Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book IV: On the Sacrament of the Eucharist Itself
Chapter 3: It Is Proved from the Unlikeness of Baptism and the Eucharist That the Eucharist Is a Permanent Thing
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. IV, De Sacramento Eucharistiae, Book IV: On the Sacrament of the Eucharist Itself. The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
Now we shall weigh the other foundation of the adversaries, and just as they strive to prove from the likeness of the Sacraments that the Eucharist consists in its use alone, so we shall show the contrary from the unlikeness. Let this, then, be the reasoning. In Baptism there is no permanent thing, but only an action, which is called, and is, Baptism; in the Eucharist, on the contrary, there is no action, but only a permanent thing, which is called, and is, the Eucharist, or the body of the Lord, or the Sacrament of the body of the Lord; therefore these Sacraments are unlike, and one consists in an action, the other in a permanent thing.
The antecedent is proved. And first, concerning Baptism, it is known that the water, which is a permanent thing, is not called Baptism, nor the Sacrament of Baptism, but the washing, which is an action, is called both Baptism and the Sacrament of Baptism. Blessed Paul calls Baptism the laver of water in the word of life, Ephesians 5, and the laver of regeneration, Titus 3. And if it be a matter of the thing itself, it is certain that the water, as it is a permanent thing, is not the Sacrament of Baptism: for the Sacraments, as Augustine says, Book 20 against Faustus, chapter 13, are not born, but are made by the mystic prayer; but the water was once created by God. Nor does it stand in the way that it is wont to be blessed in the Church; for that blessing is not of the essence of the Sacrament: for men could be truly baptized in the water of a river or of the sea without any preceding blessing of the water. And likewise it is certain that the definition of a Sacrament agrees most aptly with the washing; for it is a sign and instrumental cause of invisible grace, and is effected by God through the minister. And finally the words by which Baptism is effected are not directed to the water, but to the man who receives Baptism. For we say: “I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” Whence to baptize is not to consecrate the water, but to wash the man.
And hence it appears that Kemnitz reasons most ineptly in Part 2 of the Examination of the Council of Trent, session 13, chapter 3, when he says: If anyone pronounce the words of the institution of Baptism over water, and no one be present who is to be baptized, no Sacrament is made. For the words of Baptism, “I baptize thee, etc.,” cannot be pronounced over water except by some fool, since they are referred not to the water but to the man. But the case is otherwise with the words of the Eucharist, as we shall presently say. And so concerning Baptism there is no doubt that it properly consists in an action.
But in the Eucharist all things are otherwise. For first, if we treat of the mode of speaking, no one ever called the Eucharist, or the body of the Lord, the breaking, or the consecration, or the distribution, or the eating, or any other action, but a permanent thing, that is, the sanctified bread. So Justin in his second Apology: “This food,” he says, “is called by us the Eucharist.” Irenaeus, Book 4, chapter 34, says that common bread, after receiving the blessing, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of an earthly and a heavenly thing. So Tertullian in his book on the resurrection of the flesh: “The flesh feeds on the body and blood of the Lord.” Where the body of the Lord is not called the action of feeding, but the very food on which we feed. So Augustine, Book 20 against Faustus, chapter 13, calls the consecrated bread the Sacrament of religion. Optatus, Book 2, complains of the fury of the Donatists, who gave the Eucharist to dogs: and Victor of Utica, Book 1 of his history, chapter 3, relates that the Arians cast the Eucharist on the ground and trampled it with their feet. But how could these things be done, if the Eucharist is not a permanent thing? Likewise Justin, Ambrose, Eusebius of Emesa, Theodoret, Gelasius, and others everywhere compare the Eucharist with the Incarnate Word; because as in Christ there are two natures, so in this Sacrament there are two natures, namely the body of Christ and the accidents of bread. Finally the Fathers everywhere say that the Eucharist, or the body of the Lord, is offered, confected, carried, eaten, which in no way agree with an action, but with a permanent thing.
