Scotus Academicus, Tomus nonus: De Sacramentis in genere

Three things chiefly arise here to be established: First, whether determinate words are so necessarily required in the confection of the Sacraments that, without prejudice to the Sacrament, other words cannot be substituted for the Sacrament’s validity. Second, what alteration of the words would make the Sacrament null. Third, finally, what sort these words are, whether preaching, promissory, or consecratory.

NOTED 1. A twofold determination can be conceived in words: one can be material and according to the sound of the voice, as if, in the confection of the Sacraments, Hebrew or Latin words had to be assumed and French words could not be used, although they had the same sense. The other is formal, which is according to the signification of the words, whatever language they may be uttered in. Moreover, three significations can be considered in words: the first is drawn from the property of the words, namely, when they are used to signify the things for which they were instituted, as by the name “Superior” one who is above others is signified; the second is found from common usage, namely, when they are employed to signify something other than that for which they had been imposed by their primary institution, as by the name “tyrant” there is now signified an unjust ruler, although originally it was an honorable name; the third, finally, is that which is drawn from the accommodation of common usage, when words that signified nothing by their first institution are afterward employed by the custom of received usage, as if, in baptizing a King, someone used these words: I baptize Your Majesty, etc. For from the accommodation of usage, the royal person would be sufficiently understood by the name “Majesty.”

NOTED 2. An alteration of words in the Sacraments can be distinguished in a twofold way, as can an alteration of things: one is substantial, namely, when words signifying something wholly opposite to what Christ the Lord intended in instituting the Sacraments are used, as if, in baptizing someone, a person used other names than those which signify the three divine Persons; the other is accidental, namely, when the words are uttered otherwise than they ought to be uttered according to the custom of the Church. Moreover, each of these alterations can occur in various ways, but especially in the following eight. First, by changing the language of one tongue into another, for example, Greek into Latin, or Latin into Greek. Second, by changing one word for another, for instance, if “I wash” is said in place of the word “I baptize.” Third, by transposing one word or several, for example, if one says: “In the name of the Father I baptize you.” Fourth, by interpolating or interrupting the words, either by remaining silent for some time without uttering the other words of the form, whether one says something else in the meantime or not, as if, after these words “I baptize you,” someone remained silent for a while and then added the other words, “In the name of the Father,” etc. Fifth, by changing the words into writing, as if, in baptizing someone, a person did not utter the Gospel words but wrote them while pouring the water. Sixth, by adding one word or several, for example, if, in baptizing someone, a person added the name of the Blessed Virgin to the three divine Persons. Seventh, by omitting one word or several, as if, in baptizing someone, a person omitted I baptize you. Eighth, finally, by corrupting one word or several, as if, through a defect in Latin, a person said in baptizing someone, I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Daughter.

NOTED 3. Three kinds of words can be distinguished in the Sacraments: promissory, preaching, and consecratory. A promissory word is one that expresses and declares a promise of divine grace; a preaching word is one by which both the person receiving the Sacrament and those standing by are taught and instructed about the promise of divine grace; a consecratory word, finally, is one by which the matter of the Sacrament is blessed and consecrated by a sacred rite. Calvin asserts, book 3 of the Institutes, chapter 14, §1, that the sacramental word is not consecratory: By “words,” he says, we must understand not that what is whispered with understanding and faith has, by mere sound, as though by a magical incantation, the power of consecrating the element; but that, when preached, it makes us understand what the visible sign means. Hence he adds in the same place: We conclude that the sacramental word is a promise which, preached by the minister in a clear voice, leads the people by the hand where the sign tends, as it directs us. By these words he means that the sacramental word is indeed promissory and preaching, but not consecratory.

Very many Lutherans agree with him, especially Chemnitz in his Examination of the second part of the decrees of the Council of Trent. Nevertheless, as he observes there, the Lutherans in this matter are divided into three opinions, especially concerning the confection of the Eucharist. Some merely give a sermon or instruction beforehand, but do not utter the consecratory words; others utter the words of institution, but not in order to consecrate, rather in the manner of a historical account, so that those standing by may be taught; finally, some utter the words of institution with the intention of consecrating, and Chemnitz himself commends this opinion as his own: The ancient Church, he says, although it also used other exhortations and prayers in administering the Eucharist, nevertheless simply and rightly held that the blessing or consecration of the Eucharist is effected through Christ’s discourse, that is, through the words of divine institution.

