Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of Confirmation
Chapter 7: The Adversaries' Answers to the Fathers Are Cleared Away
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).
Now let us see what the adversaries answer to so many testimonies of the Fathers, and what they object to us. Calvin, first, simply rejects the Fathers. For in book 4, chapter 19, section 4, he says that Jerome is mistaken in this, that he thought the rite of Confirmation an apostolic observance. And in sections 8 and 10 he inveighs most violently against St. Melchiades, as we noted above in chapter 1. Lastly, in section 12, he speaks so: “Now when they see that they are left without the word of God and without probable reason, they put forward, as they usually do, that this observance is most ancient and confirmed by the consent of many ages. Even if that were true, they achieve nothing. A sacrament is not from earth but from heaven, not from men but from God alone.” So he. As if we brought the Fathers to teach that the sacrament was instituted by them! We admit that the sacraments are from heaven, not from earth; but yet we use men as witnesses of the sacraments. Although this testimony ought not to be called of the earth either, but of heaven; for they do not make up this testimony out of their own heads, but draw it from the teaching and tradition of the apostles. Add that we do not admit that we are left without the word of God, as we showed in chapter 2.
Second, the same Calvin in the same place denies that the Fathers knew this sacrament: “But why,” he says, “do they object antiquity, when the ancients, when they wish to speak properly, nowhere count more than two sacraments? If the defence of our faith were to be sought from men, we have an impregnable citadel, that those things which these men falsely call sacraments were never known as sacraments by the ancients. The ancients speak of the laying on of hands; but do they call it a sacrament? Augustine openly affirms, book 3 On Baptism, chapter 16, that it is nothing else than a prayer.” Chemnitz adds, page 299, the authority of Gratian, who in the canon Arianos, cause 1, question 1, gathers from this place of Augustine that the laying on of hands is not a sacrament, because it can be repeated; since it is nothing but a certain prayer.
This second solution consists of two most clear lies. For what Calvin says, that the ancients knew only two sacraments properly so called, is established to be a lie from the testimonies cited; and we refuted the same lie when we treated of the number of the sacraments. And what Calvin denies, that the ancients called the rite of Confirmation a sacrament, is plainly a lie from the testimonies of Melchiades and Eusebius, of Cyprian and of Augustine cited above. To the place cited from Augustine I answer that Augustine is speaking of the simple laying on of the hand which is done in the reconciliation of penitents, not of the laying on of the hand with chrism, which is properly the sacrament of Confirmation.
But Calvin presses, and says: “Nor let them snarl at me here with their rotten distinctions, that Augustine did not refer that to Confirmation but to the healing or reconciling kind. The book is extant,” and so on. And he means to say that Augustine speaks of both together, because Augustine speaks of heretics who return to the Church, who indeed are not rebaptized, yet hands are laid on them, and in that way the Holy Spirit is given them. And he confirms this same from book 5 On Baptism, chapter 23.
I answer: All these things, if they proved anything, would prove only that Confirmation is a repeatable sacrament; but they would not prove that it is not a sacrament properly so called, which Calvin had to prove. For so Augustine speaks: “But the laying on of the hand cannot, like Baptism, be repeated? For what else is it but a prayer over a man?” Where Augustine gathers, from the fact that the laying on of the hand is a prayer, not that it is not a sacrament, but that it is not a sacrament such that it cannot be repeated. Otherwise it is manifestly proved to be a sacrament. For here there is sensible matter, the laying on of hands; there is a form, the prayer; there is an effect, the grace of the Holy Spirit, as Calvin himself contends. Why then is it not a sacrament? But neither can it be proved from this that Confirmation is a repeatable sacrament. For (as I said) Confirmation is not treated here, but the reconciliation of penitents. Which I prove by these reasons.
First: Augustine everywhere teaches that Confirmation is done with chrism, as is plain from the places alleged above. But here he not only does not mention chrism, but openly shows that he speaks of a laying on of hands without chrism; otherwise he would not say, “What else is it but a prayer?” For it could be answered: it is a consecration and a sealing through the anointing with chrism.
Second: the sacrament of Confirmation once given cannot be repeated, as Gratian testifies from the Council of Tarragona and from the rescript of Gregory II, distinction 5 on consecration, the canons Dictum est and De homine. And besides, the same is openly gathered from Augustine, book 2 against the letters of Petilian, chapter 104, where he says that the sacrament of Confirmation, like that of Baptism too, is sometimes in the worst men, and remains, though for judgment. But if it remains even in the worst, it neither ought to nor can be given them when they are reconciled, because they already have it and have not lost it. But in this place he says that the laying on of the hand can be repeated; he is not speaking, then, of the confirming laying on of hands.
Third: Augustine is speaking of the reconciliation of heretics, as Calvin admits, and as is clear from both places cited. But the reconciling laying on of hands was distinct, especially in the Western Church, from the confirming laying on of hands; therefore Augustine is not speaking of the confirming one. The minor is proved both from Pope Vigilius, in letter 1, chapter 3, where he testifies this expressly, and from Gregory, book 9, letter 61, where he says that the Arians in the Eastern Church used to be received through the anointing with chrism, in the Western through the laying on of hands alone. The reason usually assigned for this difference is that the Eastern Arians were not confirmed with chrism in their sect, while the Western were confirmed; and so in the East they had to be anointed when they returned to the Church, because this was lacking to them. Hence too in the Council of Nicaea lately translated from the Arabic, canon 31, the Arians are ordered to be anointed when they come to the Church. Or surely, if in the West too the Arians rejected Confirmation, yet when they returned to the Church they were not at once anointed with chrism, but afterwards when there was opportunity, as we now do with the Lutherans. Or lastly, that anointing in the Eastern Church was not a sacrament but a certain rite. Whatever may be of this, Gregory says expressly that in the West they are not anointed, but simply reconciled through the laying on of the hand. Wherefore St. Augustine, who was of the Western Church, when he speaks of the reconciliation of heretics through the laying on of hands, is not treating of Confirmation, which is not done without anointing, but of simple reconciliation.
