Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacraments in General · Book I: On the Nature and Causes of the Sacrament
Chapter 19: That the word which with the element makes the Sacrament is not sermon-like, but consecratory
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).
We have said that in the Sacraments things and words are required, in which we agree with the adversaries. Nor does that doubt remain concerning the thing — what, namely, is that which is to be applied in the Sacraments as the sensible sign; for they confess with us that in Baptism water, in the Eucharist bread and wine, are to be applied. Of the matter of the other Sacraments there is no need to treat here, since these are not held for Sacraments by the adversaries. One thing I will add here, that Brentius in the Württemberg Confession, chapter On Baptism, ridiculously excludes Chrism from the use of the Sacrament, on the ground that he says it pertains to the elements of the world, and was in use among the Jews in the ceremonies of the Old Testament. For if that reason were of any force, water too would have to be excluded. For water pertains more to the elements of the world than oil does, since it is itself one of the four elements of the world, whereas oil is numbered not among the elements but among mixed things. In the ceremonies of the Jews too the washings of water were far more frequent than the anointings of oil.
But these things omitted, of which we must speak elsewhere, the gravest question is of the word which, conjoined with the thing, makes the Sacrament. For all Catholics teach that the word of the Sacrament is certain few words prescribed by God, which are to be pronounced by the minister over the matter; as in Baptism those words, “I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”; in the Eucharist those, For this is my body; and of the rest in the same manner. But John Calvin, book 4 of the Institutes chapter 14 section 4, contends that the sacramental word is nothing else than a sermon; for thus he speaks: “This is what they commonly say, that a Sacrament consists of a word and an external sign. For we ought to understand the word, not as one which, whispered without sense and faith, by mere noise like a magic incantation has the force of consecrating the element, but as one which, being preached, makes us understand what the visible sign means. What, therefore, was practiced under the tyranny of the Pope was not without a huge profanation of the mysteries; for they think it enough if the priest mutter the formula of consecration while the people gape without understanding.” And below: “Therefore when we hear mention made of the sacramental word, let us understand the promise which, preached with a clear voice by the minister, leads the people by the hand to that whither the sign tends, and directs us.” So he. But before we either prove or refute anything, Calvin's opinion must be diligently explained.
First, then, it is to be noted that Calvin and our other adversaries think and speak otherwise of Baptism, otherwise of the Eucharist, which two alone are among them most properly Sacraments. For in Baptism they require two kinds of words, in the Eucharist one only; since in Baptism they require, in the first place, a sermon-word, by which the divine promise is proposed and explained by the minister; then they require that, while the water is sprinkled, those words be at the same time said: “I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” Which is plain both from Calvin's booklet On the form of ministering the Sacraments, and from Melanchthon in the Commonplaces chapter On Baptism, and from their daily practice; and finally because those whom the Lutherans and Calvinists have baptized are not rebaptized among the Catholics, which yet would have to be done unless they applied the true form of the Sacrament while they baptize. But in the Sacrament of the Eucharist the Calvinists (as is clear from Calvin's formula) require no other word than that of instruction; for they bid, in the first place, the institution of the Sacrament be recited from chapter 11 of the first to the Corinthians, almost in the manner in which we in the Mass recite the lesson from the same epistle for the instruction of the people; then the preacher applies an explanation; and then at last, without any sign of the cross, or other word or sacred rite, they distribute the bread and wine. There exists another formula of the English who live at Geneva, in which, after the reading of the epistle to the Corinthians and the sermon, there follows a thanksgiving in set words, which the minister pronounces with a loud voice, and then at last, without any consecratory words, the bread and wine are distributed. But the Lutherans do not all act in the same way, but some recite the words of institution merely historically, some recite them with the intention of consecrating, some recite nothing; whose opinions see in Kemnitz in the second part of the Examen, page 346. From which it follows that the adversaries have true Baptism, but not a true Eucharist, except perhaps very few — namely, those who apply the words and were ordained priests in the Church.
Second, it is to be noted that Calvin's saying, that the sacramental word is a sermon, can be understood in two ways. In one way, so that he will have the sermon to be an essential part of the Sacrament, so that without a sermon there is no Sacrament. In the other way, so that he will have the sermon to be not a part of the Sacrament, but only required that the Sacrament be fruitfully received. And indeed it is very probable that the Lutherans, who besides the sermon apply the words of consecration in all the Sacraments, do not require the sermon for the essence, but only for obtaining the fruit of the Sacrament; and accordingly with them there will be no altercation here; excepting, however, those who pronounce the very sacramental words not to consecrate, but to instruct, and openly call it the preaching of the Gospel, as John Brentius does in the Württemberg Confession chapter On the Eucharist. But Calvin seems indeed sometimes to speak of the sermon-word as of a thing distinct from the Sacrament, as when he says book 4 chapter 14 section 3 that the Sacrament is, as it were, an appendix of the word; yet more often he speaks of it as of an essential part of the Sacrament. For in the words cited above he says that a Sacrament consists of two things, the sign and the word, and by the word he says he understands the sermon. Likewise in the same place he explains of the sermon-word that of Augustine: “The word comes to the element, and it becomes a Sacrament”; where without doubt the word is put as of the essence of the Sacrament. For in the same place Augustine, and from Augustine Calvin, says: “Without the word what is water but water?” — that is, water without the word is not a Sacrament, but a profane element. Besides, if the sermon-word were not of the essence of the Sacrament, in the Eucharist there would be no word of the essence, among the Calvinists; for they have no other word in that Sacrament than the sermon. Besides, in the commentary on chapter 5 to the Ephesians, Calvin, explaining that (cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life): “It appears,” he says, “that in the Papacy there is no legitimate observance of the signs. For they boast that they have the word indeed, but such as is in place of an incantation; because they mutter it in an unknown tongue, and so, as though it were destined rather for the dead element than for men; there is no explanation of the mystery to the people, which alone makes the dead element begin to be a Sacrament.” Note the last words. Finally Theodore Beza takes away all doubt, when he thus writes in the book which he entitled The Sum of the doctrine of the Sacramentarian matter: “What is the formal cause of the Sacraments? The ordination of God comprehended in his word, and explained by his minister according to his command; but not the very pronouncing of those words, nor any force hidden in the terms.” So he. From which we understand that those words of Baptism, “I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” are indeed recited by the Calvinists while the water is sprinkled, but that those words are not the form of the Sacrament among them; but that the preceding sermon is the form, and those words pertain to the rite, as the same Theodore indicates a little below; and that those very words are not uttered that the water may be consecrated, but that thence too the people may be instructed.
It is to be noted, third, that there are three things in which we dissent from the Calvinists, which are to be demonstrated in order. For, first, we teach that in every Sacrament it is necessary that certain words instituted by God be pronounced in the very action of the Sacrament; they teach this necessary only in Baptism. Second, we teach that for the essence of a Sacrament a sermon-word is not required; they affirm that it is required. Third, we teach that for the essence of the Sacraments certain set, consecratory words are required, and that these are what are properly called the sacramental words; they deny all this, and call it a magic incantation. For the words of Baptism too, as I said, they do not recite while they sprinkle the water for that reason, but that the people may be instructed, so that those words also may be a certain part of the sermon; in which, as I said, John Brentius and certain others of the Lutherans agree with the Calvinists. And this is the reason why they use the vulgar tongue, we the Latin, in the Sacraments; for they wish to teach the people, who do not understand the Latin tongue; we invoke God to sanctify the element, and God understands all tongues.
