LI B RARY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 U N IVLRSITY 
 
 or ILLl NOIS
 
 /^ 
 
 p 
 
 No. 2. C.H.S. "Tracts" Series. / 
 
 THE CHURCH HISTORICAL SOCIETY. 
 
 President: — The Right Reverend M. Creightox, D.D., 
 l^ord Bishop of Peterborough. 
 
 2. The Doctrine of Intention^ with special reference 
 to the validity of Ordinations in the English 
 Chzirch. 
 
 The Head of the Roman Communion in England, in the attack 
 which he made some time ago upon the EngUsh Church, laid great, 
 and even the chief, stress upon the absence of an adequate 
 iniention on the part of her bishops, in many cases, and even 
 generally for a considerable period, since the Reformation, to confer 
 in ordaining the powers, functions, and prerogatives which the 
 Church Catholic understands to belong to the several grades of 
 Holy Orders respectively.* The same alleged defect Jn the English 
 Church has also from time to time been urged against her by other 
 modern Roman controversialists occupying less prominent stations. 
 
 The bearing of this question of intention upon the validity of 
 ordinations in the English Church will be dealt with before the con- 
 clusion of this tract ; but it is necessary to clear the way by some ^ 
 more general consideration of the principles involved. 
 
 I. Ro7nan teaching on the intentmi of the Minister of a Sacra- 
 ment as a requisite for its valid performance. 
 
 While it is defide in the Roman Church that a certain right inten- 
 tion of the minister is required for the valid performance of a Sacra- 
 ment, the authoritative formula describing the nature of that intention 
 is vague and obscure, and the interpretations which have been and 
 are given of it by different schools of theologians in that communion 
 are diverse and contradictory. And yet this is not a matter which 
 may suitably be left to those who have the leisure and the qualifica- 
 tions to be students and thinkers. If we have really here to do with 
 one of the requisites for the valid performance of every Sacrament, 
 it is a question of deep and practical moment in the every-day Hfe 
 
 * See Cardinal Vaughan's letter which was published in the Times of Oct. 5, 
 1894. 
 
 [No. 2488.]
 
 ,.. 2 . 
 
 of all Christians, and we might surely expect to know precisely what 
 the requisite is. To those who are impressed with the signs of 
 vagueness of thought, or compromise, in the language of the 
 formularies of the English Church, and who fancy that in the teach- 
 ing of the Church of Rome all is clear and decided, and who are 
 inclined to take this supposed decision of tone as a suJOficient note 
 of truth, the whole history and present position of the doctrine of 
 intention may well be commended for study. 
 
 A few points only can here be touched upon. And, first (a) as to 
 t/ie history of the formal definition of the doctrine. The formula in 
 which, as we shall see, this doctrine is defined, is adopted from the 
 scholastic theology. Martin V., in his bull on the errors of Wiclif 
 and Huss (a.d. 141 8) implies the truth of the doctrine,'' but the 
 first direct statement of it by authority was contained in the decree 
 (a.d. 1439) of Pope Eugenius IV., following upon the Council of 
 Florence, in which he expounded the Catholic faith for the benefit 
 of Armenian Christians. He there asserts three things to be 
 necessary in a Sacrament, proper *^ matter,' the right words as * form,' 
 and thirdly^ " the person of a minister who confers the Sacrament, 
 *' with the intention of doing what the Church does." (Labbe, 
 vol. 13, p. 535). When at the Council of Trent, in January 1547, 
 after the Council had been sitting for about thirteen months, the 
 subject of the Sacraments was taken into consideration, a series of 
 propositions were formulated which were alleged to be held by 
 heretics. One of these was "That the intention of the minister is 
 *' not necessary, and has no effect in the Sacraments." This thesis 
 seems to have been chiefly framed with a view to the language of 
 Luther. He Avas accused of having said that it mattered not even if 
 the minister acted in jest ; and undoubtedly Luther was justly open 
 to censure for having appeared to teach that not merely the saving 
 use of the Sacraments, but their own proper force, depended wholly 
 
 '' One of the inquiries which he ordered to be made in the case of persons 
 suspected of sympathy with their opinions was the following : — 
 
 Item, utrum credat, quod malus sacerdos cum debita materia et forma, et cum 
 intenlione faciendi quod facit ecclesia, vere conficiat, vere absolvat, vere baptizet, 
 et vere conferat alia sacramenta. 
 