But two things seem to stand against this explanation of ours. One, that Augustine, book 3 On Baptism, chapter 16, that is, in that very chapter where he says that the laying on of hands is nothing but a prayer, says also that through that laying on of hands it is not now expected that men should speak with tongues, as was done in the time of the apostles, but that it is enough if the Holy Spirit is poured in invisibly; which place we cited above for the sacrament of Confirmation. Therefore Augustine is speaking of the confirming laying on of hands; or surely he takes the laying on of hands equivocally in one and the same chapter, which seems absurd. The other is that in book 5 On Baptism, chapter 23, Augustine says that through the reconciling laying on of hands the Holy Spirit is given. But this, according to us, is the effect of Confirmation; therefore with Augustine the confirming and the reconciling laying on of the hand were the same.
I answer to the first: Augustine takes the laying on of hands in various ways in that chapter, but without any fault. For his purpose was to answer the argument of St. Cyprian, who from the fact that the Holy Spirit can be given and received only in the Catholic Church gathered that the sacraments of heretics are not true and valid. To clear away this argument Augustine at the beginning of the chapter explains what is to be understood by the Holy Spirit when it is said that he cannot be given or received except in the Catholic Church through the laying on of hands; and he says that the gift of charity is understood; for this none but the good can have, and therefore not except in the Catholic Church, because outside her none are good. In this place Augustine takes the laying on of hands in general, whether it is confirming, or reconciling, or (so to speak) ordaining: for through it grace and charity are always given, unless an obstacle is set. Then Augustine wishes to show that through the laying on of hands the gift of charity is truly given; and he declares it by the example of the confirming laying on of hands, when he says that it is not now expected that those on whom hands are laid should speak with tongues, but that charity is secretly poured into them. And so there he takes the laying on of hands more strictly (that is, for the confirming one alone), and yet it is not a faulty equivocation; because what fits the whole kind is rightly declared by the example of one species. Afterwards he returns to Cyprian's argument, and distinguishes three things: the sacrament; the gift of the Holy Spirit freely given, as prophecy; and the gift that makes pleasing, that is, charity; and says that outside the Church, or in bad men, the first two can be, but not the third; and that therefore they must return to the Church, that in her they may receive it through the reconciling laying on of hands. And because someone might suspect that this laying on of hands cannot be repeated, as Baptism cannot be repeated, nor Confirmation, nor Ordination, Augustine therefore adds that the laying on of hands, that is, the reconciling one, can be repeated, because it is nothing else than a prayer over a man; that is, it is not some consecration which remains and imprints a character, so that it cannot be repeated, but is only a ceremony helping the prayer.
To the other argument I answer, as I have already said, that the Holy Spirit is given through every laying on of hands, but for various effects. For through the confirming laying on of hands he is given to strengthen the soul in the confession of the faith; through the reconciling one he is given for the remission of sins; through the ordaining one he is given for the power of ministering the sacraments.
To the place of Gratian added by Chemnitz I answer: Gratian means to say that the laying on of hands of which Augustine speaks is not the sacrament of Order, nor even of Confirmation; which he says rightly, and rightly too proves from this, that it can be repeated. But he does not deny that it is a sacrament of reconciliation; for otherwise the Eucharist too can be repeated, and yet it is a most true sacrament.
The third solution is that among the ancients Confirmation was only a catechizing of children who had been baptized in infancy. So Calvin in the same place, sections 4 and 13, where he cites Leo, letters 37 and 77, and Jerome against the Luciferians; which same solution all the others embrace. But it is most empty: for first, neither Scripture nor any of the ancients mentions this catechizing. Scripture, Acts 8 and 19, says that the apostles prayed and laid on hands, and in that way gave the Holy Spirit; there is no mention of an examination of children. The Fathers speak likewise, as we showed above. Further, St. Leo, letters 37 and 77, says nothing of this matter; for he speaks of the reconciliation of heretics, not of the examination of children. Jerome too does not name an examination. Besides, this solution is not only not in keeping with the teaching of the Fathers, but even fights with it. For the Fathers gave Confirmation through anointing and the laying on of hands even to infants, as Innocent I teaches expressly, letter 1, and the book On Church Doctrines, chapter 52, and the Roman Order. And besides, this is most certain, because of old they gave the Eucharist too to infants, as is plain from Cyprian in the sermon On the Lapsed; and yet they did not give the Eucharist except after Confirmation, as is plain from Dionysius, Ambrose and others. But surely infants are not capable of examination nor of catechism; nor do the adversaries want an examination of infants too, but of children already grown; it is evident, then, that all the Fathers do not speak of the rite of Confirmation which the heretics have made up for themselves at this time. Lastly, almost all the Fathers mention chrism and the seal of the cross on the forehead, and place the essence of this sacrament in this, as is established from their testimonies.
