Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacraments in General · Book I: On the Nature and Causes of the Sacrament
Chapter 21: That the things and words of the Sacraments are so fixed that nothing may be added, diminished, or changed
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).
There follows the third question concerning the intrinsic causes, whether the things and words of the Sacraments are so fixed and determined that nothing in them can be changed. And indeed among Catholics there is almost no dissension, and the matter needs explanation rather than altercation. Among the ancient heretics there were not lacking those who inverted the things and words of the Sacraments, and chiefly among the Gnostics, of whom see Irenaeus book 1 chapters 9 and 18, and Epiphanius heresy 26. Yet meanwhile all who used the Sacraments wished to have the things and words determined, and for the most part did not depart from the words prescribed in the Gospel. For so Augustine says, book 7 On Baptism against the Donatists chapter 25: “Heretics are more easily found who do not baptize at all, than those who do not baptize with those words.”
But in our time Martin Luther, the most audacious of all heretics, devised a new heresy, namely that certain words are not required in a Sacrament. For thus he speaks in the book On the Babylonian captivity, chapter On Baptism: “In whatever manner Baptism be given, provided it be given not in the name of a man but in the name of the Lord, it truly saves. Nay, I would not doubt that if anyone receive it in the name of the Lord, even though an impious minister give it not in the name of the Lord, he is truly baptized in the name of the Lord.” So he. And so according to Luther, if anyone say, “I baptize thee in the name of Luther and of Catharine his wife,” or even “in the name of the Devil,” it will be a true Baptism, provided the receiver receive it in the name of the Lord. Luther afterward retracted this error. For in the first homily On Baptism, delivered in the year 1535, he thus speaks: “Christ clearly expresses what ceremonies he wills, and himself prescribes the form: that those very signs, and no others, those very words, and no others, be here applied.” And below: “If thou shouldst dip an infant in water, and not add the words of Baptism, but pronounce the Lord's Prayer, or some other words from the sacred letters, it would not be a true Baptism.” And below: “If anyone, bread and wine being set forth, should pronounce not the very words of the Sacrament, but either the Decalogue, or the Apostles' Creed, or some sacred sentence, or a Psalm, it would not be the true body and blood of Christ.” He has like things in the third homily On Baptism, delivered in the year 1540. But although Luther retracted his error, yet John Brentius seems to have more approved the former opinion of Luther. Since in his Catechism, chapter On Baptism, he does not much care for the form of Baptism prescribed by Christ; as also Zwingli in the book On true and false religion, chapter On Baptism, of which matter we shall also speak book 2 On the Sacraments chapter 3. And indeed the former opinion of Luther, as it manifestly repugns the truth, so it agrees more with the principles of Lutheran Theology than the latter. For if the Sacraments were chiefly instituted to excite and sustain faith, it matters nothing what words or things we use, provided by them faith can be excited and sustained. Therefore, both to destroy this error and to declare the matter itself, I shall lay down some propositions.
First proposition: “There ought to be in the Sacraments things fixed and determined by God himself.” This proposition, as to the Sacraments of the new law, is neither denied by the heretics, and among Catholics is most certain. But it is proved otherwise by them, otherwise by us. They prove it from their general principle, that no worship pleases God but what he himself instituted; the rest pertains to will-worship and the traditions of men. Which argument is weak, as we have often shown elsewhere. Catholics prove it from another principle: because the Sacraments of the new law are the cause of grace and justification. 1 Corinthians 6: You are washed, you are sanctified. Ephesians 5: Cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life. But no one can give grace but God; God alone, then, could determine those things which pertain to the essence of the Sacraments. Of the Sacraments of the Mosaic law and of the law of nature some seem to doubt; yet if they were truly Sacraments, as in fact they were, it is altogether to be held that the things of those Sacraments were determined by God. For, in the first place, it is established in fact that almost all the Sacraments which have come to our knowledge were determined by God. For Circumcision was a Sacrament of the law of nature, and it is established that it was determined by God himself what, in what manner, and at what time it was to be done, Genesis 17. The Paschal Lamb was a Sacrament of the written law, and we know that rite to have been determined by God, from chapter 12 of Exodus. The same we could prove of many others. Next, the old Sacraments were figures and types of our Sacraments. But to determine certain things which infallibly signify something future cannot belong to any but God, who certainly knows those future things. Finally, even though the old Sacraments did not effect justifying grace, yet they effected legal cleanness, and introduced men into the people of God; but no one can determine anything to effect legal cleanness, or to introduce into a certain commonwealth, but he who is the author of that law and commonwealth.
