Page images

crederem, etc.) which he regarded as a subjective concession, he believed with the Church, and according to the Church, but not in the Church. Respecting the priesthood he retained the distinction between laity and clergy, but at the same time admitted the doctrine of a universal priesthood, together with the particular priesthood of the clergy. Nor does the Church exist for the sake of the clergy, but, on the contrary, the clergy exist for the sake of the Church. Comp. Ullmann, p. 296, s. (after the various essays, De dignitate et potestate ecclesiastica, De sacramento pænitentiæ, De communione Sanctorum et thesauro ecclesiæ, collected in the Farrago Rerum Theologicarum), and Münchmeier, p. 19.-According to Savonarola, the Church is composed of all those who are united in the bonds of love and of Christian truth, by the grace of the Holy Spirit; and the Church is not there, where this grace does not exist ; see the passages collected from his sermons in Rudelbach, p. 354, ss., and Meier, p. 282, ss. Respecting the mystical interpretation of the ark of the covenant as having regard to the Church, see ibid.

Compare Mosheim, p. 257: Dicunt, se credere, ecclesiam catholicam sive christianitatem fatuam esse vel fatuitatem. Item, quod homo perfectus sit liber in totum, quod tenetur ad servandum præcepta data ecclesiæ a Deo, sicut est præceptum de honoratione parentum in necessitate. Item, quod ratione hujus libertatis homo non tenetur ad servandum præcepta Prælatorum et statutorum ecclesiæ, et hominem fortem, etsi non religiosum, non obligari ad labores manuales pro necessitatibus suis, sed eum libere posse recipere eleemosynam pauperum. Item dicunt, se credere omnia esse communia, unde dicunt, furtum eis licitum esse.

Comp. Gieseler, Church History ii. 8 86. Herzog, Waldenser, 194 sq.



§ 188.


[Rev. J. B. Morris, Jesus the Son of Mary; on the Reverence shown by Catholics to his

Blessed Mother. Lond. 2 vols. 1851 : comp. Brownson's Review, July, 1852 and 1853. Kitto's Journal, April

, 1852. J. H. Horne, Mariolatry of Rome, edited by Jarvis, 1850. Dublin Review, on Worship of Saints, April, 1853. Pusey, on Rule of Faith, pp. 55–60. Newman, on Development, 178–80. A review of Liguori's Glories of Mary, discussing the patristic testimony, in Christian Remembrancer, Lond. Oct. 1855.]

The hierarchical system of the Papacy, which was reared like a lofty pyramid upon earth, was supposed to correspond to a supposed hierarchy in heaven, at the head of which was Mary, the mother of God.' The objection of the polytheistic tendency of this doctrine, which would naturally suggest itself to reflecting minds, was met by the scholastics of the Greek Church by making a distinction between datpeia and pookúvTOIS; by those of the Latin Church, by distinguishing between Latria, Dulia, and Hyperdulia.' But such distinctions were by no means safeguards against practical abuses ; in consequence of these, the forerunners of the Reformation were induced to oppose, with all energy, the worship of saints.'

these we may

add a

"The adoration of the Virgin (Mariolatry) was countenanced by John Damascenus among the Greeks, and by Peter Damiani, Bernard of Clairval, Bonaventura,* and other theologians of the Western Church ; see Gieseler, 1. c. ii. 8 78, (where passages from the songs of the Minnesingers are quoted); Münscher, edit. by Von Cölln, p. 180–82 ; and De Gratiis et Virtutibus beatæ Mariæ Virg., in Pez, Thes. Anecdd. T. i. p. 509 ss. To