And as to the thing, that the Sacrament of the Eucharist consists not in an action but in a permanent thing, is proved. And first, that it does not consist in an action is clear; because there is no action to which the whole nature of a Sacrament agrees. The chief action, according to the adversaries, is eating: but this can in no way be a Sacrament. For this is the action of the receiver alone, not of God or of the minister: for neither God nor the minister eats, but the receiver eats. But the Sacraments are not actions of the receiver, otherwise they would be our works: whence in Baptism the Sacrament is the washing, as it is given by God through the minister. Moreover the Sacramental words, without which the Sacrament is not made, are not spoken by the eater, nor to the eater, but by the minister over the bread; for those words, This is the body, pertain to the bread, not to the eater. And hence it is that he who eats is not said to make the Sacrament of the Eucharist, but rather to consume it: and yet truly he could be said to make the Sacrament, if it consisted in that action; just as he who washes is said to baptize. The same can be proved of the action of breaking and distributing the sanctified bread. For those actions are not Sacraments; for they do not signify invisible grace: nor is he who breaks or distributes said to make the Sacrament. There remains the consecration alone, which the adversaries, unlike the rest, neglect: but neither is it properly the Sacrament of the Eucharist. For consecration is not the sign, nor the proximate cause of invisible grace, which two things are required for the nature of a Sacrament of the new law. For consecration, as the words themselves sound, only signifies and effects the body of the Lord from the bread; and therefore it effects the Sacrament, is not itself the Sacrament.
And that to the permanent thing, that is, the consecrated bread, the whole definition of a Sacrament agrees, is clear. For that bread is a sensible sign, and the cause of the internal and invisible spiritual nourishment. Moreover it is made by God through the minister, and that by a rite and ceremony instituted by God. Finally the element and the word concur to this Sacrament, as to all the others. Nor does it stand in the way that in this Sacrament, when now confected, the element, that is, the wheaten bread, does not remain, nor the word. For the element and the word are required for the effecting of the Sacrament, and therefore in those Sacraments which consist in an action, and whose being made and being are the same, the element and the word are the principles both of the effecting and of the essence of the Sacrament itself. But in this Sacrament, in which the being made is one thing and the being another, those principles concur properly to the effecting of the Sacrament: but in the effected thing itself they remain, but in another way. For the element remains as to the external species, and the word remains as to its power: just as also in the mixture of the elements the elements remain, but altered, and according to many remain only as to their powers, not as to their substance.
From these is resolved the second argument of the adversaries, which is of this kind: “The Sacrament of Baptism consists in an action; therefore also the Sacrament of the Eucharist. The antecedent is proved; for the Sacraments of the new law are of the same genus. And moreover, if the Sacrament of Baptism consists in an action, because the Lord said, Baptize all nations, Matthew last, how much more will the Eucharist consist in an action, since the Lord in its institution declared the action not by one word, as in Baptism, but by many, saying: Take, eat, drink, do this, etc.”
