Definition
A Latin term from old English law meaning a corporal oath — that is, a solemn oath taken with bodily ceremony, typically by physically touching or kissing a sacred object such as the Gospels or a cross. The corporale sacramentum was the formal mode of swearing recognized in ecclesiastical and early common law proceedings, distinguished from a bare verbal promise or affirmation by its physical, ceremonial character. The taking of such an oath was understood to bind the conscience of the swearer through the sanctity of the act itself.
---
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): No entry. "Sacrament" in modern English denotes a religious rite or ceremony conferring divine grace. "Corporal" in common use means relating to the body.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): "Corporal" — of or pertaining to the body. "Sacrament" — a formal religious act or oath; also, in older usage, a solemn oath binding on the conscience.
The compound Latin phrase as a legal term of art carries a precision that neither word alone conveys in common usage. A modern reader encountering "corporale sacramentum" might parse it as simply "bodily sacrament," missing the specific procedural meaning: a formalized oath-taking act with recognized legal force in English courts, distinct from an ordinary religious sacrament or a mere verbal assurance.
---
Common Confusion
CORPORALE SACRAMENTUM should not be confused with CORPORALIS as a standalone term. In Bracton, corporalis describes the physical quality of property — corporales res are tangible things capable of being touched and seen. That sense of the word has no connection to oath-taking procedure. The shared Latin root (corpus, body) produces surface similarity but entirely different legal contexts.
---
Why It Matters in Research
CORPORALE SACRAMENTUM is a pure historical term. Researchers will encounter it primarily in medieval and early modern English legal sources — Bracton, the Registrum Omnium Brevium (Reg. Orig.), and treatises drawing on those foundations — and in the historical law dictionaries that glossed them. It does not appear as operative terminology in modern common law jurisdictions.
Several navigational points matter for corpus research:
First, the term sits at the intersection of ecclesiastical law and common law procedure. Oath-taking in early English courts was heavily influenced by canon law, and the corporale sacramentum reflects that overlap. Researchers tracing the history of oaths, perjury, or witness competency rules need to account for this ecclesiastical dimension when reading pre-17th-century sources.
Second, Burrill's dictionary entry is the most useful of the shelf sources for this term because it provides record citations (Reg. Orig. 95b; Bract. fol. 74) that allow direct verification in primary sources. Black's (both editions) treats it more cursorily and conflates the entry with the adjacent maxim Corporalis injuria non recipit æstimationem de futuro — a separate rule entirely — which can create confusion when reading quickly.
Third, researchers should be alert to the adjacent Latin vocabulary. CORPORALIS (relating to the body; corporeal things) appears in Bracton in a different sense — distinguishing tangible property from intangible — and should not be read as synonymous with or derived from CORPORALE SACRAMENTUM. The shared root corpus produces overlapping terminology across very different legal contexts.
Fourth, the procedural significance of the corporale oath declined as common law courts developed alternative modes of proof and as statutory reforms (culminating in 19th-century oath reform legislation in England) replaced ceremonial oath-taking with more flexible affirmation procedures. Researching oaths in sources spanning the medieval through the Victorian period requires tracking this evolution.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
All three shelf sources agree on the core definition: CORPORALE SACRAMENTUM means a corporal oath in old English law. Burrill is the most substantive, providing Bracton and Register citations that anchor the term to specific primary texts. Both editions of Black's give the same terse gloss without adding procedural context.
The historical dictionaries share a limitation: none explains what distinguished a corporal oath from other oath forms in terms of legal consequences — whether, for instance, the corporale sacramentum carried different evidentiary weight or different perjury exposure than a lesser form of swearing. For that depth, researchers must go to Bracton directly (fol. 74) or to secondary treatments of medieval English evidence law.
It is also worth noting that both Black's editions embed this entry immediately adjacent to the maxim on personal injury (Corporalis injuria non recipit æstimationem de futuro), which is an unrelated rule from Bacon's Maxims. This editorial proximity is an artifact of alphabetical arrangement, not conceptual connection.
---
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
See Law Mind Encyclopedia: Oaths and Affirmations (Historical Development); Ecclesiastical Courts and the Common Law.
---