Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of Confirmation
Chapter 1: On the Errors and Lies About the Sacrament of Confirmation
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. III, De Sacramento Confirmationis, the second general controversy on the sacraments. The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
On the sacrament of Confirmation there are six controversies. The first, whether it is a true and proper sacrament. The second, on the matter. The third, on the form. The fourth, on the effect. The fifth, on the minister. The sixth, on the ceremonies. And to begin with the first, there will be three parts of the first controversy. In the first we will relate the errors on the sacrament of Confirmation. In the second we will confirm the truth. In the third we will answer the objections.
Chapter 1. On the Errors and Lies About the Sacrament of Confirmation
Almost all the heretics of this time take Confirmation away from the number of the sacraments. For although in the year 1548, at the assembly of Leipzig, the theologians of Leipzig and Wittenberg received seven sacraments, and by name Confirmation, as a sacrament properly so called and conferring grace, yet they did not persist in that confession. For almost all their doctors, both those who wrote before that time and those who wrote after, reject the sacrament of Confirmation.
Yet because they cannot deny that there was in the ancient Church some rite which was called Confirmation, they feigned that that rite was not indeed a sacrament instituted by Christ, but a certain ceremony usefully brought in by the Church; which Chemnitz divides into six heads, in part 2 of the Examination, page 320. For he describes most carefully of all the order of the Lutheran Confirmation. First he says that little ones baptized in infancy, when they come to the years of discretion, ought to be instructed in the teaching of the catechism, and when they have learned at least the first principles, ought to be brought to the bishop, who before the church should remind the child of his Baptism, what he received, what he promised, and so on. Second, that the little ones themselves ought publicly to recite the confession of faith and teaching which they have learned. Third, that they ought to be questioned on the chief heads of Christian teaching, and answer them. Fourth, that they ought to be warned to show by this profession of faith that they dissent from all heathen, heretical, fanatical and profane opinions. Fifth, that they ought to be admonished by a weighty exhortation to persevere in the covenant of Baptism and the profession of faith, and to be confirmed by making progress. Sixth, that a public prayer ought to be made for those children, that God may deign to govern and confirm them by his Holy Spirit in this profession of faith; and that at the same time the laying on of hands may be added.
Luther pointed briefly to this opinion in the book On the Babylonian Captivity, the chapter on Confirmation. For he both denies that it is a true sacrament, and adds that it can be received as a church ceremony, such as is the consecration of water and of other things; but Luther made no mention of catechism or examination in the rite of Confirmation. Zwingli, in the book On True and False Religion, the chapter on the other sacraments, denies that Confirmation is a sacrament, and adds that it was a rite instituted in the Church, and an examination of children who had been baptized in infancy. Which same thing Philip afterwards taught in the Commonplaces, the chapter on Confirmation; Calvin, book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 19, section 4; John Brenz in the Württemberg Confession, the chapter on Confirmation; and others.
But they are not the first who rejected this sacrament. For John Wyclif, in book 4 of the Trialogus, chapter 14, although he does not seem to reject this sacrament altogether, yet will not have it that it can be proved from the Scriptures, and openly finds fault with the opinion of the Catholics. Nay, he says that to some it seems that the Confirmation of bishops, with all its rites, was brought in by the devil; and he does not find fault with this, but rather shows that such an opinion pleases him. In another book too, which perhaps is no longer extant, he openly rejects the anointing with chrism, as Thomas Waldensis testifies, volume 2 On the Sacraments, chapter 113. Before Wyclif the Waldensian heretics rejected this same sacrament, as Aeneas Sylvius testifies in the History of Bohemia, chapter 35; and before all these the Novatians, of whom Theodoret speaks so, book 3 On the Fables of the Heretics: “The Novatians keep penance wholly away from their assembly, and do not give the holy chrism to those who are dipped by them. Wherefore the blessed fathers ordered those who from this heresy are joined to the body of the Church to be anointed.”
And the cause why the Novatians rejected this sacrament was not any convincing reason or evident testimony of Scripture, but that Novatian himself (as Eusebius writes from Pope Cornelius, book 6 of the History, chapter 43), lying in bed, was baptized without the customary ceremonies of the Church; nor did he afterwards take care that what had been left out should be filled up, nor was he confirmed with the seal of the Holy Spirit. Because of which, since he was in bad repute with all, he devised this remedy, to deny that men ought to be anointed with chrism after Baptism. Optatus too writes, book 2 against Parmenian, that the Donatists were insulting toward the holy chrism; but it is not established whether the Donatists hated this sacrament absolutely, or only as it was given by the Catholics. Yet it is probable that they despised this sacrament, as did the Arians too and many other heretics, who, when they came to the Church, were ordered to be anointed with the holy chrism, as we will say below.