I answer that the Sacraments of the new law are of the same genus, but not of the same species: and although they were of the same species, still one could consist in an action, the other in a permanent thing; for this difference is material, and does not pertain to the formal nature of a Sacrament. And the words of Scripture cited contain the use of the Sacrament, not the essence, except by accident, when the use is not distinguished from the essence, as in Baptism.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT III. Probatur ex dissimilitudine Baptismi , et Eu¬ charistiae, Eucharistiam . rem esse perma¬ nentem. Nunc jam expendemus alterum adversa¬ riorum fundamentum, et sicut ipsi ex simi¬ litudine Sacramentorum probare nituntur, Eucharistiam in solo usu consistere : ita nos ex dissimilitudine contrarium ostendemus. Sit igitur hicc ratio. In Baptismo non est ali¬ qua res permanens, sed sola actio, qua) di¬ catur, et sit Baptismus ; in Eucharistia con¬ trario, non est aliqua actio, sed sola res per¬ manens, qua) dicatur, et sit Eucharistia, sive corpus Domini, sive Sacramentum corporis Domini ; ergo Sacramenta ista dissimilia sunt, et unum in actione, alterum in re per¬ manente consistit. Probatur antecedens. Ac primum de Ba¬ ptismo , notum est, aquam, qua) est res per¬ manens, non dici Baptismum, nec Sacra¬ mentum Baptismi, sed ablutionem, qua) est actio, dici et Baptismum, et Sacramentum Baptismi. B. Paulus Baptismum vocat lava¬ crum aqurn in verbo vitae, Ephes. v. et lava¬ crum regenerationis Tit. 3. Si autem de re- ipsa agatur, certum est, aquam, ut est res per¬ manens, non esse Sacramentum Baptismi : Nam Sacramenta, ut Augustinus dicit lib. xx. contra Faustum cap. 13. non nascuntur, sed fiunt per mysticam precem, sed olim a Deo creata fuit. Neque obstat quod in Ecclesia benedici solet ; Nam illa benedictio non est de essentia Sacramenti : possent enim in aqua fluminis, aut maris sino ulla praece¬ dente benedictione aqua), homines vere bap¬ tizari. Et similiter certum est, Sacramenti definitionem optime convenire ablutioni; illa enim est signum et causa instrumentalis in¬ visibilis gratia), et a Deo per ministrum effi¬ citur. Et denique verba , quibus efficitur T III. 907 Baptismus, non diriguntur ad aquam, sed ad hominem qui Baptismum recipit. Dicimus enim : « Ego te baptizo in nomine Patris, et Filii , et Spiritus sancti. » Unde baptizare non est aquam consecrare , sed hominem abluere. Atque bine apparet ineptissime ratiocinari Kemnitium in 2 par. Exam. Trident. Concilii sess. xiii. cap. 3. cum ait : Si quis verba in¬ stitutionis Baptismi pronuntiet super aquam, et nemo adsit qui baptizetur, nullum fieri Sacramentum. Nam verba Baptismi : « Ego te baptizo etc. » non possunt nisi a stulto aliquo pronuntiari super aquam, cum non ad aquam, sed ad hominem referantur. At alia ratio est de verbis Eucharistia), ut mox dice¬ mus. Itaque de Baptismo nullum est dubium, quin proprie in actione consistat. At in Eucharistia omnia aliter se habent. Nani in primis, si agamus de modo loquendi, nemo unquam vocavit Eucharistiam, vel cor¬ pus Domini fractionem, vel consecrationem, vel distributionem, vel manducationem, vel aliam actionem, sed rem permanentem, id est, panem sanctificatum. Sic Justinus in Apolog. 2 : « Hic cibus, inquit, a nobis Eu¬ charistia appellatur. » Irenams lib. iv. cap. 34. dicit, panem communem post acceptam benedictionem non esse amplius panem com¬ munem, sed Eucharistiam constantem ex re terrena, et ccelcsti. Sic Tertullianus in lib. de resurrect. carnis: « Caro, inquit, corpore et sanguine Domini vescitur. » Ubi corpus Domini non appellatur actio vescendi, sed cibus ipse quo vescimur. Sic Augustinus lib. xx. contra Faustum, cap. 13i panem consecratum appellat Sacramentum religio¬ nis. Optatus lib. ii. queritur de furore Dona- tistarum, qui Eucharistiam canibus dede¬ runt : et Victor Uticensis lib. i. histor. cap. 3. narrat Arianos Eucharistiam in terram abje¬ cisse, et pedibus conculcasse. At quomodo potuerunt ista fieri, si Eucharistia non est res permanens? Item Justinus, Ambrosius, Eusebius Emissenus, Theodoretus, Gelasius, et alii passim conferunt Eucharistiam cum Verbo Incarnato ; quia sicut in Christo dua) sunt natura), ita in hoc Sacramento