 .^S
 
 upon the faith of the receivers." In the discussions on this subject 
 at the Council of Trent, the most prominent part was taken by a 
 Dominican P>iar known as Ambrosius Catharinus (his original name 
 was Lancellotto Politi), who afterwards became successively Bishop 
 of Minori and Archbishop of Conza. Catharinus, while he clearly 
 distinguished his own views from Luther's, earnestly maintained that 
 it was only necessary that the minister should to all appearance 
 by his manner intend to perform the Sacrament, and that if 
 so, no secret thought of his to the contrary could have any effect 
 to destroy the force of his act. The majority, however, were not of 
 his opinion, and they probably, also, felt themselves bound by the 
 w^ords of Eugenius IV. In the Decree on the Sacraments, passed 
 at the seventh formal Session of the Council, on March 3, 1547, 
 Canon XL, they fell back on those words, with the significant 
 addition of saltern, ' at least,' which remains as a kind of echo of the 
 preceding controversies : — " if anyone shall say, that in ministers, 
 " when they perform and confer sacraments, there Js not required 
 '* the intention at least of doing what the Church does, let him 
 ** be anathema." 
 
 {b) Interpretation of the formula. 
 
 Now it is hard to grasp the meaning of these words ; indeed 
 they are exceedingly ambiguous. In the first place, do they mean 
 that the minister on every occasion of performing a sacramental 
 rite must have consciously determined and willed that that par" 
 ticular sacrament should be performed, so that if his thoughts 
 were distracted before and at the time, and he went through the 
 act mechanically, the rite had no sacramental value, though nothing 
 was wanting to the outward form, and though onlookers would have 
 supposed that the minister's thoughts were engaged in the fulfilment 
 of his function? That would be the most natural sense cf the 
 formula, literally taken. But if such were the intention required, 
 there is reason to fear that the percentage of cases would be 
 appreciable in which, when it seemed that there had been a 
 
 " The words principally referred to seem to have been some occurring in 
 the chapter on 'the Captivity of Baptism' in Luther's little treatise, 'Of the 
 * Babylonish Captivity of the Church.' They are as follows : "For the virtue of 
 " baptism is placed rather in the faith and use of him who receives than of him 
 
 A 2
 
 Sacrament, there had been none in reality ; and all confidence 
 would be destroyed in the minds of the faithful, that they were 
 receiving in the Sacraments what they had been bidden to seek 
 there. For even good men may at times fail to keep up their 
 attention, through fatigue or other human infirmities, when engaged 
 upon the most solemn work. Accordingly, it is customary to 
 explain that a ' virtual,' or, as some would sa} , an ' implicit/ 
 intention suffices ; as, for instance, if the minister went to church 
 with the intention of performing suchlike funclions, though during 
 the service he failed to think about what he was doing. 
 
 Again, to pass to the important words which state whit the 
 minister of the Sacrament is to intend, viz., "to do what the Church 
 " does " : — they may clearly mean either (a) that he has a con- 
 ception of the Church before his mind, and that his purpose is to 
 take her for his preceptress and his example ; or (/3) that, what he 
 has a mind to do is in point of fact the same as that which the 
 Church does, even though he may not be fixing his mind at all upon 
 the Church, and may not possess any satisfactory idea or any idea 
 whatever of the Church. Further, this doing what the Church does 
 may be looked at on its external or its spiritual side, and the inten- 
 tion demanded would accordingly be either simply to carry out the 
 Church's practice, or to effect those spiritual consequences which, 
 according to Christ's promise to His Church, attend upon the due 
 performance of the appointed rites. 
 
