I

Melchior Cano, a theologian of great erudition and insight, was born at Tarancon in Spain in 1520, studied at Salamanca, was a teacher of theology at Alcala and Salamanca, was one of the divines who were present at the Council of Trent, and was appointed Bishop of the Canaries in 1552. He was a member of the Dominican order, and became provincial for Castille shortly after his appointment as Bishop. Consequently he never took possession of the see. He died at Toledo in 1560. His most important work, De locis theologicis, was completed at the time of his death, and was published in 1562. One of the chapters is devoted to the subject of the Eucharistic sacrifice. Most of it consists of a refutation in detail of arguments by which the denial of the sacrifice in the Eucharist had been supported. Incidentally, there is positive teaching that the elements are made to be the body and blood of Christ by means of the consecration, that “the real body of Christ is broken by the hands of the priests,” and that the Eucharist is “really and properly” a “propitiatory sacrifice,” which is a presentation of the passion and the sacrifice which Christ “always” and “really offers” “to the Father” “in heaven”. Following St. Thomas Aquinas, he considers an essential part of sacrifice to be “the doing of something to the thing which is offered to God whereby the sacred thing itself is in a kind of way acted on”; and the nature of this action, as he understood it, is explained in a passage in which he describes the parts of the Eucharistic sacrifice as being four in number, namely, the consecration, the oblation of the consecrated elements, the fraction of the consecrated host, and the consumption of the Sacrament, and represents the fraction of the consecrated host as the needed “doing of something to the thing which is offered to God”.

“It is clear that there are four parts of the Eucharistic sacrifice, first, the consecration of the body and blood, secondly, the oblation, thirdly, the fraction, lastly, the consumption. For I will prove that any one who shall deny that our sacrifice is wholly completed (redintegrari, confici, absolvi) in these four parts has no learning or knowledge (nihil didicisse, nihil quaesisse, nihil scire) of the theory of a perfect sacrifice.… When the Holy Church breaks the host, it commemorates the sacrifice of Christ by signifying the breaking of the Lord’s body on the cross.… The consumption of the species pertains to the complete signification of this sacrifice.… I do not forget that St. Thomas sometimes, as indeed appears to be the case, taught that the sacrifice is offered before the fraction of the host, and that the reception properly belongs to the Sacrament, and the oblation to the sacrifice; and again asserted that the fraction of the host is not so necessary that, if it were omitted, the sacrifice would remain incomplete, because the signification of this relates not to the real body of Christ but to His mystical body; whence it follows that the fraction is not to be reckoned among the parts of the sacrifice. Now that the sacrifice is offered before the fraction it may be considered a great argument that immediately after the consecration the priest says these words, ‘We offer to Thy excellent majesty of Thy bounties and gifts a pure offering,’ etc. Therefore, while the host is not yet broken there is both oblation and sacrifice. But whoever cites St. Thomas against us makes St. Thomas to contradict both himself and the true theory of sacrifice. For his words in the second division of the second part are not obscure that the name sacrifice is properly used when something is done in regard to the things that are offered. Which he supports by the illustration of the breaking and eating of bread. Whence he infers that first fruits are offerings but not a sacrifice, because no sacred act was performed in regard to them. Therefore not only St. Thomas but also the Church speaks of the sacrifice before the fraction in the way in which we speak of a thing which is at hand and close by as if it were present.… The bread itself we commonly call a host before consecration; and St. Thomas does not shrink from this way of speech. And the priest before the consecration says that he offers ‘holy and spotless sacrifices,’ etc. But what theologian has ever been so utterly foolish as to think that the sacrifice was offered before the host was consecrated? And, that I may not say anything about the hidden and inner sacrifice of the body and blood, the outward and mystic sacrifice certainly does not consist simply in the oblation. Therefore, since in regard to the species nothing has been done of the sacrifice before the fraction, the sacrifice has not been offered. Also, since with the symbols of the realities, by the institution of Christ, we ought to represent (agere) His death, if our sacrifice is real and complete and a perfect copy of that victim which Christ set forth on the cross, and since there is no symbol of the realities until the species are broken and mingled and consumed, we can receive a most certain argument that the sacrifice is not yet complete before the fraction. It remains therefore that not only the consecration and the oblation but also the fraction and the consumption pertain to the completeness of the outward sacrifice.”

