Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book IV: On the Sacrament of the Eucharist Itself
Chapter 13: That the Consecration Is Made by the Words of the Lord Alone
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).
First, then, this is proved by the example of the Lord and the Apostles. For, as the Evangelists relate, Matthew chapter 26, Mark 14, and Luke 22, and Paul 1 Corinthians 11, the Lord, when He instituted this Sacrament and first confected it, not only did not bid the epistle to the Corinthians be read, which did not yet exist, but neither any other reading, nor did He have any sermon. By like reasoning the Apostles, before the Gospels and epistles were written, read nothing, unless perhaps the Psalms, or, as St. Gregory writes, Book 7, letter 63, added only the Lord's Prayer to the consecration. Nor does blessed Paul, 1 Corinthians 11, bid that that chapter, or another of the kind, be henceforth read. Moreover the Lord recited those words, This is my body, and This is the chalice of blood, not historically, but significatively, as is known. The Calvinists, therefore, who recite those words historically, and, as the essence of the Sacrament, employ a reading and a sermon, do not follow the institution of the Lord, but the dreams and figments of their own head.
By the same example of the Lord the Greeks too can be refuted. For the Lord neither said, nor bade be said, those prayers, “May this bread become the body of Christ, and this wine the blood of Christ,” without which they think the Sacrament cannot be duly confected. For if the Lord had said these things, or bidden them be said, we should have it in Scripture or in tradition. In Scripture we do not have it, for the Evangelists only relate that the Lord gave thanks to the Father, and blessed the bread, and said, Take, eat, This is my body, etc. By what words the Lord gave thanks is not established. Nor can the Greeks include those words of theirs, “May this bread become the body of Thy Christ, etc.,” in those words of the Gospel, giving thanks; for those words are not words of thanksgiving, but of a certain petition. And the blessing was made either by those words, This is my body, and This is my blood, as the Roman Catechism and the Theologians more commonly teach; or certainly it is not had in the Gospel by what words the Lord blessed: nor did any of the ancients deliver that the Lord used those words, “May this bread become the body of Christ, etc.” Therefore neither from Scripture nor from tradition can it be proved that the Greeks do what the Lord did or bade be done.
Nor does it stand in the way that in the Liturgy of St. James and of the other Fathers those words are had, “May this bread become the body of Thy Christ.” For not all the things which are had in the Liturgy are taken from the example or precept of the Lord; for it is established that many things were added by others. And so the Greeks would have to prove by some testimony, which nevertheless they cannot, that those words flowed from the words or deeds of the Lord.
Now let us prove from the same place that the form of the Latin Catholic Church is most rightly defended from the example and precept of Christ. And first, that the Lord said those words which we say while we consecrate the Eucharist, the Evangelists and the Apostle Paul testify in express words. But it is to be proved that the Lord consecrated by those words, and that He bade them be said by us, and finally that when those words are uttered by us the consecration is immediately made.
As to the example of Christ, the common opinion not only of the more recent Theologians but also of the ancient Fathers is that Christ consecrated by those words, This is my body, This is my blood. For so teach Tertullian, Cyprian, Chrysostom, Ambrose, and others; which testimonies of the Fathers we shall bring forward a little below. Moreover there are most pressing reasons. For if the Lord had consecrated in another way and willed us to consecrate in another, He would not have said, Do this. Then the priest consecrates in the person of Christ; and therefore he does not say, This is the body of Christ, but, This is my body, and our consecration is nothing else than the repetition of that first one which was made by Christ, as Chrysostom writes, homily 83 on Matthew. But how do we do this in the person of Christ, and how is this the repetition of that first one, if Christ consecrated by will alone, we by words? Finally all agree that the Lord instituted the Sacrament of the Eucharist when He Himself first consecrated the Eucharist; therefore it behooved Him not only to consecrate, but also to consecrate by the Sacramental rite, and by that very rite which we were afterward to use. But to consecrate by will alone is not to consecrate by the Sacramental rite, but is by a certain extraordinary miracle to produce the effect of Sacramental consecration without the Sacramental consecration; just as when the same Lord absolved Magdalen by His power alone, He is not deemed to have instituted a Sacrament, because He did not do it by the Sacramental rite.
That those words ought, by the precept of the Lord, to be said by us, whatever Bucer say, is clear from those words, Do this; for that bids us imitate the whole action of Christ. But Christ did not bless and break the bread without any utterance of words, but by saying, This is my body. Nor does it stand in the way that He did not say, Pronounce these words: for it is enough that He bade us imitate His action, especially since there is added the perpetual custom of the whole Church, which would never have used those words in the action of the Mass unless it had understood this to be commanded by the Lord. And it is similar with Baptism. For nowhere did the Lord say, Baptize saying, I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit; and yet not only the Church, but also the Lutherans and Calvinists use those words in Baptism, and hold that the Lord so commanded.
