Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book VI: On the Sacrifice of the Mass (Second)
Chapter 12: That Not All Things in the Mass Must Necessarily Be Pronounced in a Loud Voice
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. IV, De Sacramento Eucharistiae, Book VI: On the Sacrifice of the Mass (Second Book). 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).
There is another question, not much unlike the former, on the manner of the voice. For the adversaries accuse the Latin Church, because it commands most things in the Mass to be pronounced in a low voice: of which matter there is canon 9 in session 22 of the Council of Trent. Where at the beginning it is to be observed that the question is not whether it is of itself unlawful to celebrate the whole Mass in a loud voice; for we are not ignorant that the manner of the voice does not pertain to the substance of the sacrifice, and that all these things can be changed at the discretion of the Church. The whole question, therefore, is placed in this: whether the custom of the Latin Church of pronouncing certain things in a low voice is repugnant to the institution of Christ, and accordingly is evil and necessarily to be corrected.
And indeed Kemnitz, in the second part of the Examination, page 890, contends that it is against the institution of Christ that certain things be read in a low voice in the Mass: but the Council defines the contrary. That the opinion of the Council is most true, these reasons show. First, it is useful for the reverence of so great a mystery that not all things be said in a loud voice: for as Saint Basil rightly teaches, in his book on the Holy Spirit, chapter 27, it much conduces to preserving the dignity and reverence of the mysteries that men be not accustomed to hear the same things too often, or rather that they be not carried to the ears of the vulgar. For what kind of mysteries are those which are carried to the ears of all?
Secondly, we have the example of the ancient Liturgy, both Greek and Latin. The Liturgies of Basil and Chrysostom, which Kemnitz also noted, prescribe certain things to be said in silence and concluded in a loud voice: which same we observe, when we conclude the secret prayers by raising the voice in those words: “Through all ages of ages.” Nor is the answer of Kemnitz valid, who so interprets it as if those Liturgies prescribed that certain things be pronounced in a moderate voice, yet so that they be heard by all, but concluded with a shout and singing. For in the Liturgy of Chrysostom, where we read: “The priest prays secretly,” the Greek word does not signify a moderate voice, but plainly secretly; for those are not called mysteries which are published in a moderate voice, but those which are altogether concealed. And moreover in the same place the priest is warned to recite those prayers secretly, while the Deacon sings the Litany in a loud voice, or while the singers chant certain other things: accordingly the people cannot attend to what the priest says, and therefore they are truly and properly secret.
But of the Latin Liturgy we have the testimony of Innocent I in letter 4 to the Bishop of Gubbio, chapter 1, where, being asked about the time at which in the mystery of the Mass the peace is to be given, he openly indicates that the chief part of the Mass is secret: nor does he dare to open what those things are which are recited before the peace is given. But if the whole people had been wont to hear all those things, certainly nothing would have been secret, nothing hidden, and easily could have been committed to writing what was commonly known to all.
Thirdly we have the examples of the sacrifices of the old law. For (to omit that in sacrifices they generally prayed with the mind alone, without any words) Leviticus 16 describes the solemn sacrifice of incense, and the priest alone is commanded to enter within the veil, and to sacrifice, and to pray for himself and the people, all the others waiting outside and not only not hearing, but not even seeing the priest: with which rite also Zacharias the father of the Precursor sacrificed, we read, Luke 1.
Fourthly, Christ Himself in the sacrifice of the cross, which was the exemplar of all sacrifices, performed the oblation in silence, nor in the space of three hours spoke to the bystanders who heard, except seven very brief sentences: as many as are also the sentences which in the Canon of our Liturgy are pronounced in a loud voice.
But let us see what Kemnitz brings for his opinion. First he objects the institution of Christ, who in His Supper commanded His memory to be made, not by silence, but, as Paul explains, by announcing. And the argument could be confirmed by the example of Christ Himself, who pronounced the words of consecration in a loud voice, that all who were present could hear.
I answer: The memory and announcing of Christ ought to be made not so much in words as in the thing itself; for thus writes Augustine, Book 20 against Faustus, chapter 18: “Christians now celebrate the memory of the accomplished sacrifice by the most holy oblation and participation of the body of Christ, etc.” Nor could that be fulfilled in another way which Paul commands, that all announce the death of the Lord: for what confusion would there be, if all the people in the church had to announce the death of the Lord in words?