But let us return to the heretics of this time. They load their teaching with such gross lies and such shamelessness of insults and blasphemies that it becomes plainly clear that those who attack this sacrament receive the fullness of the evil spirit; as on the contrary those who receive it reverently obtain the fullness of the Holy Spirit.
John Calvin, in the Antidote to the council, session 7, canon 2: “There is none of the ancients,” he says, “who makes mention of oil; nay, not even of that middle age which already abounded in many faults.” So he. But very many of the ancients mention oil, nay even of the most ancient. Tertullian, book 1 against Marcion, speaking of the sacraments of Christ: “He,” he says, “neither rejects the water of the Creator, with which he washes his own, nor the oil with which he anoints his own.” And Augustine, book 5 against the Donatists, chapter 20: “If what is said in the Gospel, God heareth not a sinner, is so taken that sacraments are not celebrated through a sinner, how does he hear a murderer praying either over the water of Baptism, or over the oil, or over the Eucharist, or over the heads of those on whom hands are laid?” Lastly Tertullian, Cyprian and Cyril mention chrism so clearly and so often that Chemnitz rejects these Fathers on this account, and in contempt calls Cyril by the name of chrism.
The same Calvin, in the same place, canon 3, calls the Fathers of Trent asses and swine, though he would wish to seem most modest. Further, in the Institutes, book 4, chapter 19, section 8: “It is the word,” he says, “of the anointed ones, that in Baptism they received no promise by which they are equipped for the contests.” So he. But no Catholic teaches this. For what Calvin cites from the letter of St. Melchiades, “In Baptism we are regenerated to life, in Confirmation we are armed for the fight,” is to be referred to the proper effects of these sacraments. For Baptism properly regenerates to life, although that grace of regeneration avails also for avoiding sins; but Confirmation is properly given for the increase of strength and for fighting for the faith.
Again, in section 10, he brings forward another lie, when he says: “Do they not betray themselves as Donatists, who judge the force of a sacrament by the dignity of the minister?”, namely because we say that the sacrament of Confirmation cannot be conferred ordinarily except by a bishop. But Calvin was not ignorant that the Donatists were accustomed to speak of another dignity, namely the dignity of uprightness and innocence, not the dignity of the church ministry. Otherwise Calvin too would be a Donatist, since he will have it that Baptism cannot be given by lay people nor by women, but only by a public minister of the Church. He spoke, then, against his mind and conscience, and so lied.
In the same place, of Melchiades, pope and martyr, whose words he had just cited, he speaks so: “Sacrilegious mouth, do you dare to set grease, defiled only by the stench of your breath and charmed by the murmur of words, against the sacrament of Christ, and to compare it with water sanctified by the word of God? But even this was too little for your wickedness, unless you also preferred it. These are the answers of the holy see; these the oracles of the apostolic tripod.” So he. Could Calvin blaspheme more shamelessly against a most holy man? Could he confess more openly that he has nothing in common with the ancient Church? For the whole Church which then was held communion with St. Melchiades; and Augustine speaks of him so, in letter 162: “What a last sentence,” he says, “was pronounced by St. Melchiades himself; how innocent, how whole, how prudent and peaceable!” And below: “O best of men, O son of Christian peace, O father of the Christian people!”
Lastly, in section 11, Calvin brings forward another lie: “See,” he says, “the water passed over and held of no account, they make much of the oil alone in Baptism.” So he. And he made up this lie, taking occasion from the words of the Master of the Sentences wrongly expounded. For the Master, book 4, distinction 7, chapter 2, says that the sacrament of Confirmation is in some way nobler than the sacrament of Baptism, namely by reason of the minister by whom it is given, and by reason of the member in which it is performed; for Confirmation cannot be performed except on the forehead, the noblest of all the members. Calvin took this as if the Master compared the anointing of Confirmation, which is done on the forehead, with the anointing of Baptism, which is done on the crown of the head, and so had placed the sacrament of Baptism not in water but in oil alone. But Calvin would not understand the Master's words; for he compares the anointing of Confirmation not with the anointing of Baptism, but with Baptism itself, which is made of water, not of oil. For he compares the sacraments with one another; and the anointing in Baptism is not the sacrament, but the pouring of water. But, says Calvin, the pouring of water is done on the forehead too. I answer: this is the difference between Baptism and Confirmation, that Confirmation is not performed except on the forehead, while the pouring of the water of Baptism can be done on the forehead, but can also be done outside the forehead; nay, now ordinarily, when infants are baptized, the water is poured only on their crown. As also Confirmation is given by the bishop alone; Baptism can be given by a bishop, but can also be given by a presbyter; and therefore both by reason of the minister and by reason of the subject Confirmation excels Baptism, as the Master rightly says. Wherefore Calvin lies without any cause that the Catholics hold the water of Baptism of no account.