Melchior Cano is at some pains to repudiate any idea of the Mass as a merely mechanical means of the forgiveness of sins; and he stigmatises as “madness” the notion ascribed to Ambrose Catharinus that the sacrifice of the altar as being for the remission of sins committed after Baptism is to be distinguished from the sacrifice of the cross as for sins committed before Baptism.

“Hence is manifest the madness of the idea of Ambrose Catharinus that sins committed before Baptism are remitted by means of the sacrifice of the cross, but all sins committed after Baptism by means of the sacrifice of the altar. For the sacrifice of the cross is the universal cause of the forgiveness of sins, whether committed before or after Baptism.”

Alphonso Salmeron was born at Toledo in 1515. He studied at Alcala and Paris. He was a member of the Society of Jesus. He was one of the divines who were present at the Council of Trent. Later he became provincial of the Jesuits in the kingdom of Naples. He died at Naples in 1585. He wrote voluminous expositions of Holy Scripture. In these incidental allusions to the Holy Eucharist often occur, and it is discussed at length in connection with the institution of the Sacrament. As regards the presence in the Eucharist there is nothing distinctive in his teaching that, while the accidents of the bread and the wine remain, the only substance after consecration is the substance of the body and blood of Christ. As regards the sacrifice, he considers the essential point to be the mystical offering to the Father of the body and blood of Christ present under the species of bread and wine, the crucial moment of the offering to be the consecration, and the distinctively sacrificial state of our Lord in the Sacrament to be the fact of His sacramental existence in a mystically divided method under the different species, whereby His death is represented in mystery, and the passion commemorated.

“In the Sacrament the most holy bread differs not at all from ordinary bread, not even to the taste; and yet the body of Christ, which is glorious in heaven, is there, and in the hearts of the faithful.”

“It is customary in Scripture that, when things are changed, their former names are preserved.… In this way must be understood the Apostle’s description of the Eucharist by the word bread, although it is bread no longer.”

“All the Sacraments of the new covenant are symbols of the grace which they confer; but in particular the Eucharist proclaims His death, that is, the separation of His soul from His body; and it represents the unity of the Church, for the Church is made up out of many men, as the bread and the vine are made up out of many grains; and it denotes the complete refreshment of our spirit.”

“In this wonderful mystery two things are contained. The first is the real and living body of Christ, which at the Last Supper was subject to suffering and death and yet was given in an impassible and immortal way, which after the resurrection is freed from death and all suffering and is given in a way equally incorruptible and immortal. The second is the representation and proclamation of the death of Christ.”

“In it the body of Christ is known to be present, and as the body of Christ is worshipped with the mind and adored with the body.”

“That the substance of the bread does not remain has been defined in the Church as an article of faith, and the word conversion or Transubstantiation has been approved, although the method of the conversion,—whether by the substance of the bread and wine ceasing to be and the body and blood of Christ entering in under the species that are left, or by the change of the substance of bread and wine into the substance of the body and blood of Christ,—has not yet been defined. For, however it happens, it can be called conversion or Transubstantiation.”

“Sacrifice … signifies a certain mystical action consecrating some external thing by applying it to the worship of God and by offering it to Him.… The form of sacrifice is the mystical action consecrating the thing by applying it to worship and by the offering whereby it is offered to God.… The primary efficient cause of sacrifice is God.… In a secondary way as the instrument the efficient cause is the priest.… Since in the sacrifice of the Mass four things are found, namely, the consecration, the oblation, the fraction, and the consumption, a doubt arises in which action of these four the sacrifice consists. In this matter there is no controversy with the heretics; for, since they deny the sacrifice, they consequently deny that it can consist in any one of these, or in some, or in all. Therefore the dispute is between the theologians; and among them there are more opinions than one. The first opinion is that the sacrifice consists in all these four actions, so that, if and one of them were lacking, the sacrifice would not be complete.… The second opinion is that … in accordance with which there are three actions which are necessary to the sacrifice, and that among these the Communion is the chief.… The third opinion places the sacrifice in two things, namely, the consecration and the oblation.… The fourth opinion is that the sacrifice consists essentially only in the consecration, and that the other actions are rather means of explaining that the sacrifice is offered than means of it being a sacrifice.… Because this fourth opinion seems to be the most likely, and is held by the greater number of fathers, for the further explanation of it must be said: first, it is one thing to sacrifice, and another thing to offer that which is sacrificed, for the former happens once and the latter can happen very often, as we see in the case of Christ, who offers continually the body which was once sacrificed; secondly, there are three things in the consecration itself, namely, the desition (corruptio) of the bread and wine, the change of the substance of the bread and wine into the body of Christ, and the sacramental division of the body and blood of Christ.… Herein is the matter as an object of sense offered to God alone, namely Christ under the species of bread and wine, and by means of them an object of sense, although He abides herein in a way which the senses cannot discern; and the substance is acknowledged not in itself without accidents. But there is this special point that the matter is changed, and that the living victim is sacrificed not in actual fact but is said by the fathers to be sacrificed in mystery, that is, under the species of bread and wine.”

