Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Fickleness of the Heretics in the Matter of the Sacraments
A Preface Given in the Schools
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. III, De Haereticorum Levitate in Re Sacramentaria, the preface to the controversies 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).
A preface given in the schools.
That heretical men, as it is in the prophet Isaiah, chapter 19, are driven by a spirit of giddiness, and, like the builders of the tower of Babylon, are so divided among themselves in tongues and manners that one does not know another, is proved by nothing more than by the dispute on the sacraments. For when the sacraments are treated, whether the name, or the nature, or the number, or the efficacy, or anything else is brought into controversy, they not only wrangle among themselves with the bitterest contentions, but for the most part dispute so foolishly and absurdly that they seem to wish to contend for the prize of folly, or to fight for the glory of ignorance. And since the greatness of this new school, the new beginnings of studies, the new gathering of hearers, and almost the very seats and walls seem to demand from us a fuller and more pleasant preface than usual, I am not a little glad that this subject has offered itself to me today for discussion. For we are to speak of the vanity and fickleness of the heretics of this time, and that in the matter of the sacraments, that is, in the highest and weightiest controversies of our faith. Which discussion indeed will not be without pleasure, since it presents the spectacle of madmen striving among themselves and with the sane; nor will it be without its usefulness, since it shows clearly by this example into what darkness of errors they fall, and over what precipices of the most absurd heresies they rush, who have once departed from the most glorious and best defended citadel of the Catholic truth.
To begin, then: when the word sacrament had come into question among our heretics, and Martin Luther in his Babylon had shown that the word did not much please him, at once his disciples, who received Luther not as some common man but as a new prophet fallen from heaven, and watched not only his opinions but even his nods as oracles, began openly to disapprove and reject the name of sacrament. And so Andreas Carlstadt, in the book On Images and Sacraments, openly attacked the name of sacrament. Philip Melanchthon, in the Commonplaces first published, the chapter on signs: “What others,” he says, “call sacraments, we call signs; and if the name of sign displeases, call them seals.” Zwingli, in the book On True and False Religion: “This word sacrament,” he says, “I could greatly wish had never been received by the Germans.” Calvin, that he may seem weightier and wiser than the rest, although he does not much approve this name, book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 14, yet does not think it worth while to quarrel about the name. Not long after, when a very grave quarrel had arisen between Luther and the Sacramentarians, since Luther noticed that the name of sacrament greatly displeased the Sacramentarians, he himself began to approve it and to guard and defend it most sharply, as can be known from the book he wrote against Andreas Carlstadt; which same Andreas, once his golden friend, he laments pitifully as afterwards turned into an Absalom and a Judas.
Luther, having changed his opinion and defending the word sacrament, was followed by his Achates, Philip Melanchthon, who in the Commonplaces published later uses the name of sacrament everywhere; and the rest followed too who will be properly called Lutherans and distinguished from the Sacramentarians: Brenz, Tilemann, Chemnitz and others.
But hear, if you please, by what arguments Carlstadt attacks the name of sacrament, or Luther defends it. “This word does not please me,” says the former; “for God nowhere in the sacred letters commanded that we should use such a word; nor is it lawful in divine things to usurp names which God has not ordered.” Luther on the contrary: “Nay truly,” he says, “this word pleases me; for God nowhere in the sacred letters forbade us to use such a word; and who are you at last, Carlstadt, that you put yourself in God's place and forbid us what he did not forbid?” Which of the two, hearers, is the sillier? For if it is not lawful in divine things to use those words which God did not institute in the sacred letters, let Carlstadt show us where he has read in the Scriptures Trinity, essence, persons, homoousios, and others of the kind, which are worn and common no more among Catholics than among the Sacramentarian heretics themselves. And if it is not lawful to call Baptism and the Eucharist sacraments, because God did not order them to be so called, why do they themselves call Baptism and the Eucharist signs, symbols, tokens, seals? For they will not be able to show a place in the Gospel or in the Apostle where Baptism or the Eucharist is named by such words. But neither has Luther's reasoning much more weight or solidity. For if it is not lawful to forbid those words which God did not forbid in the sacred letters, then the Arians are unfairly forbidden to call the Son of God unlike in substance to the Father; let Macedonius be allowed to call the Holy Spirit a creature; let Michael Servetus be free to define the eternal Word as the idea or reason representing Christ the man; let Valentine Gentile be free to name God the Father the Essentiator, God the Son the Essentiated; let it be granted lastly, to pass over other things, to the new Samosatenes to call the images of the Trinity three-headed Cerberuses and three-bodied Geryons; since he admits that God forbade none of these in the sacred letters.