In the same place Calvin says that he does not make of the oil, whether in Baptism or in Confirmation, so much as a single piece of dung. But all the holy and ancient Fathers always spoke most honourably of both oils, as we showed above in the disputation on the ceremonies of Baptism, and will show below when we treat of the matter of Confirmation.
Now Martin Chemnitz has many like things too, both lies and insults; but I will be content with one place only. In part 2 of the Examination, page 298, he gathers three lies together. The first is that the anointing with chrism came out of the school of Montanus. The second, that Tertullian and Cyprian were Montanists in this matter. The third, that Jerome refutes this opinion in the dialogue against the Luciferians.
But no author ever handed down that this was the heresy of Montanus. There write of the errors of Montanus: Tertullian, On Prescription; Epiphanius, heresy 48; Eusebius, book 4 of the History, chapter 14; Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 4; Philastrius in the catalogue; Jerome in the letter to Marcella on the errors of Montanus; Augustine, heresy 26; Theodoret, book 3 On the Fables of the Heretics; Damascene in the book On the Hundred Heresies; and in none of these is there any word of this matter. But Chemnitz, clever as he is, gathers that this was the error of Montanus, though no one wrote it, because Tertullian was a Montanist, and he is the one who writes that the Holy Spirit is given to the baptized through the anointing with chrism. But not everything which Tertullian writes belongs to the errors of Montanus, although he was a Montanist in the last part of his life. Otherwise these will be heresies of the Montanists: that Christ is the Son of God, that Baptism is to be celebrated in water, the Eucharist in bread and wine, and many other things of this kind which Tertullian writes.
Then how great a shamelessness it is to make St. Cyprian, a most famous martyr, a Montanist heretic! What of this, that Chemnitz himself is not consistent in this very matter? For on page 317 he says that this error was made up by the most ancient Fathers, Tertullian, Cornelius and Cyprian. But if these made it up, then they did not receive it from Montanus.
Lastly, that St. Jerome refutes this error in the dialogue against the Luciferians is a most gross lie. For in that dialogue St. Jerome only explains how the Holy Spirit is said to be given through the laying on of hands, since he was given before too in Baptism; but he names neither Montanus and Tertullian, nor the holy bishops Cornelius and Cyprian; so far is he from refuting them, as Chemnitz lies. Nor does it follow from what Jerome says, that the Holy Spirit is given in Baptism, that the opinion of Tertullian and Cyprian is refuted, who say that he is given in Confirmation; otherwise Jerome would have refuted Luke too, who says, Acts 8: “For he was not as yet come upon any of them; but they were only baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid their hands upon them, and they received the Holy Ghost.” But Jerome refutes no one; for Luke and the others do not deny that the Holy Spirit is given in Baptism, except in that fullness in which he is given in Confirmation.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
