Church acknowledges but two "Sacraments of the Gospel."

3. Reasons for the Anglican view. Independently of her manifest right in a matter of this kind to reject the arbitrary decision of another Church, the Church of England has very sufficient grounds for placing Baptism and the Eucharist under a distinct category. (1) Holy Scripture, though it does not formally separate these two from other ordinances of the Gospel, gives to them a prominence certainly not less marked than that which they receive in the teaching of the Anglican Church. (2) From the nature of the case the position which they occupy in the Christian system is exceptional. The one is the initiatory, the other the sustaining rite of Christianity. “Without the one...no person can become a Christian: without the other...no adult Christian can be in close communion with God1." They are therefore necessary for all persons, in every condition of life. Nothing of this kind can be said of the other five. (3) It is reasonable that the only two ceremonial ordinances instituted by Our Lord in person should be hedged off from the rest by a separate name. The personal institutions of the Head of the Church possess a peculiar sanctity and claim upon the obedience of mankind, which are thus recognised and set forth3.

1 Blunt (J. H.), Sacraments, &c. p. 27.

2 Generally necessary" (Ch. Cat.) : = in genere, i. e. "for the race of man as a whole." See Mr Maclear's Class-book of the Catechism, p. 140.

3 Confirmation, which comes nearest of the five to the Anglican definition, wants our Lord's personal institution. In the Church of Rome it lacks also the outward sign ordained in Holy Scripture, i. e. the imposition of hands. So "corrupt" is Roman "following of the Apostles." In the early Church, Confirmation was regarded as one of the Sacraments (i.e. mystic ceremonies) of Baptism. See Bingham, I. 545.

(4) This distinction was maintained by the Early Church even before the word Sacramentum had acquired a fixed theological sense. Justin Martyr in his Apology mentions but two distinctively Christian rites, describing them at some length, as essential features of Christianity'. S. Chrysostom regards the Blood and Water which flowed from the Lord's pierced Side as typical of the two ordinances "by which the Church consists;" "the initiated (he says) know that they are regenerated by Water, and sustained with Blood and Flesh"." S. Augustine though (as we have seen) he uses the term "Sacrament" in the looser sense, yet when he applies it to ceremonial ordinances, mentions expressly but these two. "Our Lord Jesus Christ (he writes to Januarius) has subjected us to an easy yoke and a light burden. Hence He has bound His new society to the observance of but a very few Sacraments, and these most easy of celebration, most excellent in signification, as Baptism in the Name of the Trinity, and the Communion of His own Body and Blood, and aught else that is prescribed in the Canonical Scriptures3." (5) If the use of the word "Sacramentum" was not by the Early Church confined to Baptism and the Eucharist, yet it certainly was not appropriated to seven ordinances, neither less nor more. With the Church of Rome this theory is a matter of faith: repeated anathemas are pronounced by the Council of Trent against every one who shall presume to maintain the contrary. And yet the belief did not find expression before the twelfth century.

1 Apol. 1. 24-99.

2 Hom. in S. Joann. 84.

3 Vol. II. 185, cf. III. 37. S. Augustine defines ceremonial sacraments as "sacred signs." They are so named (v. 1614) because in them "one thing appears, and another is understood."

Peter Lombard was 66 the first to formulize the number in the Latin Church1."

Against such intolerant innovation the English Church has good reason to protest. How gently her protest is uttered—how careful she is not to entangle herself in a mere strife of words, let the following extracts from the "Homily of Common Prayer and Sacraments" attest. "As for the number of them, if they should be considered according to the exact signification of a Sacrament, namely for the 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 sign and promise; yet it lacks the promise of remission of sin, as all other Sacraments besides do. Therefore neither it, nor any other Sacrament else be such Sacraments as Baptism and the Communion are."

1 Bp. Forbes, II. 446. The Catechism of the Council of Trent, with a splendid contempt for facts, says that it was "handed down by the tradition of the Fathers" (Pt. II. i. 14).

CHAPTER IX.

OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST.

1 "Real and essential presence" (1552).