LVIII. Now even as the soul doth organize the body, and give unto every member thereof that substance, quantity, and shape, which nature seeth most expedient, so the inward grace of sacraments may teach what serveth best for their outward form, a thing in no part of Christian religion, much less here, to be neglected. Grace intended by sacraments was a cause of the choice, and is a reason of the fitness of the elements themselves. Furthermore, seeing that the grace which here we receive doth no way depend upon the natural force of that which we presently behold, it was of necessity that words of express declaration taken from the very mouth of our Lord himself should be added unto visible elements, that the one might infallibly teach what the other do most assuredly bring to pass.
In writing and speaking of the blessed sacraments we use1 for the most part under the name of their substance not only to comprise that whereof they outwardly and sensibly consist, but also the secret grace which they signify and exhibit. This is the reason wherefore commonly in definitions2, whether they be framed larger to augment, or stricter to abridge the number of sacraments, we find grace expressly mentioned as their true essential form, elements as the matter whereunto that form doth adjoin itself. But if that be separated which is secret, and that considered alone which is seen, as of necessity it must in all those speeches that make distinction of sacraments from sacramental grace, the name of a sacrament in such speeches can imply no more than what the outward substance thereof doth comprehend. And to make complete the outward substance of a sacrament, there is required an outward form, which form sacramental elements receive from sacramental words. Hereupon it groweth, that3 many times there are three things said to make up the substance of a sacrament, namely, the grace which is thereby offered, the element which shadoweth or signifieth grace, and the word which expresseth what is done by the element. So that whether we consider the outward by itself alone, or both the outward and inward substance of any sacrament; there are in the one respect but two essential parts, and in the other but three that concur to give sacraments their full being.
Furthermore, because definitions are to express but the most immediate and nearest parts of nature, whereas other principles farther off although not specified in defining, are notwithstanding in nature implied and presupposed, we must note that inasmuch as sacraments are actions religious and mystical, which nature they have not unless they proceed from a serious meaning, and what every man’s private mind is, as we cannot know, so neither are we bound to examine, therefore always in these cases the known intent of the Church generally doth suffice, and where the contrary is not manifest4, we may presume that he which outwardly doth the work, hath inwardly the purpose of the Church of God5.
Concerning all other orders, rites, prayers, lessons, sermons, actions, and their circumstances whatsoever, they are to the outward substance of baptism but things accessory, which the wisdom of the Church of Christ is to order according to the exigence of that which is principal. Again, considering that such ordinances have been made to adorn the sacrament6, not the sacrament to depend on them; seeing also that they are not of the substance of baptism, and that baptism is far more necessary than any such incident rite or solemnity ordained for the better administration thereof7; if the case be such as permitteth not baptism to have the decent complements of baptism, better it were to enjoy the body without his furniture, than to wait for this till the opportunity of that for which we desire it be lost. Which premisses standing, it seemeth to have been no absurd collection, that in cases of necessity which will not suffer delay till baptism be administered with usual solemnities, (to speak the least,) it may be tolerably given without them, rather than any man without it should be suffered to depart this life.
← The necessity of Sacraments unto the partici · Contents · The ground in Scripture, whereupon a necessi →
Footnotes
-
“Eucharistia duabus ex rebus constat, terrena et cœlesti.” Iren. advers. Hæres. lib. iv. cap. 34. [p. 327.] “Arcanarum rerum symbola non nudis signis, sed signis simul et rebus constant.” Helvet. Confes. Prior. Art. 20. [in Sylloge Conf. 109. Oxon. 1804.] ↩
-