dua) sunt natura), nimirum corpus Christi, et acciden¬ tia panis. Denique Patres passim dicunt, Eucharistiam , seu corpus Domini offerri , confici, portari, manducari, qua) nullo modo conveniunt actioni, sed rei permanenti. Quod autem ad rem attinet, Sacramentum Eucharistia) non consistere in actione, sed in LIBER IV. 208 re permanente, probatur. Ac primum, quod non in actione consistat, patet; qui nulla est actio, cui conveniat tota ratio Sacramenti. Praecipua actio per adversarios est mandu¬ catio : at ha?c nullo modo potest esse Sacra¬ mentum Nam ista est actio solius susci¬ pientis, non Dei, aut ministri : nec enim Deus, aut minister manducat, sed suscipiens manducat. At Sacramenta non sunt actiones suscipientis, alioqui essent opera nostra: unde in Baptismo Sacramentum est ablutio, ut a Deo per ministrum datur. Praeterea verba Sacramentalia, sine quibus Sacramen¬ tum non fit, non dicuntur a manducante, neque ad manducantem, sed a ministro su¬ per panem ; illa enim verba : Hoc est corpus , ad panem pertinent, non ad manducantem. Et hinc est, quod non dicitur Eucharistiae Sacramentum facere, qui manducat, sed potius illud consumere : et tamen revera dici posset Sacramentum facere, si in illa actione consisteret ; sicut dicitur baptizare, qui abluit. Idem probari potest de actione fran¬ gendi, et distribuendi panem sanctifica tum. Ula3 enim actiones non sunt Sacramenta ; nam non significant gratiam invisibilem : nec dicitur Sacramentum facere, qui frangit, aut distribuit. Restat sola consecratio, quam adversarii prseter c a? teras negligunt : sed nec est ipsa proprie Sacramentum Eucha¬ ristia?. Nam consecratio non est signum, neque causa proxima invisibilis gratiae, qua3 duo requiruntur ad rationem Sacramenti novae legis. Consecratio enim, ut verba ipsa sonant, solum significat, et efficit corpus Domini ex pane ; proinde Sacramentum effi¬ cit, non est ipsa Sacramentum. Quod autem rei permanenti, id est, pani consecrato conveniat tota definitio Sacra¬ menti, perspicuum est. Nam ille panis est signum sensibile, et causa interna? atque in¬ visibilis nutritionis spiritualis. Praeterea fit a Deo per ministrum, idque ritu, ct caeremonia a Deo instituta. Denique elementum et ver¬ bum concurrunt ad hoc Sacramentum, ut ad omnia alia. Neque obstat, quod non ma¬ neat in hoc Sacramento jam confecto ele¬ mentum, id est , panis triticeus , neque ver¬ bum. Nam elementum, et verbum requirun¬ tur ad Sacramenti effectionem, et ideo in his Sacramentis qme in actione consistunt, et quorum idem est fieri et esse, elementum et verbum sunt principia, tum cfiectionis, tum essentiae ipsius Sacramenti. At in hoc Sacra¬ mento, in quo aliud est fieri, aliud esse, principia illa concurrunt proprie ad Sacra¬ menti effectionem : in ipsa autem re effecta manent, sed alio modo. Nam elementum manet, quoad externas species, et verbum manet, quoad virtutem : sicut etiam in mix¬ tione elementorum manent elementa, sed alterata, et secundum multos manent solum quoad virtutes, non quoad substantiam. Ex his solvitur argumentum secundum adversariorum, quod hujusmodi est : « Sa¬ cramentum Baptismi in actione consistit ; ergo ct Sacramentum Eucharistia?. Probatur antecedens; nam Sacramenta nova? legis ejusdem generis sunt. Et pra?terea, si Sacra¬ mentum Baptismi in actione consistit, quia Dominus dixit : Baptizate omnes gentes, Mattii, ult., quanto magis Eucharistia iu ac¬ tione consistet, cum Dominus in ejus institu¬ tione non uno verbo, ut in Baptismo, sed multis actionem declaraverit, dicens : Acci¬ pite, manducate, bibite, hoc facite etc. » Respondeo, Sacramenta nova? legis sunt ejusdem generis, sed non ejusdem speciei : et quamvis ejusdem speciei essent, adhuc posset unum in actione, alterum in re per¬ manente consistere ; ista enim differentia materialis est, et ad rationem formalem Sa¬ cramenti non pertinet. Verba autem Scri¬ ptura? citata, usum Sacramenti continent, non essentiam, nisi per accidens, quando usus ab essentia non distinguitur, ut in Bap¬ tismo.