Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book IV: On the Sacrament of the Eucharist Itself
Chapter 16: On the Minister of the Sacrament of the Eucharist
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).
The intrinsic causes of this Sacrament, namely the matter and the form, being explained, it follows that we dispute of the extrinsic causes, the efficient and the end, or effect. And concerning the primary efficient cause there is no controversy: for it is established that it is Christ who both instituted this Sacrament and first confected it, and now too daily confects it through His ministers. Concerning the secondary cause, that is, the minister, many things were disputed in the book on the Sacraments in general, as whether faith be required in the minister, or goodness, or intention, and other things of that kind, which are common to the ministers of all the Sacraments: it was also treated whether the ministers of the Sacraments be any Christians whatever, or only those who are consecrated to this ministry by a certain rite. Wherefore in this place this alone is to be treated in particular, whether for the consecration of the Eucharist a certain ordination of the ministers is required, or is not required.
And indeed John Wyclif called this into doubt, as Thomas Waldensis witnesses, tome 2 on the Sacraments, chapters 7 and 28. It seemed to him very strange that a bad priest could consecrate the Eucharist, and a good layman could not: yet he was unwilling altogether to define the matter.
But Luther, more audacious, most openly defined the matter: since the opinion of Luther is most manifest, that any Christian whatever has by Baptism the power of consecrating the Eucharist, although no one ought to take up the office unless lawfully called, except in a case of necessity. This Luther has in his book on the Babylonian Captivity, chapter on Order; in his book on instituting ministers, to the Senate of Prague; in his book on abrogating the Mass; in his book on the marks of the Church, and elsewhere. Wherefore Luther thinks the ordination of ministers necessary only for the discipline and order of the Church: for there would be too great confusion if anyone wished to confect the Sacraments: but not that the Sacrament would not be true if it were confected by one not ordained. Nay, in his book on private Mass and the unction of priests, published in the year 1534, he went so far as to say that the Sacrament would be true even if it were confected by the Devil.
From this opinion the Sacramentarians openly departed. For although at the beginning Zwingli followed Luther, as is clear from his book on the true and false religion, chapter on the other Sacraments, yet Calvin teaches that not only the Eucharist but also Baptism is void, if it be confected by any other than a public minister, as is clear from Book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 1, § 22, and chapter 3, § 10, and chapter 15, § 22, and in his Antidote to the Council, session 7, canon 10: and the same has Henry Bullinger, decade 5, sermons 8 and 9. Wherefore in this place we shall have no business with the Sacramentarians.
Moreover Martin Kemnitz and other more recent Lutherans timidly follow Luther. For although they think the same which he thought, yet they are wont for the most part to dissemble this question. For on the one hand they see the most evident arguments of the Catholics, which cannot be denied without the highest impudence; on the other hand they cannot come over to the Catholics without deserting not only their Prophet Luther, but also two principles of Lutheran doctrine most received by all: on account of which it is greatly to be wondered at that the Sacramentarians dissent in this matter from the Lutherans.
The common principles are these. The first, that the Sacraments do not operate except by exciting faith; from which principle (in which absolutely all agree) it evidently follows that the Sacrament does not depend on any quality of the minister. For the Sacramental words and signs can excite faith by whomsoever they be exhibited: for the words signify the same, and by signifying move the mind of the hearer, whether they be said by one ordained or one not ordained; nay whether by a man, or a demon, or even by a parrot or a raven.
Whence Kemnitz, in Part 2 of the Examination of the Council, session 13, chapter 1, at the end, reprehends the Catholics for willing the consecration of the Eucharist to depend not on the recitation of the words alone, but also on the consecration or ordination of the person reciting.
The second principle is that by the ordination of ministers no character is imprinted, nor any new spiritual power given, but only a use or office. Whence both among the Lutherans and among the Calvinists one and the same man can today be a minister, tomorrow not a minister, or today a clergyman, tomorrow a layman: for the office being laid down, there is among them no distinction of clergy from laity.
