of Saint Augustine, book 1 of On Baptism, chapter 24: What the whole Church holds, and was not instituted by Councils but has always been retained, is rightly believed to have been handed down by no authority other than Apostolic. The Councils explicitly define this truth, especially the Council of Florence in the decree of Eugenius, where, among external matters, number 5 states: There are seven Sacraments of the New Law, namely Baptism, etc., which differ greatly from the Sacraments of the Old Law. For those did not cause grace, but only figured that it was to be given through the Passion of Christ; whereas these of ours both contain grace and confer it upon those who worthily receive them. Likewise the Council of Trent, Session VII, Canon 1, in these words: If anyone says that the Sacraments of the New Law were not instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ, or that there are more or fewer than seven, namely Baptism, etc., or that any one of these seven is not truly and properly a Sacrament: let him be anathema.

The Holy Fathers and Doctors of the Church hand down the same doctrine. Although most of them perhaps did not expressly mention the seven Sacraments of the Church, because no necessity pressed and no present occasion existed for numbering these seven Sacraments, nevertheless some of the earlier Fathers do mention several such Sacraments. First, Saint Dionysius, in book On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, besides Baptism and the Eucharist, about which he speaks extensively in scattered places, also mentions the Sacrament of Order. And in his Letter to Demophilus he also declares the Sacrament of Penance. Tertullian likewise clearly appears, in book On Prescriptions, chapter 40, where, reporting how the devil imitates even the realities of the divine Sacraments in the mysteries of idols, he says: He too dips certain believers and his own faithful; he promises an expiation of sins from the washing, by which Baptism and Penance are signified. He also celebrates the offering of bread, to imitate the Eucharist. He also establishes the Supreme Pontiff in a single marriage, by which he denotes an imitation of the Sacrament of Order, whose highest degree is the Pontificate, or Episcopate; to this monogamy is prescribed by the Apostle Paul in 1 Timothy 3, in these words: The husband of one wife must be. He also mentions marriages, or Matrimony. He adds the treatment of fields, by which he denotes Extreme Unction. — But lest I prolong the discussion by reporting the opinions of the ancient Doctors on this matter, Saint Augustine alone will suffice in place of the others. For in book 5 of On Baptism, chapter 20, he says: If what was said in the Gospel still holds, that Sacraments are not celebrated by a sinner, how does He hear a murderer praying, whether over the water of Baptism, or over the oil, or over the Eucharist, or over the heads of those upon whom hands are imposed, namely, through reconciliation? And in book Against the Letters of Petilian, chapter 104, he declares Confirmation in these words: Petilian wishes to interpret the Sacrament of Chrism in this unguent, which indeed in the class of visible signs is most holy, just as Baptism itself. And in book 2 of Against the Letters of Parmenian, chapter 13, he speaks in the same way of Order as of Baptism: Both are a Sacrament, and each is given to a man through a certain consecration: the former when he is baptized, the latter when he is ordained. And shortly afterward: For if each is a Sacrament, which no one doubts, why is the former not admitted and the latter admitted? Injury must be done to neither Sacrament. Finally, in books On the Good of Marriage, chapters 18 and 11, and in On Marriage, chapter 10, he plainly teaches that Matrimony is a Sacrament in the New Law.

You will say: If there truly were seven Sacraments, Scripture would have designated that number; but this is not so; therefore seven Sacraments should not be asserted. — I distinguish the major: it would have designated that number explicitly or implicitly, I concede; explicitly only, I deny. And likewise I distinguish the minor, I deny the consequence. For although Sacred Scripture does not indicate in express words that there are seven Sacraments of the New Law, nevertheless it signifies this at least implicitly, since it expresses seven sacred rites to which a promise of grace is attached, as was said above. Furthermore, by equal reasoning it would follow that there are neither two Sacraments, nor three, nor four, nor any definite number at all, because Sacred Scripture did not express that definite number. Likewise, this does not follow: Scripture nowhere says that there are four Gospels, or fourteen Epistles of Paul, or seven words uttered by the Lord on the cross; therefore there are not that many. For it is enough that the things themselves be handed down as numbered in Scripture; it is not required that their number be determinately expressed. Finally, even if the testimonies of Scripture were unavailable, the authority of the Church would still be entirely sufficient for this, as Saint Jerome teaches in book Against the Luciferians, where, discussing the laying on of hands, he says: *You ask where it is written? In the Acts of the Apostles; and even if the authority of sound Scripture were not present, the agreement of the whole world on this point would have the force of a precept.

You will say 2: In Revelation 17 the Angel promises John that he will reserve for him the Sacrament of the beast, which has seven heads. This figure signifies, says Chemnitz, that the septenary number of the Sacraments belongs to the beast, that is, to the Roman Church, in which Antichrist sits. — I deny the minor; for it is blasphemous that the Sacraments of Christ should be designated by the very heads of the beast. Among them are Baptism and the Eucharist, which even the heretics themselves do not deny to be true Sacraments. Hence those seven heads of the beast mystically signify nothing other than seven kings, or seven mountains, in which unbelief is especially to exercise its tyranny over Christ’s faithful. — But if someone wished to gather the seven Sacraments of the New Law from the septenary number mentioned by Scripture, there are very many testimonies, both in the New and in the Old Testament, supporting this assertion. Just as God made the world in the course of seven days, so the Lord Christ willed to work the mystery of recreation and renewal through the order of seven Sacraments. Hence the more excellent works of God are comprehended in Scripture under the number seven. For He commanded unleavened bread to be eaten for seven days; there were seven lamps in the Sanctuary, Numbers 8; He instituted seven trumpets of the Jubilee, Joshua 6; Samson’s strength was set in seven locks of hair, Judges 16; Eliseus commanded Naaman the Syrian to wash seven times in the Jordan, and he was cleansed, 4 Kings; Wisdom hewed out seven pillars for herself, Proverbs 9; Christ fed four thousand people with seven loaves. And, not to go farther, Saint John himself in Revelation 1 saw seven golden lampstands, and there seven stars in the right hand of the Son of Man; and in chapter 5, seven seals with which the book held in the right hand of Him who sits upon the throne was sealed within and without. By all these things the seven Sacraments of the New Law could not incongruously be designated.