First Conclusion. — THE SACRAMENTS OF THE NEW LAW ARE PERFECTED BY WORDS TAKEN PROPERLY OR IMPROPERLY, AND BY DETERMINATE WORDS. This Conclusion consists chiefly of two parts, of which

The first is proved, first from Sacred Scripture, which expressly signifies that words are required in three Sacraments, namely, Baptism, the Eucharist, and Extreme Unction. In Baptism indeed, for in Matthew 28, Christ, sending the Apostles throughout the world, says: Go, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, etc. Hence the Apostle says in Ephesians 5: Christ, he says, loved the Church and handed himself over for her, that he might sanctify her, cleansing her by the washing of water in the word of life. This means, in the sacramental word, as Saint Augustine interprets it. The same is evident concerning the Eucharist, for in Matthew 26, Mark 14, Luke 22, and 1 Corinthians 11, we read that Jesus took bread, blessed it, and broke it, saying: This is my body. The bread is the thing, or matter; what he said are the words, or form. Likewise, concerning Extreme Unction it is written in James 5: Is anyone among you sick? 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; and the prayer of faith will save the sick person.

The anointing is the thing, while the prayer is the words. Consequently, the Sacraments of the New Law must consist of things and words. The same is clear from the decree of Eugene at the Council of Florence, where it is decreed that all the Sacraments consist of three things: things as matter, words as form, and the person of the minister.

This truth is also clear from the authority of the holy Fathers, who with unanimous agreement require things and words in the confection of the Sacraments. Thus Saint Ambrose, book On the Mysteries, chapter 9, where he treats of the Eucharist: If, he says, human blessing had such power that it changed nature, what shall we say of the divine consecration itself, where the very words of the Lord the Savior operate? For this Sacrament which you receive is confected by Christ’s word; and if Elijah’s word had such power as to bring down fire from heaven, will Christ’s word not have power to change the species of the elements? Likewise, in chapter 1 of the First Epistle to Timothy, he says: The laying on of hands are mystical words, by which the Priest receives authority, so that he may dare to offer the sacrifice of the Lord’s life to God. Tertullian had preceded him, chapter 2, On Baptism: A man, he says, is lowered into the water and dipped amid a few words, etc. There are many other testimonies of the Fathers that would be cited in the course of this work, by which it is declared that the Sacraments of the New Law are perfected by things and words.

This assertion is also commonly proved by a theological argument, because the Sacraments are employed for the sanctification of human beings insofar as they are signs. It was fitting, therefore, that words should be used together with sensible things ordered to constitute a Sacrament; for sacramental signs can be considered in three ways: first, on the part of the sanctifying cause; second, on the part of the human being who is sanctified; third, finally, on the part of the sacramental signification itself. But from this threefold consideration it was most fitting that words be joined to things in the Sacraments. First, on the part of the sanctifying cause, namely, the Incarnate Word, because the Sacrament ought in some way to be conformed to him. Hence, just as Christ consists of the spiritual Word and visible flesh, so it was fitting that the Sacraments be made through sensible things and words that are in a certain way spiritual, insofar as they proceed from reason and signify the concepts of mind and reason. — Likewise, the same was fitting on the part of the human being who is sanctified: the Sacraments are medicine and effect medicinal grace, and consequently it was fitting that they be proportioned to the sick person. But a human being consists of body and soul; therefore, for the Sacrament to be proportioned to a human being, it was fitting that it be made from things that touch the body and words that the soul believes and perceives. Hence Saint Augustine, explaining those words in chapter 15 of John, Now you are clean because of the word, etc., says: « Whence is there such power in water that it touches the body and washes the heart, unless through the word, not because it is said, but because it is believed? » — Third, finally, on the part of sacramental signification itself: according to Saint Augustine, book 2 of On Christian Doctrine, chapter 3, words have obtained primacy in signifying among human beings. Therefore, since the Sacraments of the New Law ought perfectly or distinctly to signify sanctifying grace, for this reason they ought to consist of words, especially since matter in itself is indifferent to signifying many things. For baptismal water, for example, can signify both the washing of the soul because of its moisture and the cooling of the soul because of its coldness. Hence, for it to be determined to signify the cleansing of the soul from sins, it had to be determined to this by these words: I baptize you.

You will object. According to Saint Augustine, book 10 of Against Faustus, chapter 16: Some sacraments even of bodies are nothing but certain visible words; but it is superfluous to add words to words; therefore, the Sacraments ought not to consist of words. — I distinguish the major: they are words improperly and analogically, I concede; properly and univocally, I deny. For the visible things of the Sacraments are indeed called words analogically, because of a certain similarity which is found principally in words; hence words are not superimposed on the things themselves so that their signification may be more determinate.

You will insist. According to the same author in the same place, the Sacraments of the New Law succeeded the Sacraments of the Old Law; once the latter were removed, others were instituted. But words were not necessary in the Sacraments of the Old Law; therefore neither are they necessary in the Sacraments of the New Law. — I distinguish the major: they succeeded with respect to some things, I concede; with respect to all things, I deny. For according to Saint Augustine in the same place, some Sacraments ought to be of a present reality and others of a future reality, since we manifest a present reality more clearly than a future one. But the Sacraments of the Old Law foretold Christ who was to come; therefore they did not signify Christ as distinctly as the new ones, which were instituted by Christ himself. Hence, even though there had been no words in the ancient Sacraments, it does not follow that words ought not also to be found in the new ones. For, as Saint Paul says in Hebrews 1: In many ways and by many means God formerly spoke to the fathers through the Prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us in the Son. Prophetic speech is more obscure than the revelation which occurs through the Son, who is called the light of the world and the true light that enlightens every human being. Hence the Sacraments of the Old Law muttered, as it were, under a shadow what our Sacraments distinctly manifest.