Now Martin Chemnitz, in part 2 of the Examination, page 297 and onward, discusses the opinions of the Fathers, and brings all his solutions back to five heads. First, he says that many authors who are cited for the sacrament of Confirmation are apocryphal and forged. But that is nothing. For even if the letters cited of Melchiades, Eusebius and Urban, and the book of Dionysius the Areopagite, the homilies of Eusebius of Emesa, and the sermons of Cyprian on the cardinal works of Christ are, with some, of doubtful writing or even forged, yet we have many other most certain and most approved authors; and these very ones are most ancient and excellent, even if it is not certain whether they are those whose names they bear.
Second, Chemnitz adds that other authors who treat of chrism are indeed certain, but came out of the school of Montanus, as Tertullian and Cyprian. But we showed in chapter 1 that this is a shameless lie.
Third, he says that there are other authors, certain and approved, who make mention of the anointing, but call it a sacrament improperly and in a broad way, because it is a certain human ceremony usually used in Baptism; and so he expounds the places of Augustine cited by us, from book 15 On the Trinity, chapter 26, and book 2 against the letters of Petilian, chapter 104. But here Chemnitz errs much. For we showed above that almost all the Fathers distinguish Confirmation from Baptism and ascribe to it a spiritual effect, which does not fit any but sacraments truly and properly so called. Which is also manifestly plain from the places of Augustine cited, which Chemnitz, after his manner, gave cut short and incomplete. For in the former place he says that the prelates of the Church lay on the hand and anoint with chrism for this, that the Holy Spirit may be given, as the apostles once did, Acts 8. But surely the action of the apostles was not a human ceremony joined to Baptism, but another, and indeed divine and most effective. In the latter place Augustine labours much to show that true Confirmation can be given and received by the bad, like Baptism itself. But what need would there have been to prove this of a human and empty ceremony? For who could doubt of that? Then the same Augustine says that the bad receive the visible sacrament of Confirmation without the invisible grace of the Holy Spirit, and for judgment. But surely he would not distinguish the visible sacrament from the invisible grace in the bad unless he believed that in the good they are joined, and the one given through the other; nor is a human ceremony taken for judgment, even if it is taken by the bad. Lastly, in the same place Augustine says that the sacrament of chrism is most holy, as Baptism itself is. But how great a blasphemy it would have been to make a human ceremony equal to the sacrament of Baptism!
Fourth, Chemnitz says that although the ancients speak variously on this matter, yet there is no Father in the purer antiquity who takes from Baptism its effects to ascribe them to chrism, as the papists now do. And because Cyril seemed to him to stand against him, he calls into doubt whether those catecheses are his, and whether he himself at some time erred in the faith; and at last rejects as false what Cyril says. But all these are sheer trifles. For neither do we say that its effects are to be taken from Baptism, but we give each sacrament its proper effects. And of Cyril's catecheses no one ever doubted, nor does Chemnitz bring any reason or conjecture why one should doubt. And of the faith and uprightness of Cyril there is extant an excellent testimony in the letter of the Council of Constantinople to Damasus, in Theodoret, book 5, chapter 9, where that whole ecumenical synod warmly commends Cyril, because he waged many and various contests with the Arians for the Catholic faith.
Fifth, Chemnitz says that the Fathers speak very differently from the more recent authors. For the ancients press the laying on of hands, which yet is now abolished; likewise the ancients name oil, but no approved author adds the mixing with balsam, as all the more recent now do; the ancients ascribe to Baptism the effects which the more recent ascribe to Confirmation, as to give grace, to give the Holy Spirit, to perfect, to arm against the devil, and so on. Lastly the ancients join the anointing to Baptism, the more recent separate them, as if they were two sacraments. But here too Chemnitz is much deceived. For in the first place it is false that the laying on of hands is abolished, as we showed above, chapter 2. Then Pope Gregory I expressly mentions balsam mixed with oil, on chapter 1 of the Song of Songs, who is surely a most approved author; but of this matter later. Besides, it is false that the same effects are ascribed by the Fathers to Baptism which we ascribe to Confirmation, even if the names of the effects are often the same. For Baptism gives grace and the Holy Spirit, but for other effects than Confirmation does. Hence too the Lord, John 20, gave the apostles the Holy Spirit by breathing on them; and yet at the same time promised them the Holy Spirit, Acts 1, and gave him, Acts 2. So too Baptism arms, because it gives grace to do well; but Confirmation adds a peculiar strength for professing the faith. Hence it is said to the apostles, already baptized, in the last chapter of Luke: “Stay you in the city till you be endued with power from on high.” Lastly Baptism perfects in its own kind, because it makes men truly and wholly just and sons of God; and yet Confirmation still perfects in another kind; as an infant is a perfect man as to essence, and yet is not perfect as to size. And so the same Fathers who speak splendidly of Baptism speak splendidly also of Confirmation, as is plain from the places cited.
And what Chemnitz objects about the joining of the anointing with Baptism shows his want of skill. For the ancients used to join the Eucharist too with Baptism, whether they baptized adults or infants; and yet no one denies that Baptism and the Eucharist are distinct sacraments. At this time, when adults are baptized, Baptism, Confirmation and the Eucharist are given on the same day, as the ancients did; but when infants are baptized, the other two sacraments are put off until those who are to receive them come to the use of reason; because those sacraments are not necessary for infants, and are received with greater fruit and reverence by adults. Nor do the Lutherans disagree with us in this.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPLT VII.