How much more weightily, maturely and wisely does the Catholic Church keep the name of sacrament, both because she understands that this word fits most aptly Baptism and the Eucharist and the other holy mysteries of the same kind, and because she sees that the same word was used by Tertullian, Cyprian, Lactantius, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, and all who from the very beginning of the Christian name wrote in Latin of the holy things of our faith. But enough about the name. Let us come to the nature and force of the sacrament.
The Catholic writers teach, and have always taught, with such agreement that the sacraments of the new law are certain instruments of our justification, that this is proved even by the testimony of our adversaries. For so Calvin speaks, book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 14, section 14: “With great agreement the sophistical schools have handed down that the sacraments of the new law justify and confer grace, provided we do not set the obstacle of mortal sin. How deadly and pestilent this opinion is cannot be told; and the more so because for many ages past it has prevailed, with great loss to the Church, in a good part of the world.” So he: who, as you see, although after his manner he calls the Catholics sophists and the faith of the Church a plague and ruin, yet could not deny that there is a great agreement among all Catholics, and that our opinion has flourished for many ages now in a good part of the world; while of them on the contrary we say most rightly and most truly that there is nothing ancient among them, nothing certain, almost nothing received by all with common consent, but everything new, everything uncertain, and that bounded within the shortest and narrowest limits. For although at this time very many and almost countless heretics range far and wide, yet they are divided and cut up into so many very small sects that there is almost none of their dogmas which spreads very widely and is not bounded by some fixed region. Indeed Martin Chemnitz, in the second part of the Examination of the Council of Trent, disputing on the nature and power of the sacrament, admits that there is the greatest discord among his own, that is, among Luther's successors and disciples. And truly he would have been too shameless had he wished to deny what is clearer than the light of the sun. For there are counted among the adversaries, Chemnitz himself agreeing, at least six different and most absurd opinions, fighting among themselves: while Luther dreams one thing, Carlstadt feigns another, the Anabaptists rave another, Zwingli another, Calvin another, others make up another. Let us look at them a little, and lightly shake out the follies of each.
The leader, Luther, both in his Babylon and in the Assertion of the Articles, would have the sacrament to be nothing else than a divine testimony instituted for stirring up or nourishing faith, which like a miracle confirms, and like a seal seals, the promise of grace. Wherefore he usually compares the sacraments with the fleece of Gideon, with the sign which Isaiah offered to King Ahaz, and with other such miracles and wonders which the prophets and apostles used to produce faith.
But this opinion is so absurd that scarcely anything more absurd can be imagined. For signs and wonders are rightly used to confirm preaching, since they are of themselves known and striking, and do not depend in any way on the preaching; but the sacraments on the contrary have no force of themselves, and are not even understood to be sacraments unless they are confirmed by the testimony of the word. And so those who see diseases suddenly cured by a preacher of the divine word, or demons driven out by a word, or the blind given sight, or the dead called back from the grave, are so struck and thrown down by the very force of the miracle, as by a flash of lightning, that even unwilling they are forced to believe the words of so great a man. But those who see a man washed with water, which we do in Baptism, wonder at nothing, nor easily believe that anything higher lies hidden in that washing, unless they have first believed the word of God. And if we do not begin to look up to the sacraments before we believe the word of God, how, I ask, can it be that the divine words are confirmed by the sacraments? Would he not be ridiculous who said to a heathen: “That you may believe that what I say is true, I will pour this jar of water over your head”? A fine proof indeed! For unless we learned from the word of God that that washing and that anointing avail to cleanse souls, who would believe it? Who would not laugh? For water does not have it by nature to cure the diseases of the soul and wash away the stains of the heart; but whatever it can do in this kind, it can do from the divine institution; and the divine words make the divine institution known.