From these things the second part is gathered, namely, that the Sacraments must consist of determinate words: both because Christ the Lord uttered determinate words in the consecration of the Eucharist, saying, This is my body, and commanded the disciples to baptize under a determinate form of words; hence Saint Augustine, book 6 of On Baptism against the Donatists, chapter 29, says: Those certain Gospel words, without which Baptism cannot be consecrated, have such power that through them those things called precious which are spoken against this rule of cursing are so tormented that demons are expelled by the name of Christ. And because the Church has always held Baptism invalid if it was not administered with the words designated by Christ, it rejected the Baptism of the Cataphrygians at the Council of Laodicea, canon 8; that of the Paulianists at Nicaea, canon 19, and at the First Council of Arles, canon 8. Arians returning to the Church are ordered to be asked by what form they were baptized, so that it may be known whether they received Baptism in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

You will say 1. The Sacraments are the same among all nations; but the same voices and the same words are not determinate among all nations for signifying the same thing; therefore determinate words are not required in the Sacraments. — I distinguish the minor: they are not determinate by moral determination, with respect to the external sound of syllables and letters, from which different languages and different speech arise, I concede; they are not determinate by formal determination, that is, with respect to the signification and sense which Christ ordained and which the Church has in practice, I deny. Hence, whatever language the form of the Sacrament is uttered in, the Sacrament is truly perfected. For, as we said above from Saint Augustine, the word operates in the Sacraments, not because it is said, but because it is believed; that is, not according to the external sound of the voice uttered by the lips, but according to the sense held by faith.

You will say 2. Determinate words would seem to be required in the Sacraments for this reason: they ought properly to signify the effect of the Sacrament. But this is not so. Determinate words seem to be required in Baptism so that they signify the soul’s being washed from sins; but the word “I baptize” does not properly signify “I wash”; for someone who said baptize a napkin would speak barbarously and improperly. Therefore, etc. — I deny the minor, and in proof of it I say that, indeed, the word baptizein does not signify in Latin the same as I wash. It is a Greek word which the Latin Church adopted to signify sacramental washing. Hence nearly all nations, although the term is expressed in different languages, use this word so that the unity of faith may be signified, which is especially declared and preserved through the unity of Baptism, according to the Apostle’s saying in Ephesians 4: One Lord, one faith, one baptism. The Church used the Greek term for declaring this rather than a Latin or other term because the Greek language was very widely prevalent when the Gospel began to be proclaimed.

You will say 3. The Sacraments must not be confected and administered otherwise than Christ both instituted and commanded them to be administered. But, in instituting the Sacraments, Christ did not command that words be added; for when he instituted the Eucharist he did not say, Say what I said, but, Do this in remembrance of me. Likewise, when he sent the Apostles to baptize, he did not command them, when baptizing, to say: I baptize you in the name of the Father, etc. Therefore, determinate words are not required in the Sacraments. — I distinguish the major: he commanded them to be administered implicitly or explicitly, I concede; explicitly only, I deny. To the minor I say that when Christ said, Do this, etc., he referred this to the whole action that he was performing, including the words. The same must be said of Baptism: for at least implicitly he signified that, in conferring Baptism, an invocation of the most holy Trinity was to be added when he said: Baptizing them in the name of the Father, etc. — I nevertheless admit that this divine command of Christ concerning the use of formulas of words in administering the Sacraments cannot be effectively elicited from Christ the Lord’s own utterances unless the tradition and practice of the Church are brought in. For the Lord did not say: when you baptize, say, “I baptize you.” Hence it could seem sufficient for Baptism to someone if, while pouring the water, he merely said: “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”; indeed, it could even seem to him that there was no need to utter any words, but only to apply the water. For just as, when it is said in the last chapter of Mark, In my name they will cast out demons, Christ does not command the disciples, when casting out demons, to say, “I cast you out in the name of Christ,” but only to look to Christ in faith and attend to his efficacy, so someone could think that it is enough for Baptism that, while pouring the water, one apprehend by faith Christ’s efficacy and power in remitting sins. Hence I rightly said that sacramental words were designated by Christ only implicitly; explicitly, however, they are to be drawn from the tradition and practice of the Church, which has used such words in confecting the Sacraments by a perpetual and unvarying rite.