Diluunlar solutiones advorsarioram ad Patrum
testimonia. quaesunt etiam argumenta ipso-
rum conlra vcritatem.
Nunc quid adversarii ad lam mulla Palrum Lesli-
mouia respoudcaiil, el quid nobis objicianl. vide-
amus. Calviiius primo simpliciler rcjicit Patres.
INam lib. 4. cap. 11). § 4. ILcroiiyuumi dicit in eo
liailu('iiiari, qiiod aposlolicam obscivationem esso
pulaverit. ritum Conlirmationis. Et § 8. et 10. vc-
iiemcnlissime invcliilur in s. Melciiijdem. ul su-
pra cap. l. nolavimus. Dcnique § 12. ila lo(iuitur:
Jam vero cuni vcrbo Dei.et probabiii ralione dc-
fici se vident. praeiexunt, quod solent, vetusiis-
simam essc lianc obscrvaiionem. ci maiiorum
sacculoruin consensa firmatam. Lliamsi id ve-
rum esset, nikii tamen clftciunt. Non e ierra est
sacramcnium, sed ccoeio, non ex Iwininibus,
scdab unoDco. ILiec ille. Ouasi veru iios adfora-
uius Patrcs, ut sacraiiKMilum ab iis inslitulum do-
ccamus. Falemur sacramcnta esse de coclo. nou
(b; tcrra: sed taincn lesles sacramenlorum lioini-
ncs adliibcmus. Quauniuam neque teslimoiiiuin
lioc dc lerra dici ilcbet, sed de coelo: noii enim
lioc testimonium ex capite suo ipsi courniguul.scil
cx apostolorum doclriiia, ct tradiliune dcilucunl.
Adde.(piod iiei; adiniili;nus nos destilui verbo Dei,
ul in 2. cap. ostendimus.
Scciindo; Ideni Calviiins ibidein ncgal Patres a-
guovisse lioc sacramcntum; vSc(i (/u/(/. iiHpiil, vc-
iastaicmobjectant, cumvcteres dum proprie clo-
quivoiunl, nusquamplara duobus sacramcniis
Tcccnseant? Si ah iMniinibus pclendum essct no-
sirae fidei prdcsidiam, kabcmus arcem ine.v,pu-
gnabilem, numquainveieribus agnita fuisse pro
sacramcntis, quae isli saci^amcnta emenliuntur.
'iiO
l)L S.VCIIA.MKMO (.O.NFIHM.VTIOMS
Ik; mnnnuin inifnmtiDne UiqHnntur vcAcrcfi, acd
tm sucnvncnlum ViH:uniy.[u[ju^linuf< (ipcrlc alJir-
mat Uh. '.\. (/'' liiipti^nio. cap. Ui. niliil aliud cs-
M\ tianinorationcni. .\iU\a luMiiniliiis \r,\^. :\\\).
(ir.ili.iiii iiiiclonialom, qui caiion. Ariiinos 1. qiiac-
sl. 1. CA lioo looo Aiiiinslini oolli|;il. inaniis inipo-
silioneni, noii o>si' s.ioiimifnliun, qiii.i r('[)oli po-
losl: ouoi iuhil sil oriilio qiiaodam.
Ilaoc seouiulii ^olnlio (Inobns oliirissiinis inon-
«iiioiis oonslal. Qn>iil oiiiin ('-.ilvinns ail.voloros iioii
;i;:noscorc iii>i tluo s;ior;iu>ontii proprio iliol;i. oon-
slal esso nioiui.ioium ox loslimoniis oiliilis, cl i-
ili'ni montiiioinoi roroliivinuis ouni a^n-rcnuis dc
unmoro Siior;iiii>'iilnium. Qiuid anloiii C.ilvinos lu;-
{,Mi. vclores siioramcnlum ;ippoiiasse rilum Conlir-
iiMlumis, ineiulaoium o>sc palcl e.\ loslimoniis
Mololiiiidis. cl Kusflui. Cypriaui, alquc Aiijiuslini
supra oiliilis. .\.l loonin o\ Au^uslino cilalnin llcs-
pundco. Au^uslinum lo-iui do simplioi iiianus im-
posilionc; qua-; liohil in reoonoiliiiliono pocnilcu-
liuin, uoii dc iiuinus imposilione oum Glirisina-
le , quae esl propric saoramcnlum Conlirma-
lionis.
Al iiislal Ciilvinus. iil(]uc ail: ^equc hic milii
putiilis suis dislinciionihus ohqanniant. nonad
Confirinationcin itlud .Xuquslinuin relulisse, sed
adcuratoriavi. vcl rcconcHiatoriani. Exstal Li-
ber ctc. Ao iirtdml iiio ;iiii dc ulraquc siiuul, quia
loquilur Augusiinus dc liacrcliois, qui ad Kcclcsi-
ain rcdf.unl, qui quidcm non rchaplizanlur: lamen
imponiinlur cis m;i!ius, cl eo modo diilur cis Spi-
rilus sanclus. El oonlirmiil hoc idcm ex iib. li.
cap. '2,i. de liaplisnio.