LIBER SECLNDUS DE SACllAMENTO CONFIRMATIONIS Do sacramcnlo confirmalionis scx conlroversiac primae conlrovcrsiae parlcs. In Vrima rcfercmus sunt. Prima, an sil vcruni ct proprium sacrumcn- (^rrores do Confirmalionis sacramonlo. In Secun- lum. Sccunda, dc malcria.7bfirt,(le lorma.Quar' da confirmabimus verilalcm. In Tcriia soivemus ta, de cffcclu. Quinla, de minislro.Sex-to, de cac- ot>JGcliones. rcmoniis. Ac ut a Prima incipiamus, Ircs crunl CAPUT PUIMUM De erroribus et mendaciis circa sacramentim Conjmnationis . Ilaerelici liujus temporis fcre omncs Confirmn- dci professione; el simul addi posse manus impo- tionem de nnmero sacramenlorum auferuut. Elsi silionem. euim auno 1518. in conventu Lipsicnsi, Iheoiogi Hanc seulentiam breviter indicavil Lutherus in lipsieuses cl wirlembergcnses receperiul septem lib. de Babyion. captivit. cnp. de Conlirmatioiie. sacraineuta, et nominalim Confirmaliouem, ul sa- Nam, el negat csse verura sacramenlum; et addil cramenlum proprie dictum. el gratiam couferens; posse recipi pro ecclesiaslica caeremouia, qualis lamcn non perstiterunt in ea Confessione. Sifiiii- est, cousecratio aquae, et aliarum rerum;non me- dem oiiini'S iVre corum doclores, et qui anle iliud miuil aulem Lulhcrus catechismi, aut examiuis iii Ifunpus, cl qui postca scripserunt, sacramentura rilu Counrmalionis. Zwiiigiius iii Jii). de vera et Conlirmalionis rejiciunt. falsa religione cap.de aliis sacrameulis,negat Con- Quia tameu negare non possunt, fuisse in vcleri firmatiouem esse sacramHutum; ct addil fuisse ri- Ecciesia ritum aliqucm. qui diceretur Conllrmatio, liim iu Ecclesia iiKstilulum, cl cxamcn pueroruiu, linxcrunt ipsi, ritum illiim uon fuisse qiiidem sa- (iiii in iiiraulia fuerant baplizali. Quod idem poslea cramenluin a Chrislo instiluuim, sed fuisse caeic- (lociiit Pliilippus iu locis cap. de Conliriuiilionc; raoniam quandam ulililer ab Ecclesia inlroduclam: Cahiuus lib. 4.1nslilul. cap. 19. § l.Joanues Breu- «inam iu sex capihi disliitguit Kemnitius iii 2.part. tius iu Confess. wirlembcrgensi cap. dc Cuuliruia- Examiiiis pag. 320. Is eniin accuralissime omiiiiim lioiie, ct alii. dcscribil ordinem Lulheranae Coufirmalionis. IMi- INou sunl aulcm ipsi primi, qui hoc sacraraen- mo dicit, pnrvulos in iufanlia bapiizatos, cuiii per- luiu rejeccrunt. Nam Joan. Wiclcfus in 1. lib.lria- vcuiuul ad aiiiios discretiouis. debere iustilui in logi cap. li. elsi uon omiiiiio videatur hoc siicra- doclrina calechismi, cl ubi sallem principia didi- raentuiu rcspuere.laracn non vult posse probari ex ceriul, ofTcrri del)ere episcopo, qui coriim Cccle- Scriptiiris,et aperle rcprchcudil ciitholicorum seii- sia admoueiit pucrum de suo Biiplismo, quid ac- leuliam. Immo dicil, quibusdam videri a diiiboJo ceperil. quid promiserit ctc, Secundo , debere i- iulroductiim cpiscoporurn Conlirmaliouciu cura o- psos parvulos publicc recilare conressionein fidei innibus suis ritibus: iiec reprehendit, sed potius el doctrinae, (luain didicerunl. Tertio, debcre in- iiidicat sibi pliicere sculenliara cjusiuodi. lu ;iiio lerrogari de praecipuis doctriuac christianae ca- (;tiiiiu libro, qui forle jara nou exstat, unctiunem j)itibus, alquc ad e;i respondcre. Qiiarto, dcberc Clirisraiilis aperle rcjicil, ut Thoiuas Wiildensis te- raoneri, ut hac professione fidei oslendaut, se dis- stiiliir lom. 2. de siicr;imcntis cap. 113. Aiitc Wi- sentire ab oranibus ellini(;is, luicrclicis, fiinaticis ciefum Wiildenses haeretici idem hoc Siicramcu- et