And that after those words are recited, the body and blood of the Lord are immediately present, and therefore by their power the consecration is made, is proved: because otherwise the words would be false, if the presence of the body of the Lord were deferred until the recitation of the other words, as the Greeks will; for the Lord did not say, This will be, but, This is my body. Whence also above, in the disputation on transubstantiation, we showed that those words of the Lord cannot be defended as true unless by them is made the transmutation of the bread and wine into the body and blood of the Lord. The same is clear from the custom of the Church, which is that, as soon as those words of the Lord are uttered, the Eucharist is shown to the people and adored: which certainly ought in no way to be done, if the consecration were not yet made. Add lastly that it is the custom of the Greeks, as Bessarion, the Greek Cardinal, reports in his book on the words of consecration, that the words of the Lord, This is my body, and This is the blood, etc., be uttered in a loud voice, and the people answer to each, Amen. And again, that, those words being uttered, the offered gifts be immediately shown to the people by the Deacon: which two rites openly declare that among the Greeks too the bread and wine are consecrated by the words of the Lord alone, although some of their Doctors hold the contrary. For Amen is a particle of one confirming; but how do the Greeks teach the people to answer Amen to those words, This is my body, if it is not truly the body of the Lord, but mere bread, when Amen is said? And why, I ask, does the Deacon show the offered gifts immediately after those words, if the transmutation is not yet really made?
Secondly, this truth is proved from the tradition of the Church and the Fathers. And first against the Lutherans and Calvinists, that the words of consecration of the Eucharist are said to bless and change the bread, not to instruct the people, is clear from all the Liturgies even the most ancient, as of Clement, James, Basil, Chrysostom, Ambrose, and the Roman, which is deemed to be of St. Peter, and absolutely all which exist anywhere. For in all the words of the Lord, This is my body, and This is the blood, are recited separately, and not only in the reading of the epistle to the Corinthians, as the Calvinists do: and they are recited by a certain rite, and with prayers mixed before and after, so that it plainly appears that a Sacrament is made, not a sermon. Wherefore the rite of the Supper of the Calvinists is not only new, but plainly unheard-of in the ancient Church.
Then the holy Fathers say that the body of the Lord is made by the mystic prayer, or the invocation of the divine name, or the solemn blessing, or the giving of thanks, or a certain consecration: all which evidently show that those words are not said to instruct the people, but to consecrate the bread itself. Justin, Apology 2, says that the Eucharist is made by prayer. Augustine, Book 3 on the Trinity, chapter 1, says by the mystic prayer. The same Cyprian, Book 1, last letter; Cyril, Catechesis 3 and 4 of the Mystagogics, and Eusebius of Emesa, sermon 5 on the Pasch, say that the Eucharist is made by the invocation of the supreme name. Cyril of Alexandria, Book 11 on John, chapter 24, and others everywhere, say that it is made by the blessing, nay the Apostle himself, 1 Corinthians 10: The chalice of blessing, which we bless. Irenaeus, Book 4, chapter 57: “How,” he says, “will it be established for them that the bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, etc.?” Where you see that by the giving of thanks the body of the Lord is made. Finally Augustine, Book 20 against Faustus, chapter 13: “Our bread,” he says, “and chalice becomes mystical to us by a certain consecration, is not born: and what is not so made is the nourishment of refreshment, not the Sacrament of religion.” Wherefore if one should ask of Augustine what he thought of the Supper of Calvin, he would answer that it is the nourishment of refreshment, not the Sacrament of religion.
And let these few things against the Lutherans suffice: now let us bring forward against the Greeks the testimonies of the Greek and Latin Fathers. Justin, in his second Apology near the end, says that the bread becomes the body of the Lord by the prayers of the word of God. And what those prayers are, he himself a little after expounds, when he says that they are had in the Gospels and are those words which the Lord said: This is my body, This is my blood. Irenaeus, Book 5, chapter 1, says that the mixed chalice and the bread receive the word of God, and then the Eucharist is made. But there is no other word of God in the consecration of the Eucharist than, This is the body, etc.; for those words which the Greeks add are not words of God, but prayers devised by men.
Tertullian, Book 4 against Marcion, says in express words that Christ made the bread He had taken His body, by saying, This is my body. Cyprian no less clearly, in his sermon on the Lord's Supper, affirms both that Christ consecrated by these words, and that we ought to consecrate by the same: “This is,” he says, “my body. They had eaten and drunk of the same bread according to the visible form: but before those words, that common food was useful only for nourishing the body and ministered the support of bodily life. But from the time it was said by the Lord, Do this in commemoration of me, this is my flesh and this is my blood: as often as it is done with these words and this faith, that substantial bread and the chalice, consecrated by a solemn blessing, profits to the life and salvation of the whole man, being at once a medicine and a holocaust to heal infirmities and purge iniquities.” So he.
Gregory of Nyssa, in his Catechetical Oration in Euthymius, in the Panoply, title 21: “The bread,” he says, “is immediately changed by the word into the body, as was said by the Word, This is my body.” And above he had said that the bread sanctified by the word of God is changed into the body of the Lord: but the word of God is not that prayer of the Greeks. Ambrose, Book 4 on the Sacraments, chapter 4: “When it comes to confecting the venerable Sacrament, the priest now uses not his own words, but the words of Christ.” And in chapter 3 he explains what are the words of the Lord by which this Sacrament is confected, and recites those, This is my body, etc.; and in the book on those to be initiated in the mysteries, chapter 9: “The Lord Jesus Himself cries: This is my body. Before the blessing of the heavenly words it is named another species; after consecration, it is the body of Christ.”