Let this, then, be the first proposition: “Not only in Baptism, but also in the other Sacraments, words are required in the very celebration of the mystery.” It is proved. For in the Eucharist, the Lord, while he blessed the bread, pronounced certain words, namely: This is my body, which is given for you; and then bade that we should do the same: “This,” he says, do in commemoration of me, Luke 22. We too, then, ought to use certain words, if we wish to do what he did, as he commanded us. They will say perhaps that Christ commanded us to do what he did, but not to say the words which he said. But we answer that that (Do this) is referred to the whole action of Christ, so as to comprehend also the words. Which (to omit now other arguments) we learn from the tradition and use of the Catholic Church; which tradition, if it be not received, the form of Baptism too will be called into doubt. For whence, I ask, is it gathered that, while the water is sprinkled, those words are to be said, “I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”? Certainly from nowhere else than from those words, Matthew last: Teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. But from this place it cannot certainly be gathered, unless the tradition of the Church be received. For the Lord does not say, Say: I baptize thee in the name of the Father, etc.; it will be enough, then, if, sprinkling the water, we say, In the name of the Father, and of the Son, etc. Besides, neither did the Lord say, Say: In the name of the Father, etc., but only said: Baptizing them, in the name of the Father, etc.; which words do not compel us to say, In the name of the Father, etc., but only to baptize by the authority of God, namely as his ministers, which can be done even if we say nothing. Which can be demonstrated from other like places. For Mark last the Lord says: In my name they shall cast out devils, they shall lay their hands upon the sick, and they shall recover. And yet there was no need that the Apostles, when they wished to cure someone, should say with the voice, In the name of the Lord, but it was enough if in thought; for Acts 9 Peter raised Tabitha, and Acts 14 Paul healed the lame man, without any mention of the name of Christ. So also Matthew 18 the Lord says: Where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. And yet there is no need that those who wish to be gathered in the name of Christ say in words, We are gathered in the name of Christ; but it is enough if they come together by the authority of Christ. So finally John 5 the Lord says: I am come in the name of my Father, and you receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him you will receive. Where nothing else is signified by “name” than authority. That, then, in Baptism we ought to say, “I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” cannot certainly be gathered from Scripture alone, but from Scripture with the explanation and practice of the Church adjoined. But if in Baptism the authority of the Church is received, why not also in the Eucharist and the other Sacraments?
Of the other Sacraments the same can be proved, although it is not very necessary, since they are not received by the adversaries. In Confirmation it is clear that words are to be applied, from chapter 8 of Acts, where the Apostles, laying on hands, at the same time prayed. Whence Cyprian in the epistle to Jubaianus: “In the imposition of hands,” he says, “the Holy Spirit is invoked and infused upon the baptized.” The same Ambrose has, book 3 On the Sacraments chapter 2: “After the font,” he says, “it remains that the perfection be made, when at the invocation of the priest the Holy Spirit is infused.” The same has Jerome in the book against the Luciferians, and Augustine book 3 On Baptism chapter 16. That words are required also in the Sacrament of Penance is plain from that of John 20: Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven; for this cannot be done without words. Whence John Chrysostom, in the commentary on that place, says that God uses both the hand and the tongue of the priest to absolve; and St. Leo in epistle 91 to Theodore says that after Baptism God so ordained the remedy of Penance that pardon cannot be obtained except by the supplications of the priests. That words are required in the Sacrament of Order, Ambrose teaches on chapter 4 of the first to Timothy: “The impositions of hands,” he says, “are mystic words, by which he who is chosen is confirmed for the work, receiving authority, his conscience being witness, that he may dare to offer sacrifice to God in the Lord's place.” Likewise Jerome on chapter 58 of Isaias says that the ordination of clerics is made by the imprecation of the voice and the imposition of hands. In the Sacrament of the Unction of the sick, it is plain that words are required, from the epistle of James chapter 5: Let him bring in the priests of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord, etc. Finally in Matrimony the matter is clear, since the mutual consent cannot be established unless it be expressed by words or equivalent signs. And so Calvin too, in the book On the form of ministering the Sacraments, although he does not hold Matrimony for a Sacrament, yet will have it celebrated in the Church, and prescribes a certain form of words.
Second proposition: “A sermon-word is not required for the essence of any Sacrament.” It is proved, first, by the argument negatively from the authority of Scripture, which is wont and ought to be made much of by the adversaries, since in divine things nothing ought to be done without the word of God, and they acknowledge no word of God but the written. In the Scriptures, then, mention is made of Baptism; first John 3: Unless a man be born again, etc.; then John 4, where we have that the Lord baptized through his disciples; likewise Mark last: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; to Titus chapter 3: He saved us by the laver; 1 Peter 3: Baptism saveth you. But in these places no mention is made of a word, much less of a sermon. There are only two places where mention is made of words. One is to the Ephesians 5: Cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life. The other Matthew last: Teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. The former place ought to be explained by the latter; both because this is a general rule celebrated even by the adversaries, that, when it can be done, one Scripture be explained by another; and because Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Anselm, and other interpreters so teach; for they say that that, “In the word of life,” signifies, “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” One is Jerome, who in the commentary on this place by “word of life” understands doctrine. But it is to be observed that Jerome omitted the literal exposition, and only expounded mystically — that is, as he himself says, tropologically. For by “laver” he understands not Baptism, but any purgation, which can be made through doctrine. But all the interpreters who expound to the letter understand by “laver” Baptism, and by “word” the invocation of the Trinity. There remains, then, only that place of Matthew last: Teach ye all nations, baptizing them, etc.; in which place we do not deny that it is commanded that instruction precede Baptism — nay, this very thing we teach and do; for we baptize no adults unless they have first been long and much instructed. But we deny that in this place a sermon is prescribed as an essential part of the Sacrament; nay, we assert that in this place doctrine is openly distinguished from the Sacrament. For so St. Jerome distinguishes, in the commentary on this place: “The chief order,” he says, “bade the Apostles first to teach all nations, then to dip them in the Sacrament of faith, and after faith and Baptism to enjoin what things were to be observed.”