 Now in regard to all these ambiguities, it has been the tendency 
 of Roman theologians of various schools to give the utmost latitude 
 of signification which they think possible to the Tridentine formula. 
 Though the majority hold that some kind of interior intention on 
 the part of the minister is requisite, any one of the kinds of intention 
 which have been above indicated, even that which is least instructed 
 and most limited, will serve the purpose. Nay, it is laid down that 
 < intention ' must be distinguished from ' faith,' and that while the 
 " who confers it* Even as one reads of an instance of a certain buffoon, who was 
 " baptised in jest. These and such like crabbed disputations and questions have 
 " been created lor us by those who have attributed nothing to faith, and everything 
 " to works and rites: Whereas we owe everything to faith alone, and nothing to 
 •* rites, which faith gives us freedom of spirit from all those scruples and opinions.'
 
 former is necessary the latter is not.*^ Let me quote the words of a 
 modern writer, Cardinal Gousset : — " He who has the misfortune 
 ** not to believe in the effects or in the divine institution of the 
 ** Sacraments, and who, consequently, has neither the will nor the 
 ** thought to produce grace or to confer a Sacrament, will confer 
 ** it notwithstanding, provided he had the intention to do that 
 *' which in the Church is regarded as a Sacrament."*^ Or again, 
 to take the clear statement of a recent Jesuit writer, "that 
 *' intention is by no means required, according to which the minister 
 *' wills to perform a rite which he himself regards as sacred and 
 *' efficacious of grace, provided he wills to go through that rite, which 
 *• he knows is regarded as sacred by others, in such a way that it 
 ** may be regarded as sacred by others."^ 
 
 To those who have not considered the difficulties of the Roman 
 position in this matter, it will seem strange that an intention such as 
 that just described should be made so much of. But her theologians 
 have to face the fact that in the Roman Church henself, there have 
 been godless and unbelieving bishops and priests, and in times of 
 corruption (it is to be feared) not a few such. Moreover, the 
 Council of Trent in the very next Canon to that which we are con. 
 sidering, condemned (as the 26th of our 39 Articles does) the notion 
 which was held by some of the more extreme reformers, that the 
 minister's ungodliness of itself vitiated the Sacrament. But a 
 thoroughly ungodly man can have no true faith, and he is likely to 
 be, especially if he is a bishop, or priest, a positive unbeliever. 
 Moreover, there is a famous decision of the Early Church,^ which 
 must not be contradicted, that baptism, even by heretics, if rightly 
 performed, is valid. Hence plainly a right faith, or a faith in the 
 Church, on the part of the minister cannot be declared universally 
 necessary 
 
 ^ See Vasquez, Disputationes in tei'tiam partem S, Thotncc^ vol. i, Disp. 138, 
 cap. 2. 
 
 • Theol. Mor. 11, p. 16. 
 
 ' Lehmkuhl, Theol. Mor. Ii, p. 20. 
 
 8 Canon 8 of Council of Aries, A.D. 314. Scarcely any exceptions were made 
 to this principle in the West ; it was received with somewhat more reserve in the 
 East. See Diet, of C/wistian Antiquities (Smith and Wace), vol. i, p. 173.
 
 It is even allowed that Catharinus's doctrine was not expressly 
 condemned by the Council of Trent and that it is permissible to 
 hold it. He himself wrote a book after the decree of the Council 
 had been passed, in which he reaffirmed it, maintaining that it 
 had not been condemned. And the Jesuit, Cardinal Pallavicino, 
 whose history of the Council is to this day the authorised Roman 
 account of the proceedings, while expressing his own opinion that 
 Catharinus's doctrine is false, admits, or rather contends, tliat it 
 had not been condemned. And it has from time to time found 
 able defenders within the Roman communion. ^^ It is hard cer- 
 tainly to reconcile this doctrine with the terms of the Tridentine 
 formula, but it falls in with a view which is more honouring to the 
 Sacrament, and which, we may well think, is more likely to 
 commend itself to reverent reason and faith. For that surely is 
 the worthier view which leads us most to sink the personality 
 of the minister in the Church. If he does not by the manner 
 in which he performs his office negative the idea that he is 
 doing what it is his function to do, we are justified in regarding 
 him simply as a mere instrument chosen for an appointed end. 
 So far as any human mind and human agency come into play, they 
 are not those of the minister, but those of the whole living Church 
 whereby the rite has been preserved, and through which the minister, 
 receiver, or receivers, and worshippers have been brought together 
 for its celebration. This is the view put before us by St. Thomas 
 Aquinas. In reply to the difficulty that the intention of the minister 
 cannot be known, he says that "he acts in the person of the whole 
 ** Church of which he is a minister ; in the words which he utters, 
 *' the intention of the Church is expressed, which suffices for the 
 *' perfection of the Sacrament, unless the contrary is openly 
 '' expressed by the minister or the receiver of the Sacrament."' 
 And this is the view also of our own Richard Hooker.-* For a con- 
 