You will say fourth. If the words were determinate in confecting the Sacraments, it would follow that their variation and alteration would make the Sacrament null and void. But this is not so; otherwise the Sacraments would scarcely be validly confected by those who suffer from a speech impediment or ignorance of Latin, such as stammerers and some less-educated priests. Therefore, determinate words are not required in the Sacraments. — I distinguish the major: if that alteration and variation of speech overturns the sense, I concede; otherwise, I deny. But when this variation wholly overturns the sense, and when it does not, will be explained

Second Conclusion. — A SACRAMENT DOES NOT BECOME NULL AND INVALID THROUGH EVERY ALTERATION OF THE WORDS, BUT ONLY THROUGH ONE THAT VARIES THE SENSE AND MAKES IT SOMETHING ELSE. The truth of this Conclusion will be clear when we examine individually those modes assigned in the second Note by which an alteration of words in the Sacraments can occur.

First, then, a change of language does not bring about a substantial change in the sense of the Sacrament, because the Sacrament is rendered invalid when the sense of the words is changed. But when the language is changed, the sense of the words is not changed, only the sound; otherwise it would follow that all ministers of the Sacraments would have to use Hebrew or Syriac, since Christ the Lord used one or the other of these languages in instituting the Sacraments.

Second, a change of one word or several that produces an entirely different sense makes the Sacrament invalid; but not so if synonymous words are used. For a Sacrament is judged invalid or valid insofar as its form is changed or preserved intact. But when words are changed into others producing a different signification, the form of the Sacrament, namely, the signification of the words, does not remain intact; the contrary occurs when that signification persists. Hence Saint Irenaeus, book 1, chapter 18, reports that the Baptism of the Gnostics was rejected for this reason: they baptized in the name of the Father of all, in the name of the Mother of all, and in the name of Jesus descending for the anointing, redemption, or communion of powers. On the other hand, the Church approves the Baptism of the Greeks, in the decree of Eugene, with these words of the baptizers: Let N. be baptized by my hands in the name of the Father, etc. Therefore Baptism would be invalid if, while pouring water over the person to be baptized, someone used this form: I cool you in the name of the Father, etc. But it would be valid if, in baptizing, someone said: I wash you, or I cleanse you in the name of the Father, etc.

Third, when a transposition does not vary the sense of the words, it does not make the Sacrament null; but when it varies it, it makes it invalid. This truth is clear from what has just been said. Hence Baptism conferred with this form would be valid: I baptize you in the name of the Son, and of the Father, and of the Holy Spirit, because there is a sufficient designation of the person baptized and an invocation of the Most Holy Trinity. But it would be invalid if someone uttered the words in this inverted order: In the name of the Father I baptize you of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, because this transposition of the words would produce either no sense or one wholly alien to the sacramental sense.

Fourth, the interpolation or interruption of words, when it is so great that in ordinary judgment the utterance is not considered one sentence, then makes the Sacrament null. Thus, if a priest celebrating Mass privately, after he had already uttered these words of consecration, This is, remembered that he had not recited that part of the breviary which he ought to have recited before celebrating the sacred rite, and, having uttered only those two words of consecration, completed it and afterward pronounced the rest of the words of consecration, namely, my body, etc., the Sacrament would certainly be null, because the signification of its sacramental form would not be the same. The contrary would occur if the interruption varied neither the intention of the speaker nor the sense of the words, as when, after the priest has said, This is, he sneezes, coughs, or suffers a brief wandering and distraction of mind, and then adds my body. The Sacrament does not cease to be valid, because the utterance and its sense are always judged to be the same and one.

Fifth, changing the words into other signs that would represent the same thing would not make the Sacrament of Matrimony or of Penance invalid; but the contrary holds concerning the other Sacraments. The first part is clear. For in the Sacrament of Matrimony it is especially required that the consent of the spouses be expressed; but this can be declared by gestures, writing, or words. Consequently, changing the words into other signs declaring consent does not injure the Sacrament of Matrimony. The same must be said of the Sacrament of Penance, especially as regards the matter about which sacramental absolution is concerned, namely, the act of the penitent. For a speechless and mute penitent can, by gestures or writing, so openly declare and express to the priest present his sins and the sorrow conceived for them that the priest may easily judge whether or not he is worthy of absolution.

That a similar change is not admissible in the other Sacraments is sufficiently clear from the practice of the universal Church, which has always used it in the confection of those Sacraments.

Sixth, the addition of words in the form of a Sacrament can occur in two ways. First, intrinsically, when a word is mixed into the form of the Sacraments which seems to be like a predicate or property of the words ordinarily used in the form of the Sacrament, as if someone, in baptizing, said: I baptize you in the name of the almighty Father, and of the Son of wisdom, and of the Holy Spirit of divine love, and of the Paraclete. Second, extrinsically, when this addition is outside the form of the Sacrament and is joined to it after it has been completely uttered. Each addition can again be twofold, namely, true, when it states something true, as in the consecration of bread, when, after the consecratory words have been uttered, one adds, Which will be delivered for you; or false, when it states something false. The latter is again twofold: for some false addition corrupts the form of the Sacrament and changes its sense, such as the addition of certain Arians who baptized: I baptize you in the name of the greater Father, of the lesser Son, formed from things that do not exist, etc.; another does not corrupt the form of the Sacrament or overturn its legitimate sense, as when a Greek, consecrating the Eucharist, says: This is my body consecrated in leavened bread. Although this is false, because Christ consecrated not in leavened but in unleavened bread, it nevertheless does not destroy the sense.