Now what we have said of Baptism can be said also of the Eucharist. For neither the Lord, Matthew 26, nor Paul, 1 Corinthians 11, say that a sermon ought to be made when the Lord's supper is celebrated; nor did the Lord himself have any sermon, nor explain the force of the Eucharist (which yet Calvin thinks necessary) in the very celebration of the supper. He had indeed afterward a very long discourse, which John described chapters 14, 15, and 16; but that pertained nothing to the supper, both because it was held after the supper, and also because in it the Lord treated nothing of the supper. Let Calvin see, then, from what Gospel he learned that a sermon is the form of the Sacrament. Second, it is proved that a sermon is not of the essence of the Sacrament. For if it were so, the offices of preaching and of baptizing would not be distinguished. For whoever should preach would by that very fact baptize, since he would minister the form of Baptism; and on the contrary, he who should baptize would preach, since Baptism formally would be nothing else than a sermon. But blessed Paul contradicts this opinion, when he says 1 Corinthians 1: Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel. On which place the commentary attributed to Ambrose writes excellently; for he shows that to baptize is much less than to preach, from this, that he who baptizes only pronounces certain solemn words and pours the water, which is most easy. Whence also Peter, Acts 10, after he had preached to Cornelius, did not himself baptize him, but bade him be baptized by inferior ministers. But according to Calvin, Peter himself would have to be said to have baptized, who applied the form of Baptism. Third: If the form of Baptism were a sermon, there would be various Baptisms according to the variety of sermons; for not all preach in the same way. But that there is one Baptism, as there is one God and one Lord, the Apostle testifies to the Ephesians 4, and the Constantinopolitan Creed. Fourth: If the form of Baptism were a sermon, the heretics would have a false Baptism, and accordingly would have to be rebaptized; for the preaching of heretics cannot be true. But the Church approves the Baptism of any heretics whatsoever, provided it be given with the prescribed words — that is, “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” — even if they add a most perverse sermon, as St. Augustine teaches book 3 On Baptism chapter 15: “If with the Gospel words, In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Marcion consecrated Baptism, the Sacrament was whole, although his faith, under the same words meaning something other than Catholic truth teaches, was not whole, but stained with fabulous falsehoods. For under the same words (that is, In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit) not only Marcion, or Valentinus, or Arius, or Eunomius, but the very carnal little ones of the Church, if each could be diligently interrogated, would perhaps be numbered as many diversities of opinions as men. For the animal man perceiveth not the things that are of the Spirit of God. Yet do they not for that reason receive a whole Sacrament?” Fifth: The Baptism of the Catholics is given without any sermon. For although a catechism and sermons and very many preachings precede, yet on the day on which Baptism is made a sermon is not ordinarily wont to be made. And yet Calvin does not bid the Catholics be rebaptized; nay, he confesses their Baptism to be true, book 4 of the Institutes chapter 15 section 16: “Such today,” he says, “are our Catabaptists, who utterly deny that we were rightly baptized, because we were baptized by the impious and idolaters in the Papal kingdom. And so they furiously urge rebaptism.” How do these things cohere, that a sermon is the form of Baptism, and yet without a sermon a true Baptism can be given? How too do these words from the books of the Institutes agree with the words of the same Calvin cited above from the commentary on chapter 5 to the Ephesians, where he says that among the Papists there is no legitimate observance of the signs, because among them the explanation to the people has ceased, which alone makes the dead element begin to be a Sacrament? Sixth: If the form of Baptism were a sermon, little ones certainly ought not to be baptized; for a sermon ought not to be made where there is no one to hear and understand. For the Wise Man admonishes, Ecclesiasticus 32: Where there is no hearing, pour not out words. But children understand nothing, nor attend, nor can attend; therefore no sermon is to be made to them; wherefore neither ought they, nor can they, be baptized. To this argument answer is wont to be made in two ways. For some, as the Lutherans, will have little ones perceive the sermon. But these we refuted above by the dilemma of St. Augustine in the epistle to Dardanus. Either they have the use of reason, or not; if they have it not, then they do not understand; if they have it, then they are sacrilegious who refuse the Sacrament, as is plain. Others, as Calvin book 4 of the Institutes chapter 16 section 20, say that little ones do not receive the Sacrament usefully for that time, yet receive a true Sacrament, which afterward will be useful. But this solution is not sufficient. For if the preaching of the word is of the essence of Baptism, no less than the water, certainly it ought to be received no less than the water; otherwise the Sacrament will be not only useless, but even null. For if the water were sprinkled by the minister, but did not touch the infant, no one would say that he was baptized; therefore if a sermon be made, and not perceived by the infant, no one of the Calvinists ought to say that he was baptized. But a sermon is not truly perceived unless it is understood; for he who is not instructed is not said to perceive a sermon, which properly is a certain instruction, even though he hear a certain sound. Infants, then, do not perceive the form of the Sacrament, and so neither the Sacrament. Either, then, let the Calvinists become Anabaptists, or let them cease to require a sermon for the essence of a Sacrament.
Third proposition: “There is required for the essence of a Sacrament a certain form of words, which does not so much instruct the bystanders as consecrate and sanctify the element.” This is not only against Calvin, but also against Brentius and the other Lutherans, who will have the very words of consecration pronounced to instruct the people, not to consecrate the matter; and therefore think it wicked if those words be pronounced in Latin among a people unskilled in the Latin tongue. This proposition is proved, first: The words prescribed by the Lord in Baptism do not have the form of instruction, but of invocation and blessing. Which is proved from the very form of Christ's speech. For he does not say: Teach all nations the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, but: Baptizing them in the name of the Father, etc.; where those words, In the name of the Father, etc., regard the act of baptizing, not the act of teaching; and accordingly they sound the invocation of the Trinity over the sprinkling of the water, not the declaration of the mystery to the hearers. Next, if it is lawful to expound Scripture by Scripture, it will be clear that In the name of the Father, etc., sounds invocation, not instruction; for so this form of speech is taken in other places, as Mark last: In my name they shall cast out devils. Acts 3: In the name of Jesus Christ, arise and walk. Matthew 7: Have we not in thy name cast out devils? And elsewhere here and there. Next, if those words pertained to instruction, they would surely be very imperfect; for those who are baptized ought to be instructed not only of the Trinity, but also of the Incarnation and Passion of the Lord, and chiefly of the promise of grace on account of the merit of Christ; of which things no mention is made in these words. Second: The words which are said in the mystery of the Eucharist are by the Apostle called words of blessing, which certainly sounds not instruction but consecration. 1 Corinthians 10: The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The same argument could be drawn from the other Sacraments, if the adversaries received them. See, however, what we said in the confirmation of the first proposition. Third, it is proved from those words of the Apostle 1 Corinthians 1: Was Paul then crucified for you? or were you baptized in the name of Paul? Where the Apostle wishes to demonstrate that the doers of the Sacraments are not those men who minister them, but God; and this he proves thence, because they are given not in the name of the ministers, but in the name of God — that is, of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. The name, then, in the words of the Sacraments, signifies invocation, from which authority is gathered. Whence Chrysostom homily 3 on the first to the Corinthians: “Tell me not,” he says, “who baptized, but in whose name; nor who baptizes, but whom in baptism we invoke, is what is required.” See on this place, and on this argument, Optatus of Milevis, book 5 against Parmenian. Fourth, the same is proved from the tradition of the Councils. For the Council of Nicaea canon 19 bids the Paulianists be rebaptized; which same the Council of Laodicea canon 8 decrees of the Cataphrygians. But on the contrary the first Council of Arles, celebrated at the same time, canon 8, and Siricius epistle 1 chapter 1, bid that the Arians be not rebaptized; the cause of which difference cannot be rendered except that which Innocent I renders in epistle 22 chapter 5: namely, because the Paulianists and Cataphrygians not only did not believe the Trinity, but did not even baptize with the invocation of the Trinity; but the Arians, although they did not believe the Trinity of one essence, yet baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. But certainly, as to instruction and explanation, the Arians erred about the Trinity as much as the Paulianists and Cataphrygians; it is not, then, instruction, but invocation, that perfects Baptism. Fifth, it is proved from the Fathers, who, when they speak of the words of the Sacraments, make mention not of instruction, but of invocation and consecration. Dionysius the Areopagite, in the book On the ecclesiastical hierarchy last chapter, calls the words of the Sacraments consecratory invocations. Justin in the Apology to Antoninus Pius: “Over him,” he says, “who has determined that he must be born again, the name of the Parent of all things and Lord God is named; and leading to the laver him who is to be washed, we invoke this alone.” And below: “In the name also of Jesus Christ crucified, and in the name of the Holy Spirit, is washed he who is enlightened.” Basil in the book On the Holy Spirit chapter 13: “By three immersions,” he says, “and as many namings, or invocations, the great mystery of Baptism is perfected.” Cyril catechesis 3: “Simple water,” he says, “by the invocation of the Holy Spirit, of Christ, and of the Father, obtains holiness.” Athanasius oration 3 against the Arians, about the middle: “Why,” he says, “when we are initiated by Baptism, is the name of the Son too recited together with the Father? For that the Father alone should be insufficient is a wicked saying.” Where he teaches that the three persons are named in Baptism, not because one does not suffice to sanctify a man, but because they are inseparable on account of the unity of nature. Wherefore he will have those words of Baptism said not to instruct the people, as the heretics dream, but to invoke God, who through Baptism sanctifies us. Gregory of Nyssa in the book On Baptism: “Cease,” he says, “to contend with me, and set thyself, if thou canst, against the words of the Lord, which instituted for men the invocation and naming of Baptism. And what are the words of the Lord's precept? Baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” And below: “We submit ourselves to the Father, that we may be sanctified,” etc. Cyprian, or whoever was the author, in the sermon On the Baptism of Christ, near the beginning: “The solemnity of the words,” he says, “and the invocation of the sacred name, and the signs attributed by the Apostolic institutions to the ministries of the priests, celebrate the visible Sacrament; but the thing itself the Holy Spirit forms and effects, and to the visible consecrations the author of all goodness invisibly applies his hand.” Ambrose book 2 On the Sacraments chapter 5: “The priest comes,” he says, “he says a prayer at the font, invoking the name of the Father, the presence of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; he uses heavenly words. Heavenly words, which are Christ's, that we baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. If, then, at the word of a man, at the invocation of a holy one, the presence of the Trinity was there, how much more is it there where the eternal word works?” He says like things of the words of the Eucharist, book 4 On the Sacraments chapter 4. Augustine book 3 On Baptism against the Donatists chapter 10: “The water is not profane and adulterous over which the name of God is invoked, even if it be invoked by the profane and adulterous, because neither the creature itself, nor the name itself, is adulterous. But the Baptism of Christ, consecrated by the Gospel words, is holy both through adulterers and in adulterers, although they be shameless and unclean, because its very holiness cannot be polluted, and the divine power assists its Sacrament.” And book 5 chapter 20: “If, then, to this avails what is said in the Gospel, God does not hear a sinner, that through a sinner the Sacraments should not be celebrated, how does he hear a murderer praying, either over the water of Baptism, or over the oil, or over the Eucharist, or over the heads of those on whom hands are imposed? All which yet are both done and avail even through murderers.”