You say 3: The holy Fathers nowhere assert that there are seven Sacraments; indeed, they commonly enumerate fewer. For Saint Dionysius the Areopagite, in The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, where he expressly discusses the mysteries, that is, the Sacraments of the Church, treats no more than five, omitting Extreme Unction and Matrimony. Similarly, Saint Justin, in the second Apology, mentions only the Eucharist and Baptism. Irenaeus likewise mentions the Eucharist in book 1, chapter 9, and Baptism in chapter 13. Cyprian, in his Sermon on the washing of feet, numbers only the Eucharist, Chrism, Penance, and Ordination. Cyril of Jerusalem, although in his mystagogical Catecheses he expressly treats of the mysteries or Sacraments, nevertheless mentions no others than Baptism, Chrism, and the Eucharist. Nor are more enumerated by Saint Gregory, as is related in question 1, canon Many of the secular, etc. Isidore agrees with this in book 6 of the Etymologies, chapter 19. Finally, Saint Ambrose, in On the Sacraments, mentions only Baptism, the Eucharist, and Confirmation. And Saint Augustine teaches in many places that the Sacraments of the New Law are very few in number, especially in book 3 of On Christian Doctrine, chapter 6. Therefore, it was not established among the ancients that there were seven Sacraments of the New Law. — I deny the consequence: For neither do the holy Fathers say that there are only two, three, four, or five Sacraments, nor do they likewise deny that there are seven in number; rather, they mention two, three, or fewer according to the reason of the argument they were treating, as will be clear from the response to their authorities cited above. First, Saint Dionysius in that work does not expressly treat of the Sacraments of the Church, but of sacred offices, or anointings, which either bishops or priests performed in administering and confecting the mysteries, with a certain consecration. Wherefore it was not incumbent upon him to discuss either Matrimony or the Anointing of the Sick, although he mentions Penance or reconciliation incidentally. Concerning Saint Justin I say that he mentions only two Sacraments there for this reason: he is responding to pagans who accused Christians of being atheists and of worshipping no gods, and who alleged that they committed many impious acts in their rites, for example, that they devoured human flesh, and therefore admitted only their own people to those rites. Justin replies that Christians are not atheists, since they confess one God in essence and three in persons; but only Christians were admitted to the Synaxis because this was granted only to the baptized. He explains what took place in the Synaxis on Sundays, namely, in order to lift the accusation by which Christians were attacked, that in their rites they devoured tiny pieces of flesh. He does not touch on the other Sacraments because they were unknown to pagans and therefore were not involved in their calumnies. Concerning Saint Irenaeus I say that he did not institute a special disputation about the Sacraments, but, as occasion arose, mentioned now one and now another. Thus in book 1, chapter 2, he speaks of Penance; in chapter 9 he mentions the Eucharist because he exposes the ravings of a certain Marcus concerning the Eucharist. Similarly, in chapter 18 he mentions Baptism because he exposes the errors of several heretics concerning the administration of Baptism; then in book 3, chapter 12, he reports Confession, and in book 4, chapter 32, again mentions the Sacrament and sacrifice of the Eucharist, because there he treats of the sacrifices of the ancient and the New Law. Concerning Saint Cyril of Jerusalem I say that he mentions those three Sacraments for this reason: he was instructing catechumens and newly faithful people about the things customarily done at the time of Baptism. Three Sacraments were conferred on the same day, namely Baptism, Confirmation, and the Eucharist, as is clear from Amphilochius, who writes this in the life of Saint Basil: Maximus the Bishop baptized Basil and Eubulus, and, anointing them with the holy Chrism, gave them the life-giving communion. The same is the response concerning Isidore, or rather Gregory, who is presented under Isidore’s name. Concerning the authority cited from Cyprian I say that this sermon is not Saint Cyprian’s, but that of some later author. Whoever he may be, I say that it does not treat of all the Sacraments, but only of those that could be referred to Christ’s cardinal works; for that is the title the author gave the work of sermons. Concerning Saint Ambrose I say that in those books he does not treat of all the Sacraments, but only of those about which the faithful who had recently been baptized and confirmed, and had already been admitted to the sacred Synaxis, were to be instructed. For new faithful were initiated in that order, as he himself testifies in book 3 of On the Sacraments, chapter 2. Hence in that work he was to treat only of those three Sacraments, and at the end of the work he says that they had received them most fully. Concerning Saint Augustine I say that in On Christian Doctrine he did not say that there are only two Sacraments, but, treating there of the Sacraments of the New Law, he speaks as follows: The Lord himself handed down from the apostolic discipline certain very few things in place of many, and those very easy and most august in understanding, such as the Sacrament of Baptism and the celebration of the Lord’s Body and Blood. These words plainly do not enumerate all the Sacraments, but merely offer some examples. That Saint Augustine recognized more than two Sacraments is clear from Sermon 1 on Psalm 13, where he says that in Baptism, the Eucharist, and the other Sacraments of the Church there are gifts. Hence, in his Letter to Januarius, where he said that we have very few Sacraments in number, excellent in their signification, and easy in their observance, he adds: such as Baptism and the communion of the Lord’s Body and Blood, and whatever else is commended in the divine writings. Here the particle if is not a mark of doubt; for, among the several more certain testimonies just recited, namely, the Passion, Ascension, and Resurrection of the Lord and the coming of the Holy Spirit, he adds: And if anything else of this kind occurs that is followed by the universal Church. It is certain, however, that in Augustine’s time the feasts of the Nativity, the Lord’s Epiphany, and the like were customarily celebrated.