As regards the example of Christ, it is to be known that Christ pronounced those words not only to consecrate, but also to teach the Apostles the rite of consecrating: wherefore it behooved Him so to speak that He might be heard by the Apostles. Which even at this time the bishops observe, when among the solemnities of the Masses they ordain priests; for they so pronounce the words of consecration that all those new priests can hear. But other is the reason of those who celebrate Masses for the people.
The second objection. Christ did not so institute the Sacraments that the action indeed should be visible and public, but the word, which is the chief part of the Sacraments, should be concealed and buried. I answer: Other is the nature of a Sacrament, other of a sacrifice: for now we treat properly of the sacrifice. But the sacrifice consists not in words, but in the oblation of the thing: and words in the sacrifice of the Mass are required, not that they be the sacrifice itself, or a part of the sacrifice, but only that they exhibit to us the presence of the victim. For by the words of consecration, as we showed above, it is effected that the body of Christ is truly present on the altar: wherefore the sacrifice will be truly external and sensible, even if the words by which it is effected cannot be perceived. Add that in the Sacraments too, to whose essence the words chiefly pertain, it is not necessary that the words be perceived by those who receive the Sacraments, provided they be perceived by those who minister them: otherwise Baptism conferred on infants, madmen, the deaf, would be void, which not even Kemnitz would admit. To the argument, therefore, we answer that Christ did not indeed institute that the words be concealed and buried, but neither instituted that they be so pronounced as to be heard by all who are present, but only instituted that they be really employed, liberty being left to the Church to constitute the manner of reciting. Which not only the Catholics teach, but even the teacher and Prophet of Kemnitz, Luther, in his book on the form of the Mass, where he permits it free that the words of the Supper be pronounced in a loud or a low voice.
The third objection. The Apostle, 1 Corinthians 14, expressly distinguishes these two, to speak in the Church, namely of those things which pertain to the public ministry; and to speak privately to himself and to God.
I answer: To speak in the Church, for blessed Paul, is to exhort and instruct the Church; to speak to himself and to God is to pray, or to praise God: “In the Church,” he says, “I wish to speak five words with my understanding, that I may instruct others also.” And again: “If there be no interpreter, let him hold his peace in the Church, but speak to himself and to God.” And so he distinguishes preaching from prayer. But to neither properly pertains the sacrifice: for to sacrifice is not to speak, but to do; or if in some way it is to speak, it is not to speak of the Church, or to the Church, but to God. For he who offers the sacrifice to God deals with God, not with men, though he deals not privately, but publicly, because he deals not only for himself, but for the whole Church.
The fourth objection. In the ancient Church, those being dismissed who could not be present at the mysteries, the prayers, thanksgivings, and even the very words of consecration were pronounced in a loud voice. Which indeed of the words of consecration Cardinal Bessarion delivers, in his book on the words of the Supper, and the same is clear from the ancient rite of responding, “Amen,” to the words of consecration: of which rite Dionysius of Alexandria makes mention in Eusebius, Book 7 of the History, chapter 9, and Augustine in the book to Orosius, question 49. The same is clear from Chrysostom, homily 18 on Second Corinthians, where we read that the prayers and thanksgivings in the celebration of the Eucharist were common to the people with the priest. Finally the same is gathered from Novella constitution 123 of Justinian, where it is severely commanded to the priests that what is to be recited in the celebration of the oblation they pronounce in a loud voice, that the people can hear.
I answer: That the words of consecration were wont to be recited in a loud voice in the Eastern Church we do not deny, since it is most openly established from the Liturgy of Chrysostom. Nor do we reprehend this: for we do not contend that those words must necessarily be recited in a low voice, but that it belongs to the Church to determine of that rite, and accordingly that neither the rite of the Greeks nor of the Latins can or ought to be reprehended. But although the words of consecration among the Greeks were pronounced in a loud voice, that certain other things were among them pronounced plainly in secret we have evidently shown from the same Liturgy of Chrysostom. To the testimony, therefore, of Bessarion and of Dionysius of Alexandria there is no need to answer.
To the passage of Augustine I answer that neither is that book Augustine's, as the learned confess, nor does it make to the point: for that author does not speak of the consecration, but of the dispensation of the Sacrament: for he only says that those were wont to respond “Amen” who receive the blood of the Lord, the priest saying: “The blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Of which rite Ambrose too makes mention, Book 4 on the Sacraments, chapter 5.