Gabriel Vasquez was born at Belmonte in Spain in 1551. He joined the Society of Jesus, and was eminent as a teacher of theology at Rome and at Alcala. He died at Alcala in 1604. His Eucharistic doctrine is explained at great length in his Discussions on the third part of the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas.

In the philosophy underlying his theology concerning the Eucharistic presence Vasquez follows closely the main principles of the Thomist divines. For instance, as against the Scotists, he maintains that the natural presence, or presence by way of extension, of a body cannot be at the same time in more places than one. Using this philosophy, he asserts the usual conclusions of the scholastic and Tridentine theologians as to the conversion of the substance of the bread and wine into the substance of the body and blood of Christ, the continued existence of the accidents, their capacity of corruption and their power of nourishing the body, the non-local character of the presence of the body of Christ in the Sacrament so that, when the Sacrament is moved, the body of Christ does nut move, and on similar questions. Vasquez’s teaching in regard to the Eucharistic sacrifice is of a more distinctive character than his discussions about the presence. While he allows that change is an element in sacrifice, and recognises such a change as having taken place in the sacrifice of the cross through our Lord’s death, he does not assert any kind of destruction in the sacrifice of the Mass. In the “absolute sacrifice” on the cross destruction was a necessary element; in the “commemorative sacrifice” of the Mass it is sufficient that the victim of the “absolute sacrifice” be presented, and that there be some mark or sign of the destruction which then took place. This mark or sign is to be found in the commemoration of the death of Christ which is supplied by the mystic significance of the separate consecration of the bread and the wine.

“From what has been said we can shortly and easily collect a right definition of sacrifice both by way of form and by way of matter. First, by way of form, that is, by way of signification, A sacrifice is a mark existing in a thing whereby we acknowledge that God is the Author of life and death.… By way of matter this is the definition, A sacrifice is a thing which is offered to God by means of a change in itself, or a change in a thing which is offered to God.… There are two kinds of sacrifice. One of them is an absolute sacrifice, namely, that which is not the commemoration of another sacrifice, as the slaying of a sheep, or the consumption of something. The other is a relative or commemorative sacrifice, the only example of which we have in the sacrifice of the altar, which can be called a commemorative sacrifice; and, although in this no change takes place in the thing which is offered in this way, yet there is found a real sign and mark of the almighty power of God, as in an absolute sacrifice; and therefore this has the real nature of sacrifice no less than a bloody and absolute sacrifice.”

“The Catholic doctrine is that Christ is really and properly offered as a sacrifice in the Mass.”

“The right opinion is that the whole essence of this sacrifice consists of the consecration of the Sacrament alone in such a way that no other action belongs to its completeness, but that everything else which takes place in the Mass is either part of the preparation for the consecration or something which follows from and succeeds it. But, because the whole essence of this sacrifice is to be placed in the presentation of the death of Christ, which was a bloody sacrifice, and this is represented in the consecration not of one species only but of both taken together, therefore we say that the real and complete essence of the sacrifice exists in the consecration not of one species only but of both.”

“Although an absolute sacrifice, that is, one which is not commemorative of another, requires a change in the thing offered, yet the change is not formally of the nature of the sacrifice but a requisite by way of its matter. The formal nature of sacrifice was placed in the signifying of the almighty power of God as the Author of life and death. Therefore, if there be any offering by means of which without a real and actual change in the thing offered God can be denoted and worshipped as the Author of life and death, it ought to be called really and properly a sacrifice. Now the consecration of the body and blood of Christ is of this kind without any actual change in Christ Himself simply on account of the representation of His death; therefore it is really and properly a sacrifice.”

“The desition and conversion of the bread and wine have nothing to do with the nature of the sacrifice, but the sacrifice consists simply in the presence of the body and blood of Christ under the two species by the force of the words, and it would take place in the same way if the body and blood of Christ existed under the two species without any conversion of the bread and wine.”