I say, however, that when the false addition corrupts the form of the Sacrament, then it makes the Sacrament null, because it is not a legitimate form which signifies something other than that for which Christ instituted it. But when the sense is changed and falsified, the form no longer signifies that for which Christ the Lord instituted it. Therefore a corrupting addition to the form makes the Sacrament invalid. Hence the Marcionists’ consecration of the Eucharist was null when they said: This is my phantom body, because a phantom body is not Christ’s body, to which the consecration must be terminated.

It must be observed, however, that a false addition of words can sometimes be inferred only from the intention of the minister, especially when the addition is external. For example, if someone used this form: I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and of the Blessed Virgin, Mother of God, such Baptism could be valid or invalid according to the minister’s differing intention. It would be invalid if the minister intended to baptize in the name—that is, by the authority—of the Blessed Virgin, just as he baptizes in the name and authority of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This would certainly be erroneous, for we cannot baptize in the name of a mere creature. Hence Saint Paul says in 1 Corinthians 1: Was Paul crucified for you, or were you baptized in the name of Paul? Saint Augustine therefore aptly observes, book 5 of On Baptism, chapter 11: We find the Apostle saying: “And my glory, and my ministry, and my prudence, and my Gospel”; but no apostle would say, “my baptism.” Nevertheless, the same Baptism could be valid if, by the added words just mentioned, the minister intended that the intercession of the Blessed Virgin benefit the baptized person in preserving baptismal grace. For, given that intention, the form of Baptism has its whole essential signification complete before those words just mentioned are added.

You say: The minister’s error or wickedness does not harm the recipient of the Sacrament when the Gospel words are pronounced, because, as Saint Augustine says in book 2 of Against the Letter of Petilianus, the believer is born not from the barrenness of the minister, but from the fecundity of the truth. — I respond that a purely internal evil intention of the minister does not impair the Sacrament; it is otherwise, however, if it were declared externally, as occurs in the hypothesis just mentioned, because in that case words are added which destroy the form instituted by Christ the Lord.

Seventh, the omission of an essential word in the form of the Sacrament makes the Sacrament null, because the sacramental form is overturned. Hence, if someone, says Didymus, book 2 of On the Holy Spirit, which is among the works of Saint Jerome, should attempt to baptize in such a way as to omit one of the aforesaid names of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, he would baptize without completing the rite. The contrary occurs if the omitted word does not overturn the signification of the form, as when, in the form of the Eucharist, For this is my body, the particle “for” is omitted. The consecration will nevertheless take place, because the word “for” does not remove the essence of the Sacrament: it is not of the substance of the form and does not change its sense.

Eighth, finally, a corruption of the words that does not remove the sense of the utterance and does not intend to introduce error does not detract from the integrity of the Sacrament. For although the sensible sound is changed, the same sense and the same signification remain. Thus Pope Zacharias, as is read in chapter Retulerunt, distinction 1, On Consecration, writes: « Your messengers reported that in the same province there was a Priest who was completely ignorant of the Latin language and, when he baptized, ignorant of Latin speech, dipping his tongue, said: “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Daughter, and of the Holy Spirit”; on account of this your reverend fraternity considered that he ought to rebaptize. But, most holy brother, if the one who baptized, introducing neither error nor heresy, but merely through ignorance of Roman speech, while dipping his tongue, had said, as we have acknowledged above, “baptize,” we cannot consent that he be rebaptized. » For Zacharias judged that this ignorant Priest had changed nothing in the form of Baptism, because with corrupted words he signified the same thing that others ordinarily signify with intact ones.

For although those words, uttered separately and in themselves, do not signify the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, nevertheless, when joined with the action of Baptism and with these words “in the name,” they signify the same thing by the accommodation of usage; otherwise they would signify nothing. Since it is credible that he wished to signify something—namely, what the Church intends—that Baptism was rightly judged valid.