To the passage of Chrysostom I answer that Chrysostom chiefly wishes this, that the people be not idle in the temple, but pray for those things for which the priest also prays: which can be done, even if both the priest and the people pray in silence. Nay Cyprian, in his treatise on the Lord's prayer, writes that at the time of the sacrifice Anna the mother of Samuel is to be imitated, who so prayed that her lips moved, but the voice was not at all heard, 1 Kings 1, and he says that she bore the type of the Church, while she prayed in silence. In our Liturgy too it is then said to the people, “Pray, brethren,” when prayer is to be made in secret. Add that Chrysostom does not say that all the prayers are common to the people with the priest: wherefore even if he spoke of the community of altogether the same prayers, the adversaries would obtain nothing. For in the Liturgy of Chrysostom there are openly distinguished those things which are to be said by all, and those which are to be said by the priest alone, and that in secret.
To the Novella of Justinian it could be answered first that it does not pertain to the emperor to make laws about the rite of sacrificing: accordingly it matters not much what he decreed. But let us also answer this, that that law is not contrary to our opinion: for he only commands that what in the Eastern Churches was wont to be said in a loud voice be said by all in a loud voice. For some erred, as is gathered from that very Novella, who pronounced in a low voice those things which by received custom were to be pronounced in a loud voice, that in this way they might cover their ignorance: who indeed are rightly reprehended, both because they acted against the custom of the Church, and because they did it from unskilfulness in reading.
The last objection. The Pontificials confess that this usage is not ancient. For Honorius and Beleth write that of old the words of consecration were wont to be pronounced in a loud voice: but that afterward it was commanded that they be said in silence, for this cause. Since those words were heard by all, they were also held in memory by many even of the laity: hence it came to pass that certain shepherds in the field pronounced those words over bread and wine. And forthwith the bread was converted into the body and the wine into the blood: and those shepherds, struck divinely, perished. From which history it is gathered that the usage of reciting the word of consecration in silence is not ancient, and arose from a superstitious opinion, as if those words were magical.
I answer: The miracle of which mention is made in this argument truly happened, but otherwise, and at a more ancient time, than is narrated by Kemnitz. For Sophronius writes, in the Spiritual Meadow, chapter 196, that in his time this miracle happened. But Sophronius flourished before the times of the Seventh Synod and of John Damascene; for his book, that is, the Spiritual Meadow, is cited by the Seventh Synod, action 4, and by Damascene in the third oration on the worship of images. Accordingly this miracle happened about 900 years ago, which is also briefly commemorated by Alcuin in his book on the divine offices, chapter on the celebration of the Mass: but Alcuin flourished about 800 years ago. Further, that miracle did not convert the bread into flesh, nor slay those shepherds, as Kemnitz gathers from obscure and more recent authors; but, fire being sent down from heaven, it consumed the bread and wine and the stone upon which they were placed, and stupefied those shepherds, so that for a long time they could scarcely speak. Nor does Sophronius write that this is the cause why those words are now said in secret: although if this were the cause, I do not see what could be objected against it. Certainly this usage would be most ancient, even if it did not begin before that miracle shown divinely to the world.