 ^ In part, the controversy on this question seems to have been mixed up with 
 the rivalry between Dominicans and Jesuits, the former defending the view of the 
 member of their own Order, which also accorded, as we shall in a moment see, 
 \\ ith the teaching of their own greatest doctor. 
 
 * Summa. Pars. Ill, Qucest. 64, Art. 8. 
 
 J EccL Pol. V. 5S, 3. "Inasmuch as sacraments are actions religious and
 
 ception such as this there seems to be real justification. But we 
 shall look in vain for any adequate answer,^ if we ask what justifica- 
 tion there is for the doctrine of Intention now commonly held in 
 the Church of Rome — what grounds, whether in specific declarations 
 of Holy Scripture or in the general principles of Christian Theology, 
 can be adduced for the strange opinion that God has made the 
 validity of the Sacraments, and the blessings which the faithful 
 receive thereby, to depend upon an intention of a kind which even 
 an unbeliever can have, and which nevertheless man can withhold. 
 
 We are primarily concerned, however, now not with the truth, 
 baselessness, or falsity, of the Roman doctrine itself, but with its 
 
 " 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 
 " manifest, we may presume that he which outwardly doth work, hath inwardly 
 " the purpose of the Church of Cod." 
 
 ^ The learned Jesuit J. B. Franzelin {De Sacramentis in Gatere, pp. 197 fF.) 
 endeavours to prove that the Roman doctrine of intention is implicitly contained 
 in the true idea of the Sacraments which was revealed by Christ and His Apostles. 
 He seeks to deduce it from the consideration that the Sacraments are given, not 
 merely to be a spectacle and means of visibly teaching truth, but as effectual 
 divine instruments. If they were the former alone, the outward act would suffice, 
 but as they are also, and still more, the latter, the actions involved must be 
 performed ministerially, that is, by one to whom {a) Christ has committed 
 authority to act in His stead, and who (jb) in performing the act does in very 
 truth use the authority committed to him, which depends on his own intention 
 and volition. 
 
 But there is an ambiguity here as to the conditions under which that authority 
 is committed to the minister, of which Franzelin avails himself, — no doubt 
 deceiving himself as much as he may the unwary reader — to slip in his own 
 conception of this power. He includes in it not only the option of the minister 
 to exercise, or refain from exercising, his office visibly as towards men, not only 
 the possibility that he may even while performing acts that may be regarded as 
 sacramental, give indications by signs or by added words that they are not so to 
 be taken, and thus destroy their validity, but a control inwardly, and apart from 
 all outward manifestation of what he is doing, over the streams of Divine Crace. 
 It is assumed that God has parted with his own rights, absolule/y, over some 
 of His choicest treasures, consigning them to the keeoing of His ministers 
 individually. Hence the inference follows — and no wonder, since it is but the
 
 8 
 
 bearing upon the validity of Orders in the Enghsh Church. We will 
 pass on, therefore, to notice the supposed defect which is specially 
 alleged in this case. 
 
 2. The effect upon the validity of rites of the kno7vn^ or p'obablfy 
 defective or en-oncoiis opitiions of the ministers of Sacramental 
 rites ^ cotjcerning those rites which they perforin. 
 