But here it is to be noted with St. Thomas, part 3 question 60 article 5 to the third, that in every law the matter of the Sacrament was determined by God, but not always in the same manner. For in the law of nature, because the law was not written on tablets, nor promulgated by men or Angels, but was dictated inwardly and inspired into the hearts of men, so also the Sacraments were inspired into the chief Patriarchs, as Adam, Noe, Abraham, who then taught others. But because the Mosaic law was promulgated through Moses and publicly written on tablets, so also the Sacraments of that time, handed down by God through Moses, were also committed to writing. Finally, because the author of the new law is the incarnate Word, therefore also our Sacraments were determined by him.
Second proposition: “Not only the things, but also the words in the Sacraments of the new law, are determined by God, so that it is not lawful to change anything.” This proposition is to be explained, that it may be rightly understood. It is to be noted, then, first, that the variation of the form can happen in six ways: namely by the addition of some word; the subtraction of some word; the change, as if one be put in place of another; the corruption of some word, by taking away or changing some syllable; the transposition, that is, the variation of the order of the words; and finally by interruption, as by pronouncing one part of the form, and then resting for some space, or saying something impertinent, and then at last completing the pronunciation of the form. Second, it is to be noted that there is a twofold integrity of the sacramental form: one substantial, the other accidental. The substantial consists in the sense or signification alone of the words, not in the sound or number of syllables. Wherefore however the words be varied — by adding, subtracting, changing, transposing, corrupting, interrupting — the substantial integrity always remains, so long as the same sense remains; and on the contrary the least variation destroys the substantial integrity, if the sense perish; as if anyone, one single letter changed, should say: I baptize thee in the name of the Mother, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, he does not have the substantial form. The accidental integrity consists in all the rest, that is, in the whole sound, order, and number of syllables. Third, note that the judgment of these changes, whether they be substantial or accidental, ought not to be mathematical, but moral, so that then it is to be judged that the sense of the words is preserved when the hearers understand and judge that to be signified which is wont to be signified by the whole words, even though otherwise the words be pronounced very corruptly. An example can be that which Pope Zachary reports in the epistle to Boniface, and is had also in Gratian, canon Retulerunt, On consecration distinction 4. For certain men, from too great unskillfulness in the Latin tongue, baptized with these words: Ego te baptizo in nomine Patria, et Filia, et Spiritua sancta. Which words, if they be taken properly, do not signify the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, especially if they were pronounced separately; yet the Supreme Pontiff most prudently judged that the substance of the form was not changed, because it could easily be understood what he meant to say, both from the very action of baptizing, and also from the conjunction with the word in nomine. For he did not say In nomine Patriae, et Filiae, which the rule of grammar demanded, if he had wished purposely to change the form; but in nomine Patria, et Filia: which, since of themselves they signify nothing, it is a sign that he wished to say what others say, when they say: In the name of the Father, and of the Son, etc.