Sacramentum est, cum res gesta visibilis longe aliud invisibile intus operatur. Isid. (Isidore of Seville † 636.) Etym. lib. i. [lib. vi. c. 19. “Sacramentum est in aliqua celebratione, cum res gesta ita fit, ut aliquid significare intelligatur, quod sancte accipiendum est. Sunt autem Sacramenta baptismus et chrisma, corpus et sanguis Christi; quæ ob id Sacramenta dicuntur, quia sub tegumento corporalium rerum, virtus divina secretius salutem eorundem sacramentorum operatur.” p. 52. A. ed. Du Breul. Colon. 1617.] “Sacramentum est, per quod sub tegumento rerum visibilium divina virtus salutem secretius operatur.” Greg. Mag. “Sacramentum est signum significans efficaciter effectum Dei gratuitum.” Occa. (William Occam † 1347.) Sent. iv. d. 1. [“But see Occam in l. iv. Sent. dist. 4, 1; where signum is excluded from, not included in, the definition of a Sacrament.” E. M.] “Sacramentum proprie non est signum cujuslibet rei sacræ, sed tantum rei sacræ sanctificantis homines.” Tho. II. 1. q. 101, 4. et q. 102, 5. [t. xi. p. 226, 228. vid. Tab. Aur. ad calcem Thomæ Aquin. t. xviii. 243.] “Sacramentum est signum passionis Christi, gratiæ et gloriæ: ideo est commemoratio præteriti, demonstratio præsentis, et prognosticon futuri.” Tho. iii. q. 60, 3. [t. xii. 187.] “Sacramenta sunt signa et symbola visibilia rerum internarum et invisibilium, per quæ ceu per media Deus virtute Spiritus Sancti in nobis agit.” Conf. Belg. Art. 33. [Syll. Conf. p. 313.] Item Bohem. Conf. cap. 11. [Syntagma Confess. Gen. 1354. pars ii. p. 191.] ↩
-
“Sacramenta constant verbo, signis, et rebus significatis.” Confess. Helvet. Post. c. 19. [p. 76, 78, 81.] ↩
-
“Si aliud ministri agere intendant, puta sacris illudere mysteriis, vel aliud quod Ecclesiæ non consentiat, nihil agitur. Sine fide enim spiritualis potestas exerceri quidem potest, sine Ecclesiæ intentione non potest.” Lancel. (G. P. Lancelotti of Perugia 1522-1590.) Inst. Jur. Can. (first printed 1563: often reprinted) lib. ii. Tit. ii. 5. Hoc tamen. ↩
-
[Chr. Letter, p. 29. “Of the intention of the Church, they say, This is the verie dungeon of incertaintie [Bp. Jewel, Replie to Hardinge, Art. i. p. 34] … You seeme to speake otherwise when you say, We must note, &c. Here we desire to be instructed how these two opinions can stande togither: The one which sayeth the Sacraments are effectuall through the institution of Christ and his promise; the other which tyeth it to the good meaninge of the prieste or of the Church. Againe, the one saieth the intention of the Church is the verie dungeon of incertaintie, to make us doubt of our baptisme: the other, that the Sacraments have not the nature to be religious and misticall, without a serious meaning, that is, the intent of the Church.”Hooker, MS. note. “He” [Bp. Jewel] “saith not ‘the intention of the Church,’ but of ‘a mortall man,’ meaning therby the priest. And to the confirmation of that opinion my speech tended, which if malice had not blinded your eyes, is plaine enough to be seene.”The passage in Jewel is this: “Whereas he saith, ‘The priest must have intention to do that the Church doth:’ unless he be well assured of the Church’s doing herein, he cannot be sure of his own intention, and so must he say mass with intention to do he knoweth not what. Now it appeareth that the Church is not yet resolved upon one intention. For the intention of the Church of Rome is to work the transubstantiation of bread and wine: the Greek Church had never that intention, as is plain by the council of Florence. The intention of the Church of Rome is to consecrate with Christ’s words: the intention of the Greek Church is to consecrate with prayers. And whether of these Churches shall the priest follow with his intention? This is the very dungeon of uncertainty. The heart of man is unsearchable. If we stay upon the intention of a mortal man, we may stand in doubt of our own baptism.” Reply to Harding, p. 26. ed. 1611.] ↩
-
Accessorium non regulat principale, sed ab eo regulatur. 42. De Regul. Jur. in Sext. lib. iii. (? v.) ff. quod jussu. [This is not a quotation, but the substance of two rules, one from the canon and the other from the civil law. The first, from the Tract “De Regulis Juris,” annexed to the collection (of the Papal constitutions from Greg. ix. 1227 to Boniface viii. † 1303.) technically called “Liber Sextus Decretalium:” col. 753. Lugd. 1572. “Accessorium naturam sequi congruit principalis.” The other, in the reference to which there appears to be a mistake from the Digest, b. l. tit. xvii. N°. 178. (De diversis regulis juris antiqui.) “Cum principalis causa non consistat, plerumque ne ea quidem, quæ sequuntur, locum habent.” The rule, “Quod jussu,” named in Hooker’s margin, is N°. 180. It has nothing to do with this subject.] ↩
-
“Etsi nihil facile mutandum est ex solemnibus, tamen ubi æquitas evidens poscit, subveniendum est.” lib. 183. de Reg. Jur. [Dig. lib. l. tit. xvii. art. 183. in Corp. Jur. Civil. 795. ed. 1663.] ↩