 We are assuming that each Sacrament, or Ordinance of a sacra- 
 mental nature, is administered ' rightly ' {rite)^ i.e. with due observ- 
 ance both as to matter and form of that which has been held 
 necessary in the Church Universal, and that the minister is one 
 who has in the right way (externally at least) received the authority 
 required for administering the kind of rite in question. It is said 
 that in spite of this the rites administered may be invalid owing to 
 want of intention on the part of the minister, because his writings, 
 his verbal declarations, or the opinions common to the party or the 
 religious communion to which he belongs, shew that he takes a low 
 view of the efficacy of the Sacraments ; and it is urged that on 
 this account the efficacy o^" the ministerial acts performed in the 
 Enghsh Church must be regarded as at best doubtful. In regard to 
 this argument it should first be observed that, if the definition of 
 requisite intention admits of being stretched in the manner in which 
 we have seen it to be in the interpretations of Roman theologians, 
 such a case as that now before us cannot fairly be excluded. Indeed 
 the intention of such ministers as we are now considering, men who 
 
 premiss in other words — that a lawfully ordained minister may to all appearance 
 perform the sacrament, and that yet from want of intention on his part, which 
 might arise from the wish to deceive and injure, there may have been no 
 sacrament. Such a conclusion is so revolting that it ought always to have been 
 felt that there must be some fallacy in any argument conducting to it. And 
 indeed the fallacy in the present instance is not difficult to point out. The 
 essential conception of ministerial agency in no way involves the power here 
 supposed. 
 
 Words would fail to describe the seriousness of the responsibility which 
 devolves upon the ministers of Christ from the mere fact that they may discharge 
 or decide not to discharge their functions ; but at least the Church at large has 
 here the protection that the general body of the Ministry and of the faithful may 
 make provision to supply what is wanting in consequence of the neglect, ot 
 caprice, or wrong judgment of individual men.
 
 celebrate the sacraments and ordinances of the Church often with 
 deep religious feeling, though with limited views of their nature, 
 compares very favourably with the intention which, from the Roman 
 point of tiew, is possible for the unbelieving minister. Their act of 
 obedience in rightly performing the ordinance, implies an element of 
 faith and a desire that whatever blessing Christ designs to confer 
 through it may be conferred. And it is a fundamental principle of 
 the Gospel that God does not dole out His gifts in proportion only 
 to our capacity for understandmg their nature. 
 
 The decision, also, which has been accepted by the whole Western 
 Church, of an ancient controversy to which allusion has already teen 
 made, has a distinct bearing upon the present question. After full 
 discussion it was laid down that those who have been baptised with 
 water and with the right form of words by schismatics or heretics 
 must not be rebaptised, because the baptism which they have received 
 is valid.^ And the Church, and successive bishops, of Rome, in the 
 3rd and in the beginning of the 4th century, shewe^ special eager- 
 ness, and had greit influence, in procuring this conclusion. Thus it 
 cannot be denied, that according to the faith of the Church, a 
 baptism duly performed is perfectly valid, though he who has 
 administered it does not, as the Church does, believe in Baptismal 
 Regeneration. There is no ground for supposing that the same 
 princij le does not hold in regard to other Divine Ordinances : viz., 
 t.iat they are not vitiated by the erroneous opinions of those who in 
 other respects rightly administer them. 
 
 The intention, however, with which Holy Orders are and have 
 been conferred in the Church of England may best be learned from 
 her declared mind. To the first English Ordinal, issued in 1549, a 
 Preface was prefixed which has been preserved at every revision of 
 the Prayer-book, though a few unimportant changes in its language 
 were made in 1662. It is here staled that " It is evident unto all 
 *' men diligently reading the holy Scriptures and ancient authors, 
 " that from the Apostles' time there have been these Orders of 
 
 " Ministers in Christ's Church; Bishops, Priests, and Deacons 
 
 " And therefore to the intent that these Orders should be continued 
 
 ^ See p. 5 and note g.
 
 lo 
 
 ** and reverently used and esteemed, in this Church of England, it is 
 " requisite that no man (not being at this present Bishop, Priest, nor 
 " Deacon) shall execute any of them, except he be called, tried, 
 " examined, and admitted according to the Form hereafter follow- 
 (i ing."m Provision was made — this is plainly the intention — for filling 
 gaps which should occur through death or otherwise in the ranks of 
 the body of the clergy of England at that time existing, and of con- 
 tinuing the succession, by means of men who would be Bishops, 
 Priests and Deacons in the same sense and as fully as those who 
 had been admitted to Holy Orders with the Mediaeval ritual, as all 
 of them up to that date had been, while the majority, probably, had 
 been ordained even before the breach with Rome. It would be 
 difficult to express more clearly, or strongly, an intention " to do 
 *' what the Church does." An examination of the Ordinal, as a 
 whole, would also shew that this intention is present throughout it. 
 