In like manner it is to be judged of interruption. For if anyone should say in consecrating the Eucharist, Hoc est cor, and then recite a whole Psalm, or rest for a notable space, and then at last add pus meum, without doubt in the judgment of the prudent he would not be reckoned to have said Hoc est corpus meum. But if, where he said Hoc est cor, he suffered some brief wandering of mind, and even rested a little before he added pus meum, the sense of the form would not be reckoned to perish. It is to be noted, fourth, that it is not lawful, as we say in the conclusion, in any way to change the form of the words, whether by that change the substantial integrity of the form be taken away, or only the accidental. But this is the difference, that when the form is changed substantially, the Sacrament is not perfected; and therefore that integrity is said to be necessary by the necessity of the Sacrament; but when it is changed only accidentally, the Sacrament is perfected, but he sins who so changes it; and therefore this integrity is said to be necessary only by the necessity of the precept. Note, fifth, that on the part of the form of words the Sacrament is never made void, unless the substantial integrity be really lacking; yet it can happen from another source that with an accidental corruption alone the Sacrament be not perfected — namely, if he who accidentally changes the form wills to introduce a new rite, as Zachary teaches, canon Retulerunt, On consecration distinction 4, and after him St. Thomas part 3 question 60 article 7 to the third, and article 8 in the body of the article. Whose words are not rightly explained by all.
Therefore it is to be observed whether he who intends to introduce a new rite intends to introduce a new essential rite in respect of the whole Church of Christ universally — that is, one which was not before in the true and universal Church — or intends to introduce a new rite in respect of some Church which he himself thinks false. If he intends to introduce a new one absolutely, then the Sacrament is not perfected, not because the form is lacking, but because the intention is lacking. For he is convicted of not willing to do what the true Church does, since he wills to introduce a rite which never was in the universal and true Church. And this is what St. Thomas teaches in the places cited; for he always renders the reason why he who intends to introduce a new rite does not perfect the Sacrament, because he does not have the intention of the Church. But if he intends to introduce a new rite, not absolutely, but only in respect of some Church which he himself thinks false, and meanwhile intends to do what the true Church does, then the Sacrament is perfected, even though he be deceived in discerning the true Church. As, for example, if some Greek, while he baptizes with those words, Let the servant of Christ be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, intends to introduce a substantial and necessary rite against the rite of the Roman Church, so as to wish to persuade that the Sacrament is not perfected if anyone say, “I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” and yet intends to do what the true Church does, whatever it be, he will truly baptize, notwithstanding his error. For in that Baptism there is found the substantial form, and the intention of the true Church in general, which by the consent of all suffices; for his error concerning the Sacrament or the Church does not make void the Sacrament, as all Catholics teach, who teach that the Sacraments given by heretics are valid. For the minister of the Sacrament is not bound to intend to do what the Roman Church does — otherwise no heretic would truly baptize — but only what the true Church of Christ does; in which intention, however, it is virtually included that he intend what the Roman Church intends, because that alone is the true Church. And so what Paludanus says in book 4 distinction 3 question 1 article 3, that the Sacrament is not always made void when one intends to introduce a new rite, is true, but not against St. Thomas, as he perhaps thought. Nay, St. Thomas therefore did not say, “When one wills to induce a new rite, the Sacrament is not perfected,” but, “the Sacrament does not seem to be perfected,” because, namely, it could happen that the Sacrament be perfected, but it is presumed not to be perfected, because it is presumed that the due intention is not present. And what Dominic Soto says, question 1 article 8, that the Greeks truly baptize with those words, Let the servant of Christ be baptized, etc., because the Roman Church tolerates that rite; but that if the Roman Church detested that rite, then they would not truly baptize — is not true absolutely. For if the Roman Church detested that rite as an accidental corruption of the form, they would indeed sin, but yet would truly baptize; but if the Roman Church detested that rite as a substantial corruption, then they would not truly baptize, but the cause would not be, as Soto says, that the intention was lacking, but that the substantial form was lacking.