Chrysostom, homily 2 on 2 Timothy: “As the words which Christ spoke are the same which the priests now too pronounce, so also the oblation is the same; the same too is the reasoning of Baptism.” So he. Where it is to be observed that Chrysostom wished to prove that the Eucharist which is confected by a bad priest is nothing less than that which is confected by a good one, even though he be blessed Peter or Christ Himself. And this he proves because the Eucharist is always effected by the power of the same words of Christ; but it is certain that Christ did not say those words which the Greeks use, “May this bread become the body of Thy Christ, etc.” Wherefore according to the opinion of Chrysostom the opinion of the more recent Greeks is false. The same Chrysostom in his sermon on the betrayal of Judas: “This is,” he says, “my body. By this word the things set forth are consecrated. And just as that voice which said, Increase and multiply and fill the earth, was indeed said once, but through all time feels its effect, nature working to generation: so also that voice was said once, but through all the tables of the Church even to this present day, and even to His coming, gives firmness to the sacrifice.”
To this passage Nicholas Cabasilas, and after him Mark of Ephesus, tried to answer. And they say that the opinion of Chrysostom is that the bread is consecrated by the word of the Lord, but the prayer of the priest cooperating: just as also by those words, Increase and multiply, living things are produced, but not without the cooperation of natural causes.
This solution Bessarion refutes in many words in his book on the words of consecration. The sum is that the distinction between those words, Increase and multiply, and these, This is my body, ought to be taken from Chrysostom himself. For he says that those words, Increase and multiply, are efficacious nature working, because namely God by those words produced nothing immediately, but only bestowed on nature fecundity, and ordained that whenever such causes should exist, such an effect too should follow. But of those words, This is my body, Chrysostom does not say that they are efficacious by human prayer working: but simply says that Christ works through them. For just as in the first institution of the Supper Christ by those His words, without the cooperation of any human prayer, made His body from the bread: so also now by those same words He does the same work. But of Chrysostom thus far.
Augustine, sermon 28 on the words of the Lord: “I told you that before the words of Christ, what is offered on the altar is called bread; when the words of Christ have been uttered, it is now not called bread, but is named a body.” And in Gratian, on consecration, distinction 2, canon Utrum, Augustine says that the Eucharist consecrated by a good and a bad man is the same, because it is effected not by the merit of him who prays, but by the word of the Creator. Eusebius of Emesa, sermon 3 on the Pasch: “The invisible priest converts the visible creatures into the substance of His body and blood by His word, by His secret power, saying thus: Take and eat, This is my body: and, the sanctification being repeated, Take and drink, This is my blood.” Hesychius, Book 6 on Leviticus, chapter 22: “By His power and the word uttered by Him, the things which are seen are so sanctified that they exceed all sense of the flesh.” John Damascene, Book 4 on the faith, chapter 13: “The Lord said,” he says, “This is my body, and, Do this in commemoration of me: and by His omnipotent precept it is effected until He come.” Paschasius, Book on the body of the Lord, chapter 12: “By the power of the Holy Spirit, through the word of Christ, is made the blood of the Lord.”
Finally the same have Alcuin, Book on the divine offices, chapter on the Mass; Amalarius, Book 3 on the ecclesiastical offices, chapter 24; Adelmann in his letter to Berengarius, and all the later Latin writers.
And these indeed are the testimonies against the Greeks, to which reasons can be added. The first is of this kind. The case of Baptism and the Eucharist is the same, as Chrysostom teaches in homily 2 on 2 Timothy, and Augustine in Gratian, distinction 2 on consecration, canon Utrum. But in Baptism, that which makes the Sacrament is not the human prayers which precede or follow the infusion of water, but those words of the Lord, “I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” or, as the Greeks say, “Let such a one be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” which are said while the water is infused, as all confess; and thence it is manifestly gathered, because if anyone be baptized by those words alone, “I baptize thee, etc.,” no prayer being adjoined, he is deemed by all to be baptized, nor would he be rebaptized even by the Greeks themselves. Therefore in the Eucharist, that which makes the Sacrament is not human prayers, but the word of the Lord, This is my body, this is the blood, etc.; otherwise one Sacrament would be confected by the word of the Lord, and another by the words of men.
The second reason is: The confection of a Sacrament ought to be most certain, whether it be made by a good or a bad minister; therefore it ought not to depend on human prayer, unless it be established that there is an absolute pact and promise made by God to prayers of that kind. For without such a pact human prayers are not necessarily obtaining, especially if they be made by a bad minister: but it is not established that any such pact was made by God about hearing that prayer of the Greeks.