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XIX.
Verbum , quod cum elemento Sacramentum
facit , non esso concionale , sed consecrato-
rium.
Diximus in Sacramentis res, et verba re¬
quiri, in quo cum adversariis convenimus.
Neque dubitatio illa superest de re, qui sit
illud videlicet, quod in Sacramentis adhi¬
bendum est, ut sensibile signum ; fatentur
enim nobiscum in Baptismo aquam, in Eu¬
charistia panem, et vinum adhibendum. De
materiis aliorum Sacramentorum non est
opus hic disserere, quoniam ea non haben¬
tur ab adversariis pro Sacramentis.
Unum hic addam, ridicule Brentium in
Confessione Wirtembergensi, cap. de Bap¬
tismo, excludere Chrisma ab usu Sacramen¬
ti, quod dicat ad elementa mundi perti¬
nere, et in usu fuisse Judaeis in caeremoniis
Testamenti veteris. Nam si ea ratio quid¬
quam valeret, excludere oporteret etiam
aquam. Nam aqua magis pertinet ad ele¬
menta mundi, quam oleum, cum sit ipsa
unum ex quatuor elementis mundi, oleum
vero non inter elementa, sed inter mixta
numeretur. In caeremoniis quoque Judaeo¬
rum longe frequentiores erant ablutiones
aquae, quam inunctiones olei.
Sed his omissis, de quibus alio loco di¬
cendum erit, quaestio gravissima est de ver¬
bo, quod cum re conjunctum, Sacramentum
facit. Nam Catholici omnes docent, verbum
380
LIBER I.
Sacramenti esse pauca quaedam verba a
Deo praescripta, quae super materiam a mi¬
nistro pronuntianda sint ; ut in Baptismo illa
verba: * Ego te Baptizo in nomine Patris,
et Filii, et Spiritus sancti. » In Eucharistia
illa : Hoc est enim corpus meum; et de caete-
ris ad eumdem modum.
At Joannes Calvinus lib. IV. Instit. cap.
14 § 4. contendit verbum Sacramentale ni¬
hil esse aliud, nisi concionem ; sic enim lo¬
quitur: « Hoc est quod vulgo dicunt, cons¬
tare Sacramentum verbo, et externo signo.
Verbum enim intelligere debemus, non quod
sine sensu et fide insusurratum, solo stre¬
pitu velut magica incantatione. consecrandi
elementi vim habeat : sed quod praedicatum
intelligere nos faciat, quid visibile signum
sibi velit. Quod ergo sub Papae tyrannide
factitatum est, non caruit ingenti mysterio¬
rum profanatione ; putant enim satis esse,
si sacerdos, populo sine intelligentia obstu-
pente consecrationis formulam demurmura¬
ret. » Et infra : «Ergo cum de verbo Sacra-
mentali fleri mentionem audimus, promissio¬
nem intelligamus qua: clara voce a ministro
praedicata plebem eo manu ducat, quo si¬
gnum tendit, ac nos dirigit. » Haec ille. Sed
antequam vel probemus aliquid, vel refel¬
lamus, explicandaest diligenter Calvini sen¬
tentia.
Primo igitur annotandum est, Calvinum,
etcaeteros adversarios nostros aliter sentire,
et loqui de Baptismo , aliter de Eucharistia,
quae duo sola sunt apud eos propriissime Sa¬
cramenta. Nam in Baptismo duo genera
verborum requirunt, in Eucharistia unum
tantum : siquidem in Baptismo Primo loco
requirunt verbum concionale, quo a minis¬
tro proponatur, et explicetur promissio di¬
vina. Deinde requirunt, ut dum aspergitur
aqua, simul dicantur illa verba: « Ego te
baptizo in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiri¬
tus sancti. » Id quod patet tum ex libello
Calvini de formula ministrandi Sacramenta;
tum ex Melanchthone in locis, cap. de Baptis¬
mo ; tum ex praxi ipsorum quotidiana ; tum
denique, quia non rebaptizantur apud Ca¬
tholicos ii, quos Lutherani, et Calvinistse
baptizarunt : quod tamen esset faciendum,
nisi illi veram formam Sacramenti adhibe¬
rent dum baptizant.
Porro in Sacramento Eucharistiae Calvi-
nistae (ut ex formula Calvini perspicuum est)
non requirunt aliud verbum, quam instruc¬
tionis ; jubent enim Primo loco recitari ins¬
titutionem Sacramenti ex cap. XI prioris ad
Corinthios, eo fere modo, quo nos in Missa
recitamus lectionem ex eadem epistola ad
populi instructionem. Deinde adhibet con-
cionator explicationem ; et tum demum sine
ullo signo crucis, aut alio verbo, seu ritu sa¬
cro distribuunt panem, et vinum. Exstat
alia formula Anglorum, qui Genevae de¬
gunt, in qua post lectionem epistola: ad
Corinthios, et concionem, sequitur gratia¬
rum actio conceptis verbis, quam alta voce
pronuntiat minister, et tum demum sine ul¬
lis verbis consecratoriis, distribuitur panis,
et vinum.
Lutherani autem non eodem modo omnes
agunt, sed alii recitant verba institutionis
mere historice, alii recitant cum intentione
consecrandi, alii nihil recitant : quorum opi¬
niones vide apud Kemnitium in 2. par. Exa¬
minis, pag. 346.
Ex quibus sequitur habere adversarios ve¬
rum Baptismum, sed non veram Eucharis¬
tiam, nisi forte admodum paucos, eos vide¬
licet, qui adhibent verba, et fuerunt in Ec¬
clesia ordinati Sacerdotes.