“If the bloodless sacrifice which we priests offer in the Mass is compared with the sacrifice whereby Christ was offered on the cross, it is certain that it coincides with it, and is wholly the same, so far as concerns the victim and the thing offered, but differs in method and way of offering.… Though the same Christ offers in each sacrifice, yet He does not offer in the same way; for in the bloody sacrifice of the cross He offered directly, since by His own action He underwent suffering and death, in which the offering of that sacrifice consisted; but in the sacrifice of the Mass He does not offer directly and by His own action but by the ministry of the priests, whom He has commanded to consecrate the Sacrament in His name and to offer this bloodless sacrifice; for Christ is now said to offer in this sacrifice only in this way, that He commanded and instituted that priests should offer in His name, and not because He Himself exercises the action of sacrificing.”

“Although Christ is said to offer this sacrifice remotely and only because He instituted it, yet He is rightly called not only the offerer but the principal offerer, whereby He immediately offers, since there is no other who comes between offering principally. For not only did He command it to be offered, but also by His institution He gave it power by reason of His merits and death, so that from the work wrought (ex opere operato), as Sacraments, it might accomplish something in those for whom it should be offered, and also that it might obtain something for them after the manner of an impetrative cause.… Christ did not only command and institute that this sacrifice should be offered, but also as High Priest out of the merits of His works and sacrifice which He offered on the cross, gave it power; and so, though He offers remotely, none the less as priest, and as chief or principal offerer, He is said to offer it.”

Like Melchior Cano, Vasquez refer in terms of strong condemnation to the opinion ascribed to Catharinus, that the efficacy of the sacrifice of the cross is to be restricted to original sin, and actual sins are expiated by the sacrifice of the Mass, calling it “plainly absurd,” and “directly contrary to the Catholic faith,” and “opposed to the teaching of all schoolmen and fathers”.

Robert Bellarmine was born in 1542 at Monte Pulciano near Florence. He was the nephew of Cardinal Cervino, who in 1555 was Pope for twenty-one days, at the end of which he died, with the title of Marcellus II. He entered the Society of Jesus in 1560, in 1592 became Rector of the Jesuit College at Rome, and in 1595 Provincial of the Order in the kingdom of Naples. In 1599 he was made a cardinal by Pope Clement VIII. He died in 1621. His works exhibit great learning and skill in controversy and power of exposition. His teaching on the subject of the Eucharist is contained in the treatises Concerning the Eucharist and Concerning the Sacrifice of the Mass. As regards the Eucharistic presence his teaching follows the usual lines of the theologians who accepted the definitions of the Council of Trent. The body and blood of Christ are present after the consecration really and actually and substantially under the species of bread and wine. This presence is of a sacramental, not of a local, character. It exists because of the complete conversion of the substance of bread and wine into the body and blood of the Lord. Though the bread is converted into the body, and the wine into the blood, yet the whole Christ, flesh and blood, body and soul, manhood and Godhead, is by concomitance under each species. Christ, thus present in the Sacrament, is to be adored. On this last point he writes:—

“There is no Catholic who teaches that the outward elements are to be adored with the worship of latria in themselves and properly, but only that they are to be reverenced with a certain minor worship which is appropriate to all Sacraments; but we say that Christ is to be adored with the worship of latria in Himself and properly, and that this adoration pertains also to the elements of bread and wine insofar as they are considered as one thing with Christ Himself, whom they contain. In like manner, those who adored Christ on earth when clothed, did not adore Him apart, but after some kind of fashion they adored also His garments, for they did not bid Him be stripped of His garments before adoring Him, nor did they divide Him from His garments in mind and thought when they adored Him, but they simply adored Christ as He then was, yet the real object of adoration was not the garments, or even the manhood itself, but only the Godhead. Now, as to the way of speech, we confess that the Sacrament itself is said to be adored, as the Council of Trent says; but this is explained in two ways. For those who think that the Sacrament of the Eucharist is formally the body of Christ, as it is under those species, allow also that the Sacrament is said to be formally adored; but those who teach that the Sacrament of the Eucharist is formally the species of bread and wine, as they contain Christ, teach in consequence that the Sacrament of the Eucharist is to be materially adored. But, whatever is the case as to the method of speech, the only actual question is whether Christ in the Eucharist is to be adored with the worship of latria.”