All these matters, which we have explained at somewhat greater length, the Doctor summarizes more briefly in distinction 3, question 2, number 7, where, speaking of the alteration of the form of the Sacraments, he says: « For understanding this, it must be observed that, according to the Philosopher, Physics V, there are four kinds of change: according to substance, quality, quantity, and where. Accordingly, in these words there can be a fourfold variation: according to substance, by putting other words in place of these, or another word in place of this one; according to quantity, by adding or subtracting, and thus by adding before, after, or in between; according to quality, namely, by removing some termination required for proper speech; according to where, by transposing. Concerning any of these variations I say that, if the baptizer intends to use the words he uses as the form of the Church, he does not baptize precisely because he lacks the intention of using words that are in some way varied as the precise form of Baptism. »

Third Conclusion. — THE SACRAMENTAL WORD IS NOT PROMISSORY OR PREACHING, BUT CONSECRATORY. This Conclusion consists of three parts, of which

The first is proved, first from the Council of Trent, Session 7, Canon 6, where anathema is pronounced against those who assert that the Sacraments of the New Law do not contain the grace they signify, or that they do not confer grace upon those who place no obstacle to it, as though they were merely external signs of grace or justice received through faith, etc. It is also clear from what we said in question 1, page 24, namely, that the constitutive difference of a Sacrament of the New Law is not the sealing of God’s promise. For, as was said, the essential word of a Sacrament of the New Law, its constitutive and distinguishing element from the other Sacraments, must be found in each of the Sacraments of the New Law. But there are Sacraments of the New Law which do not of themselves exhibit a promise of grace, as is clear not only in Matrimony and Orders, but also in Baptism and the Eucharist, which even the heretics themselves do not deny to be true Sacraments of the New Law. For in Baptism the word “I baptize,” which is essential to its form, is not the same as “I signify” or “I indicate.” Likewise, in the Eucharist, the words of the consecration of the species of bread, namely, This is my body, and of the consecration of the wine, namely, This is the chalice of my blood, do not signify a promise, but indicate the thing that is effected, namely, the very actual consecration, as the Apostle signifies in 1 Corinthians 10, saying: The chalice of blessing which we bless, etc.

You will say 1. The sacramental words of the Eucharist are not only those we have mentioned, but also those which precede and follow them. Indeed, Christ the Lord says: Take and eat; this is my body, which will be delivered for you. But the promised delivery of Christ’s body accidentally exhibits grace, or the remission of sins, which Christ merited for us by his Passion. — I answer first that the sacramental word by which the Eucharist is confected is none other than the aforesaid This is my body. For the other words are not absolutely required for the constitution of the Sacrament, as will be proved in the Disputation on the Eucharist. Second, I say that, even if those words, both preceding and following, pertained to the essence of the form, nevertheless they would not exhibit the promise of grace to be applied to us in the very use of the Sacrament, but would merely designate it as prepared in its cause, namely, in Christ’s Passion.

You will say 2. The Sacraments are called marks and seals by the holy Fathers; but they are called this only because they are merely seals of the promises of God’s grace. Therefore they are promissory. — I deny the minor, for they are called marks for other reasons. First, because through such signs Christians are judged to belong to God in a special way and to be under his protection, just as certain marks are impressed by a shepherd on sheep, by a master on servants, and by a commander on soldiers, so that they may be distinguished. This is especially true of the Sacraments, which imprint a character. Second, they can be called marks because they close and conceal sacred things. Thus Baptism is called by Tertullian, book On Penance, the seal and sign of faith. Third, they are called marks because through receiving them we give public testimony of our profession of faith; for this reason Baptism is often called by the holy Fathers the mark of the righteousness of faith.

The second part is proved, namely, that the sacramental word is not preaching, because, as the heretics maintain, this preaching word is not necessary either for the essence or for the fruit of the Sacrament. First, because Scripture makes no mention of such a sermon in the institution either of the Eucharist or of Baptism, the two Sacraments admitted by the adversaries. It is true that at the Last Supper Christ gave a splendid sermon to the disciples, which can be read in John 15 and 16. But he gave it only after the institution and administration of the Eucharist; before it he gave no sermon to the disciples. It is true that he washed their feet and said to them: You are clean, but not all. But these words were not preaching words, because according to Calvin, cited in the third Note, chapter 14, section 1, that word is preaching by which the sacramental signification is explained to the recipient, or which, when preached, makes the recipient understand what the visible sign indicates. But Christ did not then precede the rite with any such word. — The same is clear concerning the institution of Baptism. Although Christ the Lord said to the Apostles in the last chapter of Matthew: Go, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, etc., nevertheless by those words he intended to signify nothing other than that adults ought not to be baptized before they had been instructed in the faith. This is entirely certain, for, as Saint Basil teaches, book On the Holy Spirit, chapter 12, faith and Baptism are two related and inseparable ways of attaining salvation: just as faith is perfected through Baptism, so Baptism rests upon the foundation of faith. But it does not follow from this that the preaching word which must precede their instruction is the same as the sacramental word by which Baptism is perfected. It is confirmed because, if the preaching word were necessary, it would be necessary chiefly with respect to the minister, those standing by, or the recipient. But this is not so with respect to the minister, for no one needs to be taught by himself; nor with respect to those standing by, for Baptism is validly conferred even when no one except the minister and recipient is present; nor finally with respect to the recipient, for infants, the delirious, and the insane are validly baptized, although they are incapable of instruction and of a preaching word. Add that those heretics do not reject Baptism conferred in the Roman Church, nor rebaptize those who leave the bosom of the Church for their rebellious camps, even if preaching did not precede. Therefore, etc.