Secundo notandum est, quod Calvinus di¬
cit, verbum Sacramentale esse concionem,
duobus modis intelligi posse. Uno modo, ut
velit concionem esse partem Sacramenti es¬
sentialem, ita ut sine concione non sit Sa¬
cramentum. Altero modo, ut velit concio¬
nem non esse partem Sacramenti, sed tan¬
tum requiri, ut Sacramentum fructuose per¬
cipiatur.
Et quidem valde probabile est, Luthera-
nos, qui praeter concionem adhibent verba
consecrationis in omnibus Sacramentis, non
requirere concionem ad essentiam, sed ad
fructum tantum Sacramenti assequendum;
proinde cum eis nulla erit hoc loco alter¬
catio : iis tamen exceptis, qui verba ipsa
Sacramentalia non proferunt ad consecran¬
dum, sed ad instruendum, et aperte Evan-
gelii praedicationem vocant, ut facit Joannes
Brentius in Confessione Wirtembergensi
cap. de Eucharistia.
At Calvinus videtur quidem interdum lo¬
qui de verbo concionali, ut de re distincta
a Sacramento, ut cum ait lib. IV. cap. 14.
§ 3. Sacramentum esse quasi appendicem
verbi : tamen saepius de eo loquitur, ut de
parte essentiali Sacramenti. Nam in verbis
supra citatis dicit, Sacramentum constare
duabus rehus, signo, et verbo, et per ver¬
bum dicit se intelligere concionem. Item ibi-
CAPUT XIX.
381
dem explicat de verbo concionali, illud Au¬
gustini : « Accedit verbum ad elementum,
et fit Sacramentum » : ubi sine dubio ver¬
bum ponitur de essentia Sacramenti. Nam
ibidem Augustinus, et ex Augustino Cal¬
vinus, ait : « Sine verbo quid est aqua nisi
aqua? » id est, aqua sine verbo non est Sa¬
cramentum , sed profanum elementum.
Praeterea si concionale verbum non esset de
essentia Sacramenti, in Eucharistia nullum
esset verbum de essentia, apud Calvinistas :
non enim aliud verbo in eo Sacramento ha¬
bent, nisi concionale. Praeterea in commen¬
tario cap. Y. ad Ephes. explicans Calvinus
illud (Mundans eam lavacro aqua? in verbo
vitae) : « Apparet, inquit, nullam in Papatu
legitimam esse signorum observationem.
Nam verbum quidem per se habere jactant,
sed quod sit incantationis vice : quia illud
lingua incognita demurmurant, et ita quasi
demortuo elemento potius, quam hominibus
destinatum foret; nulla mysterii explicatio
ad populum; quae sola facit ut mortuum
elementum incipiat esse Sacramentum.»
Nota ultima verba.
Denique Theodorus Beza omnem dubita¬
tionem tollit, cum ita scribit in libro, quem
inscripsit : Summa doctrina? de re Sacra-
mentaria : « Quae est causa formalis Sacra¬
mentorum? Ordinatio Dei in ipsius verbo
comprehensa, et ab ipsius ministro explica¬
ta secundum ejus mandatum : non autem
pronuntiatio ipsa’ illorum verborum, neque
ulla vis in vocabulis latens. » Haec ille. Ex
quo intelligimus verba illa Baptismi : «Bap¬
tizo te in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus
sancti», recitari quidem a Calvinistis dum
aspergitur aqua, sed non esse illa verba
formam Sacramenti apud eos : verum con¬
cionem praecedentem esse formam, illa au¬
tem verba ad ritum pertinere, ut paulo in¬
fra idem Theodorus indicat : et illa ipsa non
proferri, ut consecretur aqua, sed ut etiam
inde instruatur populus.
Notandum est Tertio, tria esse, in quibus
nos a Calvinistis dissentimus, quae sunt or¬
dine demonstranda. Primum enim nos in
omni Sacramento docemus, necessarium
esse verba quaedam a Deo instituta pronun-
tiari in ipsa actione Sacramenti : illi solum
in Baptismo id necessarium docent. Secun¬
do nos docemus, ad essentiam Sacramenti
non requiri verbum concionale, illi affir¬
mant, requiri. Tertio nos docemus, ad es¬
sentiam Sacramentorum requiri verba certa
concepta, consecratoria, et haec esse, quae
dicantur proprie verba Sacramentalia ; illi
hoc totum negant, et magicam incantatio¬
nem vocant. Nam etiam verba Baptismi, ut
dixi, non ideo recitant dum aspergunt aqua,
sed ut instruatur populus, ut sint etiam illa
verba pars quaedam concionis: in quo, ut
dixi, JoannesBrentius, et alii quidam ex Lu-
theranis cum Calvinistis conveniunt Et haec
est ratio, cur illi lingua vulgari, nos Latina
utamur in Sacramentis : illi enim populum
docere volunt, qui non intelligit linguam
Latinam, nos Deum invocamus ad sanctifi¬
candum elementum, Deus autem omnes lin¬
guas intelligit.
Sit igitur Prima propositio : « Non solum
in Baptismo, sed etiam in caeteris Sacra¬
mentis requiruntur verba in ipsa celebra¬
tione mysterii. » Probatur. Nam in Eucha¬
ristia, Dominus dum panem benedixit, cer¬
ta verba pronuntiavit nimirum : Hoc est cor¬
pus , quod pro vobis datur, ac deinde jussit,
ut idem nos faceremus : « Hoc, inquit, facite
in meam commemorationem, » Luc XXII.
Debemus igitur et nos certis verbis uti, si
facere volumus, quod ipse fecit, ut nobis
imperavit.
Dicent fortasse, Christum imperasse, ut
faceremus, quod ipse fecit, non autem ut
diceremus verba, quae ipse dixit. Sed nos
respondemus, illud (Hoc facite) referri ad
totam actionem Christi, ita ut comprehen¬
dat etiam verba. Id quod (ut omittam nunc
alia ai'gumenta) discimus ex traditione, et
usu Catholicae Ecclesiae, quae traditio si non
recipiatur, in dubium revocabitur etiam for¬
ma Baptismi. Nam unde, quaeso, colligitur,
dum aqua aspergitur, dicenda esse illa ver¬
ba : « Baptizo te in nomine Patris, et Filii,
et Spiritus sancti? » certe non aliunde
quam ex illis verbis Matth. ult: Docete om¬
nes gentes, baptizantes eos in nomine Patris et
Filii, et Spiritus sancti. At ex hoc loco id non
potest certe colligi, nisi recipiatur Ecclesia?
traditio. Non enim Dominus ait, Dicite:
Baptizo te in nomine Patris etc. satis igitur
erit, si aspergentes aquam dicamus, In no¬
mine Pati is, et Filii etc.
Praeterea non etiam dixit Dominus, Dici¬
te ; In nomine Patris etc. sed solum ait :
Baptizantes eos, in nomine Patris etc. qua?
verba non cogunt, ut dicamus, In nomine
Patris etc. sed solum ut baptizemus aucto¬
ritate Dei, nimirum ut ejus ministri, quod
potest fieri, etiamsi nihil dicamus, Id quod
382
LlBElt I.
ex aliis similibus locis demonstrari potest.
Nam Marci ultim. Dominus ait : In nomine
meo dcemonia ejicient , stiper aegros manus im¬
ponent, et bene habebunt. Et tamen non erat
opus, ut Apostoli, cum aliquem curare vo¬
lebant, dicerent voce, In nomine Domini,
sed satis erat, si cogitatione : nam Actor.
IX. Petrus excitavit Tabitham, et Actor.
XIV. Paulus sanavit claudum sine ulla men¬
tione nominis Christi. Sic etiam Malth.
