than Hugo (see the extracts from the Trialogus given by Schröckh, xxxiv. p. 510, ss., and his other writings of an antihierarchical tendency, ibid. p. 547.) Neander, Church History (Torrey) v. 173 sq.: Hist. Dogmas, 613. Böhringer, 409. Vaughan's Life of W.-Lechler in Zeitschrift f. d. hist. Theol. 1853.) Still more definite was Matthias of Janow (De Regulis Vet. Novique Test.), who says, that seeming Christians can no more be regarded as Christians, than a painted man can be called a man: comp. Neander, ubi supra. Hus, in his treatise De Ecclesia, distinguishes between three forms of manifestation of the Church: 1. Ecclesia triumphans, i. e., beati in patria quiescentes, qui adversus Satanam militiam Christi tenentes, finaliter triumpharunt; 2. Ecclesia dormiens, i. e., numerus prædestinatorum in purgatorio patiens; 3. Ecclesia militans, i. e., ecclesia prædestinatorum, dum hic viat ad patriam. From this true church, at present represented in these three forms, he distinguishes, again, the ecclesia nuncupative dicta (the ecclesia of the præsciti); Quidam sunt in ecclesia nomine et re, ut prædestinati, obedientes Christo catholici; quidam nec re nec nomine, ut præsciti pagani: quidam nomine tantum, ut præsciti hypocritæ; et quidam re, licet videantur nomine esse foris, ut prædestinati Christiani, quos Antichristi satrapæ videntur in facie ecclesiæ condemnare (among whom Hus probably reckoned himself). Comp. further in Münchmeier, ubi supra, p. 16. Hase, Kirchengeschichte, p. 387, says of him :— “Hus ascended from the idea of the Roman Church to the idea of the true Church, which was in his opinion the community of all who have from eternity been predestinated to blessedness, and whose head can be none but Christ himself, and not the Pope. As Hus, however, retained all the assertions concerning the Church made by the Roman Catholics, and applied them to the said community of the elect, who alone can administer the sacraments in an efficient way, his Church must necessarily have assumed the character of an association of separatists." On the relation of the views of Hus to those of Gerson, see Münchmeier, u. s. 18 Note. Hus's friend, Nicolas de Clemangis, also, in agreement with Hus, regarded the vital faith of the individual as the real living principle, by which the dead church was to be revived; hence his declaration: In sola potest muliercula per gratiam manere ecclesia, sicut in sola Virgine tempore passionis mansisse creditur (Disputatio de Concil. General). Comp. Münz, Nic. Clémanges, sa vie et ses écrits, Strasb. 1846. [Comp. on Clemangis, and Hus and Wycliffe, Presb. Quarterly, 1856-8.] John von Wesel (Disp. adv. Indulgent.), starting from the different definitions of the word ecclesia, shows, that we can equally well say, ecclesia universalis non errat, and, ecclesia universalis errat. Only the church founded on the rock is to him, sancta et immaculata; and he distinguishes from this, the church-peccatrix et adultera. John Wessel held that the Church consists in the community of saints, to which all truly pious Christians belong-viz. those who are united to Christ by one faith, one hope, and one love (he did not exclude the Greek Christians). The external unity of the Church under the Pope is merely accidental; nor is the unity spoken of established by the decrees of councils. (Hyperboreans, Indians, and Scythians, who know nothing of the councils of Constance or Basle!) But he considered love to be still more excellent than the unity of faith. In close adherence to the principle of Augustine (Evangelio non

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, ss. (after the various essays, De dignitate et potestate ecclesiastica, De sacramento pœnitentiæ, 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.

4

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 cleemosynam pauperum. Item dicunt, se credere omnia esse communia, unde dicunt, furtum eis licitum esse.

5

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

§ 188.

THE WORSHIP OF SAINTS.

[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, 173–80. 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 λατρεία and προσκύνησις ; by those of the Latin Church, by distinguishing between Latria, Dulia, and Hyperdulia. But such

2

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.3

1

1 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. § 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 these we may add a 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 whole 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?"-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, 1852.]

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 λarpεía is due to none but the triune God, the τημηTIÊǹ πроokúvηois we owe also to images.-In the Latin Church, Peter Lombard, Sent. Lib. iii. 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.

3

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.— 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 λaтpɛía, which is due to God alone, and the προσκύνησις τιμητική (ασπασμός), 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 (Summ. 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 SACRAMENTS.

2

"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

6

5

7

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."

2

8

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. ii. c. 1, is shorter: sacramentum est visibilis forma invisibilis gratiæ in eo collata. Comp. De Sacr. Lib. ii. P. vi. c. 3; Liebner, p. 426. [Hugo also uses sacramentum in a wider sense-e. g., 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 signum 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 virtutibus vel sacris sacramenta dicuntur. Comp. Paschasius de Corp. et Sang. Domini c. 3.—Berengar of Tours expressed himself in similar terms (de S. Cœna. 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,