Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacraments in General · Book I: On the Nature and Causes of the Sacrament
Chapter 18: That the Sacraments are composed of things and words, as matter and form
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. III, De Sacramentis in Genere, Book I: On the Nature and Causes of the Sacrament. 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).
Being about to dispute of the causes of a Sacrament, I shall speak first of the intrinsic causes, then of the extrinsic. And of the intrinsic there will be three questions. First, whether the Sacraments consist of things, as matter, and words, as form. Second, what are those things and those words. Third, whether those things and words are so determined that nothing in them can be changed.
The first question, whether the Sacraments consist of things and words, as matter and form, although it is disputed only among Catholics — not so much on account of discord among them as that the matter may be explained — is yet a most useful, or even necessary, question, on account of the calumnies of the heretics, who from this doctrine of the Catholics, by which we require things and words in the Sacraments, strive to show that many of the things which we hold for Sacraments are not Sacraments. There are, then, various opinions of the Doctors. The first is that of certain more recent writers, who will have it that in the Sacraments, properly, the matter and form are not things and words, but that the sensible thing is the matter — whether it be a thing, or a word, or both — while the signification is the form. But what is commonly said, that in a Sacrament the thing is the matter and the word the form, they will have to be explained of a Sacrament taken materially. So teaches Dominic Soto in book 4 distinction 1 question 1 articles 1 and 2; and the same Cajetan seems to say in part 3 question 60 article 6, except that Cajetan affirms that the signification of a Sacrament is one and simple, resulting from the sensible composite of things and words, which Soto does not say. The second opinion is that of others, who teach that the Sacrament itself, and not only its material part, consists of things as matter and words as form. So St. Thomas part 3 question 60 article 6 to the second, and the older Theologians commonly. Again, some think that not all the Sacraments consist of things and words, but only certain ones. So Durandus in book 4 distinction 1 question 3, and Adrian question 2 On Baptism. Others teach that all the Sacraments of the new law consist of things and words. So Alexander of Hales, part 4 of the Summa question 8 member 3 articles 1 and 3, and the Theologians commonly in distinction 1 or 3. Others, finally, will have all the Sacraments to consist of things and words, if things and words be taken in a broad manner for those signs which are either true things and true words, or at least hold their place; but if they be taken strictly, not all the Sacraments consist of things and words. So teaches Dominic Soto in book 4 distinction 1 question 1 article 6, and certain other more recent writers. But these opinions can for the most part be reconciled.
Let this, then, be the first proposition: “It is probable that the Sacraments of the old law did not have things and words, but things alone.” This is St. Thomas's, part 3 question 60 article 6 to the last. The reason is that in the Old Scripture, where the chief rites of the Sacraments are prescribed, no mention is made of words, as is plain from Genesis 17, where the rite of Circumcision is prescribed; Exodus 12, where the rite of the Paschal Lamb is prescribed; Leviticus 8, where the rite of Ordination is prescribed. Besides, reason seemed to demand that the new Sacraments, instituted by Christ himself, should be clearer signs than the old ones, which Moses, as the minister of God, instituted. It might be objected that Leviticus 4, where the sacrifices for sin are prescribed (which were also Sacraments of the Old Testament, and answered to our Sacrament of Penance, as St. Thomas teaches first part of the second part, question 102 article 1), it is also prescribed that the priest pray for those whose the Sacrifice is. But it is answered that that prayer of the priest was not of the essence of the Sacrifice for sin, but only ought to be added in the use or administration of that Sacrament, for more easily obtaining. Which is gathered from this, that, as we there have, in the Sacrifice for the sin of the priest no prayer is applied, but only in the Sacrifice for the sin of others of the people. But that which is had Numbers 5, of the words prescribed in the ceremony of jealousy, is not to the point. For that ceremony was not a Sacrament, since it was instituted not to sanctify, but to investigate and punish adultery.
