Chapter II. Of the Form of the Sacraments

Let us begin with this: The Catholic Church holds as form of the Sacraments consecratory words; the pretended ministers, wishing to reform this form, say * that the consecrating words are charms, and that the true form of the Sacraments is preaching. What do the ministers produce from Holy Scripture for the support of this reformation? Two passages only as far as any one knows; the one from S. Paul, the other from S. Matthew. S. Paul, speaking of the Church, says t that Our Lord sanctified it, cleansing it hy the laver of water in the word of life; and Our Lord himself, in S. Matthew,^ gives this commandment to his disciples: Teach all nations, baptizing them in the

• Calv. Instit. iv. 14; in Eph, v. Beza in sum. doctr. de re sacram. t Eph. V. 26. + Ult. 19.

na^ne of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Two very clear passages certainly to prove that preaching is the true form of the Sacraments! But whoever told them that there was no other " word of life " than preaching? I maintain, on the contrary, that this holy invocation: / baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is also a word of life; as S. Chrysostom and Theodoret say.* Just as the other prayers and the other invocations of God's name are; which, however, are not sermons. And if S. Jerome, t following the mystical sense, would have preaching to be a sort of cleansing water, he does not therefore set himself against the other Fathers who have understood the laver of water to be Baptism precisely, and the word of life to be the invocation of the most holy Trinity, in order to interpret the passage of S. Paul by the other of S. Matthew: Teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. And as to this latter, nobody ever denied that instruction should precede Baptism in the case of those who are capable of it, according to the words of Jesus Christ, who places the instruction first and the Baptism afterwards. But keeping within the same words, we place the previous instruction by itself, as a disposition requisite to him who has the use of reason, and Baptism also apart: so that the one cannot be the form of the other. Indeed Baptism would rather be the form of preaching than preaching of Baptism, if one must be the form of the other; since the form cannot precede but must follow the matter, and preaching precedes Baptism, while * In Eph. V. t In idem.

Baptism follows upon the preaching. Wherefore S. Augustine would not have spoken correctly when he said: " the word comes to the element and the Sacrament is made; " * for he would rather have had to say: the element comes to the word.

These two passages then are wholly inapplicable to your reformed teaching; yet they are all you have.

At the same time your pretensions would be somewhat more tolerable if we had not in the Scripture contrary reasons more express beyond all comparison than yours are. They are these. He who helieves and is baptized: do you see this belief which springs in us by preaching separated from Baptism? — they are then two distinct things, preaching and Baptism. Who doubts but that S. Paul catechised and instructed in the faith many Corinthians who were baptized? But if instruction and preaching were the form of Baptism, S. Paul was not right in saying: t / give God thanks that I baptized none of you but Crispus and Caius, &c. For to give the form to a thing, is it not to do it? The case is made stronger still in that S. Paul separates baptizing from preaching: Christ sent me not to baptize but to preach the Gospel. And to show that the Baptism is Christ's, not his who administers it, he does not say: are you baptized in the preaching of Paul? but rather: are you baptized in the name of Paid? — showing that though preaching goes before still it is not of the essence of Baptism, as if the Baptism were to be attributed to the preacher and catechist in the same way that it is attributed to him whose name is invoked in it.

Certainly any one who nearly examines the first

• In Joan, Ixxx. t i Cor. i. 14.

Baptism administered after Pentecost * will see as clearly as the day that preaching is one thing and Baptism another. Wlun they had heard these things — see on the one hand the preaching — they had compunction in their hearts, and said to Peter and the rest of the Apostles: JVhat shall we do, men brethren? But Peter to them: do penance (said he), and he baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: — see on the other hand the Baptism, put by itself. One may see as much in the Baptism of that pious eunuch of Ethiopia (Acts viii.), in that of S. Paul (lb. ix), in which there was no preaching, and in that of the good and religious Cornelius (lb. x.)

And as to the most holy Eucharist, which is the other Sacrament which the ministers make pretence of receiving, — where do they ever find that Our Lord made use of preaching? S. Paul teaches the Corinthians how the Supper should be celebrated, but we do not find that there is any command to preach; and in order that nobody should doubt but that the rite he was expounding was legitimate, he says that he had so learnt it from Our Lord: For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered to you.lf Our Lord indeed made an admirable discourse, related by S. John; but this was not for the mystery of the Supper, which was already completed.

We do not say that it is not becoming to instruct the people about the Sacraments conferred upon them, but only that this instruction is not the form of the Sacraments. So that if in the institution of these divine mysteries, and in the very practice of the

• Acts ii. 37, ^8. f i Cor. xi. 23.

III. Z

Apostles, we find a distinction between preaching and the Sacraments, by what authority shall we confound them together?

In this point, then, according to the Scriptures, we are absolutely victorious, and the ministers are convicted of violating the Scriptures, since they would change the essence of the Sacraments contrarily to their institution.