In regard to the Eucharistic sacrifice the teaching of Bellarmine has some characteristic features. His formal definition of sacrifice does not include any explicit mention of destruction, but it contains the word “changed”; and in the explanation which follows the definition destruction is spoken of as essential to sacrifice.

“Sacrifice is an outward offering made to God alone, wherein for the recognition of human weakness and the profession of the divine majesty some sensible and permanent thing is consecrated and changed in a mystic rite by a lawful minister.

“We have said, ‘and changed,’ because it is required for a real sacrifice that what is offered to God as a sacrifice be wholly destroyed, that is, that it be so changed as to cease to be that which it was before.”

In discussing the nature of the Eucharistic sacrifice, he lays down that the oblation of the unconsecrated bread and wine, the oblation of the consecrated Sacrament, and the fraction of the consecrated host, though they are needed for the completeness of the sacrifice, do not belong to its essence; that the consumption of the Sacrament by the priest who offers the sacrifice is “an essential part but not the whole essence”; and that “the consecration of the Eucharist belongs to the essence of the sacrifice”. As to the consecration, he further explains:—

“In the consecration of the Eucharist three things take place in which the method of a real and actual sacrifice consists. First, a profane thing becomes sacred; for the bread otherwise earthly and common is turned by consecration into the body of Christ, that is, the most sacred of all things.… Secondly, in the consecration that thing which has been made sacred from being profane is offered to God.… Thirdly, by means of the consecration the thing which is offered is destined to a real, actual, and outward change and destruction, which has been declared necessary to the method of a sacrifice. For by means of consecration the body of Christ receives the form of food; and food is destined to be eaten, and in this way to change and destruction.”

On the reference to the “altar on high” in the canon of the Mass, he writes:—

“This is not to be understood so stupidly as to make us think that in heaven any bodily and sensible altar has been built, and that the Sacrament of the body of the Lord ought to be borne to it actually and bodily by the hands of angels; but that there is an altar, that is, a spiritual altar, in heaven, as also a tabernacle and a throne and incense and trumpets and crowns and palms and other things of this kind no one can deny without wishing to deny the Scriptures.… Of the same altar set in heaven Irenæus and Augustine have made mention. Therefore it is not a dream of Catholics, but the divine Scripture itself has set an altar in heaven. This heavenly altar signifies either Christ Himself, through whom our prayers and offerings go up to God; or certainly that there is said to be an altar in heaven, because the sacrifices which are offered to God on earth are received in heaven. And that our sacrifices are borne to God by the hands of the angel is nothing else than that our service and worship, which we desire to offer to God in sacrifice, are aided and commended to Him by the intercession of angels.”

Francis Suarez was born at Granada in 1548. At the age of seventeen he entered the Society of Jesus, and studied at Salamanca. He was afterwards a teacher at Segovia and Valladolid and Rome. From Rome he returned to Spain, and taught at Alcala and at Salamanca. In 1597 Philip II. appointed him principal professor of theology at the Portuguese University of Coimbra. In 1617 he died at Lisbon. His reputation as a teacher of the Aristotelian philosophy and of theology was of the highest; and he was the author of voluminous works of great ability. His Commentaries and Disputations on the third part of the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas include lengthy and elaborate disquisitions on the Eucharist. As to the Eucharistic presence his teaching on important matters is that which is common to the Roman Catholic theologians of his time, although on some connected questions of philosophy he accepts the less usually held positions, and the influence of the Scotist theologians on his mind can be plainly seen. The body of Christ is really and actually and permanently present in the Sacrament by a presence of a sacramental kind differing from the nature and method of natural presence. While in the abstract it is possible for a natural body to be quantitively and by way of dimensions in more places than one at one time, as a matter of fact the natural presence of the body of Christ is in heaven alone and is to be distinguished from the sacramental presence in the Eucharist. In the abstract, again, it would be possible for the body of Christ to be in the Sacrament together with the substance of the bread and wine; but as a matter of fact the substance of bread and wine does not remain after consecration but is wholly converted into the substance of the body and blood of Christ. The substance of the body and blood of Christ is wholly present in both species by concomitance, and in each separate part of the species when divided. The body of Christ existing in the Eucharist cannot in itself be moved by any outward natural agency, though by way of accident Christ is moved by one who changes the place of the sacramental species. The body of Christ as it exists in the Eucharist cannot be seen by the eyes of the body; and in miraculous visions there is no physical sight of Christ or of His body or blood. In the consecrated Sacrament the accidents of bread and wine remain, and the consecrated species are capable of effecting or suffering anything which they could effect or suffer before consecration, as to nourish the body or to be corrupted. Christ is to be adored in the Eucharist with that supreme worship which would be His due if He were visibly present; and “not only Christ existing under the species but also the whole visible Sacrament, as it consists of Christ and of the species, is to be adored by one act of supreme worship”. In order to be benefited it is necessary to receive the Sacrament worthily without knowledge of mortal sin and with a disposition to obtain grace.