Second proposition: “In all the Sacraments of the new law there are found things, as matter, and words, as form.” This proposition, at least as to the manner of speaking, ought not to be denied. For it is had expressly in the Council of Florence, in the instruction of the Armenians, which was made, the Council itself approving, as we there read. Besides, we have in the Scriptures, expressly, things and words in four Sacraments: namely, in Baptism, Matthew 28: Baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. In the Eucharist, Matthew 26, where are put the bread and the word: This is my body. In Confirmation, Acts 8, where are put the imposition of the hand and the prayer, which is made by words. In Extreme Unction, James 5, where are put the anointing and the prayer. It is credible, then, that the other Sacraments too consist of things and words, although they be not had so expressly in the Scriptures. Likewise it is the common opinion of the old Theologians, one Durandus, or a few others, excepted, whose manner of speaking is to be corrected, although in substance they do not much differ from the rest.
Third proposition: “Not only what is material in a Sacrament, but the whole Sacrament itself, is rightly said to consist of things, as matter, and words, as form.” This is in some way against Cajetan and Soto; although what they say is also in some way true. It is to be noted, then, that a Sacrament properly is not any physical composite, nor an artificial one, but has a certain likeness with each. And indeed, if they be compared with an artificial composite, then without doubt its form is partly the signification, partly the operative power; but the matter is the things themselves and the words, in which reside the signification and that operative power. For as in an artificial composite the whole substance is called matter, but the form is a certain accident, so a Sacrament, as a sign, formally expresses the signification; as a cause, it expresses the operative power; all the rest pertains to the matter or subject. And taking the Sacraments in this way, Cajetan and Soto speak rightly. Yet a Sacrament can also be considered as it is like a physical composite. For as in a physical composite the matter precedes and the form comes to it, so in a Sacrament the word comes to the element. Likewise, as in a physical composite the matter is indeterminate, but is restricted by the form, so in a Sacrament the word determines the indifference of the element. Finally, as in a physical composite the matter is imperfect, the form is perfect and gives being to the thing, so in a Sacrament the words are more perfect than the things, since they are much clearer and more excellent signs. And in this way the whole word with its signification is the form, and the whole element with its signification is the matter.
This is proved, first, because so the Council of Florence and the old Theologians speak. For they say that a Sacrament is constituted of a thing and a word, as of matter and form. But, the signification removed, there is no composition of thing and word; for there is no other conjunction of things and words except inasmuch as the indeterminate signification of the thing is determined by the signification of the word. The Council and the Theologians, then, do not will only the subject of the signification to be constituted of things and words, but the whole Sacrament itself, even as it is a sign formally. Besides, the composition of a sensible thing and a signification is not a composition of matter and form, as of essential parts, but a composition of subject and accident. But the Council and the Theologians say that the Sacraments consist of matter and form, not of subject and accident; and often too they add that therefore the matter or form of the Sacraments cannot be changed by the Church, because they are of the essence or substance. Second, it is proved by reason. For the signification of a Sacrament is not one simple signification, as Cajetan teaches, but there are two partial ones, of which one total is composed. Therefore the very signification too will be composed of matter and form, as of essential parts. The antecedent is proved in two ways. First: Before the conjunction of the element and the word is made, each has its own signification; but from the conjunction no signification perishes. For the word cannot take away the signification of the element, which is natural, but only determine it — namely, so that, whereas water, for example, can naturally signify any purgation, it is determined by the word to signify purgation from sins. Each signification, then, remains, but they are conjoined among themselves, so that of two partial ones is made one entire and total one. Second: Both the word and the element in the Sacraments signify something, as all teach, and is plain also from St. Thomas part 3 question 60 article 6 to the first and second. But the word does not communicate its signification to the element, nor the element to the word; there are, then, two, not one. The assumption is proved. Because the signification of the element is natural, as St. Thomas there says, but that of the word voluntary. The signification of the element, then, is not communicated to the word, because then the signification of the word would be natural, not voluntary; and on the contrary, the signification of the word is not communicated to the element, because then the signification of the element would be merely voluntary, and in no way natural.