Further, that comparison by which the sacrament is everywhere compared by the adversaries to a seal on a charter is so unfitting that nothing more unfitting can be imagined; and the word of God could much more rightly be called the seal of the sacrament than the sacrament the seal of the word of God. For as the seal, even without the charter, has its force and is recognised and honoured, while the charter without the seal is not recognised as a charter nor has any force, so too the word of God without the testimony of the sacrament has its own, and that the highest, authority, while the sacrament without the testimony of the word has none. The sacrament, then, ought not to have been named the seal of the word, as they will, but the word the seal of the sacrament.
Then, if the sacrament, as the Lutherans will, is nothing else than an instrument for stirring up or nourishing faith, why are infants, the insane and the sleeping sometimes baptized in the Church? Is there such force in the sacraments that they persuade faith even in those who do not have the use of reason? Or do the Anabaptists rather teach rightly that the sacraments profit only adults, the sane and the waking? “By no means,” say the Lutherans; “nay rather the Anabaptists err gravely, fanatical and raving men, when they forbid infants to be baptized. For although little ones at other times lack the judgment of reason, yet while they are baptized God so works in their minds that they both hear the word of God and also know and love God; as once St. John in his mother's womb felt the presence of Christ and leapt for joy.” See, hearers, where the wretches throw themselves headlong; and there is no other place at all to which they can retreat: for the Anabaptists press them hard, and so hem the Lutherans in on every side that they must either be caught or fall of their own accord into the pit of this new error. But not even so do they escape: for in that very pit the Lutherans are overwhelmed and finished off by an armed dilemma. You have seen, I think, infants while they are baptized, how they shrink back, wail, and struggle. I ask, then: either they understand what they are doing, or they do not. If they do not understand, neither do they believe; if they do not believe, they are wrongly baptized; and the Anabaptists have won. If they understand, they are sacrilegious who so stubbornly refuse the sacraments, and are not so much cleansed as defiled. Let them not be baptized, then; and the Anabaptists have won. What of this, that Augustine long ago laughed at these follies in the letter to Dardanus, and to the example of St. John, who by a singular miracle leapt in the womb, answered cleverly that Balaam's ass once spoke wisely too, and yet men were not therefore warned to wait for the counsels of asses in their deliberations?
But I will let Luther go, if I ask him one thing: in what Gospel, or apostle, or prophet has he read that the sacraments of the new law are testimonies or seals of the word of God? We indeed read everywhere, John 3, Acts 22, 1 Corinthians 6, Ephesians 5, Titus 3, 1 Peter 3, that by Baptism the faithful are reborn, washed, cleansed, sanctified, renewed, saved; that promises are sealed we nowhere read, unless perhaps in the Gospel according to Luther. Nor can Luther despise this argument, since in the book against John Cochlaeus he left it written that in sacred things the most forceful and strongest place is to draw an argument from authority negatively. Either, then, let him show a place in the word of God where the sacraments of the new law are named testimonies, or let him admit that his opinion is refuted by us with a most forceful and strongest argument.