Nor is the answer of Cabasilas valid, who says that the effect of the Sacramental prayers is most certain, because God promised that He would hear them: and he sets down the example of Extreme Unction, which is a Sacrament, and yet its form is the prayers of the priest. This, I say, is not valid, for in Extreme Unction we have the express promise of God in the sacred writings, James last; and in the same way we must think of the other forms of Sacraments, whether they have the form of prayers or not, provided it be established from the word of God or from the testimony of the Church that such words are the form of the Sacrament. But the Greeks cannot show from the word of God, nor by any testimony of the Church, that those prayers of theirs are the form of the Sacrament, or that a divine promise is annexed to them. And it is confirmed from the doctrine of St. Augustine. For, Book 6 against the Donatists, chapter 25, when some had objected that by the prayers of heretics the water cannot be sanctified, and therefore that Baptism given by heretics is not valid, Augustine answered that whatever be the case with those prayers which are wont to be said together with the Evangelical words in Baptism, God is present to the Evangelical words by which He bade Baptism be given, and therefore if those words be rightly pronounced, Baptism is valid: even though the adjoined prayers be not only said by a heretic, but also perhaps be heretical; because namely the divine promise is bound to the Evangelical words, not to human prayers.
The third reason is: Because the Greeks confess that Christ consecrated the Eucharist by those words, This is my body, without other prayers: for this, besides the ancients whose testimonies we cited, Cabasilas himself confesses in his explanation of the Liturgy, chapter 30, and almost all the Latins too. For although Innocent III, Book 4 on the mysteries of the Mass, chapter 6, was of opinion that Christ consecrated by no words: yet this is commonly refuted; and the same Innocent in his decretal letters, chapter Cum Marthae, on the celebration of Masses, admits that the Lord consecrated by those words which are had in the Gospel. Therefore it seems evidently to follow that we too consecrate by those words alone; for the Lord says, Do this, namely what I did.
The fourth reason. By the consent of all, the priest consecrates in the person of Christ, or, what is the same, Christ consecrates through the mouth of the priest: as Chrysostom often says, and it is had also in the Council of Florence in the instruction of the Armenians. But those words alone, This is my body, etc., are said by Christ through the mouth of the priest; for those others, “Make this bread the precious body of Thy Christ,” are not said in the person of Christ, but plainly in the person of the minister, as the minister is distinct from Christ, as is clear. The consecration, therefore, is not made by other words than those which were uttered by Christ at the beginning.
The fifth reason. If the opinion of the Greeks were true, the body and blood of the Lord would be made at the same time; for they consecrate both species by one prayer; but the Lord consecrated separately, and by diverse words, first the body, then the blood, as is most openly established from the Gospels.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XIII. Solis Domini verbis fieri consecrationem. Primum igitur id probatur exemplo Domi¬ ni, et Apostolorum. Nam ut Evangelistae re¬ ferunt Matthaeus cap. xxvi. Marcus xiv. et Lucas xxii. et Paulus i Corinth. ii. Dominus cum Sacramentum hoc instituit, et primus confecit, non solum non jussit legi epistolam ad Corinthios, quae nondum exstabat, sed nec ullam aliam lectionem, neque ullam ha¬ buit concionem. Pari ratione Apostoli ante- LIBER IV. 236 quam scriberentur Evangelia ct epistolae, nihil legebant, nisi forte Psalmos, vel, ut S. Gregorius scribit lib. 7. epist. 