Το passage from Tauler, Predigt. auf unser lieben Frauen Verkündigung (Predigten, vol. iii. p. 57). Tauler calls Mary, “ the daughter of the Father, the mother of the Son, the bride of the Holy Spirit, the queen of heaven, the lady of the world and of all creatures, the mother and intercessor of all those who implore her help, a temple of God, in which God has reposed, like a bridegroom in his chamber, with great pleasure and delight; as in a garden full of every kind of odoriferous herbs, he found in the virgin all kinds of virtues and gifts. By means of these virtues she has made the heaven of the Holy Trinity pour out honey upon wretched sinners such as we, and has brought to us the Sun of Righteousness, and abolished the curse of Eve, and crushed the head of the devilish serpent. This second Eve has restored, by her child, all that the first Eve lost and marred, and has provided much more grace and riches. She is the star that was to come out of Jacob (of which the Scripture foretoldNumb. xxiv. 17), whose lustre imparts light to the wbole world : accordingly, in every distress (says Bernard) fix thy eyes upon that star, call upon Mary, and thou canst not despair ; follow Mary, and thou canst not miss thy way. She will keep thee by the power of her child, lest thou fall in the way; she will protect thee, lest thou despair ; she will conduct thee to her child; she is able to perform it, for God Almighty is her child; she is willing to do it, for she is merciful. Who could doubt for a moment that the child would not honor his mother, or that she does not overflow with love, in whom perfect love (i. e. God himself) has reposed?"1—Besides Mary, it was especially the apostles of Christ, the martyrs, those who had taken an active part in the spread of Christianity, the founders of national churches, the greatest lights in the Church, and ascetics, and lastly, monks and nuns in particular, that were canonized. Imagination itself created some new (mythical) saints, e. g., St. Longinus; and in fine, some of the men and women mentioned in the Old Testament came in for their share in the general adoration. The right of canonizing formerly possessed by the bishops was more and more claimed by the popes; for particulars, see the works on Ecclesiastical History,

Comp. the Psalterium beatæ Mariæ Virginis, of the 13th century. (This is not by Bonaventura, comp. Gieseler. On this Psalter, see Southern Presb. Review, Jan. 1855.]

+ The mother of Jesus appears as an intercessor before her Son, who is for the most part represented as a severe judge. Thus in the picture of Rubens in Lyons, Christ is depicted with the thunder-bolt, while Mary, with St. Dominic and St. Francis, is making supplications at his feet : see Quandt, Reise ins mittägliche Frankreich, Leipz. 1846, p. 99. [See Mrs Jameson's Legends of the Madonna, 1862.)

: In the Greek Church it was, in the first instance, in reference to the adoration of images, that this distinction was made by the second synod of Nice (in Mansi Concil. T. xiii. Col. 377), as well as by Theodore Studita, Ep. 167, App. 521. The hatpeia is due to none but the triune God, the TIUNTIKT TOOKúvnotę we owe also to images. - In the Latin Church, Peter Lombard, Sent. Lib. iïi. Dict. 9, A., ascribed the Latria to God alone. He further asserted, that there are two species of Dulia, the one of which belongs to every creature, while the other is due only to the human nature of Christ.

Thomas Aquinas added (Lib. ii. P. i. Qu. 103, Art. 4) the Hyperdulia, which he ascribed to none but Mary. Compare the passages quoted by Münscher, ed. by von Cölln, pp. 182, 183.

* This was done e. g. by Hus, in his treatise De Mysterio Antichristi, c. 23. See Schröchk, xxxiv. pp. 614, 615,

The adoration of saints was connected with the adoration of images, and the worship of images. The consideration of the external history of the controversy respecting images belongs to the province of ecclesiastical history. The worship of images was defended upon doctrinal grounds by John Damascenus, Orationes II. pro Imaginibus. Opp. T. i. p. 305, ss.

