[Institutiones Theologicae Ex Optimis Autoribus Concinatae (ex officinâ Francisci Moyardi, 1658)]
Johannes Hoornbeek (4 November 1617, Haarlem – 23 August 1666, Leiden), was a Dutch Reformed theologian. He was a student and a follower of Gisbertus Voetius, writing with him on spiritual desertion. Like his teacher Voetieus, he was also later a professor of theology at the University of Leiden and University of Utrecht. The two universities were closely related in the 17th century, and both the teacher and his students participated in the intellectual “Utrecht Circle.” Another member of the circle was Hornbeek's student colleague Andreas Essenius. The circle was also known as De Voetiaanse Kring (The Voetian Circle), and it was one of the most influential intellectual circles of the Dutch second Reformation.
Table of Contents:
<aside>
</aside>
The word sacrament deriveth not from secret virtues, as Isidore erroneously supposeth in his Origins, Book 6, Chapter 19, but from sacred, as Varro affirmeth in On the Latin Language, Book 4. Besides other meanings, according to approved authors of the Latin tongue, it signifieth the oath of soldiers, as Cicero noteth in On Duties, Book 1, Chapter 1, and Suetonius in Julius Caesar, Chapter 42 (whence an ancient glossary defineth sacrament as spartiōtikos, an oath). By this, soldiers were consecrated with certain rites to render faith and obedience unto their Emperor. For, as Vegetius declareth in On Military Matters, Book 2, Chapter 5, they were marked with points pricked into the skin, namely of the hand, whence in the law of Maurice, those signed in the hand are a periphrasis for soldiers. As Gregory the Great writeth in Letters, Book 3, Epistle 100, enlisted soldiers, when enrolled in the registers, are wont to swear; and therefore, the oaths of soldiery are called sacraments. Moreover, soldiers swear to do all things zealously as the Emperor commandeth, never to desert their service, nor to refuse death for the Roman Republic. Hence, from a military matter, the metaphor hath been elegantly drawn unto a sacred one. Indeed, not only doth a Christian writer, Augustine, in Works, Volume 10, Sermon on the Times, 181, clearly testify, but even a profane philosopher acknowledgeth that we ought to swear unto God, as soldiers do unto Caesar (θεῶ ἔδει κὴ ἡμᾶς ὁμονφύν, οἷον οἳδρατιώτα, τῶ καίσαρι). Therefore, the word sacrament was applied by ancient Fathers unto the signs of God’s covenant through Christ, by which we are consecrated unto God, as unto a heavenly Emperor, for sacred service. Yet, more clearly, fully, and safely, they might have named them signs of the covenant, as in Genesis 17:11, under God’s guidance. Tertullian first called Baptism and the Eucharist sacraments; thereafter, Cyprian in Sermon on the Supper, Ambrose in On the Sacraments, Jerome, and Augustine followed, from whom this name spread more widely unto others and hath been received by the common custom of the Church until now. Yet its use is diverse. For it is taken either relatively, for the sign, as Augustine noteth in On John, Tractate 26 and 27, or absolutely, for both the sign and the thing signified. As when they say a sacrament consisteth of an earthly and a heavenly thing, which Irenaeus affirmeth of the Eucharist in Book 4, Chapter 34. Of these significations, the former is proper and genuine to the nature of sacraments (as is evident from their kind and induction). From this also ariseth that opposition in the writings of the Fathers between the sacrament and the thing, the truth, the grace, the virtue of the sacrament, the figure, and the truth.
WAL. The Greeks call them mysteries from muō, whence also muēs, which properly signifieth to conceal, because under external forms something else is hidden—not in the thing itself, but in its signification and use. Thus, in Scripture, Revelation 1:20, the mystery or sacrament of the seven stars is said to be the seven churches; and in Revelation 17:5, the harlot sitting upon the beast is called the mystery or sacrament of Babylon and the beast that carrieth her. In 1 Timothy 3:16, the great sacrament of godliness. So also is the word rendered in Ephesians 5:32, 1:9, 3:3, Colossians 1:26, etc. This word is not used in Scripture for our sacraments, for the passage in Ephesians 5:31 speaketh not of external marriage but of the mystical union of Christ and the Church.
S. Scripture. Holy Scripture properly calleth them othoth, signs, or signs of the covenant, and signs between God and His people, as in Genesis 17:10, This is the sign of the covenant between Me and you. Of the Paschal lamb, Exodus 12:13, That it may be a sign between Me and you. So of the Sabbath, Exodus 31:13, The children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, for it is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever. Likewise, Ezekiel 20:12, I gave them My Sabbaths, that they may be a sign between Me and you, that I am Jehovah who sanctifieth you. This signification Paul preserveth in Romans 4:11, where he calleth circumcision a sign, which Abraham received. Absurdly, therefore, do some contend that sacraments should not be defined by the word sign, when Scripture useth it so plainly. Would that the Church had been content with this word.