63. solam ora¬ tionem Dominicam ad consecrationem adde¬ bant. Neque B. Paulus i Corinth. n. jubet, ut illud caput, aut aliud ejusmodi deinceps legatur. Praeterea Dominus verba illa : Hoc est corpus meum , et Ilie est calix sanguinis, non historice, recitavit, sed significative, ut notum est. Calvi njshc igitur, qui illa verba historice recitant, et tanquam essentiam Sa¬ cramenti, lectionem et concionem adhibent, non sequuntur Domini institutionem, sed ca¬ pitis sui somnia, et figmenta. Ex eodem Domini exemplo, et Graeci re¬ felli possunt. Dominus enim nec dixit, nec di¬ ci jussit illas praeccs : «Fiat hic panis corpus Christi, ct hoc vinum sanguis Christi ; » sine quibus non existimant ipsi Sacramentum ri¬ te confici posse. Nam si ea Dominus dixisset aut dici jussisset, id haberemus in Scriptura, vel in traditione. In Scriptura non habemus, solum enim Evan geli stee referunt, Dominum egisse gratias Patri, et panem benedixisse, ac dixisse : Accipite , manducate , Hoc est cor¬ pus meum etc. Quibus verbis Dominus gratias egerit, non constat. Nec possunt Graeci illa sua verba : « Fiat hic panis corpus Christi tui etc.. » includere in illis verbis Evangelii ; Gratias agens , non enim ista verba sunt gra¬ tiarum actionis, sed petitionis cujusdam. Be¬ nedictio autem, aut illis verbis facta est : Hoc est corpus meum, et Hic est sanguis meus, ut Catechismus Romanus, ct Theologi commu¬ nius docent : aut certe in Evangelio non ha¬ betur, quibus verbis, Dominus benedixerit : nullus etiam veterani trudidit Dominum usum fuisse illis verbis : « Fiat hic panis corpus Christi etc. » Ergo neque ex Scriptura, neque cx traditione probari potest, Graecos id face¬ re quod Dominus fecit, aut fieri jussit. Neque obstat, quod in Liturgia S. Jacobi, et aliorum Patrum habeantur illa verba : « Fiat hic panis corpus Christi tui. » Nam non omnia, queo in Liturgia habentur, de¬ prompta sunt ex Domini exemplo, aut prae- cepto ; constat enim multa esse addita ab aliis. Itaque probare deberent Greeci aliquo testimonio, quod tamen non possunt, verba illa ex Domini verbis, aut factis manasse. Jam vero ex eodem loco probemus, for¬ mam Latinae Catholicse Ecclesiee ex Christi exemplo, et preeeepto 'rectissime defendi. Ac primum, quod Dominus dixerit ea verba, qua} nos dicimus, dum Eucharistiam conse¬ cramus, Evangelistae, et Paulus Apostolus disertis verbis testantur. Sed probandum est, quod Dominus illis verbis consecraverit, et quod jusserit ea a nobis dici, et tandem, quod illis verbis a nobis prolatis continuo fiat consecratio. Quod attinet ad Christi exemplum, senten¬ tia communis non solum Theologorum re- centiorum, sed etiam veterum Patrum est, Christum consecrasse i ilis verbis : Hoc est corpus meum , Hic est sanguis meus. Ita enim docent Tertullianus, Cyprianus, Chrysosto- mus, Ambrosius, et alii ; qua} Patrum testi¬ monia paulo infra afferemus. Praeterea sunt urgentissimae rationes. Nam si Dominus alio modo consecrasset, alio nos consecrare vellet, non dixisset : Hoc facite. Deinde sa¬ cerdos in persona Christi consecrat; et ideo non dicit, Hoc est corpus Christi, sed : Hoc est corpus meum , et nihil est aliud nostra con¬ secratio, quam repetitio illius prima}, qua} a Christo facta est, ut Chrysostomus scribit liomil. 83. in Matthaeum. At quomodo in persona Christi id facimus, et quomodo ista est illius primae repetitio, si Christus sola voluntate, nos verbis consecramus? Denique conveniunt omnes, Dominum instituisse Sa¬ cramentum Eucharistiae, cum ipse primus Eucharistiam consecravit; ergo oportuit eum non solum consecrare, sed etiam consecraro ritu Sacramentali, ct illo ipso ritu, quo dein¬ ceps nos uti debebamus. At consecrare sola voluntate, non est consecrare ritu Sacra- montali, sed est miraculo quodam extraor¬ dinario effectum producere Sacramentalis consecrationis,, sine Sacramentali consecra¬ tione, quemadmodum cum idem Dominus Magdalcnam absolvit sola potestate, non censetur Sacramentum instituisse, quia id non fecit ritu Sacramentali. Quod illa verba ex Domini preeeepto a no¬ bis dici debeant, quidquid dicat Bucerus, patet ex illis verbis, Hoc facite ; illud enim jubet, ut totam actionem Christi imitemur. Christus autem non benedixit, et fregit pa¬ nem sine ulla prolatione verborum, sed di¬ cendo : Hoc est corpus meum. Neque obstat, quod non dixerit, Pronuntiate haec verba : satis enim est, quod jusserit nos imitari ipsius actionem, praesertim cum accedat universa} Ecclesia} perpetua consuetudo, qua} nun¬ quam ista verba frequentasset in actione Missae, nisi intellexisset hoc esse a Domino praeceptum. Et est simile de Baptismo. Nam nusquam dixit Dominus, Baptizate dicentes, CAPUT XIII. Ego to baptizo in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus sancti ; et tamen, non solum Eccle¬ sia, sed etiam Luthcrani, et Calvinistae utun¬ tur istis verbis in Baptismo , ac sentiunt ita I) ominum piae cepisse. Quod autem post illa verba recitata, statim adsit corpus Domini, et sanguis, et proinde vi illorum fiat consecratio, probatur : quia alio qui verba essent falsa: si differretur prae¬ sentia corporis Domini, usque ad aliorum verborum recitationem, ut Graeci volunt; non enim Dominus dixit, Hoc erit, sed : Hoc est corpus meum. Unde etiam supra in dispu¬ tatione de transubstantiatione ostendimus, illa