Fourth proposition: “For the Sacraments to be said to consist of things and words, it is not necessary that the things be not words, and the words not things, but it is enough if something discharge the place of a thing, another the place of a word.” This proposition reconciles the three last opinions. For, as Ledesma rightly notes, question 1 article 6, there is no question between Durandus and the others but of the name. The proposition is proved. For in the Sacrament of Penance it can happen that there be no other signs besides words. For by the common consent of the Theologians, in the Sacrament of Penance the form is the absolution; the remote matter are the sins; the proximate matter are the acts of the penitent — that is, contrition, confession, and satisfaction, inasmuch as they are made known by an external sign. But it can happen that one have only sins committed by word; and then the remote matter will be words alone. It can also happen that he show the signs of contrition, confession, and satisfaction only by words. For it is not of the essence of the Sacrament that the penitent weep, sigh, bend the knees, etc.; but if he only say his sins by word, and say that he is contrite and wills to satisfy, he can be absolved; wherefore the proximate matter too will then be nothing but words. Yet things and words are truly said to be in that Sacrament, because a sin committed by word is the matter of confession not as a word, but as a sin; and a sin formally is not a word, but a thing very distinct from the notion of a word. So also confession is not properly the matter of the Sacrament as a certain speech, but as an action of the penitent. For, as St. Thomas elegantly teaches in book 4 distinction 14 question 1 article 1, it is singular in this Sacrament that the action of the receiver is an essential part of the Sacrament. For as among corporeal medicines some are altogether extrinsic, as plasters, which are applied to the sick and do not require his action as a part of the medicine; and certain others are partly extrinsic, partly intrinsic, as certain potions, which require, as a part of the medicine, walking; so also certain Sacraments are on every part applied and conferred by the minister, as Baptism, the Eucharist, etc.; but the Sacrament of Penance is partly applied by the minister through the absolution, partly requires the action of the sick man himself, namely confession, etc.
The same we can now show of the form; for in the Sacrament of Matrimony, by the consent of all, in place of words nods or letters suffice, provided the consent of each party be sufficiently expressed. But that Pope Nicholas, cause 27 question 2 canon Sufficiat, and Pope Alexander, chapter Cum locum, On espousals and marriages, say that consent alone makes Matrimony, is not to be so taken as though interior consent sufficed without an external sign; since the same Alexander, chapter Licet, On the betrothed of two, teaches that it is necessary that the consent be expressed by the accustomed words. And so that particle, “Consent alone is said to make Matrimony,” does not exclude the sign by which consent is expressed, but excludes the consent of parents, and solemnity, and other things which are not of the essence of Matrimony.
Fifth proposition: “It is not necessary that in every Sacrament the things and words be so conjoined as the essential parts of one thing.” It is to be noted here that a Sacrament has a certain likeness with natural things, which consist of matter and form; yet it is not really a natural composite, and therefore not all the properties of matter and form are to be required, but it is enough if some be found. This proposition is proved from the Sacrament of the Eucharist. Since in the Eucharist, by the consent of all, there are found things for the matter — that is, bread and wine — and words for the form: This is my body, This is my blood; and yet those things and words are never so conjoined as matter and form in natural things. For