These things thus explained, our proposition is proved against the rashness of Luther and Brentius. First, the Sacraments are instituted by God, as the adversaries concede; therefore the chief part of the Sacrament, namely the form of words, is instituted by God; therefore he who changes it sins against God, and often does not perfect the Sacrament, namely when he changes it substantially. For if the Sacrament depends on the institution of God, certainly it will not be a Sacrament when we do not do what he instituted. Second, to change the matter of the Sacraments would be a grave sacrilege, nor would the Sacrament be perfected, as the adversaries concede; why, then, is there not the same reason of the form, which consists in words? Third, to add to the words of Scripture, or to change them, is in no way lawful; therefore neither ought, nor can, the words of the Sacraments be in any way changed; especially since the words of Scripture are instituted only for signifying, but the words of the Sacraments for signifying and sanctifying. Fourth, the same is proved by the testimonies of the Fathers. Irenaeus book 1 chapter 18 reprehends certain heretics for changing the form of words prescribed by Christ in the Sacrament of Baptism. Tertullian in the book On Baptism: “The law of dipping,” he says, “was imposed, and the form prescribed: Go, he says, to all nations, dipping them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” Cyprian in the epistle to Jubaianus has the same. Likewise Athanasius sermon 3 against the Arians, Basil homily On holy Baptism, and the rest who write against the Arians, prove by this argument the divinity of the three persons, that we are bidden in Baptism to express the three persons. Likewise Basil in the book On the Holy Spirit chapter 12 says that he falls from grace who subtracts from or adds to the words prescribed in the Sacrament of Baptism. Didymus in book 2 On the Holy Spirit: “He who omits one of the prescribed names,” he says, “neither attains the perfection of the Sacrament, nor frees a man from sins.” Augustine book 6 against the Donatists chapter 25: “There are certain Gospel words,” he says, “without which Baptism cannot be consecrated.” Damascene book 4 On the faith chapter 10: “What form of words is to be used in Baptism, the Lord set forth, saying: Baptizing them, etc.” Let there be added the first Council of Arles canon 8, which bids it be examined with what form of words the Arians baptize.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPCT XXI. Res, et verba Sacramentorum ita determinata esse, ut nihil addere, minuere, aut mutare liceat. Sequitur tertia qutestio de causis intrin¬ secis, utrum res, et verba Sacramentorum ita sint certa, et determinata, nt nihil in eis mutari possit. Et quidem apud Catholicos nulla iere dissensio est, magisque explica¬ tione, quam altercatione res indiget. Apud haereticos veteres non deerant, qui res et verba Sacramentorum inverterent, ac praecipue apud Gnosticos, dequibus vide Ire- nseum.lib. I. cap. 9. et 18. Et Epiphanium hseresi 26. Interim tamen omnes, qui Sa¬ cramentis utebantur, res, et verba determi¬ nata habere volebant, et ut plurimum non recedebant a verbis in Evangelio praescrip¬ tis. Sic enim ait Augustinus, lib. VII. de Baptismo contra Donatistas, c. 25 : « Faci¬ lius inveniuntur hserrtici, qui omnino non baptizent, quam qui non illis verbis bapti¬ zent. » At nostro tempore Martinus Lutherus hae¬ reticorum omnium audacissimus, novam hajresim excogitavit, videlicet non requiri certa verba in Sacramentum. Sic enim lo¬ quitur in libro de captivitate Babylonica, cap. de Baptismo : « Quocumque modo