From this principle too it manifestly follows that no election or ordination of ministers is required that a true Sacrament of the Eucharist be confected; but only that order and discipline be observed. Wherefore all the Lutherans, unless they wish themselves to destroy their own doctrine, are compelled to follow the opinion of Luther concerning the power of consecrating the Eucharist common to all Christians.
But the Catholic Church of Christ received from the Apostles a far different doctrine, and keeps it to this day: for it was always held in the Church for undoubted that priestly ordination is so necessary for confecting the Eucharist that without it it can in no way be confected.
And this truth is proved, first from the word of God. For that of Christ, Do this, Luke 22, was not said except to the Apostles, who by that command were ordained the first priests of the New Testament. And this is proved in this way: That, Do this, does not signify only, Eat and drink, which agrees with all Christians, but signifies, Consecrate, receive, and distribute to others, as you have seen me do. But those three cannot agree with all; therefore that command was not given to all, but only to certain, who therefore are called priests; therefore the rest can in no way consecrate the Eucharist, and even if they attempt it, they will do nothing. For the Sacraments are confected in the person of Christ: wherefore to whom Christ did not commit this, he can do nothing.
The major proposition is proved. First, from the very text of Luke. For Luke, who alone among the Evangelists has those words, Do this, had not said before, Take, eat, etc., but had only said: He took bread, blessed it, and gave it, saying: This is my body. Therefore Luke did not refer that, Do this, to the action of eating alone, since he does not even mention it; but referred it to the action of blessing and distributing, which he had expressed, and at the same time to the action of eating, because the Lord too ate, as is the common opinion, although it is not expressed in the Gospel. Secondly, because there is no reason why that, Do this, ought not to be referred to all which the Lord did. Thirdly, because unless it were referred to all, we should not have a divine command expressed in the word of God about consecrating the Eucharist: and therefore it could not be consecrated by the adversaries. For they contend that nothing ought to be done but what is expressly commanded in the divine writings. Finally the adversaries confess that that, Do this, is referred to all three actions which Christ did, namely of blessing, distributing, and receiving. Luther teaches so in his book on instituting ministers, to the men of Prague; the Augsburg Confession, chapter on the Mass; Calvin, Book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 15, § 20; and Kemnitz, in Part 2 of the Examination, page 534, at the beginning of the disputation on Communion under both species.
Someone will say: Blessed Paul, 1 Corinthians 11, seems to restrict that, Do this, to the action of eating and drinking; for he says: Do this, as often as you shall drink, in commemoration of me, as if he should say, as often as you shall drink, drink in memory of my passion. I answer that the Apostle does not restrict, but sets an example in one action; which he could also have done of the other two; wherefore the words of Paul are true, but do not fight with the more universal words of Luke.
Now the minor proposition is proved. First, if that command were given to all, all would be bound to consecrate and distribute: but this would not only be most absurd, but is also against the custom of all, both Catholics and heretics. Secondly, because so the whole Church always understood this command, as from the testimonies which we shall now bring forward it will be clear. Nor does it stand in the way that St. Thomas, Part 3, question 81, article 11, gathers from this passage that it is of divine right that all at some time receive the Eucharist; where he seems to have understood that, Do this, to be said to all. For St. Thomas does not will it to be gathered immediately, but mediately. For because the Lord bids the Apostles to consecrate, receive, and distribute, consequently He bids others to receive from the hand of the priests distributing. For to whom would the priests be bound to distribute, if none were bound to receive? It is similar with that of John last, Feed my sheep, where it is commanded to Peter that he feed the flock, and consequently it is commanded to the flock that it obey the shepherd. Wherefore the same St. Thomas, Part 3, question 82, article 1, teaches that by that, Do this, priests were instituted by the Lord.
Secondly, then, the same truth is proved from the tradition and consent of the whole Church. And first we have four general Councils, the First of Nicaea, canon 14; the Lateran under Innocent III, canon 1; the Florentine in the Instruction of the Armenians; and the Tridentine, session 22, chapter 1, and session 23, chapters 1 and 4.