XVIII. Dominus ait : Ubi fuerint duo , vel tres
congregati in nomine meo, illic sum in medio
eorum. Et tamen non est opus, ut qui volunt
congregari in nomine Christi, dicant ver¬
bis; Congregamur in nomine Christi : sed
satis est si conveniant Christi auctoritate.
Sic denique Joan. V. Dominus ait : Ego ve¬
ni in nomine Patris mei, et non recipistis me :
si alius venerit in nomine suo, illum recipie¬
tis (I). Ubi non significatur aliud per nomen,
nisi auctoritas. ■
Quod igitur in Baptismo dicere debea¬
mus : « Baptizo te in nomine Patris , et Fi¬
lii, et Spiritus sancti, » non ex sola Scrip¬
tura certo colligi potest, sed ex Scriptura,
adjuncta Ecclesiae explicatione, et praxi.
Quod si in Baptismo recipitur Ecclesiae auc¬
toritas, cur non etiam in Eucharistia, etcrn-
teris Sacramentis ?
De aliis Sacramentis idem probari potest,
quamquam non sit valde necessarium, cum
ea ab adversariis non recipiantur. In Con¬
firmatione perspicuum est, adhibenda esse
verba ex cap. VIII Actor, ubi Apostolim anus
imponentes simul orabant. Unde Cyprianus
in episl. ad Jubaianum : « In impositione,
inquit, manuum invocatur, et infunditur
Spiritus sanctus super baptizatos. » Idem
habet Ambrosius lib. III de Sacrament. cap.
2 : « Post fontem, inquit, superest, ut per¬
fectio fiat, quando ad invocationem sacerdo¬
tis Spiritus sanctus infunditur. » Idem habet
Hieronymus in lib. contra Luciferianos ; et
Augustinus lib. III. de Baptismo cap. 16.
In Sacramento Poenitentia} requiri etiam
verba, patet ex illo Joan. XX : Quorum re¬
miseritis peccata, remittuntur ; (2) nec enim id
fieri potest sine verbis. Unde JoannesChry-
sostomus in commentario ejus loci, dicit,
Deum uti, et manu, et lingua sacerdotis ad
absolvendum ; et S. Leo in epistol. 91. ad
Theodorum dicit, post Baptismum Deum sic
ordinasse remedium Poenitentiae, ut nisi
supplicationibus sacerdotum venia nequeat
obtineri.
In Sacramento Ordinis requiri verba, do¬
cet Ambrosius in cap. IV. prioris ad Timo¬
theum: « Manus impositiones, inquit, verba
sunt mystica , quibus confirmatur ad opus
electus, accipiens auctoritatem , teste con¬
scientia sua, ut audeat vice Domini sacrifi¬
cium Deo offerre. » Item Hieronymus in cap.
LVIII Isaine, dicit Ordinationem clericorum
fieri ad imprecationem vocis, et impositio¬
nem manuum.
In Sacramento Unctionis aegrotorum, pla¬
num est requiri verba ex epistola Jacobi
cap. V : Inducat Presbyteros Ecclesice, et orent
super eum ungentes eum oleo in nomine Domini
elc. (3).
Denique in Matrimonio res est perspicua,
cum non possit constare mutua consensio,
nisi verbis, aut signis sequivalentibus expri¬
matur. Itaque Calvinus etiam in libro de
forma ministrandi Sacramenta, licet Matri¬
monium non habeat pro Sacramento, tamen
vult in Ecclesia, celebrari, et praescribit cer¬
tam formam verborum.
Secunda propositio ; « Non requiritur ver¬
bum concionale ad essentiam ullius Sacra¬
menti. » Probatur Primo ; argumento ab au¬
ctoritate Scripturae negative , quod ab ad¬
versariis magnifieri solet, et debet, cum ni¬
hil oporteat in rebus divinis facere sine Dei
verbo, et ipsi nullum Dei verbum agnoscant,
nisi scriptum. Igitur in Scripturis fit mentio
Baptismi; primum Joan. III : Nisi quis rena¬
tus fuerit etc. deinde Joan. IV. ubi habemus,
Dominum per discipulos baptizasse; item
Marci ult : Qui crediderit , et baptizatus fuerit,
salvus erit : ad Tit. cap. III : Salvos nos fecit
per lavacrum. I. Pet. III : Vos salvos facit Bap¬
tisma (4). Sed in his locis nulla fit mentio
verbi, nedum concionis.
Duo tantum sunt loca, ubi fit mentio ver¬
borum. Unus est ad Ephes. V : Mundans eam
lavacro aquae in verbo vitae. Alter Matth. ul¬
tim. : Docete omnes gentes, baptizantes eos in
nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus sancti {5).
Prior locus explicari debet per posterio-
rem ; tum quia haec sit regula generalis etiam
ab adversariis celebrata, ut cum id fieri po¬
test, una Scriptura per aliam explicetur :
tum quia Chrysostomus,Theodoretus,Theo-
(1) Mare. XVI, 18; Matth. XVIII, 20; Joan. V, 45. — (2) Joan. XX, 23. — (3) Jac. V, 14. —
(4) Joan. III, 3; Mare. XVI, 16; Tit. III, 5; I. Petr. III, 21. — (5) Eph. V, 25; Matth. XXVIII, 19.
CAPUT XIX.
383
phylactus, Anselmus, aliique interpretes ita
docent; dicunt *nim illud : « In verbo vitae,
significare, In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spi¬
ritus sancti. » Unus est Hieronymus, qui in
commentario hujus loci per, verbum vitee ,
intelligit doctrinam. Sed observandum est,
Hieronymum omisisse litteralem expositio¬
nem, et solum exposuisse mystice, id est, ut
ipse dicit, tropologice. Non enim per lava¬
crum intelligit Baptismum, sed purgationem
quamlibet, qua; per doctrinam fieri potest.
Omnes autem interpretes, qui ad litteram
exponunt, per lavacrum intelligunt Baptis¬
mum, et per verbum , intelligunt invocatio¬
nem Trinitatis.
Remanet ergo solus locus ille Matthaei
ultim. : Docete omnes gentes , baptizantes eos
etc. quo loco non negamus juberi, ut in¬
structio praecedat Baptismum : imo hoc
ipsum nos docemus, et facimus ; non enim
baptizamus ullos adultos, nisi prius diu mul¬
tumque instructi fuerint. Sed negamus hoc
loco praescribi concionem tamquam partem
essentialem Sacramenti, imo asserimus dis¬
tingui hoc loco aperte doctrinam a Sacra¬
mento. Sic enim distinguit S. Hieronymus,
in commentario hujus loci : « Ordo, inquit,
praecipuus, jussit Apostolis, ut primum do¬
cerent omnes gentes ; deinde fidei intinge¬
rent Sacramento, et post fidem, ac Baptis¬
ma, quae essent observanda, praeciperent. »
Porro, quod diximus de Baptismo, dici
potest etiam de Eucharistia. Nam nec Domi¬
nus Mattii. XXYI. nec Paulus I. Corinth. XI.
dicunt fieri debere concionem, cum celebra¬
tur ccena Dominica : nec ipse Dominus ul¬
lam habuit concionem, nec explicuit vim
Eucharistiae (quod tamen Calvinus necessa-
rium putat) in ipsa ccena; celebratione. Ha¬
buit quidem postea longissimum sermonem,
■quem Joannes descripsit cap. XIY, XY et
XVI sed is nihil ad ccenam pertinebat, tum
quod post ccenam habitus sit, tum etiam,
quod nihil in eo de ccena Dominus disserue¬
rit. Viderit igitur Calvinus, ex quo Evangelio
didicerit, concionem esse formam Sacra¬
menti.