 The design which was thus both in word and in deed made manifest 
 to continue a Ministry having the same degrees and prerogatives and 
 lawful commission, as that which had existed from the beginning, 
 cannot justly be held to be obscured by a certain reticence on the 
 part of the EngUsh Church. This reticence, in regard to some of 
 the functions of the Ministry, many will think to have been very 
 wise. For they are functions hard to define at all times, and which 
 were especially hard to define satisfactorily in an age of so much 
 intellectual and moral confusion throughout the whole of Western 
 Christendom, as was that of the Reformation. Further the real heart 
 and essence of the intention of individual bishops of the English 
 Church in conferring Holy Orders are indicated by their use of the 
 
 "* In 1662 the latter part of the second of these sentences was thrown into the 
 form, "no man shall be accounted or taken to be a lawful Bishop, Priest, or 
 '* Deacon in the Church of England, or suffered to execute any of the said 
 " Functions, except he be called, tried, examined, and admitted thereunto, 
 " according to the Form hereafter following, or hath had formerly Episcopal 
 " Consecration, or Ordination." These slight changes of expression were probably 
 made chiefly for the sake of improving the construction of the sentence, though 
 they may have been introduced in part also with a view to a new state of things. 
 Of the general meaning of the words there can be no doubt, since the main 
 object of the revisers of 1662 in all their work was to lay stress upon Catholic 
 principles.
 
 TI 
 
 rites of a Church which plainly claims to be a portion, and to be faithful 
 to the principles, of the Universal Church that has been from the 
 beginning. Before giving any weight to opinions held by, or attri- 
 buted to, individual men as a mark of intention, it would be necessary 
 for us to ascertain fully the sense which the language employed by 
 them in expressing those opinions had for their own minds. They 
 may have spoken or written inaccurately, incautiously, and in a way 
 which misrepresented their real meaning. They may in that to 
 which they expressed antagonism have had in view some real error 
 or abuse, rather than any portion of Catholic truth. But it seems 
 obvious that an investigation cannot possibly be required of us, 
 which would in many instances be impossible of performance. 
 
 All these considerations supply abundant grounds for confidence 
 that right intention, to whatever extent and in whatever sense it is 
 really necessary on sound principles of thought in accordance with 
 the teaching of Christ, has been present in the ministerial acts 
 whereby Holy Orders have been conferred in the Endish Church. 
 
 Note. — The Rev. Canon Moyes, answering a question on the Roman doctrine 
 of Intention, after a lecture delivered by the Rev. Luke Rivington at the 
 Kensington Town Hall, on Oct. 31, 1895, said, according to the shorthand report 
 supplied to the Church Historical Society : "The Church teaches, that if there be 
 ** such a case in the Catholic Church in which a priest in administering baptism 
 ** were to withdraw his secret intention : in that case, God Himself would supply 
 *' what was wanting, and God Himself, by His Almighty power, would convey 
 " the sacrament, apart from the secret intention of the minister." The present 
 writer is wholly unaware what justification there can be for asserting that " the 
 *' Church teaches" this. He has met with nothing of the kind in any accredited 
 Treatise or Manual of Roman Theology ; nor does he expect ever to do so. For 
 it must be evident on the slightest reflection that this explanation renders the 
 doctrine on the subject which has in modern times become prevalent in the Church 
 of Rome, and all the definitions, subtleties, and controversies connected with it, 
 futile and absurd. It may be pointed out, though it should hardly be necessary to 
 do so, that what is here alleged as to God Himself conveying the grace of the 
 Sacrament in the absence of intention on the part of the priest, is something quite 
 different from the belief that, in the case of those who through ignorance remain 
 outside the Church and have no valid sacraments, God may in His mercy bestow 
 (though not all that they would have had within the Church) grace at least 
 suffi^nt for their salvation, if they sincerely seek it. 
 
 S.P.C.K., London : Northumberland Avenue, W.C.
 
 LONDON : 
 
 HARRISON AND SONS, 
 PRINTERS IN ORDINARY TO HER MAJESTY, 
 
 ST. martin's lane.