prophanis opiuiouihus. Quiulo, dcbere griivi lum rcjeccruiil, liisle Aenca Sylvio iii hisloria i>o- exhorl;ilioiie admoneri, ut in paclo Baplismi, et hcinica cap. 3"). et anle hos orancs Novatiani, de fidei professione persevcrent, et proficiiMido coii- (jiiibus sic ioiiuiuir Theodorelus lib. 3. haeri^l.fiib. lirraeutur. Sexto, fieri deberc publiciuu prccalio- ISovaliani poenileniiani a suo convenlu arcenl iieui pro illis pucris, ut Deus Si»iri!u siio siinclo jienilnH, el iis, qui ab ipsis Unyunlnr, sacruni illos gubcrnare et coufirmare dignetur in hac fi- Chrismanonjmiebent. Quocirca eos, quicj- hac 21-i l)E SACIU^IKMO COMIIIMATIO.MS liaeroii corpori. Kcclcsiao. vonjuniiunlur. Iicnc- KiirsiH § 10. iiliiid innndiiciiini proHM-l, ciiiif ;iil: dicli palrcs un(ji jiun^crunl. Ciir iiutem .\i)v;ili;iiii yonnrsc Ihnitilislas pro(lu.ni, (jni rinisacranicn- rojocorinl li»»f s;uT.imiM\liim, c;imss;i iion ruil ;ili- li a niinislri ilitiiiilaU' acslinianiy <ini;i iiimiruni (|u;i r;ilio convinccns ;iul Scri|ilur;ic l(>sliiiioiiium (iicimus. s;iim;iiii(miIiiiii (Idiilinmilionis iioii possc, oviilons: scd (luin ipse .Noviili;iiuis (ul scrihil cv conlcrri ordinarin, iiisi :ili cpiscopo. Al r,;ilvinus Cornclio p:ipii Kuscb. lib. (». hisl- c;ip. :V].) in lc- noii i^nu)r;il);il, I)()ii;ilis!;is tlt) ;i!i;i (lij,Miil;ii(! lotpji clo decumhcns l);ipli/.;iliis fuil siiic coiisuclis Kc- coiism-vissc, iiimiruiii (\c (lij,Miil;ilc piohiliilis cl in- clcsiao caoromoniis; ncc poslea ;idimplcri curavil, no(MMilia(!, non dc dij^MuLilc, iiiinisUMii ecclosi;islici. (|uac omissa fuoranl, nec si-inaculo Spirilus saiuii Aliiwpii oli;im Calviiius Donalisla csscl , cuin vclil coiilirmaUis fuit. Oh (]uao, cum m:ilo audiiol ;ipu(l Kaprisiimm iioii posso Irihiii ;i hijcn. no.quc n Ibo- omiics. Iioc romcdium oxco^iliivil , ul ncii;ircl, niiii;i. r,(>d soUim a piililico Kcclosi;io miiiislro. Igi- Clirisinalo inunji^i oporlcro liomiiu>s posl IJapli- Uir coiiIim iikmiIimii (M consciciiliam suam lo(piuUis sinum. Donatist;is oliaiu conlumoliosos Uiisso in s. est, ;ic, proiiulo iiuMililus. Clirisma scrihil Oplalus lih. 2. coiitra l»;iriiUMiia- Ihidcm dc .Molchiiulc pap;i ol marlyro,oiijus vor- luiiii; sod non conslal an Donalislao odoriul lioc ba proximc cilavorat. it;i lo(piiliir: O.s sacn7e7m/i , sacramcnluin absolulc, an Uinlum. ul a calholicis tuncpingucdino.nifooloredumlaxalanheliluslui, dabatur. Prohabilc taiiioii csl cos boc sacriinuMi- inquinalani, cl vcrhorammurmuTe incantalnm. tum conlompsisso. ul oti;im Arian')S, clalios iiuil- audcs Ckrisli sacramenlo opponere, el conferre los haorolicos. (pii cuin ad Ecclcsiani vcniobant , cuni aqaaverbo Dei sanclificala? At parum hoc jiibebaalur sacro Cbrismalc inungi, ul infra dicc- ipsumcrat luacimproldlali, nisi eliampracfer- inus. 1^''^- lf<i-cc sunt sanclae sedis resjwnsa: hacc apo- Sod ad baerclicos bujus lomporis redcamus.Do- stolici Iripodis oracula. llacc ille. 1'oicralno C;d- clrimim suam illi t;im crassis inendaciis, lantaquc vinus impudcnlius blaspbom;irc in sanclissimum iiupudonlia convicioium , et blaspliomi;irum ouc- viruo'? potor;ilnc maiiil'ostius coiifilcri ^ nibil sihi r;int. ul planc |UM'spicuuin llal, eos, qui lioc sacra- ess(; commniio cum anliqua Ecclesia? Siquidem menluin oppuiin;inl. recipcrc mali spiriUis pleni- s. Mclcbiadi oinnis Ecclcsia, quae lunc eral, com- tudincm; sicut e conlrario , qui illud reviM-enlor nmnicavit; ac dc eo sic loquilur , Auguslinus in susci|)iunl , sancli spirims plcniludincm coiise- episl. lOi. Qucdis, inquil , ipsius s. Mechiadis id- quuiilur. tima cst prolata senlenlia; quaminnoccns,quam Joanncs Calvinus in AnUdolo concilii sess. 7. inlcgra. quam provida, alque pacifica? El \nki\: can. 2. 