Moreover the holy Fathers. For Dionysius the Areopagite, chapter 5 of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, part 1: “Nor will he himself be a priest, unless by pontifical offices he have been promoted to this.” Ignatius, in his letter to the Trallians, says that he is worse than an infidel who dares to do anything about the ministry of the altar, unless he be a bishop or presbyter. Clement, Book 2 of the Apostolic Constitutions, chapter 31: “Every layman attempting anything without a priest does it in vain.” And he speaks openly of the oblation of the sacrifice. And in Book 8, last chapter, he says that Christ said to the Apostles alone, Do this. Tertullian, in his book on prescriptions, derides the Marcionites, because among them some today are clerics, tomorrow laymen, and because priestly offices are committed to laymen. Which opinion most openly confutes our Lutherans too. For among them those who are ministers, at the will of the magistrate, become laymen, nay are always laymen. For they have no true ordinations, but only there is enjoined on them the office of preaching and administering the Sacraments without true ordination: and this is (as Tertullian says) to commit priestly offices to laymen.
Cyprian, Book 1, letters 2 and 9, and Book 3, letter 15, not only teaches that none but priests can confect the Eucharist: but also thence gathered that among heretics there is no true Eucharist, since among them there is no true priesthood. Athanasius, in his second Apology against the Arians, reports the letter of the Alexandrian Synod, in which the Fathers prove that a certain Ischyras the Arian could not use the sacred chalice nor celebrate the sacred rites, because he was not ordained by a true Bishop. Basil, Book 2 on Baptism, chapter 8, teaches expressly that all Christians are indeed priests in a certain broad way, because all ought to offer the spiritual victims of good works: but that properly there are none but those who are ordained to this, etc. Epiphanius, heresy 79 of the Collyridians, teaches that the Apostles alone were ordained by Christ as ministers of the Eucharist: and then by the Apostles other bishops and presbyters: but to the other laymen, and especially to women, this was so never lawful that it was not granted even to the Blessed Virgin herself. Chrysostom not rarely writes that on account of this one exceptional power of consecrating the Eucharist the Angels are surpassed by priests. See Books 3 and 6 on the priesthood, and homilies 51 and 83 on Matthew, and homily 60 to the people of Antioch. Jerome frequently asserts this, that none but bishops and presbyters can confect the Eucharist. In his book against the Luciferians he teaches that a certain Hilary, because he was only a deacon, could not consecrate the Eucharist nor ordain clerics: and in his letter 1 to Heliodorus, and 85 to Evagrius, by that chief argument he represses the pride of certain deacons, and demonstrates that they are far inferior to presbyters, because they have not the power of consecrating the Eucharist which the presbyters have.
Of Ambrose, Theodoret writes, Book 5 of his history, chapter 17, that he said to Theodosius: “The purple makes emperors, not priests.” And in his book on priestly dignity, chapter 2, the same Ambrose sets the priestly power before the royal. Which Nazianzen too does, in his oration to the people struck with fear, and Chrysostom, homily 4 on chapter 6 of Isaiah. Which also St. Martin taught in deed, when at the banquet of the emperor he set his own presbyter before the emperor, as Sulpitius writes in his life. But if the priestly power were common to all Christians, as the adversaries say, since the royal is not common to all, priests would be much inferior to kings. See also Paulinus, letter 4 to Amandus; Hesychius, Book 2 on Leviticus, chapter 8. Finally Augustine, Book 20 of the City of God, chapter 10, where he distinguishes spiritual priests, and those improperly so called, from bishops and presbyters, who are properly called priests.