tra¬ datur Baptismus, modo non in nomine ho¬ minis, sed in nomine Domini tradatur, vere salvum facit. Imo non dubitem, si quis in nomine Domini suscipiat, etiamsi impius minister non det in nomine Domini, vere baptizatum esse in nomine Domini. » Ha;c- iile. Itaque secundum Lutherum si quis di¬ cat : Ego te baptizo in nomine Lutheri, et Catharinse uxoris ejus, vel etiam in nomine Diaboli, erit verus Baptismus, modo qui suscipit, accipiat in nomine Domini. Reti actavit postea Lutherus hunc errorem, Nam in I. homilia de Baptismo, habita anno 1585. ita loquitur : «Clare exprimit, Chris¬ tus, quas caeremonias velit, et formam ipse proscribit : ut illa ipsa signa, neque alia, illa ipsa verba, neque alia hic adhibeantur. » Etinfra :« Si infantem intingeres aqua, neque adderes verba Baptismi, sed pronuntiares orationem Dominicam, aut alia quaedam verba ex sacris litteris, non esset verus Bap¬ tismus. » Et infra : « Si quis pane, et vino proposito pronuntiaret non ipsa verba Sa¬ cramenti, sed aut Decalogum, aut Symbo¬ lum Apostolorum, aut sententiam aliquam sacram, vel Psalmum, non esset verum cor¬ pus, et sanguis Christi. » Similia habet in tertia homilia de Baptismo habita anno 1540. Licet autem retractaverit Lutherus erro¬ rem suum, tamen Joannes Brentius magis probasse videtur priorem Lutheri senten¬ tiam. Siquidem in Catechismo suo, cap. de Baptismo, non multum curat praescriptam formam Baptismi a Christo ; ut etiam Zwin- glius in lib. de vera, et falsa religione, cap. de Baptismo, de qua re dicemus etiam lib. II. de Sacramentis, cap. 3. Et sane prior Lutheri sententia, ut manifeste repugnat ve¬ ritati, ita magis convenit principiis Luthe- ranse Theologice, quam posterior. Si enim Sacramenta ideo potissimum instituta sunt, ut fidem excitent, et sustentent; nihil inte— rest, quibus verbis, aut rebus utamur, modo illis fides excitari, ac sustentari possit. Igi¬ tur tum ad hunc errorem destruendum, tum ad rem ipsam declarandam, statuam aliquot propositiones. Prima propositio : « Res certae, et deter¬ minatae ab ipso Deo in Sacramentis esse de¬ bent. » Hicc propositio quantum ad Sacra¬ menta novae legis, nec ab haereticis negatur, et apud Catholicos certissima est. Sed ali¬ ter ab illis, aliter a nobis probatur. Illi pro¬ bant ex generali suo principio, quod nullus cultus Deo placeat, nisi quem ipse instituit : cajtera ad s@sXo fipamtav, et traditiones homi¬ num pertineant. Quod argumentum infir¬ mum est, ut nos alibi saepe ostendimus. Ca¬ tholici probant ex alio principio. Quia Sa¬ cramenta nova) legis sunt causa gratiae, et justificationis. I. Cor. VI.: Abluti estis, sanc- tificati estis. Ephes. Y : Mundans eam lavacro aquee in verbo vitee (1). At nemo potest gra¬ tiam dare nisi Deus ; solus igitur potuit Deus ea determinare, qua) ad essentiam Sacra¬ mentorum pertinent. Do Sacramentis legis Mosaicse, et legis naturae nonnulli dubitare videntur : tamen si vere Sacramenta erant, ut revera erant, omnino sentiendum est, fuisse a Deo deter¬ minatas res eorum Sacramentorum. Nam in primis de facto constat, omnia fere Sacra¬ menta, qua; ad notitiam nostram venerunt, a Deo fuisse determinata. Nam Circumcisio Sacramentum fuit legis naturae, et constat ab ipso Deo determinatum, quid, quomodo, et quo tempore faciendum esset, Gen. XVII. Agnus Paschalis Sacramentum erat legis scriptee, et a Deo determinatum eum ritum novimus, ex cap. XII. Exod. Idem de mul¬ tis aliis probare possemus. Deinde Sacra¬ menta vetera erant figurae, ac typi Sacra¬ mentorum nostrorum. At determinare cer¬ tas res, quae infallibiliter significent aliquid futurum, non potest convenire nisi Deo, qui certo novit illas res futuras. Denique, etiamsi