I come now to Zwingli. He, in the book On True and False Religion, where he attacked Luther's opinion and certain others sharply enough, opens his mind and teaches that the sacraments are nothing else than a certain pledging, and as it were an oath, by which men publicly profess that they will be faithful to Christ and his Church. From which it follows that in the celebration of the sacraments Christ does nothing, and not only does not cleanse sins nor renew men, as the Catholics will, but does not even bear witness to our justification, as the Lutherans teach. Which opinion is so far from being able to be confirmed by any testimony of Scripture that it fights most openly with the whole of Scripture. For if Baptism is only a pledging of men and not an action of Christ, what is it that John says, “He it is that baptizeth”? What is that which the Apostle says: “Christ loved the Church, and delivered himself up for it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life”? And if Baptism does not cleanse sins, but only gives a testimony of future faithfulness, why did Ananias say to Paul, “Be baptized, and wash away thy sins”? Why did Paul himself define Baptism as the laver of regeneration? And what is the meaning of that which we have already cited, “Cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life”? Lastly, to pass over many other things, it is a thing tried and certain in the Church, and known even to women and children, that the Christian sacraments have their force from the passion and merits of Christ; and that in sign of this the blood and water flowed from the side of Christ. “Then,” says St. Leo, letter 4, chapter 6, “he established the power of regeneration, when from his side there flowed the blood of redemption and the water of baptism.” The same was noted by Ambrose on Luke, and by Augustine, Chrysostom, Cyril and Theophylact on John. And hence the apostle Paul joined those two things, “He delivered himself up for it,” and, “Cleansing it by the laver of water”: because namely the water would be nothing but water unless it drew a certain wonderful force from the blood of him who delivered himself up to death, that he might present to himself a glorious Church. Hence lastly John too cries out, “This is he that came by water and blood”; and again he repeats, “Not by water only”; namely, as once John the Baptist baptized, “but by water and blood,” that is, by water mixed with blood, and by that blood most effective for washing away all sins. But if the new theology of Zwingli is true, John errs, Paul is mistaken, all the Fathers are deceived, the confession of peoples and nations is empty, and Christ himself willed his side to be opened, and blood and water to flow from it, in vain. For what need was there of the passion and death of Christ to institute sacraments, if they have nothing holy, nothing divine, can do nothing, effect nothing, and are nothing else than certain human testimonies or pledges?
Now John Calvin, with wonderful cunning, while he seems to wish to embrace both Luther and Zwingli, dissents from both, and, rejecting both, sets up a new doctrine. [The scan is torn at the top of the page here; the definition is completed from Calvin's own words, Institutes 4.14.1.] For he defines the sacrament to be an outward sign by which the Lord seals on our consciences the promises of his good will toward us, to sustain the weakness of our faith, and we in turn bear witness to our piety toward him, as well before him and the angels as before men. Who does not see that this opinion of Calvin is patched together from the opinions of Luther and of Zwingli? For what Calvin says, that the promises of good will are sealed on our consciences by the Lord to sustain the weakness of faith, can be seen to be taken from Luther; and what he adds, that by the same sacrament we bear witness to our piety toward the Lord, belongs to the opinion of Zwingli. But there was not so much modesty in Calvin, nor so much authority in Luther and Zwingli, that he would allow himself to be, or be held, the disciple of either of them. And so, although Calvin grants Zwingli that the sacraments are a certain profession as it were of our faithfulness toward God, yet he dissents from him in this, that he denies that this is either the only or the chief use of the sacraments; and for that reason, leaving out the name of Zwingli, he openly attacks his opinion in the place noted, and clears away all his arguments one by one. And between Luther and Calvin there is this difference, that although both make the sacraments testimonies or seals of the divine promise, Luther will have that promise to be of present justification, Calvin of eternal election.
Wherefore in the Antidote to the council, the seventh session, on canon 5, he says that infants are baptized not that they may then first be received by God as sons, but that the promise of life may be sealed, which already before belonged to them through the grace of adoption. And in the same session, canon 7, he affirms that the sacraments are to be referred to this end, that they may make us certain of the perpetual grace of adoption, to which namely we were predestined before the foundation of the world.
But this opinion is in many ways false, absurd, pernicious and impious. For it both fights openly with the Scriptures, and shuts the kingdom of heaven to many, and makes the sacrament false, the ministers sacrilegious, and God a liar and as it were perjured. That it is false, that the sacraments are referred only to the past, that is, to the grace of election: why does Ananias say in the present, “Rise up, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins”? Why does Paul call Baptism the laver of regeneration? Why does Peter take the same Baptism for the remission of sins? And what at last is this rashness, or rather madness, both to challenge the Catholics to the Scriptures, and yet to refuse to hear what all the Scriptures cry out, and obstinately to assert and defend what can nowhere be shown in the divine letters?