To these is added that no example of antiquity can be brought forward by which it is proved that in any case a deacon or a layman consecrated the Eucharist: whereas not a few examples are brought forward by which it is shown that in certain cases deacons, nay even laymen, baptized. For it is established from chapter 8 of Acts that Philip the deacon baptized: from Rufinus, Book 1 of his history, chapter 14, it is established that the baptism was valid which Athanasius, a layman and a boy, had conferred. But of the Eucharist no such example can be brought forward: but on the contrary, even in the greatest necessities it is established that the Catholics went rather without the Eucharist than that a non-priest should dare to confect it. Theodoret writes, Book 4 of his history, chapter 12, that when the emperor Valens the Arian was everywhere driving all the priests from their sees, Eusebius, Bishop of Samosata, moved by zeal for God, traversed all those places in military dress, and secretly ordained in various places presbyters and deacons, that the people might not lack the Sacraments. Augustine, in his letter 180 to Honoratus, writes that in time of war the peoples ought not to be deserted by the clergy, even though danger of life be imminent: lest there be lacking those who administer the Sacraments, without which eternal death is not escaped. Epiphanius too writes, in his letter to John of Jerusalem, that he, compelled by necessity, ordained a certain presbyter in the Monastery of St. Jerome, because the two presbyters who were in that Monastery, out of excessive humility, would not dare to confect the Eucharist. From which examples it is manifestly gathered that it is false, which Luther teaches, that in certain cases any men whatever can consecrate the Eucharist.
To these add the most ancient rites of the Church. For first, perpetual continence was commanded to all the ministers of the altar, and that from the doctrine of the Apostles, as the Second Council of Carthage has, canon 2.
Secondly, laymen were forbidden to touch or keep the sacred vessels in which the Eucharist is confected: as, besides other testimonies, is clear from the letter of the Alexandrian Synod in the second Apology of Athanasius against the Arians, where they prove that a certain chalice was not sacred, because it was kept in the house of a layman. And Nazianzen, in his oration against the Arians and about himself, says that the vessels of the mystery were forbidden to the people to touch.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XVI. De ministro Sacramenti Eucitaristiic. Explicatis causis intrinsecis, Sacramenti hujus materia videlicet et forma : sequi¬ tur ut de extrinsecis, efficiente, et fine, sive effectu disputemus. Ac de efficiente quidem primaria causa, nulla controversia est : con¬ stat enim Christum esse, 'qui et Sacramentum hoc instituit, et primus confecit, et nunc etiam per ministros suos quotidie conficit. De causa secundaria, id est, de ministro, multa disputata sunt in libro de sacramentis in genere, ut, an requiratur fides in ministro, an bonitas, an intentio, et alia id genus, qua) sunt communia ministris omnium Sacramen- LTBEll IV. 2U> torum : tractatum quoque fuit, an ministri Sacramentorum quilibet Christiani sint, an solum ii, qui certo ritu ad lioc ministerium consecrati sunt. Quare hoc loco ici solum tractandum est in particulari, num ad Eu¬ charistiae consecrationem, requiratur certa ministrorum ordinatio, an vero non