Sacramenta vetera non efficiebant gratiam justificantem , tamen efficiebant legalem munditiam, et introducebant in populum Dei : at nemo potest determinare aliquid ad legalem munditiam efficiendam, aut ad in¬ troducendum in certam Rempublieam, nisi qui auctor est illius legis, et Reipublica). Est autem hic notandum cum S. Thoma, 3. par. quaest. LX. art. 5. ad 3. in omni lege fuisse materiam Sacramenti determinatam a Deo, sed non semper eodem modo. Nam in lege natura), quia lex non scribebatur in tabulis, nec promulgabatur per homines, aut Angelos, sed dictabatur interius, atque inspirabatur cordibus hominum : ita quoque et Sacramenta inspirabantur preeeipuis Pa¬ triarchis, ut Adoe, Noe, Abrabse, qui alios deinde docebant. Quia vero lex Mosaica promulgata est per Moysem, et publice scrip¬ ta in tabulis; ita etiam Sacramenta illius temporis, a Deo per Moysem tradita, et lit¬ teris mandata etiam fuerunt. Denique, quia legis novoe auctor est Verbum incarnatum, ideo etiam ab ipso Sacramenta nostra de¬ terminata fuerunt. Secunda propositio : « Non solum res, sed etiam verba in Sacramentis novae legis a Deo determinata sunt, ut non liceat quid¬ quam immutare. » Haec propositio explican¬ da est, ut recte intelligatur. Notandum est igitur : Primo, sex modis contingere posse formae variationem ; nimirum per additio¬ nem alicujus vocis; detractionem alicujus vocis; mutationem, ut si una ponatur loco alterius; corruptionem alicujus vocis, de¬ trahendo, vel mutando aliquam syllabam; transpositionem, id est, ordinis dictionum variationem; denique per interruptionem, ut pronuntiando unam partem formae, ac deinde quiescendo per aliquod spatium, vel loquendo aliquid impertinens, et tum de¬ mum perficiendo formae pronuntiationem. Secundo notandum est , duplicem esse Sacramentalis formae integritatem ; unam substantialem ; alteram accidentalem. Sub¬ stantialis consistit in solo sensu, seu signifi¬ catione verborum, non autem in sono vel numero syllabarum. Quare utcumque va¬ rientur verba, addendo, detrahendo, mu¬ tando, transponendo , cori’umpendo, inter¬ rumpendo, semper manet integritas sub¬ stantialis, dum manet idem sensus : et con¬ tra minima etiam variatio destruit integrita¬ tem substantialem, si pereat sensus ; ut si quis una sola littera mutata dicat : Ego te baptizo in nomine Matris , et Filii, et Spiri- fl) I. Cor. VI, 11; Eph. V, 26. 392 LIBER 1. tus sancti, non habet substantialem formam. Accidentalis integritas consistit in caeteris omnibus, id est, in integro sono, ordine, et numero syllabarum. Tertio nota, judicium de his mutationibus, sintne substantiales , an accidentales, non debere esse mathematicum, sed morale, ita ut tunc judicandum sit, sensum verborum conservari, quando audientes intelligunt, et judicant illud significari , quod perintegra verba significari solet, etiamsi alioqui verba pronuntientur valde corrupte. Exemplo esse potest, id quod refert Zacharias Pontifex in epistola ad Bonifacium , et habetur etiam apud Gratianum , can. Retulerunt, de con¬ secrat. distinet. IV. Quidam enim ex nimia imperitia linguae Latinae baptizabant his verbis : Ego te baptizo in nomine Patria, ct Filia, et Spiritua sancta. Quae verba si pro¬ prie accipiantur, non significant Patrem, et Filium, et Spiritum sanctum , et praesertim si seorsim pronuntiarentur : judicavit tamen summus Pontifex prudentissime, substan¬ tiam formae non esse mutatam, quia facile poterat intelligi, quid ille vellet dicere, tum ex ipsa actione baptizandi, tum etiam ex conjunctione cum verbo in nomine; Non enim ait : In nomine Patriae , et Filiae, quod ratio Grammaticae exigebat, si is de indus¬ tria formam mutare