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XII. Non esse omnia necessano in Missa alta voce 'pronuntianda. Alia quaestio est superiori non multum ab¬ similis, de modo vocis. Accusant enim adver¬ sarii Ecclesiam Latinam, quod pleraque in Missa submissa voce pronuntiari jubeat : de qua re exstat canon 9. in sess. 22. Concilii Tridentini. Ubi illud initio est observandum, non esse quaestionem, an sit per se illicitum totam Missam alta voce celebrare ; nec enim ignoramus modum vocis non pertinere ad substantiam sacrificii, et posse ista omnia ad arbitrium Ecclesia) immutari. Tota igitur quaestio in eo sita est : utrum consuetudo Latinae Ecclesiae, quaedam submissa voce pronuntiandi, repugnet Christi institutioni,. LIBER VI. 39ft ac proinde sit mala, et necessario corri¬ genda. Et quidem Kemnitius in 2. par. Exam. pag. 890. contendit contra Christi institutio¬ nem esse, ut quaedam submissa voce legantur in Missa: Concilium autem contra definit. Concilii vero sententiam verissimam esse lice rationes ostendunt. Primo, utile est ad reve¬ rentiam tanti mysterii, ut nonomniaalta voce dicantur : nam ut sanctus Basilius recte docet libro de spiritu sancto cap. 27. multum con¬ fert ad dignitatem, et reverentiam conser¬ vandam mysteriorum, ut non assuescant homines eadem saepius audire, vel potius, ut non efferantur ad aures vulgi. Qualia enim mysteria sunt quae ad omnium aures perfe¬ runtur? Secundo, habemus exemplum antiquae Liturgia}, tum Graecae, tum Latinae. Litur¬ gi se, Basilii, et Chrysostomi, quod etiam Kemnitius notavit, quaedam praescribunt di¬ cenda sub silentio, et concludenda alta voce: quod idem nos servamus, cum secretas ora¬ tiones concludimus, vocem attollendo in il¬ lis verbis : « Per omnia saecula saeculorum.') Neque valet Kemnitii responsio, qui illud ita interpretatur, ac si Liturgiae illae praescribe¬ rent, quaedam pronuntiari moderata vace, sic tamen ut ab omnibus audiantur, con¬ cludi autem cum clamore, et cantu. Nam in Liturgia Chrysostomi, ubi legimus : « Sacer¬ dos orat secreto, vox graeca » non si¬ gnificat voce moderata : sed plane secreto, nec enim dicuntur mysteria, quae moderata voce publicantur, sed quae omnino celantur. Et praeterea ibidem monetur sacerdos illas preces secreto recitare, dum Diaconus alta voce canit Litaniam, vel dum cantores alia quaedam concinunt : proinde non potest po¬ pulus iis attendere, quae dicit sacerdos, atque ideo vero et proprie secreta sunt. De Latina autem Liturgia habemus testi¬ monium Innocentii I in epistol. 4. ad Epi¬ scopum Eugubinum, cap. i., ubi interrogatus de tempore, quo in mysterio Missae pax danda est aperte indicat, praecipuam partem Missae esse secretam : nec audet aperire quae sint illa, quae recitantur antequam pax detur. At si totus populus illa omnia audire con¬ suevisset, certe nihil fuisset secretum, nihil arcanum, et facile potuissent litteris commit¬ ti, quae erant vulgo omnibus nota. Tertio habemus exempla sacrificiorum ve¬ leris legis. Nam (ut omitttam quod in sacri¬ ficiis plerumque sola mente orabant, sine ullis verbis) Levit. 46. describitur solemne sacrificium incensi , ac jubetur solus sacer¬ dos intra velum ingredi, et sacrificare, at¬ que orare pro se, et populo, omnibus aliis foris exspectantibus et, non modo non au¬ dientibus sed nec videntibus sacerdotem : quo etiam ritu sacrificasse Zachariam pa¬ trem Praecursoris, legimus Luc. i. Quarto Christus ipse in sacrificio crucis, quod exemplar fuit omnium sacrificiorum, in silentio oblationem peregit, nec trium ho¬ rarum spatio locutus est audientibus cir¬ cumstantibus, nisi septem brevissimas sen¬ tentias : quot sunt etiam sententiae, quae in Canone nostrae Liturgiae alta voce pronun- ciantur. Sed videamus quid pro sua sententia Kemnitius afferat. Primo objicit Christi in¬ stitutionem, qui in sua Coena jussit sui memo¬ riam fieri, non per silentium, sed, ut Paulus explicat, per annuntiationem. Et posset ar¬ gumentum confirmari Christi ipsius exemplo qui verba consecrationis alta voce pronun¬ tiavit, ut omnes qui aderant, audire potue¬ rint. Respondeo : Christi memoria, ct annun¬ tiatio non tam verbis, quam reipsa fieri debet ; sic enim scribit Augustinus lib. xx. contra Faustum cap. 48’: « Christiani, in¬ quit, jam peracti sacrificii memoriam cele¬ brant sacrosancta oblatione, et participatione corporis Christi ctc. » Neque posset alio modo impleri quod Paulus praecipit, ut om¬ nes annuntient mortem Domini : qualis enim confusio fieret, si omnis