TRELC. Their account is wont and ought to be twofold: one general, concerning all; the other particular, concerning each sacrament. By the name sacrament (which from a military matter hath been transferred unto Christian rites), we understand not, in the broadest signification, by metonymy, every sacred or divine mystery, secret, or hidden thing, by which sense the Gospel, the Incarnation of Christ, the calling of the Gentiles, etc., are signified in Scripture. Nor yet in a more general signification, by katē, a divine mystery and symbolic secret, do we understand all that, beyond the form presented to the senses, signifieth something else; such are ceremonies, types, parables, signs, and figures, which, because they pertain to divine things, were called sacraments by the ancients. But in the stricter and most proper signification, by the name sacrament we understand a sign of grace, instituted by God, that He may both seal His benefits in us and consecrate us unto Himself forever. For in the signification of a sacrament, there is a mutual respect: one on God’s part, offering grace; the other on man’s part, pledging gratitude. And in this sense, the word sacrament is wont to be used in two ways, either for the sign alone and the thing signified by synecdoche, or properly for both, that is, for the whole sacred action that concurreth unto the due participation of the sacrament.
CALV. It is meet to note first what a sacrament is. And it seemeth unto me that this simple and proper definition shall suffice: if we say it is an outward symbol by which the Lord sealeth unto our consciences the promises of His goodwill toward us, to sustain the weakness of our faith; and we, in turn, testify our godliness toward Him, both before Him and His angels and among men. Yet it may also be defined more briefly: that it be called a testimony of God’s grace toward us, confirmed by an outward sign, with our mutual testification of godliness toward Him. Whichever of these definitions thou choosest, it differeth not in sense from that of Augustine, who saith a sacrament is a visible sign of a sacred thing or a visible form of invisible grace; yet it explaineth the matter itself better and more surely. For since in that brevity there is some obscurity, wherein many of the unlearned stumble, I have desired to render a fuller meaning with more words, that no doubt may remain.
JUN. We establish God alone, and Christ the Mediator, as the efficient cause, for it belongeth only to them to institute a sign who have the right to promise the thing signified and the power to apply it. But no man knoweth the counsels of God (Romans 11:34, Isaiah 41:18), nor can any man of himself either promise the grace of the Gospel and remission of sins or actually remit them, save God alone (Isaiah 43:25). Wherefore, not only do signs ordained by man’s will deceive us, but they also do the greatest injury unto God, who take upon themselves such authority without His Word.
JUN. The matter is twofold, external and internal. The external is whatsoever is subject to the senses, whether it be a symbol, an action, or a word. The symbol is that element which is communicated by the hand of the minister unto the recipient, such as water in Baptism and bread and wine in the Supper, which alone is commonly called the matter by many. The action is that ceremony of the minister and the faithful in the participation of the sacrament, which, insofar as it is external, taketh on the nature of matter. The word is twofold, of institution and of promise. To the first belong such as these: Go, teach, baptizing, etc. (Matthew 28:19, Mark 16:15) and He took bread, etc. (Matthew 26:26). To the second belong these: In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit and, in the Supper, This is My body, which we consider as matter only insofar as it is perceived by hearing and rendered sensible. The internal matter is, chiefly, Christ Himself (Galatians 3:27, Romans 6:3), unto whom we are joined by faith; then His benefits (John 15:4), which, as vital juices, flow from the root into all His branches; and thus, at length, the fruits of good works are formed and brought forth in us.
GOM. For if the word of command be lacking, it will not be a sign divinely instituted; if the word of promise be absent, it will not be a seal of the covenant, and thus not a sacrament at all. In this sense, Ambrose also saith in On the Sacraments, Book 4, Chapter 4, that the operative word maketh them to be what they were and to be changed into something else. Therefore, there is a certain change and conversion in sacraments: not, indeed, of the essence of the signs into the thing signified by transubstantiation (else the signs and sacraments would cease to be), nor of their inherent properties by the infusion of a new quality, for Holy Scripture teacheth not this; but the change is only of their natural use, by the free institution of God, whereby an absolute thing becometh relative and is consecrated and converted into a sign of the covenant and a sacrament. Thus, Theodoret rightly acknowledgeth in Dialogue that change which is of grace (tē charitos metabole), but denieth a proper change of nature (phuseōs metabole). But what seemeth contrary in some Fathers must be understood not of the essence of nature but of its use. Namely, that the natural use of the elements (as they call it) is changed by the Word into a supernatural, mystical, and heavenly use and is marked by the name of the thing signified.