voluisset; sed, in no¬ mine Patria, et Filia : quae cum ex se nihil significent, signum est illum voluisse dicere, quod alii dicunt, cum aiunt: In nomine Pa¬ tris, et Filii etc. Pari ratione judicandum est de interrup¬ tione : Si enim quis diceret in consecranda Eucharistia : Hoc est coi', ac deinde recita¬ ret unum Psalmum, vel quiesceret ad spa¬ tium notabile, et tum demum adderet, pus meum, sine dubio judicio prudentium non censeretur dixisse : Hoc est corpus meum. Si vero ubi dixit : Hoc est cor, pateretur bre¬ vem aliquam evagationem mentis, et non¬ nihil etiam interquiesceret, antequam adde¬ ret, pus meum, non censeretur sensus formae perire. Notandum est quarto, non esse licitum, ut in conclusione dicimus, ullo modo verborum formam immutare, sive per eam immuta¬ tionem tollatur substantialis formae integri¬ tas, sive solum accidentalis. Sed hoc inter- est, quod cum forma mutatur substantialiter, Sacramentum non perficitur; et ideo ea in¬ tegritas dicitur necessaria, necessitate Sa¬ cramenti; cum autem mutatur solum acci- dcntaliter, Sacramentum perficitur, sed peccat qui ita mutat : et ideo dicitur haec integritas necessaria solum necessitate prae¬ cepti. Nota quinto, ex parte formae verborum numquam Sacramentum irritum reddi , nisi revera desit integritas substantialis : tamen aliunde posse contingere, ut cum sola cor¬ ruptione accidentali non perficiatur Sacra¬ mentum, nimirum si is, qui accidcntaliter mutat formam, velit introducere novum ri¬ tum, ut docet Zacharias, can. Retulerunt, de consecrat, dist. 4. et post eum S. Tho- mas 3 part. queest. LX. artic. 7. ad tertium, et artic. 8. in corpore articuli. Quorum auc¬ torum verba non recte ab omnibus expli¬ cantur. Ideo Animadvertendum est, utrum is, qui intendit introducere novum ritum , intendat introducere novum essentialem ritum res¬ pectu totius Ecclesiae Christi, in universum, id est, qui non fuerit antea in ipsa vera , et universali Ecclesia ; an intendat novum ri¬ tum introducere respectu alicujus Ecclesiae, quam ipse putet falsam. Si intendit introducere novum absolute, tunc non perficitur Sacramentum , non quia desit forma , sed quia deest intentio. Con¬ vincitur enim ille non velle facere, quod fa¬ cit vera Ecclesia, quandoquidem vult intro¬ ducere ritum, qui numquam fuit in Ecclesia universali, et vera. Et hoc est, quod docet sanctus Thomas locis citatis : semper enim reddit rationem cur non perficiat Sacra¬ mentum, qui intendit introducere novum ritum, quia non habet intentionem Eccle¬ sia;. Si vero intendit introducere novum ritum, non absolute, sed solum respectu alicujus Ecclesiae, quam ipse putat falsam, et interim intendat facere quod facit vera Ecclesia ; tunc perficitur Sacramentum , etiamsi ipse fallatur in vera Ecclesia internoscenda. Ut exempli causa, si Graecus aliquis dum bap¬ tizat illis verbis : Baptizetur servus Christi in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus sancti, intendat introducere ritum substantialem, et necessarium contra ritum Romanae Eccle¬ siae, ita ut velit persuadere, non perfici Sa¬ cramentum, si quis dicat : Ego te baptizo in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus sancti, et tamen intendat facere, quod facit Ecclesia vera, quaecumque illa sit; is vere baptiza¬ bit, non obstante ipsius errore. Nam in eo Baptismo invenitur forma substantialis , et CAPUT xxr. 393 intentio verae Ecclesiae in genere , quae om¬ nium consensu sufficit : error enim illius circa Sacramentum, aut Ecclesiam, non ir¬ ritat Sacramentum, ut omnes Catholici do¬ cent, qui docent Sacramenta ab haereticis tradita esse valida. Non enim tenetur minis¬ ter Sacramenti intendere id facere, quod facit Ecclesia Romana : alioqui nullus hae¬ reticus vere baptizaret; sed solum id quod facit Ecclesia Christi vera, in qua tamen in¬ tentione virtualiter includitur, ut intendat id, quod Romana Ecclesia intendit, quia illa sola est vera Ecclesia. Itaque quod Paludanus ait in IY. distinet. 