verba Domini non posse defendi ut vera, nisi per illa fiat transmutatio panis, et vini in corpus, et sanguinem Domini. Idem patet cx consuetudine Ecclesiae, quae est, ut mox prolatis illis verbis Domini, Eucharistia de¬ monstretur populo, et adoretur. : quod certe nullo modo fieri deberet, si nondum esset facta consecratio. Adde ultimo, morem esse Graecorum, ut Bessarion Cardinalis Graecus refert, in libro de verbis consecrationis, ut verba Domini : lloc est corpus meum , et Hic est sanguis, etc. alta voce proferantur, et po¬ pulus ud atraque respondeat, Arnen. Et rur¬ sus, ut verbis illis prolatis continuo a Diaco¬ no demonstrentur populo oblata : qui duo ritus aperte declarant, etiam apud Graecos consecrari panem., et vinum per sola verba Dominica, licet contrarium sentiant aliqui ipsorum Doctores. Nam, Arnen , est particula confirmantis; quomodo autem Graeci popu¬ lum docent, ut respondeat A rnen aul illa ver¬ ba : Hoc est co:pus meum : si non vere est corpus Domini, sed merus panis, dum dici¬ tur Amenl et cur, quaeso, Diaconus ostendit oblata post illa verba immediate, si revera nondum facta est transmutatio? Secundo, probatur haec veritas ex tradi¬ tione Ecclesiae, et Patrum. Ac primum con¬ tra Lutheranos, et Calvinistas, quod verba consecrationis Eucharistiae dicantur ad pa¬ nem benedicendum et mutandum, non ad populum instruendum, perspicuum est ex omnibus Liturgiis etiam antiquissimis, ut Clementis, Jacobi, Basilii, Chrysostomi, Am¬ brosii, et Romana, quae S. Petri esse cense¬ tur, et omnibus omnino, quae usquam exstant . Nam in omnibus verba Domini : Hoc est cor¬ pus meum , et Hic est sanguis, recitantur sc- orsim, et non solum in lectione episl. aul Co¬ rinthios, ut Calvinistae faciunt : et recitantur certo ritu, et admixtis precibus ante, et post, ut plane appaieat fieri Sacramentum, non concionem. Quare ritus ccenae Calvinistarum non solum est novus, sed plane inauditus in antiqua Ecclesia. Deinde, sancti Patres dicunt corpus Domini fieri mystica prece, aut invocatione divini no¬ minis, autsolemni benedictione, autgratiarum actione, aut certa consecratione : quae omnia evidenter ostendunt ; verba illa non dici ad instruendum populum, sed ad panem ipsum sacrandum. Justinus Apolog. ii. dicit, prece fieri Eucharistiam. Augustinus lib. m. de Trinit. cap. i. dicit mystica prece. Idem Cy¬ prianus lib. i. epist. ult. Cyrillus Catech. 3. et \. mystag. et Eusebius Emisscnus serm. o. de Paschate dicunt invocatione summi nominis fieri Eucharistiam. Cyrillus Alexan¬ drinus lib. xi. in Joan. cap. 24. et alii passim, dicunt benedictione fieri , imo ipse Apo¬ stolus i. Corinth. x. : Calix benedictionis , cui benedicimus. Irenaeus lib. iv. cap. 57. « Quo¬ modo, inquit, constabit eis, eum panem, in quo gratiae actae sunt, esse corpus Domini sui etc. » Ubi vides gratiarum actione fieri cor¬ pus Domini. Denique Augustinus lib. xx. contra Faustum, cap. 13. « Panis noster, in¬ quit, et calix certa consecratione mysticus fit nobis, non nascitur : et quod non ita fit, alimentum est refectionis, non Sacramentum religionis. » Quare si ab Augustino quis quaereret quid de coena Calvini sentiret, re¬ sponderet, alimentum esse refectionis, non Sacramen t um religion is . Atque luec pauca contra Lui heranos suffi¬ ciant : nunc contra Graecos afferamus testi- monia Patrum Graecorum et. Latinorum. Ju¬ stinus in secunda Apologia prope finem dicit, panem fieri corpus Domini per preces verbi Dei. Quao sint autem illai preces, ipse paulo post exponit, cum dicit, haberi in Evange- liis, et esso illa verba, queo Dominus dixit : Hoc est corpus meum, Hic est sanguis meus; Irenaeus lib. v. cap. 1. dicit, mixtum calicem, et panem percipere verbum Dei, et tunc fieri Eucharistiam. Non est autem aliud verbum Dei in consecratione Eucharistiae, nisi : Hoc est corpus etc. nam illa verba, quae Graeci ad¬ dunt, non sunt verba Dei, sed preces ab ho¬ minibus excogitatae. Tertullianus lib. iv. in Marcionem disertis verbis ait, Christum acceptum panem corpus suum fecisse, dicendo : Hoc est corpus meum. Cyprianus non minus perspicue in serm. de coma Domini, et Christum his verbis con¬ secrasse, et nos iisdem consecrare debere 238 LIBER IV. affirmat : « Hoc est, inquit, corpus meum. Manducaverant, et biberant de eodem pane, secundum formam visibilem : sed ante verba ilia, cibus ille communis tantum nutriendo corpori commodus erat, et vitae corporalis subsidium ministrabat. Sed ex quo a Domino dictum est, Iloc facite in meam com¬ memorationem, htec est caro mea, et hic est sanguis meus : quotiescumque bis verbis, et hac fide actum est, panis iste substantialis, et calix benedictione solemni sacratus, ad totius hominis vitam, salutemque proficit, si¬ mul medicamentum, et holocaustum ad sa¬ nandas infirmitates, et purgandas iniquitates existens. » Iloec ille. Gregorius Nyssenus in orat. Catechetica apud Euthymium in Panoplia titul. 