You will say 4: The Greek Church recognizes no Sacraments other than two, namely the Eucharist and Baptism; therefore, etc. The antecedent is proved: for Cyril Lucaris, Patriarch of Constantinople, in his Confession of Faith, first published in Latin and then in Greek in the year 1633, chapter 15, says this about the Sacraments: We believe the evangelical Sacraments to be those which the Lord instituted in the Gospel, and that they are two, namely Baptism and the Eucharist; we have no larger number of Sacraments. Therefore the Institutor did not establish more. — I answer: I concede the antecedent, I deny the consequence. For this Cyril wholly departed from the opinions of the other Greek Churches in order to embrace Calvinian doctrines, which the adversaries do not deny. Casaubon, who arranged for such a Confession to be examined at London in 1675, with both its edition and that of Cyril of Beroea and Parthenius, Patriarch of Constantinople, says in his preface to the Reader: Yet it was not the confession of the Greek Churches, or of the East. This is most firmly evident not only from the Holy Fathers of the Eastern Church and from all the Euchologia and Rituals, but also from the censure of Cyril of Beroea, who succeeded the aforesaid Cyril in the Patriarchate of Constantinople and condemned him in September 1638 with this Synodal sentence: To Cyrillus, who dogmatizes and believes that there are not seven Sacraments of the Church, that is, Baptism, Chrism, Penance, the Eucharist, the Ordination of Priests, Extreme Unction, and Matrimony, according to Christ’s constitution, the tradition of the Apostles, and the custom of the Church, but who falsely says that only Baptism and the Eucharist were handed down by Christ in the Gospel: anathema. The Synodal censure of Parthenius, issued in 1642 against the same Cyril, says the same: He denies the five Sacraments of the Church, the Priesthood, holy Unction, holy Oil, Confession with Penance, and honorable Nuptials, all of which ancient Tradition handed down to us as Sacraments and conferrers of divine grace. We have good recent Greek witnesses to this agreement of the Greeks with the Latins concerning the septenary number of the Sacraments, not only orthodox but also schismatic: Gregory, Protosyncellus of the Patriarch of Constantinople, in his Apology against Warenus of Ephesus; Simon, Archbishop of Thessalonica, in the book On the Seven Sacraments of the Church; Jeremias, Patriarch of Constantinople, in his threefold response against the Wittenbergers and the Augsburg Confession; Emmanuel Calecas, in book On Faith and the Principles of Catholic Faith, chapter 6; Gabriel, Bishop of Philadelphia, in the treatise On the Sacred Mysteries; and many others whom Arcudius reports in book 1, chapter 2.

Second conclusion. — The seven Sacraments of the New Law were instituted with a fitting reason and order, and not fewer. The truth of this Conclusion is defended a priori by no other reason than the will of the Lord Christ, which, being most right and most orderly, establishes and prescribes nothing except what is fitting and expedient. Nevertheless, some fitting reasons for such an institution can be offered a posteriori. The first is supplied by the Council of Florence cited above, which, after saying that there are seven Sacraments of the New Law, adds:

The first five are ordered to the spiritual perfection of each individual person in himself; the last two to the governance and multiplication of the whole Church. Through Baptism we are spiritually reborn. Through Confirmation we increase in grace and are strengthened in faith. Once reborn and strengthened, we are nourished by the divine food of the Eucharist. If through sin we incur sickness of soul, we are spiritually healed through Penance; spiritually and also bodily, insofar as it is expedient for the soul, through Extreme Unction. Through Order the Church is spiritually governed and multiplied. Through Matrimony it is increased bodily.