3. quaest. I. artic. 3. non semper irritari Sa¬ cramentum, cum quis intendit introducere novum ritum, est verum, sed non contra S. Thomam, ut ille fortasse putavit. Imo S. Thomas ideo non dixit : Cum quis vult in¬ ducere novum ritum , non perficitur Sacra¬ mentum, sed, non videtur perfici Sacra¬ mentum, quia nimirum posset fieri , ut per¬ ficeretur Sacramentum, sed praesumitur non perfici, quiu praesumitur non adesse inten¬ tionem debitam. Quod vero Dominicus a Soto ait, quaest I. art. 8. Graecos vere baptizare illis verbis : Baptizetur servus Christi etc. quia Ecclesia Romana tolerat eum ritum ; sed si Ecclesia Romana eum ritum detestaretur, tunc fore ut ipsi non vere baptizarent: non est verum absolute. Nam si Ecclesia Romana eum ri¬ tum detestaretur, ut corruptionem formae accidentalem, illi peccarent quidem , sed ta¬ men vere baptizarent : si vero Ecclesia Ro¬ mana eum ritum detestaretur, ut corruptio¬ nem substantialem, tunc illi non vere bapti¬ zarent, sed causa non esset, ut Sotus dicit, quia deesset intentio, sed quia deesset forma substantialis. His ita explicatis, probatur nostra propo¬ sitio adversus Lutheri, et Brentii temerita¬ tem. Primo, Sacramenta a Deo sunt institu¬ ta, ut adversarii concedunt; ergo pars Sa¬ cramenti praecipua, nimirum forma verbe¬ rum a Deo instituta est; ergo qui eam mu¬ tat, peccat contra Deum, et saepe non perfi¬ cit Sacramentum, nimirum cum substantia¬ liter mutat. Si enim Sacramentum a Dei institutione pendet, certe non erit Sacra¬ mentum, cum non facimus, quod ipse insti¬ tuit. Secundo. Mutare Sacramentorum mate¬ riam, grave saerilegiunTesset, nec perficere¬ tur Sacramentum, ut adversarii concedunt; cur igitur non sit eadem ratio de forma, quae , in verbis consistit? Tertio. Addere ad verba Scripturae, vel ea mutare nullo pacto licet : igitur n6c verba Sacramentorum mutari ullo modo debent, aut possunt ; praesertim cum verba Scriptu¬ rae solum ad significandum', verba Sacra¬ mentorum ad significandum , et sanctifican¬ dum instituta sint. Quarto. Idem probatur testimoniis Pa¬ trum. Irenseus lib. I , cap. 18. reprehendit haereticos quosdam, quod mutarent formam verborum a Christo praescriptam in Sacra¬ mento Baptismi. Tertullianus in libro de Baptismo : « Lex, inquit, tingendi imposita est, et forma praescripta : Ita, inquit, ad omnes gentes, tingentes eos in nomine Pa¬ tris, et Filii, et Spiritus sancti. » Cyprianus in epist. ad Jubaianum idem habet. Item Athanasius serm. 3. contra Arianos. Basilius homil. in sanctum Baptisma , et caeteri, qui scribunt adversus Arianos , hoc argumento probant trium personarum divinitatem, quod jussi simus in Baptismo tres personas expri¬ mere. Item Basilius lib. de Spiritu sancto, cap. 12. dicit, eum a gratia excidere, qui detrahit, aut addit ad verba praescripta in Sacramento Baptismi. Didymus in lib. II de Spiritu sancto: « Qui unum, inquit, de prae¬ ceptis nominibus praetermittit, neque per¬ fectionem Sacramenti attingit, nec a pecca¬ tis hominem liberat. » Augustinus lib. YI. contra Donatistas, cap. 23 : « Certa sunt, inquit, verba Evangelica , sine quibus non potest consecrari Baptismus. » Damascenus lib. IV. de fide, cap. 1& : « Quae fotina ver¬ borum in Baptismo adhibenda sit, Dominus exposuit, dicens : Baptizantes eos etc. » Ac¬ cedat Concilium Arelatense I. can. 8. quod examinari jubet, qua forma verborum Ariani baptizent.