either the Sacrament of the Eucharist is only the consecrated thing itself — that is, the species of bread and wine, as they contain the body and blood of Christ — or else also the consecration, or the receiving, as some will have it, can be called Sacraments. If the consecration be called the Sacrament, then we have the words, but we do not have the thing of which the Sacrament is composed; for the whole consecration consists in words; for the bread and wine do not concur as a part of the consecration, but as the subject about which the priest acts. And in the Sacrament of Confession the acts of the penitent, as both St. Thomas and the Council of Trent session 14 canon 4 say, are, as it were, the matter; nor do they dare to say absolutely that they are the matter. From all which we most plainly gather that matter and form in the Sacraments are to be taken in a broad manner; and hence too are easily solved all the objections that are wont to be made against it.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XVIII. Sacramenta componi ex rebus, et verbis, ut materia et forma. De causis Sacramenti disputaturus, Pri¬ mum de intrinsecis causis dicam. Deinde de extrinsecis. Ac de intrinsecis tres erunt quae¬ stiones. Prima ; An Sacramenta constent ex rebus, ut materia, et verbis, ut forma. Se¬ cunda ; Quae sirit illae res, et illa verba. Tertia ; An res illae, et verba ita determinata sint, ut nihil in eis mutari possit. Prima quaestio ; Utrum Sacramenta con¬ stent rebus, et verbis, tamquam materia, et forma, etsi solum inter Catholicos dispu¬ tatur, non tam ob discordiam eorum, quam ut res explicetur : est tamen qua*stio utilis¬ sima, vel etiam necessaria propter calum¬ nias haereticorum , qui ex hoc dogmate Catholicorum, quo requirimus res, et verba in Sacramentis, conantur ostendere, multa non^ esse Sacramenta ex his, qua nos ha¬ bemus pro Sacramentis. Sunt igitur variae Doctorum sententiae. Prima est quorumdam recentiorum, qui volunt proprie in Sacramentis materiam, • et formam non esse res et verba, sed rem sensibilem esse materiam , sive sit res, sive verbum, sive utrumque, significa¬ tionem autem esse formam. Quod vero communiter dicitur , rem in Sacramento esse materiam, verbum esse formam, vo¬ lunt explicandum esse de Sacramento ma¬ terialiter sumpto. Ita docet Dominicus a Soto in IY. dist. I. qusest. I. art. i. et 2. quod idem videtur dicere Cajetanus in 3. par. qusest. LX. art. 6. nisi quod Cajetanus affirmat, significationem Sacramenti esse unam et simplicem, resultantem ex compo¬ sito sensibili ex rebus et verbis ; quod So- tus non dicit. Altera sententia est aliorum, qui docent, Sacramentum ipsum, et non solum ejus partem materialem, constare ex rebus ut materia, et verbis utforma. ItaS.ThomasllI. par. qusest. LX. art. 6. ad secundum, et veteres Theologi communiter. Rursus quidam existimant, non omnia Sacramenta constare rebus, et verbis, sed solum quaedam. Ita Durandus in IV. dist. I‘. q. 3. et Adrianus quaest. 2. de Baptismo. Alii docent omnia Sacramenta novae legis, constare rebus, et verbis. Ita Alexand. Alensis IV. pars summae quaest. 8. memb. 3. art. 1. et 3. et Theologi communiter in dist. I. vel 3. Alii denique volunt omnia Sacramenta constare rebus et verbis, si res et verba ac¬ cipiantur largo modo pro iis signis, quae aut sunt vera? res, et vera verba, aut certe vicem eorum gerunt ; si vero accipiantur in rigore, non constare omnia Sacramenta rebus et verbis. Ita docet Dominicus a Soto in IV. dist. I. quaest. I. art. 6. et alii qui¬ dam recentiores. Sed istae opiniones magna ex parte conciliari possunt. Sit igitur Prima propositio : « Sacramenta veteris legis probabile est non habuisse res, et verba, sed solas res. » Ilaec est S. Thomae 3. par. quaest. LX. art. 6. ad ultimum. Ra¬ tio est, quia in Scriptura veteri, ubi prae¬ scribuntur praecipui ritus Sacramentorum, nulla fit mentio verborum, ut patet Genes. XVII. ubi praescribitur ritus Circumcisionis. ExodXII.ubi praescribitur ritus Agni Paschalis Levit. VIII. ubi praescribitur ritus Ordinatio¬ nis. Praeterea ratio postulare videbatur, ut / CAPUT XVIII. 