populus in Ecclesia mortem Domini verbis annuntiare debe¬ ret? Quod attinet ad Christi exemplum, scien¬ dum est, Christum’ non solum ea verba pro¬ nuntiasse ut consecraret, sed etiam ut Apo¬ stolos doceret ritum consecrandi : quocirca oportuit cum ita loqui, ut ab Apostolis au¬ diretur. Quod etiam hoc tempore Episcopi servant, cum inter Missarum solemnia ordi¬ nant sacerdotes ; sic enim pronuntiant verba consecrationis, ut omnes illi novi sacerdotes audire possint. Alia autem ratio est eorum, qui ad populum Missas celebrant. Secunda objectio. Christus non ita Sacra¬ menta instituit, ut actio quidem esset visi¬ bilis, et publica, verbum vero, quae est prae¬ cipua pars Sacramentorum occulletur et se¬ peliatur. Respondeo : Alia ratio Sacramenti, alia sacrificii est: nunc enim de sacrificio proprie agimus. Sacrificium autem non CAPUT Xlf. 397 iu verbis, sed in oblatione rei consistit : verba vero in sacrificio Missae requirun¬ tur, non ut sint ipsa sacrificium, vel pars sacrificii, sed solum ut victima; prsesen- tiam nobis exhibeant. Verbis enim conse¬ crationis, ut supra ostendimus, id efficitur, ut corpus Christi vere adsit in altari : quare sacrificium’ erit vere externum et scn- sible, etiamsi verba quibus id efficitur, sen¬ tiri non possint. Adde, quod in Sacramen¬ tis quoque, ad quorum essentiam verba potissimum pertinent, non est nccessc, ut verba ab iis percipiantur, qui Sacramenta suscipiunt, modo percipiantur ab iis, qui ea ministrant : alioqui Baptismus infantibus, amentibus, surdis, collatus, irritus esset, quod ne Kemnitius quidem admitteret. Ad argentum igitur respondemus, Christum non quidem instituisse, ut verba occultentur, et sepeliantur, sed neque instituisse ita pronun¬ tiari, ut ab omnibus, qui adsunt, audiantur, sed solum instituisse rcipsa adhibeantur, liber¬ tate relicta Eccclesue, utmodum recitandi con¬ stituat. Id quod non solum Catholici docent, sed etiam Kemnitii praeceptor et Propheta Lutherus in lib. de formula Missae, ubi libe¬ rum permittit, ut verba Ciente, alta vel sub¬ missa voce pronuntientur. Tertia objectio. Apostolus I Corintb. xiv diserte distinguit haec duo in Ecclesia loqui de iis scilicet quae ad publicum mini¬ sterium pertinent; et privatim sibi ipsi, et Deo loqui. Respondeo : In Ecclesia loqui Beato Paulo est exhortari, et instruere Ecclesiam; sibi et Deo loqui, est orare, vel laudare Deum: « Iu Ecclesia, » inquit, « volo quinque verba in sensu meo loqui, ut et alios instruam.» Et rursus : « Si non fuerit interpres, taceat in Ecclesia, sibi autem loquatur, et Deo. » Ita¬ que distinguit concionem ab oratione. Ad neutrum autem proprie pertinet sacrificium : sacrificare enim non est loqui, sed facere; vel si quo modo loqui, est, non est de Ec¬ clesia, vel Ecclesia; loqui, sed Deo. Qui enim sacrificium Deo offert, cum Deo agit, non cum hominibus, licet non privatim, seil pu¬ blice agat, quia non pro se tantum, sed pro Ecclesia universa agit. Quarta objectio. In antiqua Ecclesia di¬ missis iis, qui non poterant interesse my¬ steriis, alta voce pronuntiabantur preces, gratiarum actiones, et ipsa etiam verba con¬ secrationis. Quod quidem de verbis conse¬ crationis, tradit Bessarion Cardinalis in li¬ bro de verbis Ciente, et idem patet ex ritu antiquo respondendi, « Arnen, » ad verba consecrationis: cujus ritus meminerunt Dio¬ nysius Alexandrinus apud Eusebiumlib. vn. histor. cap. 9. et Augustinus in libro ad Orosium quies t. 49. Idem patet ex Chryso- stomo horni! . 18. in posteriorem ad Corin¬ thios, ubi legimus preces, et gratiarum ac¬ tiones in celebratione Eucharistia; populo cum sacerdote fuisse communes. Denique idem colligitur ex Novella constitutione 123. Justiniani, ubi severe praecipitur sacerdoti¬ bus, ut quae in oblationis celebratione reci¬ tanda sunt, alta voce pronuntient, ut popu¬ lus exaudire possit. Respondeo : Verba consecrationis in Ec¬ clesia Orientali alta voce recitari consuevisse, non negamus, cum id apertissime constet ex Liturgia Chrysostomi. Neque nos id repre¬ hendimus : non enim contendimus necessa¬ rio ea verba submissa voce recitanda esse, Ecclesia; statuere de eo ritu, et proinde ne¬ que Graecorum, neque Latinorum ritum re¬ prehendi posse, aut