requira¬ tur. Et quidem Joannes Wiclefus in dubium hoc revocavit teste Thoma Waldensi tom. ii. de Sacramentis cap. 7. et 28. Videbatur illi valde mirum, si posset malus Sacerdos con¬ secrare Eucharistiam, et id non posset laicus bonus : non tamen omnino rem definire vo¬ luit. At Lutherus audacior apertissime rem definivit : siquidem Lutheri sententia mani¬ festissima est, quemlibet Christianum ex Baptismo potestatem habere Eucharistiam consecrandi, licet officium sumere nemo de¬ beat, nisi legitime vocatus, excepto casu necessitatis. Id habet Lutherus in lih. de Babylonica captio . cap. de Ordine ; in lib. de instituendis ministris ad senatum Pragen- sem ; in lib. de Missa abroganda ; in lib. de notis Ecclesia}, et alibi. Quare Lutherus or¬ dinationem ministrorum solum necessariam putat ob disciplinam et ordinem Ecclesia} : esset enim nimia confusio, si quilibet Sacra¬ menta conficere vellet : non autem, quod Sacramentum non esset verum, si ab aliquo non ordinato conficeretur. Imo in li. de Missa privata, et unctione Sacerdotum, edito annp 1534. eo usque progressus est, ut dice¬ ret, Sacramentum verum futurum, etiamsi a Diabolo conficeretur. Ab hac sententia Sacramentarii aperte recesserunt. Etsi enim initio Zwinglius Lu- therum sequeretur, ut patet ex lib. de vera, et falsa religione cap. de aliis Sacramentis, Calvinus tamen non solum Eucharistiam, sed etiam Baptismum irritum esse docet , si ab alio, quam a publico ministro conficiatur, ut patet ex lib. ix. Inst. cap. 1. §. 22. et cap. 3. §. 10. et cap. 15, §. 22. et in antidoto Concilii sess. vii. canon. 10. et idem habet Henricus Bullingerus decade 5. serm. 8. et 9. Quare nihil hoc loco cum Sacramentariis ne¬ gotii nobis erit. Porro Martinus Kemnitius, et alii recen- tiores Lutherani timide Lutherum sequuntur. Nam etsi idem sentiunt, quod ipse sensit, tamen istam qmestionem, ut plurimum dissi¬ mulare solent. Nam ab una parte vident ar¬ gumenta Catholicorum evidentissima, qua} sine summa impudentia negari nequeunt; ab altera parte non possuntad Catholicos accede¬ re, quin deserant non solum suum Prophetam Lutherum, sed etiam duo principia doctri¬ na} Lutheranre ab omnibus receptissima : ob qua} valde mirandum est, Sacramentarios dissentire in hac re a Lutheranis. Principia communia hrec sunt. Primum, Sacramenta non operari, nisi excitando fi¬ dem ; ex quo principio (in quo omnes omnino conveniunt) evidenter sequitur Sacramentum non pendere ab ulla ministri qualitate. Verba enim Sacramentalia, et signa fidem excitare possunt a quocumque exhibeantur : idem enim verba significant, et significando mo¬ vent animum audientis, sive dicantur ab ordinato, sive a non ordinato ; imo sive ab homine, sive a dremone, sive etiam a psittaco vel corvo. Unde Kemnitius in 2. par. Exam. Concilii sess. xin. cap. 1. in fine Catholicos repre¬ hendit, quod Eucharistiae consecrationem pendere velint non a sola verborum recita¬ tione, sed etiam a consecratione, sive ordi¬ natione persona} recitantis. Secundum principium *est, per ordinatio¬ nem ministrorum non imprimi ullum chara¬ cterem, neque dari ullam novam spiritualem potestatem, sed solum usum seu officium. Unde tam apud Lutheranos, quam apud Calvinistas potest unus et idem hodie esse minister, cras non minister, sive hodie cle¬ ricus, cras laicus : dimisso enim officio, nulla est inter eos clericorum alaicis dis¬ tinctio. Ex hoc etiam principio manifeste sequitur non requiri ullam electionem, vel ordinatio¬ nem ministrorum, ut verum SacrtSfnentum Eucharistiae