The Subtle Doctor examines the same reason splendidly in book 1, distinction 2, question 1, number 3, where, explaining the perfection of the Sacraments of the New Law, especially as regards their extension or the effect to which they are ordered, he says:

Just as in natural life there is first generation, then nourishment, strengthening, and the restoration of lost health—and these four pertain to each individual person—besides this, something pertaining to the community is required, by which someone is established in the degree necessary for an act necessary to the community; so spiritually, for complete perfection extensively, there ought to be some aid pertaining to spiritual generation, secondly something pertaining to nourishment, thirdly something pertaining to strengthening, fourthly something pertaining to restoration after a fall. Besides this, fifthly something is required by which one departing is finally prepared, because this spiritual life is a kind of journey ordered so that one who lives well in it may pass from it without impediment to another life, for which he is prepared. These five, therefore, are required as necessary aids for each person on his own behalf. For the good of the community observing this law there is carnal multiplication, since this is presupposed to spiritual good as nature is to grace, and there is the spiritual multiplication of some persons under this law. Thus it was fitting that seven aids be conferred upon those observing the evangelical law, in which there would be perfection not only intensive but also extensive, sufficient for everything necessary for observing this law. These are, as the Master says in the text: Baptism, pertaining to spiritual generation; the Eucharist, necessary for nourishment; Confirmation, for strengthening; Penance, for restoring one who has fallen; Extreme Unction, for final preparation; Matrimony, for multiplication in the being of > nature, or carnally; and Order, for multiplication in the being of grace, or spiritually.

The Seraphic Doctor offers other similar fitting reasons in several places, especially in part 3 of the Centiloquium, section 17, where he says:

The sufficiency of the Sacraments is understood in this way: the Sacraments are medicines against diseases; but disease is twofold, namely the disease of guilt and the disease of punishment. The disease of guilt is twofold, namely original guilt, against which there is Baptism, and actual guilt, against which there is Penance; there is also a certain actual venial guilt, against which there is Extreme Unction. The disease of punishment is fourfold, namely ignorance, against which there is Order; malice, against which there is Confirmation; concupiscence, against which there is Matrimony. The Sacraments are also aids, because they aid the seven virtues. Baptism is an aid to faith. Extreme Unction is an aid to hope. The Eucharist is an aid to charity. Order is an aid to prudence. Matrimony is an aid to temperance. Confirmation is an aid to fortitude. Penance is an aid to justice. The Sacraments are also the armor of the Church militant, which is called in the Canticle, Terrible as an army set in array. Terrible indeed, because strong and fortified through the Sacrament of Confirmation. An army, because joined and united through the Sacrament of the Eucharist; set in array through Order. Some are withdrawn from this army through death; for restoring these there is Matrimony. Some are struck down through guilt; for raising these there is Penance. Some enter this army to fight, and this occurs through Baptism. Some go out to be crowned, and this occurs through Extreme Unction.

Others, with Saint Thomas, add that this septenary number of the Sacraments is rightly gathered from the supernatural life of the soul, which is to be acquired and brought to perfection, with a likeness and analogy to bodily life. In bodily life someone is perfected in two ways: first, as regards his own person; second, as regards the community of society in which he lives, for man is an animal born for society. As regards himself, man is perfected in bodily life in two ways: first, by acquiring some perfection of life in himself; second, accidentally, by removing all impediments to life, namely diseases or their remnants. Bodily life is first perfected as regards its being through generation, by which man begins to be and to live. To this in spiritual life corresponds Baptism, which the Apostle calls in Titus 3 the washing of regeneration; hence the Lord Christ said in John 3: Unless someone is reborn of water and the Holy Spirit, etc. Next, spiritual life is perfected through increase, by which it is brought to perfect quantity and strength. To this Confirmation is likened, in which the Holy Spirit is given for strength and constancy of soul. Therefore Christ said to His baptized Disciples: Sit here until you are clothed with power from on high. Third, bodily life must be nourished and sustained by daily food lest it perish; in spiritual life the Sacrament of the Eucharist fulfills this role. For the Lord Christ says in John 6: Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you will not have life in you ... for My flesh is truly food and My blood is truly drink. But just as man’s temporal life is subject to many miseries and infirmities, and therefore needs two remedies—one medicine to recover health, and another to remove the weakness caused by infirmity, which is done through diet and exercise—so in spiritual life these two must proportionally be found: one as a spiritual medicine, namely Penance, which restores health and eliminates the disease of sin; and another to remove the remnants of the disease and its weakness, which is done through Extreme Unction, which removes the remnants of sins. Moreover, because man is ordered to society and is perfected in relation to it in two ways, namely either by receiving the power to administer certain offices in the commonwealth, or by multiplying the commonwealth, the former corresponds to the Sacrament of Order, while the latter corresponds to the Sacrament of Matrimony, for this is at once an office of nature and a benefit and sign of grace.

You will say 1: There are as many Sacraments as there are defects of sin, for they are ordered against defects of sin; but there are only two defects of sin, guilt and punishment. — I deny the minor: because guilt and punishment have diversity both according to species, since the species of guilt and punishment are diverse, and according to the different states of men and their different dispositions. Hence the Sacraments had to be multiplied.

You will say 2: There are as many Sacraments as there are actions of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, because according to Saint Dionysius the Sacraments pertain to those actions; but there are only three actions of the Hierarchy: purification, illumination, and perfection. — I deny the major: because three things are considered in hierarchical actions: agents, recipients, and actions. The agents are the Ministers of the Church, to whom Order pertains. The recipients are those who approach the Sacraments, who are produced through Matrimony. The actions are purification, illumination, and perfection. Purification alone is not a Sacrament of the New Law conferring grace, but rather pertains to the Sacramentals, which are Catechism and Exorcism. Purification and illumination together pertain to the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy through Baptism, and, by way of remedy, to Penance and Extreme Unction. Perfection, as regards virtue, in which it is as it were formal perfection, pertains to Confirmation; as regards attainment of the end, to the Eucharist.