debere. Sed quanquam verba consecrationis apud Graecos alta voce, ac plane secreto pronuntiata apud eos fuisse, ex eadem Chrysostomi Liturgia evidenter ostendimus. Ad testimonium igitur Bessario- nis, et Dionysii Alexandrini, nihil opus est respondere. Ad locum Augustini respondeo, nec fi¬ brum illum esse Augustini, ut eruditi faten¬ tur, nec ad rem facere : non enim loquitur ille auctor de consecratione, sed de dispen¬ satione Sacramenti : id enim solum dicit, eos « Amcn » respondere solitos, qui acci¬ piunt sanguinem Domini, dicente videlicet sacerdote: «Sanguis Domini nostri Jcsu Christi ». Cujus ritus meminit etiam Ambro¬ sius lib. iv. de Sacramentis, cap. 5. Ad locum Chrysostomi respondeo, Cliry- sostomum id potissimum velle, ut populus non otietur in templo, sed oret pro iis rebus, pro quibus et sacerdos orat : id quod potest fieri, etiamsi tum sacerdos tum populus in silentio oret. Imo Cyprianus in tractatu de oratione Dominica, scribit tempore sacrificii imitandam esse Annam matrem Samuelis, quae ita orabat, ut labia moverentur, sed vox penitus non audiretur, I. Reg. 1. et eam typum Ecclesia; gessisse dicit, dum in silen¬ tio orabat. In nostra quoque Liturgia tunc dicitur populo : « Orate fratres », cum secreto est orandum. Adde, quod Chrysostomus non dicit omnes preces esse communes populo 398 LlBER VI. cum sacerdote : quare etiamsi loqueretur de communione earumdem omnino precum, ni¬ hil tamen adversarii obtinerent. Nam in Li- turgia Chrysostomi aperte distinguuntur, quae ab omnibus, et qua? a solo sacerdote, et quidem secreto dicenda sunt. Ad Novellam Justiniani responderi posset in primis non ad imperatorem pertinere de ritu sacrificandi leges ferre : proinde non multum referre quid ille sanxerit. Sed illud etiam respondamus, non esse legem illam sententiae nosti*cC contrariam : solum enim ille jubet, ut quae in Ecclesiis Orienta¬ libus alta voce dici solebant, ab omnibus alta voce dicerentur. Errant enim quidam, ut ex illa ipsa Novella colligitur, qui sub¬ missa voce pronuntiabant ea, quae ex recepta consuetudine alta voce prenuntianda erant, ut eo modo ignorantiam suam tegerent : qui quidem jure reprehenduntur*, tum quod con- tra morem Ecclesiae facerent, tum quod ex imperitia legendi id facerent. Ultima objectio. Fatentur Pontificii, usum istum non esse antiquum. Scribunt enim Ho¬ norius, etBelet olim alta voce verba conse- ci’ationis pronuntiari consuevisse : sed post¬ ea imperatum fuisse, ut sub silentio diceren¬ tur, hac de causa. Cum verba illa ab omnibus audirentur, a multis etiam laicis memoria tenebantur : inde factum est, ut quidam pa¬ stores in agro super panem, et vinum ea verba pronuntiaverint. Continuo autem pa¬ nis in corpus et vinum in sanguinem conversa sunt : et pastores illi divinitus percussi inter¬ ierunt. Ex qua historia colligitur, usum reci- tandi verbum consecrationis sub silentio, non esse antiquum, et ex opinione supersti¬ tiosa natum, quasi verba illa magica essent. Respondeo : Miraculum, cujus in hoc ar¬ gumento mentio fit, vere accidit, sed aliter, et antiquiore tempore, quam a Kemnitio narretur. Scribit enim Sophronius in Prato spirituali, cap. 196. suo tempore hoc mira- culum accidisse. Floruit autem Sophronius ante tempora VII. Synodi, et Joannis Dama¬ sceni ; nam citatur ejus liber, id est, Pratum spirituale a VII. Synodo actione 4. et a Da¬ masceno in 3. oxxitione de cultu imaginum. Proinde contigit hoc miraculum ante annos plus minus 900. quod etiam breviter com- memoratur ab Alcuino in libro de divinis officiis, cap. de celebratione Missa} : Flo¬ ruit autem Alcuinus ante annos 800. Porro miraculum illud non convertit panem in cai*- nera, nec pastores illos interfecit, ut Kem- nitius ex obscuris, ac recentioribus auctori¬ bus colligit ; sed igne de coelo demisso, panem, et vinum et lapidem, super quem illa sita erant, absunxpsit, et pastoi*es illos obstupefecit, ut ad longum tempus vix loqui possent. Neque scribit Sophronius istam esse causam, cur vei*ba illa secreto nunc dican¬ tur : quamquam si ista esset causa non video quid contra objici posset. Certe usus iste an¬ tiquissimus esset, etiamsi non ante coepisset, quam post miraculum illud divinitus inundo ostensum.