conficiatur ; sed tantum ut ordo, et disciplina servetur. Quare Lutherani om¬ nes, nisi doctrinam suam destruere ipsi velint, coguntur Lutheri sententiam sequi de potestate consecranda} Eucharistiae omni¬ bus Christianis communi. At Catholica Christi Ecclesia longe aliam ab Apostolis doctrinam accepit, et in hanc usque diem servat : semper enim in Ecclesia pro indubitato habitum est, ita necessariam esse ordinationem sacerdotalem ad Eucha¬ ristiam conficiendam, ut sine ea nullo modo confici possit. IIa}C autem veritas probatur, primum ex verbo Dei. Nam illud Christi, Hoc facite, Luere xxii. non est dictum, nisi Apostolis, qui eo mandato ordinati sunt primi sacerdo- CAPUT XYT. 247 tes novi Testamenti. Id autem probatur hoc modo : Illud, Hoc facite, non significat solum Manducate, et bibite quod convenit omnibus Christianis, sed significat, Consecrate, su¬ mite, et aliis distribuite, ut me facere vidi¬ stis. Ista autem tria non possunt convenire omnibus ; ergo illud mandatum non est da¬ tum omnibus, sed solum quibusdam, qui ideo dicuntur sacerdotes ; ergo cmteri nullo modo possunt Eucharistiam consecrare, etsi id tentaverint, nihil facient. Nam Sacramenta conficiuntur in persona Christi : quare cui Christus id non commisit, is nihil facere pot¬ est. Probatur major propositio. Primo, ex ipso textu Lucae. Lucas enim, qui solus inter Evangelistas habet illa verba : Hoc facite , non dixerat antea, Accipite, manducate, etc. sed solum dixerat : Accepit panem, benedixit , et dedit, dicens : Hoc est corpus meum. Ergo non retulit Lucas illud, Hoc facite , ad actio¬ nem solam manducandi, cum ejus ne memi¬ nerit quidem ; sed retulit ad actionem bene¬ dicendi, et distribuendi, quas expresserat, et simul ad actionem manducandi, quia Do¬ minus etiam manducavit, ut est communis sententia, licet in Evangelio non exprimatur. Secundo, quia nulla est ratio, cur illud, Hoc facite , non debeat referri ad omnia, qua) Dominus fecit. Tertio, quia nisi ad omnia referretur, non haberemus mandatum divi¬ num in verbo Dei expressum de consecranda Eucharistia : et proinde non posset ab ad¬ versariis consecrari. Ipsi enim contendunt, non debere fieri nisi id, quod est expresse in divinis litteris mandatum. Denique adver¬ sarii fatentur illud : Hoc facite , referri ad omnes tres actiones , quas Christus fecit, videlicet benedicendi, distribuendi, et su¬ mendi. Lutherus ita docet in lib. de insti¬ tuendis ministris ad Pragenses, Confessio Augustana, cap. de Missa. Calvinus lib. iv* Inst. cap. 15. §. 20. et Kcmnitius in 2. par- Exam. pag. 534. initio disputationis de Com' munione sub utraque specie. Dicet aliquis : Yidetur B. Paulus I. Co- rinth. xi. restringere illud : Hoc facite, ad actionem manducandi, et bibendi ; ait enim : Hoc facite, quotiescumque bibetis in meam commemorationem (1), ac si dicat, quoties¬ cumque bibetis, bibite in memoriam passio¬ nis meae. Respondeo, non restringit Aposto¬ lus, sed exemplum ponit in actione una; quod etiam facere potuisset do aliis duabus ; quare vera sunt verba Pauli , sed non pug¬ nant cum verbis Lucae magis universali¬ bus. Probatur nunc minor propositio. Primo, si illud mandatum daretur omnibus, tene¬ rentur omnes consecrare, et distribuere : id autem non solum esset absurdissimum, sed etiam est contra consuetudinem omnium tum Catholicorum , tum haereticorum. Se¬ cundo, quia ita sempcr intellexit hoc man¬ datum universa Ecclesia, ut ex testimoniis, quae jam afferemus, perspicuum erit. Neque obstat, quod S. Thomas 