0/oj, inqiiit. qui faciat mentionem, nenio 0 virum opiimum, o fdium christianac pacis, o est exvclcribus: inimo nec cx nicdia iUaaelate, patrcm christianac plcbis. quac jamniullLS viliis abundabatlhac \\\e.tiU\ni Deniquc § H. proforl aliud mcndacium Calvi- niemincrunl olci plurimi velerum, imino cliam vc- nus: Ecce. inquil, praeterita aqua . et nullo nn- lustissimorum. Torlulli;iniis lib. 1. contr;i Jlarcio- merohabita. U7ium olcumin Bantismo magnifa- ncm. loquciis dc sacr;imoiitis Cbiisli: lUe, iiiquil, ciunl. Ilacc illc. Confinxil aulcm hoc mendacium, neque aquam Crcatoris respuit. qua suos abluit, occasione accepla ex verbis Magislri Senlenliarum, nojiue olcum. quo suos iingU. Ei Aiigustinus lib. pcrperam c.xpositis. N;im Blagisler lih. 4. disl. 7. ."). conlra Donatistas cap. 20. Si fui /(oci'a.'eL(5fUoci cap. 2. dicil, sacramenlum Confirmationis essc diclum est in evangelio.Deus pcccalorcm non, au- nohilius sacraracnlo Baplismi aliquo modo, raUonc dil. ut per peccatorem sacramenta non cclcbrcn- videlicet minislri, a quo datur, etralionc membri , lur: quomodo exaudil Jiomicidam dcprccanleni. in quo perficilur;nam Confirmatio non potcst per- vcl super aqiiam liaplisnii, velsuper olcuni. vel flcit nisi in Crunle nobilissimo omniiim mciubro- sjipcr Eucharisliam.vel supcr capila coruni. qui- rum. Haec ila accepit Calvinus,quasi Magisler con- bus manus imponilur ? Denique ;ideo clare et lulcril unctionem Coiifirmalionis. quae sil in fron- saope mominenint Clirisnuilis Tortulli;inus,Cypna- to, cum unctione Baptismi, quae sil in verliee, ot iius cl Cyrillus. ut Komnilius lioc nominc istos proindc sacrainenlum Baplismi non consliluerit in Patres rojicial. et pcr contemptum vocct Chrisma aqua, sed in solo oleo. At noluit intclligere Calvi- Cyrillum. nus vorba Magislri, ille cniin conforl uncUonem Idem C;ilvinus ibidem canon. 3. tridentinos Pa- Confirraaiionis, non cum unclionc Baplismi, sed tres. asinos ct porcos vocal , cum lamen modc- cum ipso Baptisrao, qiii ex aqua, non ex oleo con- stissimus videri velil. Purro in Iiistilul. lib. i.cap. ficitur. Confcrt enim inler se sacramcnta: non est 10. §8. Verbum . inquil . unctorum est. nullani autom sacramontum unclio in Baptismatc, sed as- promissionem in Baplismopercepisse. qua in a- porsio aquae. At, inquit Calvinus , asi^ersio aquae fionibus instruanlur. Ilaec illo. Atqui lioc nullus fit eliain in fronle. Respondeo: Hoc iiilcresse inler c;illiolicornm docot. N;iin quod cil;il C;ilviiuis cx c- B;iplismuni el Confirmalionem , quod Coiifirmatio pist. s. Mtdchiadis: /?i Baplismo Tegeneramur ad nou perficilur.nisi in fronte; aspersio autem aquac vilani. in Confirmalionc armamur adpwjnam , Baptismi, polest fieri in fronte, sed potcst fieri ct- rerorondum cst ad proprios efTeclus borum sacra- iam exlra frontem; immo nunc ordinarie cum ba- menlorura. Baptismus eiiim proprie ad vilam re- ptizantiir infaiites, solum vortici ipsorum infundi- generat. quamvis gratia illa rogenerationis. valeat tur aqua. Ul etiam Coiifirmatio a solo episcopo da- eliam ad peccala vilanda: Confirmatio autem