Resiiondeo: ll;icc omnia si quid probarenl. pro-
barcnl soinm Conlirmiilioncm csse siicramoiiluin
ilor;il)iic: .>'on aulem prdiiarcnl. non cssc saora-
meiiliim proprie diclum. quod Cidvino probaiidum
criil. Niiin sic loiiuilnr Auiiuslinus: Mnnus aulem
impositio non sicul Bajjlismus rcpciinon potesl:
quid ciiiiTi esl oliud, 7iisi oratio super homincin?
Ubi AugosUniis c.\ oo (juod manus imposilio csl o-
riilio. non collitrii nou osse sacramenUim, sod non
cssc sacriimcnium liilc, ut ro|U'li noii possil. Alio-
qui siicriimenlum esse maiiilcsie prol);ilur. Niiin
liic esl maieria sonsihilis. imposilio niimuum: esl
forma. oriilio: esi eirivlus. fir;ili;i Spii'ilus siincli,
ul ipsft Ciiivinus ooiilonilil. Cur ergo non esl sa-
cramcuUiin? Al nc(pje cx lioc prohari potcsl Con-
firmalionem cssc sacraniontum ilcrabile. Nara (ut
dixi) non agilur iiic de Confirmalionc, sed de re-
conciiiiiUone pocnitentium. Id quod probo his ra-
tionihus.
Priiiio:Auguslinus pnssim docei Confirmationem
fiori Clirismale. ul palcl ex locis supra allegatis.
Ilic autcm non soiuin non merainit Chrismiilis, sed
apcrlo indical sc loqiii dc im[)osilione maiuium si-
ne Chrismate: alioqiii non diccrct: (|tit(i est aliud,
nisi oratio? posset enim responderi, esl consecra-
lio.cl consignalio [)or Clirismatis unclionem.
Sccuiido: Saoramcnlnm Confirmalionis serael
dalum non potest repoti, til ex coricilio larraco-
nensi, el e.\ resori|iio Grogorii II. lcslalur Gralia-
nus dislincl. 5. de oonsocral. canon.Diclum est, et
tunou. Dehominc. El priiclcrca idein aporte col-
ligilnr cx Auguslino lib. 2. conlra liloras Pcliii.-v-
iii. oa|). 105. uhi dioil: Saoriimoiilum ConliriiKilio-
iiis, sioul oluiin l{ii|)lismi iiilordum iii [icssimis ho-
miiiihiis cssc, cl iiKincre, lio(;l;i(l jndioium, Quod
si niiiiiot eliiimin pcsslmis. no-i dobel. ncc potcsi
eis dari, ouiii rcoonoiliiitilur (pii.i jiim liiihcnl, noc
amisorunl. Al Iioc looo dicil, maiius imposilioncm
ro|)Cti |)oss(!: non igiUir loquitur dc maiius iinposi-
tioiio Coiiliriiiiitoriii.
icrlio: Augiisliiius loquilur dc reooncllialion(!
liaerclicoruin, ul Ciilvinns fale-lur, el ex ulroquc
looo citiito perspiouum ost. Scd nianns impo.-ilio
rcconoiliiiloria distinclii criil, priiosorlim in Eoolc-
siii oc(;idciit;ili ;i iiiiinus imiiositioiu; ooiilirmiiloria;
ergo non loqnitur Augustinns dc conlirmatoria.
Assumplio probiitur tum cx Vigilio pii|)a iii episl.
I. oap. ;{. iibi lioc cxpressc lcslatiir: luin ex (Irc-
gorio iib. 9. cpist. ()1. uhi dicit. Arianos in Eccle-
sia orieulali, consiicvissc recipi [)cr iiiiclionem
Clirismalis; in oocidonlali [)cr solam imposilionom
manuiim. Cujus divorsitalis ratio jissiguiiri solcl.
quia Ariani oricntalcs non conflrmabanlur pi^r
Chrisma in sua sccla. occidcntalcs aulcm conlir-
mahanlur; cl ideo in orienle oporlebat eos ungc-
rc, cum rcdihant ad Eccicsiam, (|uia lioc cis dec-
ral. Undc etiarn in concilio niciieno ex arabico nu-
pcr Iranslalo canon. 31. jubentur Ariani inungi,
cura ad Ecclesiam veniunt. Vei ccrtc si eliam in
occidente Ariaiii rejiciebant Coiifirmationem: la-
men cum ad Ecclcsiam rcdibanl, non slalim Chris-
malc ungcbanlnr, sed postoa per opportunitalem,
ut modo facimus cum Lutheranis. Yel deniquc illa
unctio in Ecciesia oricnlali non erat sacramentum,
sed rilus quidam. Qnidquid sit, Grogorius oxprcs-
se dicil, in occidente non inungi, sod sim[)iicitcr
rcconciliari pcr Imposilionem manus. Quare s. Au-
guslinus, qui de Eeclcsia occidonlali erat, cum lo-
quitur de rcconcilialionc haerelioorum per impo-
silionem manuum,non agit dc Conlirmatione, quae
non fit sine unclione, sed de simplici reconcilia-
tione.