3. part. q. lxxxi. art. 11. colligit ex hoc loco esse de jure di¬ vino, ut omnes aliquando sumant Euchari¬ stiam; ubi videtur intellexisse illud : Hoc fa¬ cite, dictum esse omnibus. Nam S. Thomas non vult colligi immediate, sed mediate. Quia enim Dominus jubet Apostolis, ut con¬ secrent, sumant, et distribuant ; consequen¬ ter jubet aliis, ut accipiant de manu sacer¬ dotum distribuentium. Quibus enim tene¬ rentur sacerdotes distribuere, si nulli tene¬ rentur accipere? Simile est illud Joan. ult. Pasce oves meas , ubi mandatur Petro, ut pascat gregem, et consequenter mandatur gregi, ut pastori obediat. Quare idem S. Thomas 3. part. q. lxxxii. art. 1. docet, per illud : Hoc facite , institutos fuisse a Domino sacerdotes. Probatur igitur secundo eadem veritas ex traditione, et consensu totius Ecclesiae. Ac primum habemus quatuor generalia Conci¬ lia, Nicamum I. can. 14. Lateranense sub Innocentio III, can. 1. Florentinum in In¬ struet. Armen. et Tridentinum sess. xxn. cap. 1. et sess. xxiii. cap 1. et 4. Prmterea sanctos Patres. Nam Dionysius Areopagita cap. 5. Ecclesiast. hierarchise part. 1. « Nec ipse, inquit, Sacerdos erit, nisi pontificalibus officiis ad hoc fuerit pro¬ motus. » Ignatius in epist. ad Trallianos, dicit, esse infideli deteriorem eum, qui au¬ det aliquid facere circa altaris ministerium, nisi fuerit episcopus, aut presbyter. Clemens lib. ii. Apostolicam constit. cap. 31. « Om¬ nis laicus sine sacerdote aliquid attentans, frustra facit. » Et loquitur aperte de sacrifi¬ cii oblatione. Et lib. viii. cap. ult. dicit, Christum solis Apostolis dixisse : Hoc facite. Tertullianus in lib. de praescriptionibus irri¬ det Marcionistas, quod apud eos aliqui hodie (1) I Cor. XI, 25. 248 LIBER IV. sint clerici, cras, laici, et ^iod laicis sacer¬ dotalia munia committantur. Quae sententia apertissime etiam Lutheranos nostros confu¬ tat. Nam apud eos ministri qui sunt, volente magistratu , fiunt laici , imo semper sunt laici. Neque enim veras habent ordinationes, sed solum injungitur eis officium praedican¬ di, et Sacramenta ministrandi sine vera or¬ dinatione : et hoc est (ut Tertullianus dicit) laicis sacerdotalia munia committere. Cyprianus lib. i. epist. 2. et 9. et lib. m. epistol. 15. non solum docet ; non posse Eu¬ charistiam conficere nisi sacerdotes : sed etiam inde colligebat, non esse apud haere¬ ticos veram Eucharistiam, cum non sit apud eos verum sacerdotium. Athanasius in 2. Apologia contra Arianos refert epistolam Synodi Alexandrinae, in qua Patres probant quemdam Hischiram Arianum non potuisse sacro calice uti, nec sacra celebrare, quod non esset ordinatus a vero Episcopo. Rasilius lib. ii. de Baptismo cap. 8. ex professo docet, esse quidem omnes Christianos sacer¬ dotes, largo quodam modo : quia omnes offerre debent spirituales hostias operum bo¬ norum : at proprie non esse nisi eos, qui ad hoc ordinati sunt ctc. Epiphanius haircs. 79. Collyridianorum, docet solos Apostolos a Christo ordinatos ministros Eucharistiae : et deinde ab Apostolis alios episcopos, et pre¬ sbyteros : eseteris autem laicis, et maxime fceminis , adeo hoc non licuisse unquam , ut ne ipsi quidem B. Virgini fuerit concessum. Chrysostomus non raro scribit, ob hanc unam eximiam potestatem consecranda! Eucharistiae, Angelos a sacerdotibus supe¬ rari. Vide lib. m. et vi. de sacerdotio, et hom. 51. et 83. in Matth. et homil 60. ad populum Antiochenum. Hieronymus frequen¬ ter hoc asserit, non posse nisi episcopos, et presbyteros Eucharistiam conficere. In