Secundo probatur, non esse concionem de
essentia Sacramenti. Nam si ita esset, non
distinguerentur officia condonandi et bap¬
tizandi. Quicumque enim condonaretur, hoc
ipso buptizaret, quandoquidem ministraret
formam Baptismi: et contra, qui baptizaret,
(1) I. Cor. I, 17.
condonaretur , cum Baptismus formaliter
nihil aliud sit, nisi concio. At contradicit
huic sententia; Beatus Paulus, cum aitl.Co-
•rinth. I : Non misit me Christus baptizare , sed
evangelizare (1). In quem locum praeclare
scribit commentarius, qui tribuitur Ambro¬
sio : ostendit enim multo minus esse bapti¬
zare, quam praedicare, ex eo, quod qui bap¬
tizat, solum praenuntiat solemnia quaedam
verba, et aquam infundit, quod facilimum est.
Unde etiam Petrus Actor. X. postquam prae¬
daverat Cornelio, non ipse eum baptizavit,
sed jussit a ministris inferioribus baptizari.
At secundum Calvinum Petrus ipse bapli-
zasse dicendus esset, qui formam adhibuit
Baptismi.
Tertio ; Si forma Baptismi esset concio,
varia essentBaptismata pro varietate concio¬
num : non.cnim omnes eodem modo condo¬
nantur. At unum Baptisma esse, sicut unus
est Deus, et unus Dominus, testatur Aposto¬
lus ad Ephes. IV. et Symbolum Constanti-
nopolitanum.
Quarto; Si forma Baptismi esset concio,
falsum Baptismum haberent haeretici , ac
proinde rebaptizandi essent : non enim vera
esse potest praedicatio lisereticorum. At Ec¬
clesia approbat Baptisma quorumlibet haere¬
ticorum, modo detur verbis praescriptis, id
est, « fn nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus
sancti, » etiamsi addant ipsi perversissimam
concionem, ut docet S. Augustinus lib. III.
de Baptismo cap. 15: « Si Evangelicis, in¬
quit, verbis, In nomine Patris, et Filii, et
Spiritus sancti Marcion Baptismum conse¬
crabat, integrum erat Sacramentum, quam¬
vis ejus fides sub iisdem verbis aliud opinan¬
tis, quam Catholica veritas docet, non esset
integra, sed fabulosis falsitatibus inquinata.
Nam sub eisdem verbis, (id est, In nomine
Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus sancti) non solum
Marcion, aut Valentinus, aut Arius, aut Eu-
nomius, sed ipsi carnales parvuli Ecclesiae,
si possent singuli diligenter interrogari, tot
diversitates opinionum fortassis, quot homi¬
nes numerarentur. Animalis enim homo non
percipit ea, qua; sunt Spiritus Dei. Numquid
tamen ideo non integrum Sacramentum ac¬
cipiunt? »
Quinto ; Baptismum Catholicorum datur
sine ulla concione. Etsi enim praecedit Gate-
chismus, et sermones, ac praedicationes per-
multce , tamen eo die, quo fit Baptismus,
384
LIBER I.
ordinarie concio fieri non solet. Et tamen
Calvinus non jubet rebaptizari Catholicos,
imo fatetur verum esse eorum Baptismum
lib. IV. Instit. cap. 13. §. 16 : « Tales, in¬
quit, hodie sunt Catabaptistoe nostri, qui rite
nos baptizatos pernegant, quod ab impiis, et
Idololatris in regno Papali baptizati sumus.
Itaque Anabaptismum furiose urgent etc. »
Quomodo ista cohaerent, ut concio sit forma
Baptismi, et tamen sine concione verus Bap¬
tismus dari possit? Quomodo etiam verba
ista ex libris Institutionum concordant ^nn
verbis ejusdem Calvini supra citatis ex com¬
mentario Y. cap. ad Ephes. ubi ait, nullam
esse apud Papistas legitimam signorum ob¬
servationem, quod desiit apud eos explicatio
ad populum, quae sola facit ut mortuum ele¬
mentum incipiat esse Sacramentum ?
Sexto; Si forma Baptismi esset concio,
parvuli certe baptizandi non essent : non
enim fieri debet concio, ubi non est, qui au¬
diat, et intelligat. Monet enim Sapiens Ec-
cles. XXXII : Ubi non est auditus, non effun¬
das sermonem (1). At pueri nihil intelligunt,
nec attendunt, aut attendere possunt; igitur
non est illis concio facienda : quare nec bap¬
tizari debent, aut possunt.
Ad hoc argumentum dupliciter respon¬
deri solet, aliqui enim, ut Lutherani, volunt
parvulos percipere concionem. Sed Sos su¬
pra refutavimus dilemmate S. Augustini in
Epist. ad Dardan. Aut usum rationis habent,
aut non : si non habent, ergo non intelligunt;
si habent, ergo sacrilegi sunt, qui Sacra¬
mentum recusant, ut patet.
Alii, ut Calvinus lib. IV. Instit. cap. 16.
§. 20. dicunt, parvulos non percipere Sacra¬
mentum utiliter pro eo tempore, tamen ve¬
rum Sacramentum percipere, quod postea
utile sit futurum. Sed haec solutio non est
sufficiens. Nam si verbi praedicatio est de
essentia Baptismi, non minus, quam aqua;
certe debet percipi non minus, quam aqua,
alioqui non modo inutile, sed etiam nullum
erit Sacramentum. Quod si aqua aspergere¬
tur a ministro, infantem vero non attingeret,
nemo diceret illum esse baptizatum ; ergo si
concio fiat, et non percipiatur ab infante,
nemo dicere debet ex Calvinistis, illum esse
baptizatum. Concio autem non vere percipi¬
tur, nisi cum intelligitur : non enim dicitur
percipere concionem, qua» proprie instructio
quaedam est, qui non instruitur, etiamsi so¬
num quemdam audiat. Non ergo infantes
percipiunt formam Sacramenti, quare nec
Sacramentum. Aut igitur Calvinistae fiant
Anabaptistae, aut desinant concionem requi¬
rere ad essentiam Sacramenti.
Tertia propositio : « Requiritur ad essen¬
tiam Sacramenti certa forma verborum, quae
non tam instruat circumstantes, quam con¬
secret et sanctificet elementum. » Ha»c est
non modo adversus Calvinum, sed etiam ad¬
versus Brentium, ac caeteros Lutlieranos,
quae vei’ba ipsa consecrationis pronuntiari
volunt ad instruendum populum , non ad
materiam consecrandam; et idcirco nefas
esse putant, si ea verba Latine pronuntien¬
tur apud populum Latinae linguae imperitum.
Probatur haec propositio Primo ; Verba a
Domino praescripta in Baptismo, non habent
formam instructionis , sed invocationis et
benedictionis. Id quod probatur ex ipsa
forma loquendi Christi. Non enim ait : Do¬
cete omnes gentes nomen Patris, et Filii, et
Spiritus sancti, sed : Baptizantes eos in no¬
mine Patris etc. ubi verba illa, In nomine
Patris etc. respiciunt actum baptizandi, non
actum docendi : proinde sonant invocatio¬
nem Trinitatis super aquae aspersionem, non
declarationem mysterii ad auditores. Deinde,
si licet Scripturam exponere per Scripturam,
perspicuum erit, In nomine Patris etc. sonare
invocationem, non instructionem : sic enim
accipitur ista forma loquendi in aliis locis,
ut Marci ult: In nomine meo deemonia ejicient.