They will object 1. That passage of Matthew: Teach all nations, baptizing them. Hence the Apostles in Acts always first teach and instruct before they baptize. Therefore Saint Jerome, explaining that passage of Ephesians 6, Cleansing her by the washing of water in the word of life, understands “word of life” as doctrine. Therefore the preaching word is necessary for the Sacrament. — I distinguish the consequent: it is required as a necessary disposition for adults to receive Baptism fruitfully, I concede. For the justification of adults requires faith; faith requires hearing the word of God; that hearing requires preaching. For how will they believe without a preacher? as the Apostle says. As an essential part of Baptism, I deny, because whether instruction precedes or is joined to Baptism, it takes nothing away from Baptism’s validity or efficacy. Hence Christ did not command the Apostles, while baptizing, to teach all nations the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, which he should have done if the word of instruction were to teach the peoples while they were baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. For these words, “In the name of the Father,” etc., refer to the act of baptizing, not of teaching; they signify an invocation of the Trinity over the washing with water, not an explanation of the mystery to those standing by. In other passages of Scripture, the particle “in the name” signifies nothing other than invocation. Thus, in the last chapter of Mark: In my name they will cast out demons. In Acts 3: In the name of Jesus Christ, rise and walk. — Concerning Saint Jerome I say that he explained the aforesaid passage in a mystical sense and not a literal one, as he himself indicates at the beginning of his explanation of the context. For he begins thus: Because through tropology we had said that men, souls, and wives signified bodies, etc. Nor did Saint Jerome certainly understand anything else, for, explaining the aforesaid words, Go, teach, baptizing, he says: « He commanded the Apostles first to teach all nations, then to dip them in the Sacrament, and after faith and Baptism to prescribe what was to be observed. He adds: for it cannot happen that the body receives the Sacrament of Baptism unless the soul has first received the truth of faith. » By this he signifies that adults must first be instructed in the articles of faith before they approach Baptism. He therefore distinguishes the Sacrament of Baptism from that prior instruction and doctrine.

They will object 2. Saint Ambrose, book On the Mysteries, chapter 1, where he calls the word by which Baptism is perfected the preaching of the Lord’s cross, says: Mara was a very bitter spring; Moses sent wood into it, and it became sweet. For water without the preaching of the divine cross is useful for no purpose of future salvation. Therefore, just as Moses sent wood into that spring, so the priest sends the preaching of the Lord’s cross into this font, and the water becomes sweet for grace. But in Saint Ambrose’s mind the preaching of the cross is a preaching word. Therefore, according to Saint Ambrose’s mind, water cannot benefit the person baptized unless it is enlightened by doctrine and preaching. — I deny the minor: for the preaching of the cross can occur in two ways, either through words or through deeds. For not only does the person preach the cross who reports and explains Christ’s Passion and torments, but also the one who lives according to the rule of the Gospel and crucifies his flesh with its vices and desires. Hence in the administration of Baptism it can be said that the Lord’s cross is preached through the very rite of Baptism; for the Apostle says in Romans 6: All of us who have been baptized in Christ Jesus have been baptized into his death. Saint Ambrose uses the preaching of the cross in this latter way, because there he says that the Priest sends this word—which he calls the preaching of the cross—into the very font. But a word of instruction is not sent into an insensible thing, such as water, but into a rational creature. Therefore by the preaching of the cross he understands the rite by which Baptism is confected and administered, representing Christ’s death and consecrating the waters through the sacramental word. Hence he says that the word is sent to the font in the way Saint Augustine said that the word comes to the element and becomes a Sacrament. — This explanation is certainly confirmed by Saint Ambrose himself, for at the beginning of the chapter, addressing the one who has entered the baptistery, he says:

What did you see? Certainly waters, but not waters alone. Levites ministering there, a Priest questioning and consecrating; and he consecrates with no other instrument than the word of the form of Baptism. Then he writes: Mara was a very bitter spring, and Moses sent wood into it, and it became sweet by contact. Thus water without the preaching of the Lord’s cross is useful for no purpose of salvation; but when it has been consecrated by the mystery of the cross, then it is tempered for the use of spiritual washing and the saving cup, and becomes sweet for grace. That preaching is the invocation of the Most Holy Trinity; for when it is applied to Baptism, it commends the efficacy of the cross and, by applying its effect, makes it present as it were.