lib. contra Luciferianos docet, Hilarium quem¬ dam, quia solum diaconus erat, non potuisse Eucharistiam consecrare, neque clericos or¬ dinare : et in epistola 1. ad Heliodorum, et 85. ad Evagrium, illo potissimo argumento diaconorum quorumdam superbiam compri¬ mit, et presbyteris longe inferiores esse de¬ monstrat, quod non habeant potestatem con¬ secrandi Eucharistiam, quam presbyteri ha¬ bent. De Ambrosio scribit Theoderetus lib. v. histor. cap. 17. dixisse eum Theodosio : u Purpura Imperatores facit, non sacerdo¬ tes. » Et in lib, de dignitate sacerdotali cap. 2. anteponit idem Ambrosius sacerdotalem potestatem regiae. Quod etiam facit Nazian- zenus in oratione ad populum timore percul¬ sum, et Chrysostomus hom. -4. in cap. vi. Isaiae. Quod etiam reipsa docuit S. Martinus cum in convivio Imperatoris anteposuit pre¬ sbyterum suum Imperatori, ut in ejus vita scribit Sulpitius. At si sacerdotalis potestas communis esset omnibus Christianis, ut ad¬ versarii dicunt, cum regia non sit omnibus communis, multo inferiores essent regibus sacerdotes. Vide etiam Paulinum epistol. 4. ad Amandum, Isichiumlib. n. in Levit, cap. 8. Denique Augustinum lib. xx. de Civitat. Dei cap. 10. ubi distinguit sacerdotes spiri¬ tuales, et improprie dictos ab episcopis, et presbyteris, qui proprie dicuntur sacerdo¬ tes. Ilis accedit, quod nullum proferri potest exemplum antiquitatis, quo probetur in ali¬ quo casu diaconum, aut laicum consecrasse Eucharistiam : sicut exempla non pauca pro¬ feruntur, quibus ostenditur in certis casibus diaconos, imo et laicos baptizasse. Constat enim ex cap. 8. Actor. Philippum diaconum baptizasse : cx Rutino lib. I. hisfc. cap. 14. constat ratum fuisse baptismum, quem Atha¬ nasius laicus, et puer contulerat. At de Eu¬ charistia nullum tale exemplum proferri pot¬ est : sed contra in summis etiam necessita¬ tibus constat Cathclicos caruisse potius Eu¬ charistia, quam ut eam non sacerdos confi¬ cere auderet. Scr:bit Theodoretus lib. iv. hist. cap. 12. cum Valens Imperator Aria- nus omnes sacerdotes passim e suis sedibus exturbaret, zelo Dei motum Eusebium Epi¬ scopum Samosatenum, militari habitu pera¬ grasse illa omnia loca, et clam ordinasse in variis locis presbyteros, et diaconos, ut po¬ puli Sacramentis non carerent. Augustinus in epist. 180. ad Honoratum scribit tempore belli non debere deseri plebes a clericis, etiamsi periculum vitee immineat : ne desint, qui Sacramenta ministrent, sine quibus non evitatur mors eeterna. Scribit quoque Epi¬ phanius in epist. ad Joannem Hierosolymi¬ tanum, se necessitate compulsum ordinasse presbyterum quemdam in Monasterio S. Hie¬ ronymi, quod duo presbyteri, qui in eo Mo¬ nasterio erant, ob nimiam humilitatem Eu¬ charistiam conficere non auderent. Ex quibus exemplis manifeste colligitur falsum esse, quod Lutherus docet, posse in certis casibus quoscumque homines consecrare Euchari¬ stiam. CAPUT XVII. 249 His adde antiquissimos Ecclesiae ritus. Nani primo, imperabatur omnibus altaris mi¬ nistris perpetua continentia, idque ex Apo¬ stolorum doctrina, ut habet Concilium II. Carthaginiense, can. 2. Secundo prohibebantur laici tangere, vel servare sacra vasa, ubi conficitur Eucha¬ ristia : ut praeter alia testimonia, patet ex epistola Synodi Alexandrinae in Apolog. 2. Athanasii contra Arianos, ubi probant cali¬ cem quemdam non fuisse sacrum, quia ser¬ vabatur in domo laici hominis. Et Nazian- zenus in oratione contra Arianos, et de seipso, mysterii vasa populo ad tangendum prohibita esse dicit.