In regard to the Eucharistic sacrifice there is a distinctive feature of interest in the teaching of Suarez, which may possibly have been partly due to his Scotist leanings. His definition of sacrifice postulates some external action which involves a change, but this change does not necessarily consist in the destruction of the victim in the sacrifice; and in the case of the Eucharist it is to be found in the presence and presentation of the body and blood of Christ on the altar as an offering made in honour of God.

“It is needful to gather from what has been said an explanation of a real and proper sacrifice, which can be given in two ways. The first is by way of physical definition, consisting of matter and form, so that a sacrifice is an offering made to God by means of the change of something to a sign, lawfully ordained, of the excellence of God and the reverence which pertains to Him.… A second way of defining can be if we say, A sacrifice is a sensible sign appointed expressly to denote the excellence of God and the worship due to Him by the change of some thing; or otherwise that it is an outward act of religion, containing the supreme worship of latria, and due to God alone. Where, that the definition may be adequate, one must understand by an outward act some outer action distinct from the utterance of words or praise and worship which is given in words.”

“For the explanation of sacrifice it is enough that there should be the Transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, which takes place by means of the consecration; … and this is the unique and wonderful character of this sacrifice that in itself it is in the first instance rather for the sake of effecting than for the sake of destroying. For in every sacrifice, which takes place by means of an actual change, the destruction of something that is offered is found, from which there necessarily results something else, as it were rising up, and offered in honour of God. Yet there is a difference between the ancient sacrifices and this of ours, that they, because they were imperfect and took place by means of actions merely natural and human, consisted chiefly in the destruction of something, by which it was signified that God is the Author of all things, or something of the kind.… But in our sacrifice, because it is accomplished by means of supernatural and divine action, although the substance of bread and wine is destroyed, yet that which is chiefly intended is the placing and presenting (so to speak) of the body and blood of Christ on the altar of God in His honour. And therefore the thing which is offered in this sacrifice is principally and simply Christ, who is the end of such action.”

Thus, of the six chief actions in the Mass, the oblation of the unconsecrated bread and wine, the oblation of the consecrated Sacrament, the fraction and commixture after consecration, and the Communion of the people are not essential to the sacrifice; the Communion of the celebrant, though fitted for completing the sacrifice, is probably not of its essence; and the essential point in the sacrifice is the consecration. In the sacrifice Christ is “the principal offerer, not only accidentally and remotely but also in some way He offers in act, though He offers by means of the priest”. The sacrifice has “some effect of the work wrought (ex opere operato), as being the proximate cause of the effect”. The power and efficacy of it are derived from the sacrifice of the cross. The value of the sacrifice in itself, so far as it is offered by Christ, is infinite; but the effect from the work wrought (ex opere operato) and the value as offered in the person of the Church and as offered by an individual are finite. It does not in any way derogate from the sacrifice of the cross:—

“First, because Christ on the cross satisfied sufficiently and abundantly for the sins not only of men who live under the law of grace but also of those who were under the old law and the law of nature; and they had propitiatory sacrifices without any injury to the cross of Christ, nay with simple faith in it; therefore we can do the same under the law of grace. Secondly, a like argument is derived from the institution of Sacraments, which were given under the law of grace for the remission of sins, and to confer grace, although Christ on the cross had sufficiently accomplished our salvation, and had merited most abundantly for us the remission of all sins. Thirdly, the reason of all is that Christ on the cross merited and satisfied infinitely so far as sufficiency is concerned, but not as concerns effective application, because that merit and satisfaction are not applied to us by means of the cross alone, and other means are necessary; and these are on our part dispositions and works performed with the aid of grace, and on the part of Christ Sacraments, and also the propitiatory sacrifice, by which the fruit of His passion is applied to us; therefore no injury is done to that passion, for that this application is necessary is not from the defect but rather from the power of the passion of Christ, because He was able not only to accomplish in Himself but also to give others power to accomplish; and a method of provision of this kind was most suitable for the suitable rule of men.”