i The Synod of Constantinople (A. D. 754) decided against the superstitious adoration of images, the second Synod of Nice (A. D. 787) pronounced in favor of it. A distinction was made between the datpeía, which is due to God alone, and the προσκύνησις τιμητική (άσπασμός), which could be paid as well to the images or pictures of saints, as to the sign of the cross and the Holy Gospels.-An intermediate view was at first entertained in the Western Church (imagines non ad adorandum, sed ad memoriam rerum gestarum et parietum venustatem habere permittimus), e. g. by the Emperor Charlemagne in the treatise De impio Imaginum Cultu, Lib. iv. (written about the year 790), and the Synod of Frankfort (A. D. 794); the doctrine of the Synod of Nice was defended by Pope Hadrian (he composed a refutation of the books of Charlemagne; in Mansi T. xiii. Col. 759, ss.). Theodulph of Orleans.—Thomas Aquinas afterwards asserted (Samm. P. iii. Qu. 25, Art. 3), in reference to the cross of Christ : Cum ergo Christus adoretur adoratione latriæ, consequens est, quod ejus imago sit adoratione latriæ adoranda (here then we have a specimen of real idolatry ?). Comp. Art. 4, and John Damascenus De Fide Orthod. Lib. iv. c. 11.


$ 189.



The doctrine of the Sacraments is the principal point in which the scholastics were productive in the formal aspect, as well as the material.”. Not only was the attempt made by several theologians, such as Hugo of St. Victor, Peter Lombard,' and others, to establish a more precise definition of the term “sacrament,” upon the basis laid down by Augustine ; but, with regard to the number of sacraments, the sacred number seven was determined upon especially through the influence of Peter Lombard. In reference to the latter point, however, nothing had been decided previous to the time of Bonaventura and Thomas Aquinas. But after the number had once been determined, it was a comparatively easy task for theologians, so acute as the scholastics, to find out some profound reasons for it.' As, moreover, the Greek church, from the ninth century, manifested a disposition to increase the number of the sacraments, when attempts were made at that time to unite the two churches, the Western computation was confirmed by the Council of Florence, Only Wycliffe, the Waldenses, and the more rigid among the Husites, either returned to the primitive number two, or dissented more or less from the seven of the Catholic church, and from its idea of the sacrament.'

. Ullmann, Wessel, pp. 321, 322.

Hugo of St. Victor was not satisfied with the definition of Augustine : sacramentum est, sacræ rei signum (comp. vol. i. § 136), and called it a mere nominal definition. Letters and pictures, added he, might equally be signs of sacred things. His own definition is given Lib. i. P. ix. c. 2: Sacramentum est corporale vel materiale elementum foris sensibiliter propositum, ex similitudine repræsentans, ex institutione significans, et ex sanctificatione continens, aliquam invisibilem et spiritalem gratiam. The definition given in Summ. Tr. ï. c. 1, is shorter: sacramentum est visibilis forma invisibilis gratiæ in eo collatæ. Comp. De Sacr. Lib. ii. P. vi. c. 3; Liebner, p. 426. (Hugo also uses sacramentum in a wider sense—. 9., c. 9, De Sacramento Fidei et Virtute : Sacramentum enim fidei vel ipsa fides intelligitur, quæ sacramentum est, vel sacramenta fidei intelliguntur, quæ cum fide percipienda sunt et ad sanctificationem fidelium præparata sunt.]

· Sent. L. iv. Dist. 13: Sacramentum enim proprie dicitur, quod ita sig. num est gratiæ dei et invisibilis gratiæ forma, ut ipsius imaginem gerat et causa existat. The same can not be said with regard to all signs... (omne sacramentum est signum, sed non e converso). Comp. Bonaventura, Breviloqu. vi. c. 1, ss.

• As late as the present period the opinions of the theologians on this point were for a considerable time divided. Rabanus Maurus and Paschasius Radbert acknowledged only four sacraments, or, more properly speaking, only the two sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper; but in connection with baptism they mentioned the Chrisma (confirmation), and divided the sacrament of the Lord's Supper according to its two elements, the body and the blood of Christ. Rabanus de Inst. Cler. i. 24 : Sunt autem sacramenta Baptismus et Chrisma, Corpus et Sanguis, quæ ob id sacramenta dicuntur, quia sub tegumento corporalium rerum virtus divina secretius salutem eorundem sacramentorum operatur, unde et a secretis vir. tutibus vel sacris sacramenta dicuntur. Comp. Paschasius de Corp. et Sang. Domini c. 3.-Berengar of Tours expressed himself in similar terms (de 8. Cæna. Berolini, 1834, p. 153): Duo sunt enim præcipue ecclesiæ sacramenta sibi assentanea, sibi comparabilia, regenerationis fidelium et refectionis (baptism and the Lord's Supper).-Gottfried, abbot of Vendôme, about 1120,