At duo vid(!nlur obslare huio nostrac explicalio-
ni. Unum, quod Auguslinus lih. 3. de Baptismo,
ca[). 16. idest, in illo ipso oapite, ubi dicit, irapo-
silionera manuum nihil esse, nisi oralionem, dicit
etiam per eam manuum irapositionem nunc non
exspeclari, ut homincs loquanlur linguis, ut fiebat
tempore aposlolorum, sod salis esse si infundatur
Spiriius sanctus invisibiiiter: quem locum nos su-
pra citavimus pro sacramento Gonfirraationis. Er-
go Augustinus ioqniliir de manus impositione con-
lirmatoria; vol cerle aequivoce accipit in uno et
eodem capitc manus impositionera; quod videlur
absurdum. Alterum esl, quod lib. 5. de Baplismo,
cap. 23. Augustinus dicat per manus impositionom
reconciliatoriam dari Spirilum sanctura. Al hic per
nos cst eireclus Confirmationis; ergo eadcm crat
apud Auguslinum iniposilio manus confirraaloriu
et reconciliatoria.
Respondeo ad primum:Vario modo accipcre Au-
gustinum in eo capite manus imposilionem, sed
sine ullo vitio. Nain proposilum ejus erat soivere
arguraentura s. Cypriani, qui ex eo, quod in sola
Ecclcsia caliiolica dari polosl, et accipi Spirilus
LIlJLlll SKCU.NDUS
221
sanclus, colligcbat sacraracnlu liacrclicoruni non
cssc vtM'a cl riiUi. Ad lioo arguinonlum dilucn.iuni
Auguslinus inilio capilis explical, tpii;i inlclligi
ricbciil pcr SpiriUini suncluni.cuni diciliu' non pos-
SD diu-i, vcl iiccipi, nisi in Eccicsia calholica pcr
manus iinposilioncm: ac dicil inlelligi donuni clia-
riliilis: lioc cniiu non possunl Inibere nisi buiii, et
ideu non nisi in Ecclesia calliolica; quia oxira il-
lam nulli sunl boni. lloo auleiu loco accipil Augu-
slinus manus iinposilioncm in genere,sive sit con-
firmaloriii, sive rcconcilialoria, sive (nl sic loquar)
ortlinatoria: scinper enim per c;im d;ilnr gr;ilia et
charilas, nisi ponatur obex. Dcinde vult Augusli-
nus oslcnderc i^er nianus iinposilion(>m dari reve-
ra donum churilalis; et dcchuMt cxcmplo m;inus
jmposilionis conlirmaloriae, cum dicil. nunc nou
expectari, ut loquanlur iinguis, quibus manns im-
ponilur, scd lalenlcr eis iniundi charilalem, Ita^juc
ibi accipit manus imposilioncm niagis slriclc (i-
desl.pro sola confirniiiloria), ncc lamen est viliosa
cicquivociilio: (iui;i quod convenil loli generi, rccle
(Jcclaralur exemplo unius spccici. Postea redil ad
argumenlum Cypriani, et dislinguit tria: Sacra-
mcnlum, donum Spirilus s;incli graiis diilum, ut
prophcliam; el donum gr;ilum raciens. idcst, cha-
rilalcui; ac dicil extra Ecclesiam, vcl in niiilis ho-
niinihus esse possc duo |)rior;i, non hiracn hn-li-
um; et idcirco debcrt; ad Ecclesiam retJire, ul in
cit pcr iniiiius imposilionem rcconcilialoriam illud
accipianl. El quia polerat aliquis suspicari, non
posse repeli hanc manus iinposilionem, sicut non
polesl repcliBaptismus,nec Conrirmalio, nec Ordi-
iiiilio. ideo Auguslinus suhjungit, posse repeli ma-
nus imposiliuncm, idesl. recouciiialoriam, quia ni-
hil est aliud, nisi oralio super hominem, idcst,
non est consecralio aliqua; qu;ie mancat, et chara-
clerem impriinat . umic rciicli non possit , sed
est tantum caeremonia adjuvans orationem.
Ad allcrurnarguincntuni respondeo, nt j;im dixi,
Spiritum sauctum dari, per omnem imposilioncm
manuum, sed ad varios circclus. i\am per imposi-
lioncm manuum confirmaloriam datur ad roboran-
d;im ;inim;im in fidei confcssione; per reconcili;i-
toriam dalur ad rcmissionem peccatorum; pcr or-
din;iluriam datur ad polcslatcm ministrandi sacra-
nienl;i.
Ad locum Gratiani a Kemnitio addilum Respon-
dco: Gratiaiium velle diccre non essc sacramenlum
Ordinis, vcl eliam Confirmationis , imposilionem
m;iniiuin, de ([ua lo(iuilur Anguslinus; id quod re-
cic ille dicit, ac recte cliam probat ex co, (luod
repcti polcst. Non aulcm neg;it esse sacramenlum
reconciliationis; nam alioqui cliam Eucharistia re-
pcli polesl, cl lamcn esl verissimum s;icramcnlum.
Terlia sululio est, (luod apud vcleres Confinna-
lio fucrittanlum calcchesis pucrorum , qui in in-
riinli;i biipli/.uti lucrant. Ila C;ilviniis ibidcin § i.et
IIJ. uhi cilal Lconem episl. Xi. ct 77. el llierony-
mum contra bucirerianos: quam candcm solulio-
nc(n omnes alii ainplecltinhir. At vanissima est :
niim Priinu ncc S(;riptura, nec ullus vclcrnm mi^-
niinit bujus c;ilechcsis. Scriptur;» Aclor. 8. cl II).
dicil: Aposlolos orassc , ct imposnissc manus, ct
cu niodo dcdissc Spirilum sai»clnm; cxaminispuc-
Delivuhi.m. Vo! III.