Third conclusion. — There are not more Sacraments than seven. This is sufficiently clear from the preceding Conclusions, and is proved as follows: if there were any Sacraments of the New Law besides the seven mentioned, they would most especially be some of those which are called Sacraments by the Holy Fathers, namely the washing of feet, blessed water, eulogiae, and martyrdom; but none of these can be inserted among Sacraments properly so called; therefore, etc. The major is clear. The minor, however, may be made clearer by being proved under four distinct headings.

1. — THE WASHING OF FEET IS NOT A SACRAMENT PROPERLY SO CALLED. — It is proved first because no Councils, no ecclesiastical institutions, no prayers, and no catechetical teachings—in which Apostolic Tradition is contained and declared above all—number such a ceremony among the evangelical Sacraments. It is proved secondly: a Sacrament of the New Law must be a certain sign, divinely instituted, to which a promise of sanctifying grace and the power of conferring it through divine institution, for observance by the universal Church, are attached; but none of these things belong to the washing of feet. First, it does not have a certain promise of grace, for that promise is nowhere read in Scripture or Tradition. Second, it does not have efficacy for conferring grace, for it was instituted by Christ as a sign of the purification to be made before the institution of the Eucharist and as a sign of Christ’s humility, not for conferring grace. Finally, it does not have a command or institution to use this rite. Hence it was never practiced by the universal Church, as Saint Ambrose observes in book 3 of On the Sacraments, chapter 1. Saint Augustine also says this in Letter 119, chapter 18, On the Observance of Days: When the Lord had commended the form of humility, which He had come to teach, as He subsequently explained it, the question arose when so great a thing should especially be taught by being done. The time arrived when that commendation would adhere more religiously; but lest it seem to pertain to the very Sacrament of Baptism, many did not wish to prescribe this as a custom. Some also did not hesitate to remove it from custom; others, in order to commend it at a more sacred time and distinguish it from the Sacrament of Baptism, chose either the third day of the octave, because the ternary number is especially eminent in many Sacraments, or even the eighth day, to do this.

You will say: Three things are desired for a perfect Sacrament: first, that it be a sensible sign ordered by Christ and signifying sanctifying grace; second, that it truly confer the signified sanctifying grace upon its recipients; finally, that its frequentation and reception be commanded. But these three things occur in the washing of feet performed by Christ. First, it was a sensible sign, since the Lord Christ put water into a basin and washed the Disciples’ feet, and this washing was no less sensible than that by which Baptism is performed. Second, it signified grace and interior cleansing, for there the Lord Christ says: He who has been washed does not need except to wash his feet, but is entirely clean. By these words He signifies that the washing of feet is necessary for the expiation of what, according to Saint Augustine, are like the dirt adhering to the feet, that is, to human affections, because of human intercourse and contact with sensible goods, just as earthly dust adheres to our bodily feet through touching and trampling. Finally, there certainly seems to be an obligation, and the same command, to frequent this washing as Baptism. Just as Christ said of Baptism, Unless someone is reborn of water and the Holy Spirit, he will not enter the kingdom of heaven, so He said to Peter, who rejected this washing: If I do not wash you, you will have no part with Me. — I deny the minor, for Christ did not wash their feet for the purpose that the washing should be an efficacious sign of conferring grace, but to offer an example of humility, to exhort them to interior purity of soul, and to make the Apostles worthy participants in His Body in the Eucharist that was soon to be instituted. Nor did He say to Peter, but you will know afterward, in order to assert that he would receive grace through the washing of feet; rather, He signified beforehand what He was going to do by instituting and giving the Eucharist to Peter. For when Peter received Christ’s Body and Blood from His hand, he then understood the mystery of this washing and of the fitting preparation for the Eucharist signified by it. Likewise, when He said, you will have no part with Me, He did not wish to express that the washing was necessary for salvation, but either to

move Peter to due obedience by His threat, and to warn him that on account of obstinate disobedience he would be excluded from eternal blessedness, as Saint Basil interprets it in the shorter-disputed Rules, responses 60 and 33; or to signify that he would have no part in His table and prepared supper, nor in His Body, which He was about to consecrate at that supper and distribute to the others. Since it was customary among the Jews not to approach the table before washing hands and feet, Christ wished this same ceremony to be observed by the Disciples; and He Himself wished to observe it by washing their feet, so as to offer them the counsel and example of profound humility. For this reason He said there: Do you know what I have done for you? You call Me Master and Lord, and you speak rightly, for so I am. If I, the Lord and Master, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet; for I have given you an example, so that as I have done, you also should do.