Actor. 111 : In nomine Jesu Christi surge, et
ambula. Matth. VII: Nonne in nomine tuo dcc-
monia ejecimus ? (2) et alibi passim. Deinde,
si verba ista ad instructionem pertinerent,
valde profecto imperfecta essent : non enim
solum instrui debent de Trinitate qui bapti¬
zantur, sed etiam de incarnatione, et pas¬
sione Domini, ct praecipue de promissione
gratiae ob Christi meritum ; quarum rerum
nulla in his verbis mentio fit.
Secundo ; Verba, quae dicuntur in myste¬
rio Eucharistiae ab Apostolo, dicuntur verba
benedictionis, quod certe non instructionem,
sed consecrationem sonat. I. Corinth. X :
Calix benedictionis , cui benedicimus , nonne
communicatio sanguinis Christi est? (3) Idem
argumentum duci posset ab aliis Sacramen¬
tis, si ea reciperent adversarii. Vide tamen
quae diximus in confirmatione primae propo¬
sitionis.
(1) Eccl. IXIX, 0. — (2) Mare. XVI. 17; Act. III, 6; Matth. VII, 22. — (3) I. Cor. X, 16.
385
CAPUT XIX.
Tertio probatur ex illis Apostoli ^rbis I.
Corinth. 1 : Numquid Paulus pro vobis cruci¬
fixus est, aut in nomine Pauli baptizati es¬
tis? (1) ubi Apostolus demonstrare vult,
Sacramentorum actores non esse eos homi¬
nes, qui illa ministrant, sed Deum : idque
inde probat, quia non dantur in nomine mi¬
nistrorum, sed in nomine Dei, id est, Patris,
et Filii., et Spiritus sancti. Nomen igitur in
verbis Sacramentorum, invocationem signi¬
ficat , ex qua colligitur auctoritas. Unde
Chrysostomus hom. 3. in priorem ad Corin¬
thios : « Noli, inquit, mihi dicere, quis bap-
tizavit, sed in cujus nomine; neque qui bap¬
tizat, sed quem in baptismate invocamus ,
requiritur. » Yide de hoc loco, et de hoc
argumento Optatum Milevitanum, lib. V.
contra Parmenianum.
Quarto idem probatur ex traditione Conci¬
liorum. Nam Concilium Nicaenum can. 19.
jubet rebaptizari Paulianistas : quod idem
statuit Concilium Laodicenum can. 8. de
Cataphrygibus.' At contra Concilium I Are-
latense eodem tempore celebratum can. 8.
et Siricius epist. I. cap. 1. jubent, Arianos
non rebaptizari, cujus differentiae causa non
potest reddi nisi illa, quam reddit Innocen¬
tius I. in epist. 22. cap. o. quia videlicet
Paulianistas, et Cataphryges non solum non
credebant Trinitatem, sed nec baptizabant
cum invocatione Trinitatis : at Ariani licet
non crederent Trinitatem unius essentiae,
tamen baptizabant in nomine Patris, et Filii,
et Spiritus sancti. At certe quantum ad in¬
structionem, et explicationem, tam errabant
circa Trinitatem Ariani, quam Paulianistas,
et Cataphryges : non igitur instructio, sed
invocatio Baptismum perficit.
Quinto probatur ex Patribus, qui cum de
verbis Sacramentorum loquuntur, non in¬
structionis, sed invocationis, et consecratio¬
nis mentionem faciunt. Dionysius Areopa¬
gita in lib. de Ecclasiast. Hierar. cap. ult.
vocat verba Sacramentorum ra; b rt-
xkriatit, id est, consecralorias invocationes.
Justinus in Apologia ad Antoninum Pium :
« Super eo, inquit, qui renascendum sibi
esse statuerit, parentis rerum omnium, et
Domini Dei nomen nominatur, atque id ip¬
sum solum lavaturum istum ad lavacrum
ducentes invocamus. » Et infra : « In no¬
mine etiam Jesu Christi crucifixi, atque in
nomine Spiritus sancti abluitur is, qui illu¬
minatur. » Basilius libro de -Spiritu sancto,
cap. 13 : « Tribus, inquit, mersionibus, ac
totidem nomenclaturis, sive invocationibus
* magnum Baptismatis mysterium perficitur.»
Cyrillus catechesi 3 : « Aqua simplex, inquit,
per Sancti spiritus, Christi, et Patris invoca¬
tionem, sanctitatem consequitur. »
Athanasius s,pr. 3. contra Arianos, circa
medium : «Cur, inquit, dum initiamur Bap¬
tismate, una cum Patre, Filii quoque nomen
recensetur? nam ut Pater sit insufficiens,
nefaria vox est etc. » ubi docet, tres perso¬
nas nominari in Baptismo, non quod una
non sufficiat sanctificare hominem, sed quia
inseparabiles sunt ob naturas unitatem.
Quocirca vult verba illa Baptismi non dici
ad instruendum populum, ut hasretici som¬
niant, sed ad invocandum Deum, qui per
Baptismum nos sanctificat.
Gregorius Nyssenus in lib. de Baptismo :
«Omitte, inquit, mecum confligere, et op¬
pone te, si potes, Domini vocibus, quae in¬
vocationem, et cognominationem Baptisma¬
tis hominibus instiluerunt. Et quce sunt ver¬
ba Dominici prascepti-? Baptizantes eos in no¬
mine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus sancti. » Et
infra : « Submittimus nos Patri, ut s^pctifi-
cemur etc. »
Cyprianus, vel quicumque fuit auctor, in
serm. de Baptismo Christi, prope initium :
« Verborum, inquit, solemnitas, et sacri in¬
vocatio nominis , et signa institutionibus
Apostolicis sacerdotum ministeriis attributa,
visibile celebrant Sacramentum : rem vero
ipsam Spiritus sanctus format, et efficit, et
consecrationibus visibilibus invisibiliter ma¬
num totius bonitatis auctor apponit. »
Ambrosius lib. II. de Sacramentis, cap. o :
« Venit, inquit, sacerdos, precem dicit ad
fontem, invocans Patris nomen, praesentiam
Filii, et Spiritus sancti, utitur verbis cceles-
tibus. Coelestia verba, qute Christi sunt,
quod baptizemus in nomine Patris, et Filii,
et Spiritus sancti. Si ergo ad hominis ser¬
monem ad invocationem Sancti, aderat prm-
scntia Trinitatis, quanto magis ibi adest,
ubi sermo operatur aeternus? » Similia dicit
de verbis Eucharistiae lib. IV. de Sacramen¬
tis, cap. i.
Augustinus lib. III. de Baptismo contra
Donatistas, cap. 10 : «Non est, inquit, aqua
profana, et adultera, super quam nomen
Dei invocatur, etiamsi a profanis, et adul-
(1) 1. Cor. I, 13.
Tom. III.
25
386
LIBER I.
teris invocetur, quia nec ipsa creatura, nec
ipsum nomen adulterum est. Baptismus vero
Christi verbis Evangeliois consecratus, et
per adulteros, et in adulteris sanctus est,
quamvis illi sint impudici, et immundi, quia
ipsa ejus sanctitas pollui non potest, et Sa¬
cramento suo divina virtus assistit. » Et lib.
Y. cap. 20 : « Si ergo ad lioc valet, quod
dictum est in Evangelio, Deus peccatorem
non audit, ut per peccatorem Sacramenta
non celebrentur, quomodo exaudit homici¬
dam deprecantem, vel supra aquam Baptis¬
mi, vel super oleum, vei super Eucharis¬
tiam, vel super capita eorum, quibus manus
imponitur? Quae omnia tamen, et fiunt, et
valent etiam per homicidas. »