377 Sacramenta nova ab ipso Christo instituta, signa essent clariora , quam vetera, quaj Moses, ut Dei minister, instituit. Posset objici, quod Levit. IV. ubi praescri¬ buntur sacrificia pro peccato (quae erant etiam Sacramenta Testamenti veteris, ac respondebant Sacramento nostro Poeniten¬ tiae, ut S. Thomas docet 4. 2. quaest. CII. art. 1.) praescribitur etiam, ut oret sacerdos pro iis, quorum est Sacrificium. Sed respon¬ detur, orationem illam sacerdotis non fuisse de essentia Sacrificii pro peccato, sed solum addi debuisse in usu, seu administratione Sacramenti illius ad facilius impetrandum. Id quod ex eo colligitur, quod, ut ibidem ha¬ bemus, in Sacrificio pro peccato sacerdotis nulla oratio adhibeatur, sed solum in Sa¬ crificio pro peccato aliorum de populo. Illud autem quod habetur Num. V. de verbis prajscriptis in caeremonia Zelotypiae, non est ad rem. Illa enim caeremonia non erat Sacramentum, cum non esset instituta ad sanctificandum, sed ad investigandum, et puniendum adulterium. Secunda propositio : « In Sacramentis omnibus novae legis inveniuntur res, ut ma¬ teria ; et verba, ut forma. » Haec proposi¬ tio saltem quoad modum loquendi, negari non debet. Habetur enim expresse in Con¬ cilio Florentino, in instructione Armenorum, quae facta est, ipso approbante Concilio, ut ibidem legimus. Praeterea habemus in Scrip¬ turis, expresse res, et verba in quatuor Sa¬ cramentis , nimirum in Baptismo Mattb. XXVIII : Baptizantes eos in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus sancti. In Eucharistia Matth. XXVI. ubi ponitur panis, et verbum : Hoc est corpus meum (I). In Confirmatione Actor. VIII. ubi ponitur manus impositio et oratio, quae verbis fit. In extrema unctione, Jacobi V. ubi ponitur unctio et oratio. Credibile igitur est alia etiam Sacramenta constare rebus, et verbis, licet non habeantur ita ex¬ presse in Scripturis. Item est communis sententia veterum Theologorum, uno Du¬ rando, vel aliis paucis exceptis, quorum loquendi modus corrigendus est, licet in re non multum discrepent a caeteris. Tertia propositio : « Non solum quod est materiale in Sacramento, sed ipsum totum Sacramentum recte dicitur constare ex re¬ bus, ut materia; et verbis, ut forma. » Ha?c est aliquo modo contra Cajetanum, et So- tum : quamvis quod ipsi dicunt, etiam .aliquo modo sit verum. Notandum igitur, Sacramentum proprie non esse compositum aliquod Physicum, neque artificiosum, sed cum utroque ha¬ bere similitudinem quamdam. Et quidem si conferantur cum composito artificioso, tum sine dubio forma ejuspartim estsignificatio, partim virtus operativa ; materia vero sunt res ipsse, et verba, in quibus residet si¬ gnificatio, et virtus illa operativa. Ut enim in composito artificioso tota substantia di¬ citur materia, forma vero est quoddam ac¬ cidens : ita Sacramentum, ut signum, for- maliter dicit significationem ; ut causa, dicit vim operativam; reliqua omnia ad materiam, seu subjectum pertinent. Et hoc modo ac¬ cipiendo Sacramenta, recte dicunt Cajeta- nus et Sotus. Tamen potest etiam Sacramentum con¬ siderari, ut est simile composito Physico. Nam ut in composito Physico materia pra;- cedit : forma accedit, ita Sacramento acce¬ dit verbum ad elementum. Item ut in com¬ posito Physico materia est indeterminata, sed coarctatur a forma ; ita in Sacramento verbum determinat indifferentiam elementi. Denique, ut in composito Physico materia est imperfecta, forma est perfecta, et dat esse rei : ita in Sacramento verba sunt re¬ bus perfectiora, cum sint signa multo cla¬ riora, et prsestantiora. Et hoc modo totum verbum cum sua si¬ gnificatione est forma, et totum elementum cum sua significatione, est materia. Id quod probatur Primo, quia ita loquitur Concilium Florent, et veteres Theologi. Nam ipsi di¬ cunt, Sacramentum constitui ex re, et verbo, ut ex materia, et forma. At remota signifi¬ catione, nulla est compositio ex re, et verbo; non enim est alia conjunctio rerum, et ver¬ borum, nisi quatenus rei significatio inde¬ terminata, determinatur per significationem verbi. Non igitur Concilium, et Theologi vo¬ lunt solum subjectum significationis consti¬ tui ex rebus, et verbis, sed totum ipsum Sacramentum etiam ut signum est forma- liter. Praeterea compositio ex re sensibili, et significatione, non est compositio ex ma¬ teria et forma,, ut partibus essentialibus, sed est compositio ex subjecto, et accidente. At Concilium, et Theologi dicunt : Sacra- Matth. XXVIII, 19; Matth. XXVI, 26. 