calls the ring and staff with which the bishops were instituted, sacramenta ecclesiæ. ---Bernard of Clairval spoke of the washing of the feet as a sacrament (Sermo in Cænam Domini, g 4, quoted by Münscher, edit. by von Cölln, p. 188.)-Hugo of St. Victor (Lib. i. P. viii. c. 7), assumed three classes of sacraments: 1. Those sacraments upon wbich salvation is supremely founded, and by the participation of which the highest blessings are imparted (baptism and the Lord's Supper, together with confirmation, which is placed, P. vii., between the two others.) 2. Those sacraments which promote sanctification, though they are not necessary to salvation, inasmuch as, by their use, the right sentiments of Christians are kept in practice, and a higher degree of grace may be obtained: such are the use of holy water, the sprinkling with ashes, etc. 3. Those sacraments which seem to be instituted only in order to serve as a kind of preparation for, and sanctification of, the other sacraments, such as holy orders, the consecration of the robes of the clergy, and others.--Besides the said three sacraments of the first class, he made particular mention of the sacraments of matrimony (Lib. ii. P. ix.), of penance (P. xiv.), and of extreme unction (P. xv.); " but he did not state, in reference to any of these sacraments, as he did with regard to baptism and the Lord's Supper, that it was necessary to number it among the sacraments of the first class. It is therefore uncertain whether he has not put some of them among those of the second class.Liebner, p. 429. Münscher, edit. by von Cölln, pp. 188, 189.– [Hugo sums up thus: Prima ergo ad salutem, secunda ad exercitationem, tertia ad præparationem constituta sunt. Cap. 7.] Peter Damiani mentioned as many as twelve sacraments (Opp. T. ii. p. 167–169.)—Whether Otto Bishop of Bamberg (who lived between the years 1139 and 1189, and who, according to the Vita Othonis, in Canisius Lectt. Antiqu., ed. Basnage. T. iii. P. ii. p. 62) introduced the seven sacraments among the Pomeranians whom he had converted to Christianity, is a point which remains to be investigated (see Engelhardt, Dogmengeschichte ii. p. 196. Münscher, edit. by von Cölln, pp. 189, 190.)

. [Gieseler, Church History, doubts the tradition about Otto of Bamberg; the Discourse in which it is found, he considers not to be genuine.]-The views of Peter Lombard on the subject in question were more decided : see Sent. Lib. iv. Dist. 2, A: Jam ad sacramenta novæ legis accedamus, quæ sunt Baptismus, Confirmatio, Panis benedictio, i. e., Eucharistia, Pænitentia, Unctio extrema, Ordo, Conjugium. Quorum alia remedium contra peccatum præbent, et gratiam adjutricem conferunt, ut Baptismus; alia in remedium tantum sunt, ut Conjugium; alia gratia et virtute nos fulciunt, ut Eucharistia et Ordo.

• Thus Alanus ab Insulis, Lib. iv. (quoted by Pez, p. 497) enumerated the following sacraments : Baptismus, Eucharistia, Matrimonium, Pænitentia, Dedicatio basilicarum, Chrismatis et Olei inunctio, and assigned them their place as means of grace between the prædicatio and the ecclesia. He spoke only of a plurality of sacraments, but did not state the exact number seven. Comp. iii. 6. Alexander Hales, though he adopted the number seven, admitted that baptism and the Lord's Supper alone were instituted by our Lord himself, and that the other sacraments had been appointed by his

« PreviousContinue »