You will object: This response works against the Holy Fathers. For Saint Cyprian, or another author of the sermon on the washing of feet preserved among his works, says at the beginning: So that nothing might be lacking for the completion of the teaching, he placed a distinction between fixed and immovable precepts and those that can be changed and repeated, so that, once the others had been established immutably—namely Baptism, Confirmation, and Order, which he later says are not repeatable—the final kind of washing, adapted to daily expiations, might be commended to the faithful. And just as the law required its own sacrifices for each offense, one remedy of Christian faith was figured, to which a person might run whenever he recognized that he had offended. Around the middle he says: The Lord says: Unless I wash you, you will have no part with Me. Little by little the necessity of this mystery is declared, which the proposed condition makes unquestionable; and if we cannot have a part with Christ unless He Himself washes our feet, since consent is thus constrained, let Him wash and wipe, and explain to us the power of this Sacrament. Above we say that those washed in Baptism do not need the same washing; but this washing was instituted for daily transgressions. — I answer: Whoever that author may be, he called this washing a Sacrament because it bears the figure of the washing of Penance. It is sufficiently clear that he confuses it either with the Sacrament of Penance by way of accommodation or in power, both from the preceding words, in which, after asserting that Baptism is not repeatable, he had said: God’s wrath again burns against those who, having despised the indulgence of Baptism, use their own judgment and are driven by their will, not by necessity. He now adds: God does not immediately avenge contempt; nor does the wrath of the Judge run through each offense; nor has He closed the doors of mercy and its many passages; rather, He resists those who flee and compels the despairing to return, showing them Penance, than which no broader remedy is found, and giving those who return the benefit of being able once more to profit from the Sacraments they had injured; without Penance they could in no way afterward experience their effect. Therefore, most gracious Lord, You wash the feet of the Disciples, because after Baptism, which Your reverence does not permit to be repeated, You provided another washing that must never be omitted. Then he adds the aforesaid words set forth in the objection, for he says: *But this washing was instituted for daily transgressions, and its continual review, reaching to the very last things, ought to examine all works, each thought, and the affections running through the rites, raising, correcting, and washing the fragile and unstable soul in every respect, and omitting nothing in life that has not been expiated with groans and sighs.

You will press: Saint Ambrose, in book 3 of On the Sacraments, confirms the aforesaid opinion by his own judgment. For after prefacing these words of Christ to Peter, Unless I wash you, you will have no part with Me, he adds: We are not unaware that the Roman Church does not have this custom, whose type and form we follow in all things. Yet it does not have the custom of washing feet. But take care lest faith decline because of the multitude. There are nevertheless some who say, and try to excuse it, that this is not to be done as a mystery, that is, as a Sacrament, not in Baptism, not in regeneration, but as feet are washed for a guest. One thing belongs to humility, another to sanctification. Finally hear that sanctification is a mystery: Unless I wash you, you will have no part with Me. I say this not to reprehend others, but to commend my own duties; in all things I desire to follow the Roman Church. Yet we too are human beings and have understanding; therefore what is more rightly observed there, we also rightly preserve. We follow the Apostle Peter himself and cling to his devotion. What answer does this give to the Roman Church? Surely the author of this assertion is the Apostle Peter, who was a Priest of the Roman Church. Peter himself says: Lord, not only my feet, but also my hands and head. — I answer: It does not follow from this that Saint Ambrose absolutely teaches this washing to be a Sacrament, since he admits that it is not the faith of the Roman Church, which he professes to follow in all things. Rather, he wishes the washing of feet, omitted at Rome, to be preserved in his own Church, both to observe the practice according to the example of Christ and Peter, and to obtain grace not by reason of the washing but through the virtue of humility and imitation of Christ. Therefore he says that the custom more rightly observed in the Roman Church, of not washing feet, is also rightly preserved in the Milanese Church, where they are washed, because of the example of Christ and Peter.

You will press again: Saint Bernard, Sermon 1 on the Lord’s Supper, defends the aforesaid opinion still more clearly in these words: Let us have no doubt whatever about the remission of daily sins; we have its Sacrament, the washing of feet. Perhaps you ask how I know that it is the Sacrament of this remission. Shortly afterward he answers: But do we not know that it was done as a Sacrament, not merely as an example? Attend to what was said to Peter: if I do not wash you, etc. Therefore something lies hidden here that is necessary for salvation, since without it Peter himself would not have a part in the kingdom of Christ and God. A little later: And how do we know that this washing pertains to washing away sins which are not unto death, and from which we cannot completely guard ourselves before death? Clearly from the fact that the answer given to the one offering the gift and the head alike for washing was: He who has been washed needs only to wash his feet. He is washed who has no grave sins, whose head, that is, intention, and hands, that is, work, and way of life are clean. But the feet, which are the soul’s affections, while we walk in this dust, cannot be entirely clean; for at one time the mind yields more than it ought to vanity, at another to pleasure, or to curiosity. — I answer: Saint Bernard must be understood as speaking of a Sacrament named generally and improperly, insofar as it is some sacred sign signifying something, not of a Sacrament properly so called, that is, a sign effectively signifying grace. For Bernard knew that in the Roman Church only seven Sacraments were received and believed; why, then, would he have taught the contrary?

It is irrelevant that he asserts this washing of feet to be necessary for salvation and remissive of sins that are venial. He does not consider this necessity absolute, otherwise he would contradict himself, since he teaches that it was instituted only to expiate venial sins, for the sake of which alone it is most certainly true that no one is to be excluded from the kingdom of Christ and God. He says that it wipes away venial sins because it is an act of humility and charity, and therefore meritorious and remissive of venial sins.