Leonard Leys, usually known by the Latin form of his name Lessius, was born at Brecht in Brabant in 1554. At the age of seventeen he became a member of the Society of Jesus. After his novitiate he was a teacher of philosophy at Douai, where he was ordained priest. Later he went to Rome, and there studied under Suarez. In 1585 he became a teacher of theology at Louvain; and he died there in 1623. He is chiefly known in connection with controversies on the subjects of Holy Scripture and the doctrine of grace. His writings contain incidental allusions to the Eucharist, of which the fullest treatment is in his treatise On the Perfections and Character of God. As to the presence there does not appear to have been anything distinctive in his teaching. As to the sacrifice he regarded the essential point of the sacrifice as being in the separate consecration of the two species. His teaching about the presence may be seen in a passage in which he draws out with some detail the parallel between the Incarnation and the Eucharist.

“As in the mystery of the Incarnation the invisible Godhead was united to the visible manhood, so in the Eucharist the invisible flesh of Christ is united to the visible species. Secondly, as from that union one Christ is made, so from this union together with the species there is one Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ. Thirdly, as by means of the Incarnation the whole Word was united to the several parts of human nature, so by means of the consecration the whole body of Christ is united to the several parts of the species. Fourthly, as the Godhead remained unhurt and impassible when the manhood was hurt and suffered, so those vicissitudes (passiones) which take place in regard to the species cannot affect the body of Christ hidden under those species. Fifthly, as nevertheless on account of that union God was said to suffer, to be crucified, to die, when the manhood suffered, so on account of this union the body of Christ is said to be broken and to be taken when the species are broken and taken. For this union makes a kind of communicatio idiomatum. So also the body of Christ is said to be seen, to be touched, to be mixed, to be carried, by reason of the species; and this visible thing is rightly called living, understanding, sanctifying, by reason of the body in it (inclusi). Sixthly, as the manhood of Christ had not its own natural way of existing but was sustained by the Word, so the species have not here their own natural way of existing but they are held together outside their own natural subject by the power of the body of Christ. Seventhly, as no created force can dissolve that union, so neither can any created force dissolve this union so long as the species continue to exist (salvœ manent).”

His teaching as to the essential point in the sacrifice being the separate consecration may be seen in the following passages:—

“It does not seem doubtful that this sacrifice consists in the consecration. But in what way the consecration has the nature of sacrifice is not so easy to explain. It can be understood in two ways. First, that the consecration be thought to be the action of sacrificing insofar as by means of it the substance of the bread and wine is changed and converted into the body and blood as we have explained in the book entitled Concerning Justice. Secondly, insofar as by means of it Christ is slain in a certain mystical way when after the manner of a slain victim His body and blood are shown separately on the altar by the force of the words; and this way is easier to understand and corresponds better to the ordinary manner of sacrificing, which requires a victim and does not make it. According to this way, this sacrifice is accomplished not by an axe or a material sword, as of old the ancient sacrifices, but by the sword of the word of God, who is almighty. For as of old the sacrifice took place when the victim, being a lamb or a calf, was slain by the sword, and the blood was separated from the flesh, so now the sacrifice takes place when by the force of the words of consecration the body and blood of Christ are placed separately as the body of a thing slain and offered, the body under the species of bread, and the blood under the species of wine. Wherefore the words of consecration are like a sword; the body of Christ, which now is living in heaven, is like a victim living and to be offered; the body as placed under the species of bread, and the blood under the species of wine, are as the body and blood of a lamb which has now been offered. Wherefore they are as the end of the offering or action of sacrificing.”

“The actual conversion of the substance of the bread and the wine insofar as it involves the desition of the bread and wine does not pertain to the essence of this sacrifice, because the sacrifice could take place even if the substance of the bread and wine remained, if God had so ordained.”

“It does not hinder the reality of this sacrifice that the separation of the blood from the flesh does not actually take place, because that is as it were accidental as a consequence of the concomitance of the parts. For so far as it is from the force of the words a real separation takes place, and the body alone, not the blood, is placed under the species of bread, and the blood alone, not the body, under the species of wine. And this is enough for the nature of the sacrifice, both that it be a real sacrifice (for there happens in regard to the victim, when the matter stands thus, a sufficient change, whereby we may declare that God has supreme power over all things), and that it be a commemorative sacrifice, representing to us the sacrifice of the cross and the death of the Lord.”