roruin nulla mentio. Simililer loquunlur Palres ,
ul supra oslcndiinus. Porro cliain s. Leo cpisl. Xi.
cl 77. niliil dicit de Iiac rc; nam loquitur de recon-
cilialione haerelicorum, non dc cxaminc pncrilK
llieronymus (juoquc exiimen non nominiil. Prachi-
rca ista solulio non solutn non csl conlormis P.i-
Irum doclrinae, sed cliam ei repugnal. Palres e-
niiu dabanl Confirm;ilionein pcr unctionem. el lUii-
nus iniposilionem eliam inranlibus,ul cxpresso du-
ciMit Innoccnlius L epist. 1. et liber de ecclesiii-
slicis dogmalibus, cap. 52. el ordo roniiiiius. Ei
Priielerca id ccrtissimum est, quia dabiint olim
inranlibus etiam Eucharistiam, ut palcl cx Cypriii-
110 in sermone de lapsis , et lamen Euciiaristiaiu
nun diibant, nisi post Conlirniiilionem , ut ex Diu-
nysio, Ambrusio, et aliis palcl. At certc inlante^
non suntcapaces examiuis, ncc catechisini ; nec
adversarii volunt cxamen eti;im infanlium.scCi puc-
rorum jain aduUorum; igilur cvidens cst, omncs
Palres non loqui dc rilu Conlirmalionis, quam sihi
haerelici boc tempore conlinxcrunt. Dcnique, o-
mnes fere P;ilrcs mcminerunt Chrismalis, et signa-
culi crucis in fronte, ct in boc ponunl esscnli;iiii
liujus sacramenli , ut ex eorum lesliinoniis con-
slat.
Jiim vero Remnitius in 2. par. Examinis, pag.
297. et deinceps disserit de scntenliis Palruin , ac
ad quinque capila revocat omnes suas soluliones.
Primo dicit, mullos auclores qui cilanlur pro sacrti-
menlo Confirmationis, esse apocryphos, et suppu-
sililios. At id nihil est. Nam eliamsi epistolae cilii-
lac Melchi;idis, Euscbii et Urbani , necnon liber
Dionysii areopagilac, ho;nili;ie Enscbii cmisseni, (H
serinones Cypriani de operibus c;irdina!lbus Chri-
sli, sint apud nonnuilos dubiae Scripturac. vel et-
iam supposilitiae: lamcn multos habemus alios ccr-
tissinius, et probatissiinos auclorcs;cl isli ipsi sunl
anliiiuissimi, ct oplinii, licet non sil ccrlum, aii
sint illi, quoruin numinii praefcrunt.
Secundo Kemnilins iidtlit: Alios auclores qui de
Clirismiilc agnnt, cerlos (luidcin esse, sed cx scho-
lii Monlani prodiisse, ut Terlullianum ct Cypria-
num. Scd hoc csse impudens mcndacium, deinon-
slr;ivimus, cap. 1.
Tcrlio dicit, alios csse auctores cerlos, ct proba-
los, qui de unctione menlionem facinnl, scd cani
vocarc s;icr;uncnlum improprii^ , ct hirgo modo.
quia csl bumana ciier(!inoni;i (|uaed;im in IJ.iptismo
adhiberi solilii: sicque cxponiiloca Auguslini a no-
bis cilala ex lib. 15, Trinil, cnp. 2(5. cl lib. 2. con
tra lilcras Pctiliani, cap. lOi. Al mnllum liic crral
Kemnilius. Supra enim oslcndimns , Palres fcre
omnes dislinguere Conluinaliunem a Kaplismo, cl
cfTccluin spirilmilem oi Iribuerc, (ini non convcniL
nisi vere ac iiroprie diclis s;icramcnlis. Id qnod cl-
iam manifesle palet ea locis Auguslini cilalis, quae
suo inurc Ivcmnilins Iruncala, ct imperfcclc (Uliivit.
N;iin in priurc lucu dicit. priieposilus l']cclesi;iti iin-
ponerc maiinin , et Clirism;ile inungcrc ad hoc, nt
(lelur Spirilus sanclus, ul oliin fcccrunt apusloli.
Aclor. 8. At certe aposloloruiu ;H',tio nou 1'iiitbn-
inana caercinouia adiuncl;i Unplisino, scd ;ili;i, et
(|uidcm divimi, et cnicacissiimi. In postcriorc loco
Augustinus nuiltum laboral.ul ostentlat vLMam Cun-
222
l)i: SACUVMF.Mt) 1:<IM1U\IATI0MS
llrin.ilioiiLMU possr tiaii, «'l iiccipi ;i m:ilis. ul ipsnm
oli;iiii Baplismuiii. Al (initi opiis criil Ium- proliarr
ili! Iiumaiia. t'l *>ltMiii caiMiMnoiiia? ipiis tMiiiii lit^ co
liubiiare puliMMl? DtMiule iliuiom .Vn-^insiiiiiis tlicil,
inalos accipero sacramcnUun ('oulinnalioiiis visi-
l)ile. sine luvisilMii },'ralia Spiriliis saiicli. uitpie ail
jmiicinui. Al cerle nuii tlisliiijjuerel saciaiiuMiluui
visihiie al> invisibiii «iralia in inalis. nisi crederel
in bonis isla conjuii^i. el uiiiim per aiierum .'ari:
netpic ad iuiiicium suiniliir caeiemonia liumana,
clKiinsi a iiialis sumalur. DiMiitpie ihidein .\iii:usli-
nus ilicil, sacramenlum Clirismalis csse sacrosaii-
cliiin. siiul esl i|)Si> Baplisimis. Al tpianla l)lasplu'-
mia fuisstM actpiare liumaMam cacremoniaiii s.icra-
meulo Daplismi.