II. — BLESSED WATER IS ALSO NOT A SACRAMENT PROPERLY SO CALLED. — It is proved because the Church does not have the power and authority to institute any sign or certain and determined ceremony that would have an infallible power of conferring sanctifying grace and granting remission of sins, since this belongs to God alone. But the consecration and use of blessed water derives its institution not from the Lord Christ but from the Church; therefore, etc. The major is clear: for if the Church could do this, it would confer the same power upon many other ceremonies, which would therefore have to be admitted to bestow grace ex opere operato; yet no theologian or Holy Father admits this. Moreover, if blessed water were effective ex opere operato for bestowing sanctifying grace and remitting venial sins, by similar reasoning it would be effective for the other effects to which it is ordered and consecrated, namely driving away demons, repelling their temptations, and averting other harms inflicted by them—and all the more because these effects are expressed in its blessing, whereas no mention is made of the remission of venial sins, nor of the bestowal of grace. The minor is also clear: for the institution of this sacred rite is traced back to Alexander I, Supreme Pontiff, who is said to be the author of this sacred ceremony. This Supreme Pontiff, the second after Saint Peter, speaking of such blessed water, says: When we bless the people sprinkled with salt, so that all who are sprinkled may be sanctified and cleansed, which we also command all priests to do: for if the ashes of a heifer sprinkled with blood sanctified and cleansed the people, much more does water sprinkled with salt and consecrated by divine prayers sanctify and cleanse the people. And if the barrenness of water was healed through salt sprinkled by the prophet Eliseus, how much more does salt consecrated by divine prayers remove the barrenness of human things, sanctify and cleanse the defiled, purge them, multiply the remaining fruits, avert the devil’s snares, and protect people from the persecution of phantoms? In these words he enumerates the chief effects of blessed water. Nor does it stand in the way that he attributes to it the power of sanctifying: this sanctification and cleansing do not belong to it in itself ex opere operato, but only by reason of the act and disposition of the person using such water. Hence it is indeed counted among the Sacramentals, but it ought not to be numbered among the Sacraments.

III. — MARTYRDOM DOES HAVE THE POWER AND EFFICACY OF A SACRAMENT, BUT IT IS NOT A SACRAMENT PROPERLY SO CALLED. — The first part is established: for it is most certainly true that martyrdom suffered and completed for Christ’s name has the power of destroying sin and conferring sanctifying grace. This will indeed be proved in question 2 of the following Disputation, Conclusion 2, where we declared that martyrdom supplies the place of Baptism by water both in children and in adults. — The second part of the same assertion is evident. A Sacrament properly so called must be a certain and efficacious sign of grace to be conferred, and have determined matter and form with the due intention of the Minister. But martyrdom is neither a sign of grace to be conferred, determined and instituted by the Lord Christ for that purpose. For who would say that an action harmful on the part of the agent, such as the action by which force is inflicted upon a martyr, is a sign divinely ordered to conferring grace? Nor does it have determined matter and form, since there are innumerable kinds of torture devised by the devil and tyrants for tormenting and killing Martyrs. Nor does it have a suitable Minister designated by the Lord Christ. For who would say that the Lord Christ instituted executioners as ministers of grace, especially those whose action cannot occur without the gravest mortal sin, since it is the killing of an innocent person out of hatred for God and the Christian Religion? The Seraphic Doctor adds in book 4, distinction 4, part 2, question 3: Baptism of blood is not a sacrament, since all those things that belong to the integrity of a sacrament are lacking in it, namely representation and likeness, signification and institution, sanctification through the utterance of the word; each of these is lacking, as was touched upon in the objection and will be clear upon inspection. And therefore it is not a Sacrament.

IV. — BLESSED BREAD AND EULOGIAE ARE NOT SACRAMENTS PROPERLY SO CALLED. It seems that Pope Melchiades was the first to mention blessed bread, customarily given to the faithful as a symbol of Catholic communion. He held the Pontifical See from the year of our Lord 311 to 314. As is reported in the book On the Roman Pontiffs, he arranged that consecrated offerings should be sent through the Churches by consecrated Bishops; this is called the fermentum. Similar things are reported of Siricius, who administered the Supreme Pontificate from 384 to 399. He established that no Priest should celebrate Masses throughout the week unless he received what had been preserved from the designated local Bishop, which is called the fermentum. Likewise Innocent I, who sat from 402 to 419, responding to the questions of Decentius, Bishop of Gubbio, says this in Letter 1, chapter 5, On the Fermentum, etc.:

You wished to consult us above about what we send on Sunday through the Titles. Since all our Churches are established within the City, and their Presbyters cannot meet with us on that day because of the people entrusted to them, they therefore receive from us through the deacons the fermentum we have made, so that especially on that day they may judge themselves separated from our communion. I do not think this ought to be done through the parishes, because the Sacraments are not to be carried far, nor do we send them through the various cemeteries to Presbyters established there, so that their Presbyters may have the right and permission to confect them.

Finally, the same appears from the ancient Roman Ritual, in which these words are found: On the fifth Sunday in Lent the fermentum is given in the Lateran Consistory. Moreover, that by the name fermentum nothing else is signified than the bread customarily blessed by Bishops or Priests, which was divided among the faithful who did not approach the sacred Eucharist, so that participation in such fermentum and eulogiae might be a symbol of Catholic communion, appears clearly enough from the ancient Canon inscribed under the title of Pope and Martyr Pius, which is found in the first volume of the Councils in these words:

So that from the offerings offered to the people and from the consecrations that remain, or from the breads which the faithful bring to the Church, or at least from their own, the Presbyter may suitably have cut portions in a clean and suitable vessel, so that after the solemnities of the Mass those who have not been prepared to communicate may thereafter receive eulogiae on Sunday and on the greater feasts, which he should first prepare with a blessing.