378 LIBER I. menta constare ex materia ct forma, non ex subjecto, et accidente : s£cpe etiam addunt, ideo non posse ab Ecclesia mutari materiam, aut formam Sacramentorum, quia sunt de essentia, seu substantia. Secundo probatur ratione. Nam significa¬ tio Sacramenti , non est una significatio simplex, ut Cajetanus docet, sed dure sunt partiales, ex quibus una totalis componitur. Ergo ipsa etiam significatio ex materia, et forma componetur, ut ex partibus essentia¬ libus. Antecedens probatur dupliciter. Primo : Antequam fiat conjunctio elementi, et verbi, utrumque habet suam significationem : Sed ex conjunctione non perit ulla significatio : Non enim potest verbum tollere significa¬ tionem elementi, quee est naturalis, sed so¬ lum eam determinare, nimirum, ut cum aqua, exempli causa, naturaliter significare possit quamlibet purgationem, determinetur a verbo ad significandam purgationem a peccatis. Manet igitur utraque significatio, sed conjunguntur inter se, ita ut ex duabus partialibus, fiat una integra, et totalis. Secundo : Tam verbum, quam elemen¬ tum in Sacramentis significat aliquid, ut omnes docent, et patet etiam ex S. Thoma III. par. quest, LX. art. G. ad primum et secundum. Sed verbum non communicat elemento suam significationem , neque verbo elementum : duae sunt igitur, non una. Assumptio probatur. Quia elementi signifi¬ catio naturalis est, ut ibidem ait S. Thomas, verbi autem voluntaria. Non igitur signifi¬ catio elementi communicatur verbo, quia tura naturalis esset, non voluntaria verbi significatio : et contra, significatio verbi non communicatur elemento, quia tunc elementi significatio esset mere voluntaria, et nullo modo naturalis. Quarta propositio : « Ut Sacramenta constare dicantur rebus, et verbis, non est necesse, ut res non sint verba, et verba non sint res, sed sat est si aliquid fungatur vice rei, aliud vice verbi. » Hrec propositio conciliat tres ultimas sententias. Nam ut Ledesmius recte monet, quoest. I. art. 6. non est quaestio inter Durandum, et alios, nisi de nomine. Probatur propositio. Nam in Sacramento Poenitentiae potest fieri, ut nulla sint alia signa praeter verba. Ex communi enim consensu Theologorum, in Sacramento Poenitentiae, forma est absolutio ; materia remota sunt peccata; materia proxima sunt aotus poeni- tentis, id est, contritio, confessio, et satis¬ factio, quatenus signo externo produntur. Potest autem fieri, ut quis non habent nisi peccata verbo commissa ; et tunc materia remota erunt sola verba. Potest etiam fieri, ut non ostendat signa contritionis, confes¬ sionis, et satisfactionis , nisi verbis. Non enim est de essentia Sacramenti, ut poeni- tens ploret, suspiret, flectat genua etc. sed si tantum verbo dicat sua peccata, et dicat se esse contritum, et velle satisfacere, potest absolvi : quare materia etiam proxima tunc non erunt, nisi verba. Tere tamen dicuntur esse in eo Sacramento res, et verba, quia peccatum verbo commissum, non ut verbum, sed ut peccatum est materia confessionis : peccatum autem formaliter non est verbum, sed res a verbi ratione valde distincta. Sic etiam confessio non est proprie materia Sa¬ cramenti, ut oratio qusedam, sed ut actio poenitentis. Nam ut eleganter docet S. Tho- masin IY.dist I i. quajst I. art. I. singulare est in hoc Sacramento, ut actio suscipientis sit pars essentialis Sacramenti. Ut enim in¬ ter corporalia medicamenta, qusedam sunt omnino extrinseca, ut emplastra, quae ap¬ plicantur segrotis , et non requirunt ejus actionem, ut