pro- tur; Baplismus ab episcopo dari polcst , sed dari prie dalur ad augmenlura roboris.et ad pugnandui] etiam potesl a presbylero: cl idcirco tam rationc I^ro fide. miiiislri. quam rationc subjocti pracslat Confirma- i.inia; seclkdus 2t3 lio Baplismo, ut recte dicit Magister. Quare sine ulla caussn uienlilur Calvinus. cutliolicosnullo uu- mero habere aquani Baplismi. Ibidem Calvinus dicit, se ne unius quidem sler- coris facere oleum, sive in Buplismo, sive in Con- lirmalione. Alqui de ulroque oleo, omnes sancli, el aiiliqui Palres Iionorificenlissime semper ioquuti sunl, ut supra ostendimus in dispulalione de cae- rcraoniis Baplismi. et infra oslendemus, cum age- luus de materia Conlirmalionis. Jam vero Martinus Remnilius multn similiter ha- bet, ct mendacia, et couvicia ; scd uno laiilum lo- co ero conlenlus. Igilur in 2. par. Exam. pag. 298. Iria siinul mendacia cougliilinal. Primiim est.quod unctio Chrismalis ex schola Monlani prodienl. Se- cundum, quod Terlullianus et Cyprianus in hac re Monlanistae fuerint. Tertiiim. quod llieronymus lianc senlentiam rcfutet in Dialogo contra Lucife- rianos. At uullus unquam auctor prodidit hanc fuisse hnercsim Moulani. Scribunlde crroribus Blonlani, Terlullianus de praescript.Epipliaiius haer. 48. Eu- sebius lib. 4. histor. cap, 14. Clemens alexandri- nus slrom. 4. Philaslrius in calalogo. llieronymus in epistola ad Marccllam de erroribus Monlani. Au- guslinus haer. 2G. Theodoretus lib. ,3. de fahulis haeret. Damascenus in libro de cenlum liaeresi- bus, in nullo aulcm horum, ullum est verbum de hac re. Sed colligit Remnitius. ul est solers, hunc luisse errorem Monlaiii, licet nemo id scripserit, quia Tertullianus fuit Montanisla: el ipse est. qui scribit.Spirilum sanclum dari baplizalis per Chris- matis unclioncm. At non omnia. quae Tcrlullianus scribit, adMonlani errores perlinenl, licet ille in iiltima aetate Munlanisla fuerit.AIioqui Montanista- rum haeres erunt, Christum essc Filium Dei, Ba- plismuni in aqua celebranduiu, Eucharisliam in pane et vino, et alia id genus multa, quae Tertul- lianus scrihit. Deinde quanta est impudentia s.Cyprianum mar- tyrem celeberrimum Monlauislam haerelicum fa- cere? Quid, quod ipse Remnilius in hac ipsa re sibi non conslal? nam pagin. .317. dicit, hunc er- rorera connclum ab antiquissimis Palribus, Tertul- liano, Cornelio et Cypriano. At si isli confinxerunl; non ergo a Monlano id accepcrunt. Denique, quod s. Ilieronymus hunc errorem re- fellntin Dialogo contra Luciferianos, crassissimum eslmcndacium. Nam in eo dialogo solum explical s. Ilieronymus, quomodo dari dicatur Spirilus san- ctus per inanus impositionem , cum eliam ante in Baptismo dalns sit: scd neque Monlanum ac Ter- tullianum, noquc sanctos cpiscopos Cornelinm et Cyprianum nominat; tantum abest, ut cos rcfellat, ut mentilur Remnilius. Neque ex eo, quod Iliero- nymus dicit, in Baplismo dari Spirilum sanclum , sequiUir rehilari sentenliam Tertulliaui etCypriani, qui dicunl dari iii Connrmationc: alioqiii liiernny- mus rcfutasset eliam Lucam, qui ail. Aclor. 8. iVon- dum nnim in qucmqunm illorum vcnerat , scd hapiizaii tanlum crant in no7ninc Domini Jcm. Tunc im\)oncbanl nianus supcr illos, et accipic- banl Sjyirilum sanctum.M nullos refutat Ilieroiiy- mus: non eniin ncgant Lucas ct alii, in Baptisnio t>tLLiitni>'i Vol. III. dari Spiritum sanclum, nisi in illa pleniludine,qua datur in Conllrmatione.