Again, they violate Tradition, the authority of the Church, of Councils, of the Popes, and of the Fathers, who have all believed and do believe that the Baptism of little children is true and legitimate. But how would we have preaching employed therein? Infants do not understand what one says to them; they are not capable of using reason; what is the use of instructing them? We might indeed preach before them, but it would be of no use; for their understanding is not yet open to receive instruction, as instruction; it touches them not, nor can it be applied to them, — what effect then can it have on them? The Baptism therefore would be vain, since it would be without form, and therefore the form of Baptism is not preaching. Luther answers * that infants do feel the actual movements of faith, by preaching. This is to violate and belie experience and also common sense.

Further, the greater part of the Baptisms which are administered in the Catholic Church are administered without any preaching: they are therefore not true Baptisms, since the form is lacking to them. Why then do you not rebaptize those who go from our Church to yours? It would be an anabaptism.

So then behold how, according to the rules of the * Contra Coch. an. 1523.

ART. I. c. II.] Church Doctrines, &c. 355 faith, and principally according to Holy Scripture, your ministers err, when they teach you that preaching is the form of the Sacraments. But let us see if what we believe be more conformable to the Holy Word. We say that the form of the Sacraments is a consecratory word, a word of benediction or invocation. Is there anything so clear in Scripture? Tecicli all nations, hajptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Is not this form — in the name of the Father — invocative? Certainly the same S. Peter who says to the Jews: * Do jpenance and he baptized every one of yotc in the name of Jesus Christ for the ^'emission of your sins, says shortly afterwards to the lame man at the Beautiful Gate of the Temple: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazarethj rise iip and walk. Who does not see that this last prayer is invocative, and why not the first, which is in substance the same? So S. Paul does not say: The chalice of preaching of which we preach is it not the communication of the blood of Christ? — but, on the contrary: The chalice of benediction which we bless.f They consecrated it then and blessed it. So at the Council of Laodicea (c. 25): "The deacon may not bless the chalice.'* S. Denis calls them consecratory,J and in his description of the Liturgy or Mass, he does not mention preaching, so far was he from considering it to be the form of the Eucharist. In the Council of Laodicea, where the order of the Mass is spoken of, nothing is said of preaching, which was, therefore, a thing of propriety, but not of the essence of this mystery. Justin Martyr {Apol. I. 65), describing the ancient office which the

• Acts ii. t I Cor. x. i6. + De Eccl. Hier. ult.

Christians performed on Sundays, amongst other things says that after the general prayers they offered bread, wine, and water; then the prelate made earnest prayers and thanksgivings \e,ucliaTistias\ to God; the people gave thanks, saying, Amen: " these things being consecrated, with the Eucharist, every one participates, and the same things are given to the Deacons, to be carried to the absent." * Several things are noticeable here: water was mingled with the wine, they offered, they consecrated, they carried it to the sick. But if our reformers had been there, it would have been necessary to carry the preaching to the sick, or nothing would have been done. For as John Calvin says: t " The simple explanation of the mystery to the people, makes a dead element begin to be a sacrament." S. Gregory of Nyssa says: J " I consider that now the bread is sanctified by the Word of God; " and — he is speaking of the Sacrament of the Altar, — " we believe that it is changed into the body of the Word." And afterwards he says that this change is made " in virtue of the benediction." " How," says the great S. Ambrose,^ " can that which is bread become the body of Christ? — by consecration: " and further on: "It was not the body of Christ before consecration, but, after the consecration, I tell thee it now is the body of Christ; " — and you may see him at great length. But I reserve myself on this subject for when we shall be treating of the holy Mass.

• We translate the Saint's quotation as it stands. In the text of S. Justin the word eucharista is certainly used in a technical sense. He speaks particularly of " the bread, wine, and water in which thanksgiving (or eucharist) is made." [Tr.]

t In Ep. ad Eph. v. X Omt Catech. mag. cap. 37.

§ De Sac. iv. 14, 16.

&RT. Lc. III.] Church Doctrines y &c. 357

I would finish with this signal sentence of S. Augustine: "^^ " Paul could preach the Lord Jesus Christ by signs of three kinds; in one way by his tongue, in another by an Epistle, in a third by the Sacrament of his body and blood: but neither his tongue nor his ink, nor significant sounds uttered by his tongue, nor the signs of letters traced on parchments do we say to be the body and blood of Christ, but that only which, taken from the fruits of the earth and consecrated by mystic prayer, we duly receive." And if S. Augustine says: t " Whence such a power in water that touching the body it should wash the heart, unless by the effect of the word, not inasmuch as it is said but inasmuch as it is believed: " — we say nothing different. For in truth the words of benediction and sanctification with which we form and perfect the Sacraments, have no virtue save when uttered under the general intention and belief of the Church. For if any one said them without this intention, they would indeed be spoken, but for nothing, because it is " not what is said but what is believed," &c.