partem medicamenti ; quasdam alia partim sunt extrinseca, partim intrin¬ seca, ut quaedam potiones, quae requirunt ut partem medicamenti , ambulationem : sic etiam quaedam Sacramenta omni ex parte applicantur, et conferuntur a ministro, ut Baptismus, Eucharistia etc. sed Sacra¬ mentum Poenitentia; partim applicatur a ministro per absolutionem,, partim requirit, ipsius aegroti actionem, nimirum confessio¬ nem etc. - Idem jam de forma ostendere possumus ; nam in Sacramento Matrimonii omnium consensu, loco verborum sufficiunt nutus, aut litterae ; modo sufficienter exprimatur consensus utriusque partis. Quod vero aiunt Nicolaus Papa 27. quaest. 2. can. Sufficiat; et Alexander Papa, cap. Cum locum, de sponsalibus, et matrimoniis, solum consen¬ sum efficere Matrimonium ; non ita est acci¬ piendum, quasi consensus interior sufficiat sine signo externo : siquidem idem Alexan¬ der, cap. Licet, de sponsa duorum, docet necesse esse, ut consensus, verbis consuetis exprimatur. Itaque illa particula : « Solus consensus dicitur efficere Matrimonium : » non excludit signum, quo exprimitur con- 379 sensus, sed excludit consensum parentum, et solemnitatem, et alia, quae non sunt de essentia Matrimonii. Quinta propositio : « Non est necesse, ut in omni Sacramento res, et verba ita con¬ jungantur, ut partes essentiales ejusdem rei. n Notandum est hoc loco. Sacramentum habere quamdam similitudinem cum rebus naturalibus, quae ex materia et forma cons¬ tant: tamen non esse revera compositum naturale, et idcirco non esse requirendas omnes proprietates materiae, et formae, sed satis esse, si aliquae reperiantur. Probatur haec propositio ex Eucharistiae Sacramento. Siquidem in Eucharistia om¬ nium consensu inveniuntur res pro ma¬ teria, id est, panis, et vinum, et verba pro forma : Hoc est corpus meum. Hic est sanguis meus ; et tamen nunquam res istae, et verba ita conjunguntur, ut materia, et forma in rebus naturalibus. Nam vel Sacramentum Eucharistiae est solum res ipsa consecrata, id est, species panis, et vini, ut continent corpus, et sanguinem Christi : vel etiam con¬ secratio, aut sumptio, ut quidam volunt, Sacramenta dici possunt. Si consecratio di¬ catur Sacramentum, tum verba habemus, sed rem non habemus, ex qua Sacramen¬ tum componatur: tota enim consecratio in verbis consistit ; nam panis, et vinum non concurrunt, ut pars consecrationis, sed ut subjectum circa quod agit Sacerdos ; et in quo recipitur actio consecrantis. Cum vero Sacramentum dicitur res ipsa consecrata, vel sumptio, tunc rem habemus, verba non habemus, ex quibus Sacramentum compo¬ natur. Verba enim respectu rei consecbatae, non sunt pars essentialis, sed principium productivum; pars enim essentialis manet cum ipsa re, verba autem non manent cum re consecrata, imo tunc primum incipit esse res consecrata, cum verba desinunt esse. Quocirca Concilium Florentinum in instruc¬ tione Armenorum, non docet, verba Eucha¬ ristiae esse formam ex qua constat Sacra¬ mentum, sed ex qua conficitur consecratio. Sic enim ait: « Forma hujus Sacramenti sunt verba Salvatoris quibus hoc conficitur Sacramentum. » Ex quo inlclligimus, quan¬ do idem Concilium docet, in omni Sacra¬ mento esse res pro materia, et verba pro forma, non debere hoc intelligi ita proprie, ut intelligeremus in vero composito natu¬ rali. Idem ostendi posset ex Sacramento Con¬ fessionis. Nam non solum, ut diximus, in eo Sacramento materia sunt verba, quae gerunt vicem rerum ; sed etiam potest fieri, ut uno die liat confessio et altero die detur absolu¬ tio, ac proinde tum non simul sint materia, et forma : quod in nullo composito vere Physico reperitur. Quocirca tum Concilium Florentinum in instructione Armenorum, tum etiam Tridentinum sess. XIV. can. 4. dicunt, in Sacramento Confessionis actus pcenitentis esse quasi materiam; nec audent absolute dicere esse materiam. Ex quibus omnibus apertissime colligimus materiam, et formam in Sacramentis largo modo esse accipiendam ; atque hinc etiam facile solvuntur omnia, quaj contra objici solent.