Such bread was called fermentum either by accommodation to that Gospel parable in which our Lord Jesus Christ in Matthew 13 compares the kingdom of heaven to leaven which a woman took and hid in three measures of flour until the whole was leavened. The kingdom of Christ in the present time is defined as that which is bound together by Catholic communion in the cohesion of one mass. Hence the person who received blessed bread signified by that symbol that he was joined with the other faithful of Christ in faith and charity; or rather, it was called fermentum to distinguish it from the Eucharist, which was confected in unleavened bread. — This symbol of Catholic communion was practiced not only at Rome and in the Western Church, but also in the Eastern Church, as seems to be declared in the Council of Laodicea, chapter 29, where it says: The holy offerings should not be sent to other parishes in place of Eulogiae throughout the Paschal feast, for no other reason, I think, than that on that day all the faithful approached Holy Communion and therefore had no need of another symbol of communion and unity in faith. On the other Sundays and feast days it was permitted to administer eulogiae, indeed also on other weekdays except during Lent, lest the fast be broken, as is gathered from the same Synod, chapter 19, where it is decreed: Bread ought not to be offered in Lent except on Saturday and Sunday.

For the fast was not observed in the Eastern Church on Saturday, just as it was not observed in the Western Church on Thursday, as Pope Melchiades had established. For we read of him in the book of the Roman Pontiffs: He established that no one should in any way solemnly fast on Sunday or Thursday, because on those days they celebrated what was, as it were, the sacred fast of the Lamb.

The eulogiae were of two kinds: some public, namely those distributed in the public ministry of the Church; others private, which friends were accustomed to give and receive among themselves back and forth. Public eulogiae were commonly distributed to those who, because of some impediment, were not prepared to communicate on weekdays and Sundays, according to the decree of Pope Pius reported by Burchard, book 5, chapter 27, and according to the Council of Nantes, chapter 9. They were also distributed to Catechumens themselves, who had no right to receive the Eucharist; for them this took the place of a Sacrament, or even was a kind of Sacrament, as Saint Augustine calls it in book 2 of On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, chapter 26, namely in the broader sense of Sacrament, because that bread was sanctified by prayers. That this was a supplement to the Eucharist is gathered from the report that blessed bread was made on Easter Day, because, as we have already said, all Christians were bound to receive the Body of Christ on that day. The eulogiae were distributed by the priest after Mass. Pope Leo I says in On Pastoral Care that eulogiae were distributed to the people after Mass on feast days. They were received with the greatest submission of spirit and reverence from the priest’s hand, after first greeting them with a kiss of the mouth, as Cabasilas testifies. For, says Saint Augustine in book 2 of On the Remission of Sins, chapter 20, although this bread is not the Body of Christ, it is nevertheless holy and a holier food by which we are nourished. Hence Pachymeres calls it θεῖος ἄρτος, divine bread, in book 5 of his History, chapter 8. Accordingly, just as the Eucharist was eaten by those fasting, if someone received it without fasting he handed it to a neighbor to eat; Allatius, in book 3 of On the Agreement of the Eastern and Western Churches, chapters 9 and 1, and Goar in his notes on the Euchologion report that this is still observed in the Greek Church. Balsamon seems to ascribe the first institution of eulogiae to the Antiochene Synod held under Constantius, in his commentary on Canon 2. The very ancient use of private eulogiae is proved by many examples. Among others, Saint Paulinus, Bishop of Nola, writes to Severus in Letter 1: We have sent you Campanian bread from our cell as an eulogia. And in his Letter to Saint Augustine: We ask you, in receiving it, to bless the single loaf which we mixed for your charity as a sign of unanimity. Saint Augustine himself, sending eulogiae to the same Paulinus in Letter 31, writes: May the bread we sent become a more abundant blessing through the love of your benevolent recipient. Several others mention those eulogiae, especially Saint Basil in the Rule, chapter 138; Saint Paulinus of Nola in his Letters to Alpius and Romanianus; Saint Fructuosus in the Rule, chapter 20; the Rule of Saint Columban, chapter 10, and of the Master, chapter 76; Gregory of Tours, book 1 of his History, chapter 16, and elsewhere; and Fortunatus, book 11 of the Poems, §12.

From all this it is clear that, although such eulogiae are called sacraments, they did not have the power and signification of a perfect Sacrament; they were merely given the name of Sacrament because participation in such eulogiae was a symbol of the Catholic communion of the faithful among themselves, so that those who had not communicated in the most sacred Eucharist might at least by another sign of communion be regarded as faithful. Therefore the Council of Laodicea, chapter 31, decrees: One ought not to receive eulogiae from heretics, because they are curses rather than blessings. Nor is it an objection that Pope Melchiades, and likewise Siricius, call that fermentum, or leavened bread, consecrated offerings sent through the Churches from the consecrated Bishop. For among them consecration is the same as blessing, and consecrated fermentum the same as blessed fermentum. They were called offerings because, as we noted from the Canon of Saint Pius, such breads were offered by the people so that, after receiving the Episcopal or Priestly blessing, they might be distributed piece by piece to the faithful.

From all these things, therefore, it is clear that the fermentum was nothing other than blessed leavened bread, which all the Parish Priests received from the Bishop as a symbol of communion and distributed in turn to the faithful established under them. The bread itself was called by various names: fermentum, to distinguish it from unleavened bread, from which the Eucharist was customarily confected; it was called a Sacrament because it was a sign of a sacred thing, namely Catholic union, and was marked by a blessing. For that reason it was likewise accustomed to be called a blessing and eulogiae.