21 : « Pa¬ nis, inquit, statim per verbum in corpus mutatur, ut dictum est a Verbo, Iloc est corpus meum. » Et supra dixerat, panem verbo Dei sanctificatum, mutari in corpus Domini : non est autem verbum Dei, oratio illa Graecorum. Ambrosius lib. iv. de Sa¬ cram. cap. 4. (c Cum, inquit, venitur, ut conficiatur venerabile Sacramentum, jam non suis sermonibus sacerdos, sed utitur sermonibus Christi. » Et cap. 3. explicat quae sint verba Domini, quibus hoc Sacramentum conficitur, et recitat illa : Iloc est corpus meum etc. et in lib. de initiandis mysteriis cap. 9. « Ipse clamat Dominus Jesus: Hoc est corpus meum, ante benedictionem ver¬ borum coelestium alia species nominatur ; post consecrationem, corpus Christi est. » Chrysostomus hom. 2. in II ad Timoth. c Quemadmodum, inquit, verba qua} locutus est Christus, eadem sint quae sacerdotes nunc quoque pronuntiant, ita et oblatio eadem est; eadem quoque Baptismi ratio est. » Haec ille. Ubi illud est observandum Chry- sostomum probare voluisse, nihil minus ha¬ bere Eucharistiam quae conficitur a malo sa¬ cerdote, ab ea, quae conficitur a bono, etiamsi ille sit B. Petrus, aut Christus ipse. Id autem probat, quia semper Eucharistia efficitur virtute eorumdem Christi verbo¬ rum ; certum autem est Christum non dixis¬ se verba illa, quibus Graeci utuntur : « Fiat hic panis corpus Christi tui etc. » Quare ex sententia Chrysostomi falsa est Graecorum recentiorum sententia. Idem Chrysostomus in serm. de proditione Judae : « Hoc est, ait, corpus meum. Hoc verbo proposita conse¬ crantur. Et sicut illa vox, quae dixit, Cres¬ cite et multiplicamini, et replete terram, se¬ mel quidem dicta est, sed omni tempore sentit effectum ad generationem operante natura : ita et vox illa semel dicta est, sed per omnes mensas Ecclesiae usque ad ho¬ diernam diem, et usque ad ejus adventum praestat sacrificio firmitatem. » Ad hunc locum respondere conati sunt Nicolaus Cabasilas, ctpost eum Marcus Eplie- sinus. Dicunt autem sententiam Chrysostomi esse, verbo Domini consecrari panem, sed cooperante prece sacerdotis : sicut etiam illis verbis : Crescite et multiplicamini , producun¬ tur animantia, sed non sine cooperatione naturalium causarum. Iianc solutionem multis verbis refellit Bes- sarion in suo lib. de verbis consecrationis. Summa est, discrimen inter illa verba : Cres¬ cite et multi plicamini ; et ista : Hoc est corpus meum, ex ipso Chrysostomo sumi debere. Ipse enim dicit, illa verba : Crescite et multi¬ plicamini, esse efficacia operante natura, quia nimirum Deus per illa verba nihil im¬ mediate produxit, sed tantum tribuit naturae fueeunditatem, et instituit, ut quandocumque tales causae existerent, talis etiam sequeretur effectus. Ista autem verba : Hoc est corpus meum , non dicit Chrysostomus, esse efficacia operante humana prece : sed simpliciter di¬ cit, Christum per illa operari. Sicut enim in prima ccena} institutione, Christus per illa verba sua sine ullius humana} precis coope¬ ratione corpus suum ex pane fecit : ita etiam nunc per illa eadem verba idem opus facit. Sed de Chrysostomo hactenus. Augustinus serm. 28. de verbis Domini : « Dixi vobis, quod ante verba Christi, quod offertur in altari, panis dicitur; ubi verba Christi deprompta fuerint, jam non panis dicitur, sed corpus appellatur. » Et apud Gratianum de consecrat, dist. 2. can. Utrum, dicit Augustinus eamdem esse Eucharistiam a bono et malo consecratam, quia non me¬ rito precantis, sed verbo efficitur Creatoris. Eusebius Emissenus sermon. 3. dePaschate. a Invisibilis sacerdos visibiles creaturas in substantiam corporis, et sanguinis sui, verbo suo secreta potestate convertit, ita dicens : Accipite et edite, Hoc est corpus meum : et sanctificatione repetita, Accipite et bibite, Hic est sanguis meus. » Isichius lib. vi. in Levit, cap. 22. Per ejus virtutem, et prola¬ tum ab eo verbum, qua} videntur, tam sauc- tificata sunt, quam cunctum carnis sensum excedunt. Joarmes Damascenus lib. iv. cap. IU de fide : « Dixit, inquit, Dominus. Hoc CAPUT XIII. 239 est corpus meum, et, hoc facite in meam commemorationem : et omnipotenti ejus praecepto efficitur donec veniat. » Pascha- sius lib. de corpore Domini, cap. 12. « Vir¬ tute Spiritus sancti per verbum Christi, fit sanguis Domini. » Denique idem habent Alcuinus lib. de di- vin. offic. cap. de Missa ; Amalarius lib. m. de offic. Ecclesiast. cap. 24. Andelmannus in epist. ad Berengarium, et omnes Latini scriptores posteriores. Atque haec quidem sunt testimonia contra Graecos, quibus addi possunt rationes. Prima est hujusmodi. Eadem ratio est Baptismi et Eucharistiae, ut Chrysostomus docet in 2. hom. in ii. epist. ad Tirnoth. et Augustinus apud Gratianum distinet. 