Ouarlo Keinniliiis ilicil. cliamsi velores varie lo-
(piaiilur lie liac re. lauien nulium esse i^i puriorc
anliipiilale Palrcm. tiui tlelralial I>aplismo stitis cl-
feclus. uleoslribual Chrismali. ul moilo faciiml
Papislac. Kl <iiii;i Cuillus vititdialur iill vaiiie oii-
slarc. in dubiuin rcvocal. aii sinl t^jus illae cale-
cliescs, cl an ipse a!ii]uaiuio erraveril in rule : cl
taiidem rcjicil lamquam falsa. quac dicit Cyrillus.
Seii liaee omuia nicrao uuijae sunt. Nain ntM' rios
diciuuis tlclraluMulos essc iJaplismo suos clTcclus.
scd damus ulriquo sacramcnlo elTcclus proprius.
I)e calcclicsilms anlem Cyrilli nemo iinqnnm du-
bilavit. neque proferl Kemnilius ullam ralionom ,
vel conjecluraui. cur liubilaiKium sit. De fide ou-
lera, cl probilate Cyrilli c.xslal ef];rcgium leslimo
nium in cpisl. coucilii eonslanliMOpt)iilani ad Da-
niasum apud TlieodoreUim lib. o. ca[). 0. ubi lola
illa synodus occumcnica Cyrilium vcliemcnter com-
nicutlal. quod mulla. ct varia certamiua cum Aria-
nis ob fidiMn calholicam ijesserit.
Quinlo Rcmnilius dicil: Patres loqui valde dis-
siiniiiler ab auctoribus rcccntioribus. Nam veiiM-es
inculcant manus imposilioucm. qmu; tamen nuiu-
aholila cst: ilein velcres nominanl olcuin, sod nul-
lus probalus auctor atldil mixlioncm cum balsa-
mo. ul modo faciuut omnes reccnliores : velert^s
Irihiuint Baplismo eos cfTeetus. (juos reconliores
IrihuuMl Confiruialioiii , nl dare graliam, dart; Spi-
rilum sauctum, perlicere, armarc contra diabolum
ctc. Denique voleres Unctionem annectuMl Baplis-
mo. lecenliores st'|)aranl, ac si tjuo essiMil saera-
meuta. .Vt hic eliam valde hallucinatur Kemuilius.
Nam in priniis falsuin est, esse abohlam manus
impositionem, ut supra oslendimus, cap. 2. D(;iii-
de balsaini cum oieo mixli expresso mcminit Gre-
gorius l. papa in cap. 1. canticorum , tpii certo
prohaiissimus anclor csl: scti de hac re poslcn.
Praelerea falsum esl eosdcm encclus Iribui a Pa-
tribus liaplismo, quos nos trihuimus Confirmalio-
ni: clinmsi nomina effocluum saepc sint catlem.
Nam Haplismus dat graliam, v[ Spirilum sanclum ,
sed atl nlios effecliis. quam Conlirmalio. Uudo cl-
iara Dominus Joan. 20. dedil apostolis Spiritum
sancium per insulTlalionem: el tamen eodem tt ni-
porc promisit iliis Spiriliiin sanctum. Aclor. 1. ot
dedit Actor. 2. sic etiam Baptisinus armat, qiiia dat
irraliam benc opcrandi. Scd Conlirmalio addil po-
culiaro robur ad profilendam fidom. Unde diciliir
uposlolis jain baptizalis Luc. ull. Sedele incivUa-
tc, doncc i)idmniini virlutc. cx (dto. Deiiiipu' Ba-
plisiuus perlicil iii siio genere, quia lacit vere , cl
uilegrc juslos, el Dci lilios; el lameu Ctmlirmatio
adluic perlicit in alio generc: (pioinodo iiilans pcr-
fiMMus hoino csl, quoad csscntiam, el lameii uon
osl piMftMlus, (pioad molein. Ilaipu! iidciu Piilres ,
tpii iMaguilice iiHpuiiilur tie B.iplismo . maguilicc
eiiam loquunlur de Coiinrmatione, ul ex locis cila-
lis patel.
l^iuoil aiilein Keiiiuitius ohjicil dc coiiiuuclione
nuctionis cum r>a|)lismo. osleiulit ejus imporiliam.
Nain stilebanl vclorcs eliain Kucharisliam coujun-
gcre cuin Ba|)lismo. sivi^ adullos, sivt; iiifanles ba-
pli/.arent: et laiiuMi neiiio negat sacrameiila (!sso di-
sliiicla. Baptismum cl Eucharisliam. lloc lcmporo
cum haplizauUir adulli.eodem die datuv BapUsmus,
CoMliniialio et Eucliarislia, ul vetcrcs facicbant :
sed cum haplizanlur infanles, diirerunlur alia duo
sacramcnla, doiicc ad usum rationis perveuerinl ,
qui ea perccpturi sunl;quia non siint ea sacramen-
la iuranlii)us nccessaria, cl majori cum fructu, el
revcrcntia percipiuntur ab adullis. Ncquc in hoc a
nobis Lulherani disscnliunl.