— That Saint Ambrose truly judged Baptism to be perfected by consecratory words is also declared, besides what has just been said, by this passage in book 2 of On the Sacraments, chapter 5. In place of what he says here, namely, that the Priest sends the preaching of the cross into the font of water, he says: The Priest speaks a prayer at the font; he invokes the name of the Father, the presence of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit; he uses heavenly words. What are the heavenly words? That we baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

He objects 3. That passage of Saint Augustine, Tractate 80 on John, where he says: What is the great power of water, that it touches the body and washes the heart, unless through the word doing this, not because it is said, but because it is believed? For in the word itself one thing is the passing sound, another the abiding power. This is the word of faith which we preach, by which hearts are cleansed and Baptism is consecrated. But the word that is believed is a preaching word, or a word of preaching and doctrine; for it cannot be believed unless it has first been heard and preached. Hence he calls it there the word of faith. And after he declared that infants are cleansed by the sacramental word, in order to declare this word to be preaching, he concludes: All this takes place through the word of which the Lord says: Now you are clean because of the word which I have spoken to you. Therefore, etc. — I deny the minor: for this is not Saint Augustine’s meaning. He intends only to prove from the aforesaid words of Christ, Now you are clean because of the word which I have spoken to you, that all cleansing of a human being is derived from the word of God, which is called the word of faith because it is the object of faith, and not merely from water. For he asks there why Christ the Lord did not say: You are clean because of the Baptism with which you have been washed, but said: Because of the word which I have spoken to you. He answers: because the word also cleanses in water: Whence is there such power in water that it touches the body and washes the heart, unless through the sanctifying word, not because it is said, but because it is believed? As if he were saying: no one ought to wonder why Christ said, You are clean because of the word which I have spoken to you, and not because of Baptism, because Baptism itself is consecrated through the word which he spoke. It is consecrated through the Lord’s words, which ought to be considered not as common words but as words which the Lord spoke, in which there is a certain abiding and operative power; and this power is received only under faith. Hence he immediately adds: For in the word itself one thing is the passing sound, another the abiding power. The testimonies that follow, drawn from Scripture, are added to prove generally that the power of cleansing arises from the word of faith, which, as I said, he had undertaken to prove at the outset. Hence he rightly concludes that the word by which infants are cleansed is also the word of which the Lord says: Now you are clean because of the word, etc. Since, then, Saint Augustine holds that infants are justified through the word about which he is speaking, it is certain that he does not understand a preaching word, since infants cannot believe unto justification or confess with their mouth unto salvation.

The third part is finally proved, namely, that the sacramental word is consecratory. I prove it, I say, because the words by which the Sacraments are confected are called sanctification, blessing, consecration, and invocation of the name of God. Thus Saint Paul in 1 Corinthians 10 calls the words by which the Eucharist is confected a blessing: The chalice of blessing, he says, which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? — The holy Fathers give them similar names. For Saint Dionysius, book On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, chapter 3, says: Moreover, when the Bishop has unveiled the most holy gifts of God, he consecrates the most divine mysteries. And in the last chapter he calls the sacramental words consecratory invocations. Likewise Saint Justin, Apology 2: Over the one who has determined that he must be reborn through Baptism, he says, the name of God of all things is named by the one praying, and we invoke him as we lead this person to the washing. Likewise Saint Ambrose, in the aforesaid book 2 of On the Sacraments, chapter 5, and in book 4, chapter 4, of On the Sacraments, speaking of the confection of the Eucharist, says: This bread is bread before the words of the Sacraments; when the consecration has come, from bread it becomes Christ’s flesh. How can bread be Christ’s body? By consecration. By what words is consecration made, and whose speeches? Those of the Lord Jesus. Likewise Saint Augustine, book 6 of Against the Donatists, chapter 27: God, he says, is present to his Gospel words, without which Christ’s Baptism cannot be consecrated, and he himself sanctifies his Sacrament. The other Fathers have the same teaching, but it would be tedious to list them here.

Calvin objects: The consecratory words seem superstitious and like a magical incantation, since they are muttered by the minister over a mute and lifeless element, without any understanding or faith on the part of those standing by, and since they are supposed to be uttered in an unknown language, namely Latin, before the unlearned. Therefore, etc. — I deny the antecedent: for words uttered over a mute and lifeless element, especially when this occurs by divine ordinance, in no way savor of or resemble magic. For in Numbers 5, in the sacrifice of jealousy, the Priest heaped many words of cursing upon the water appointed for this purpose, and when the adulterous women drank it, it killed them, while it did no harm to the innocent. Moreover, magicians use not only words but also things in their tricks; yet the heretics recognize nothing magical in the matter of the Sacraments. Therefore neither ought they to recognize anything magical in the words. Finally, magical incantation consists in this: that certain things, figures, and voices, otherwise ineffective in themselves, have power to effect something by an implicit or explicit pact with the demon. But the consecratory words of the Sacraments do not have the power to effect anything from a pact with the demon, but from Christ’s institution. Hence in the administration of the Sacraments there are some words that ought to be understood by everyone, such as those uttered to arouse the faith and piety of the recipients and those standing by; these ought usually to be in the vernacular, unless the recipients and those standing by understand Latin. There are others for effecting something, as when Joshua spoke to the Sun, which had no hearing, and Christ commanded the winds. Whatever their language, such words are suitable; and such are the consecratory words of the Sacraments.