2. de consecr. can. Utrum. At in Baptismo id, quod Sacramen¬ tum facit, non sunt humanae preces quae praecedunt, vel sequuntur infusionem aquae; sed illa verba Domini : « Baptizo te, in no¬ mine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus sancti, » sive ut Graeci dicunt : « Baptizetur talis in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus sancti, » quae dicuntur dum infunditur aqua, ut om¬ nes fatentur, et inde manifeste colligitur, quia si quis solis iliis verbis baptizetur, « Ego te baptizo etc. » nulla adjuncta prece, cense¬ tur ab omnibus baptizatus, nec vel ab ipsis Graecis rebaptizaretur. Ergo in Eucharistia id, quod Sacramentum facit, non sunt pre¬ ces humanae, sed verbum Domini : Hoc est corpus meum , hic est sanguis etc. alioqui unum Sacramentum verbo Domini conficeretur, aliud autem verbis hominum. Secunda ratio est. Sacramenti confectio debet esse certissima, sive a bono, sive a malo ministro fiat; ergo non debet pendere ab humana prece, nisi constet de pacto ab¬ soluto, et promissione facta ejusmodi preci¬ bus a Deo. Nam sine ejusmodi pacto preces humanae non necessario sunt impetrato rise, praesertim si a malo ministro fiant : non au¬ tem constat tale aliquod pactum factum esse a Deo de exaudienda oratione illa Grae¬ corum. Neque valet responsio Cabasilse, qui dicit Sacramentalium precum effectum esse cer¬ tissimum, quia Deus promisit se exauditu¬ rum : et ponit exemplum de extrema Unc¬ tione, quae est Sacramentum, et tamen ejus forma sunt preces sacerdotis. Hoc, inquam, non valet, nam in extrema Unctione habe¬ mus promissionem Dei expressam in sacris litteris Jacobi ult. et eodem modo sentiendum est de aliis formis Sacramentorum, sive ha¬ beant formam precum, sive non, modo con¬ stet ex verbo Dei, aut ex testimonio Eccle¬ siae, talia verba esse formam Sacramenti. Graeci autem non possunt ostendere ex ver¬ bo Dei, neque ullo testimonio Ecclesiae illas suas preces esse formam Sacramenti, aut illis annexam esse divinam promissionem. Et confirmatur ex doctrina S. Augustini. Nam lib. vi. contra Donatistas, cap. 23. cum objecissent quidam, precibus haereticorum non posse aquam sanctificari, et ideo Bap¬ tismum ab haereticis datum non esse ratum : respondit Augustinus, quidquid sit de preci¬ bus illis, quae simul cum verbis Evangelicis in Baptismo dici solent, Deum adesse ver¬ bis Evangelicis, quibus jussit Baptismum da¬ ri, et ideo si illa verba recte pronuntientur, Baptismum ratum esse : etiaimsi preces ad¬ junctae, non solum ab haeretico dicantur, sed etiam fortasse haereticae sint ; quia nimirum promissio divina adligata est verbis Evange¬ licis, non humanis precibus. Tertia ratio est. Quia fatentur Graeci, Chri¬ stum consecrasse Eucharistiam verbis illis : Hoc est coipus meum , sine aliis precibus : id enim praeter antiquos, quorum testimonia ci¬ tavimus, ipse etiam Cabasilas fatetur in expli¬ catione Liturgise, cap. 30. et Latiui etiam fere omnes. Tametsi enim Innocentius III. lib. iv. de mysteriis Missae, cap. 0. opinatus sit Christum nullis verbis consecrasse : id tamen communiter refelli solet; et ipse idem Innocentius in epistolis decretalibus cap. Cum Marthse, de celebratione Missarum, ad¬ mittit Dominum consecrasse .illis verbis, quae in Evangelio habentur. Igitur videtur evi¬ denter sequi, etiam nos solis illis verbis con¬ secrare ; nam Dominus ait : Hoc facite, ni¬ mirum quod ego feci. Quarta ratio. Omnium consensu, sacerdos consecrat in persona Christi, sive quod idem est, Christus consecrat per os sacerdotis : ut saepe Chrysostomus dicit, et habetur etiam in Concilio Florentino in instructione Arme- norum. At illa sola verba : Hoc est corpus meum , etc. dicuntur a Christo per os sacer¬ dotis; illa enim alia : « Fac panem istum pretiosum corpus Christi tui, » non (Jicuntur in persona Christi, sed plane in persona mi¬ nistri, ut minister est a Christo distinctus, ut patet. Consecratio igitur non fit aliis verbis, quam illis, quae a Christo initio prolata sunt. Quinta ratio. Si esset vera Graecorum sen¬ tentia simul fierent corpus, et sanguis Do- 240 LIBER IV. mini ; nam ipsi una oratione utramque spe¬ ciem consecrant; at Dominus seorsim, et diversis verbis consecravit, primo corpus, deinde sanguinem, ut cx Evangoliis apertis¬ sime constat.