And that it is an absurd opinion, that promises are sealed on consciences by the sacraments, can be made most plain from the Baptism of little ones. For Calvin teaches in many places against the Anabaptists that little ones are duly and profitably baptized; and yet little ones, as they lack the use of reason, so also lack conscience; which not even Calvin himself dared to deny, in book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 16. And truly, if the promise is a certain charter, the sacrament the seal, and the conscience the wax or the paper, as Calvin signifies, the Calvinists work a fine miracle indeed when they baptize little ones: for they both write a charter without paper and press a seal without wax.
And that the same opinion is pernicious to many, and above all to little ones, surely cannot be doubted. For since Calvin has persuaded many that the sacraments are not at all necessary for receiving the grace of Christ, especially for the children of faithful men, whom he teaches are born just and holy, it has followed that not a few despise those sacraments, and despise them more every day; and meanwhile the souls of many little ones, which are feigned by Calvin to be holy, not cleansed by the saving waters, remain in eternal filth.
But this is the gravest thing, that this opinion of Calvin makes the sacrament, as I said, false, the minister sacrilegious, and God a liar. For if the sacrament is a divine oath and a seal by which the promise of eternal election is sealed, as often as it happens (and it happens very often) that reprobate men are baptized, so often it also happens that the sacramental words are false, and God lies by the mouth of the minister. Picture to yourselves Philip the deacon present here, baptizing Simon the magician. Surely, when Philip pours the water and says, “I baptize thee,” at that very moment, if we believe Calvin, God too says: “I, the eternal God, testify and swear, and confirm by my divine seal, that you, Simon, were chosen by me from eternity, and irrevocably predestined to the kingdom of heaven.” But there is no one who does not know that that was a false oath and a deceitful seal, since that Simon, impious, a heresiarch and a magician, perished at last. Nor does Calvin guard himself enough when he says that God, so far as it concerns him, offers a true seal and testimony. For he does not only offer, but in fact gives, when men are in fact baptized: for the sacrament is not an offering but a testifying of the divine good will, as the same Calvin teaches in the shorter Catechism. And so he offers the testimony when he offers the sacrament; but when he gives the sacrament and says, “I baptize thee,” he does not offer but gives the testimony, and indeed a false and deceitful one, when the reprobate are baptized.
Three opinions still remain to be shaken out; but since a great part of the hour seems to have passed, I will touch on them briefly and lightly. Andreas Carlstadt, then, that he too might be held the leader of a new band, devised a new dogma: he asserted, namely, that the Christian sacraments are nothing else than certain symbols and tokens by which Christians are told apart from Jews, Mahometans and pagans, such as the toga once was among the Romans, the cloak among the philosophers, and now among Christians the various habits of monks. Nor does what the Anabaptists dispute about the sacraments differ much from this opinion. For they will have the sacraments to be allegories, as they themselves speak, of good works: for men are baptized and receive the body of the Lord for no other cause than to be reminded by that ceremony that the cross and death for Christ, if it comes, is to be borne with a brave heart.
But there is no reason why we should labour much in refuting these opinions, since Luther, Philip, Zwingli, Calvin, Chemnitz and others among the adversaries have so refuted and hissed them off that they have almost put them out and buried them. And surely, if there is no other use of the sacraments except that they divide the Church from other gatherings of men, or remind the faithful of good works, they avail so little that they could almost be called superfluous. For we have other symbols far more striking and more effective than the sacraments are. What? Is not the confession of faith a better token than Baptism, since the confession of the true faith is proper to Catholics, while we have Baptism in common with heretics? Do not exhortations and examples move to good works far more effectively than those sacramental ceremonies? And what need was there for the sacraments to flow from the pierced side of Christ, if they were to effect nothing greater than certain allegories, or than the togas of the Romans or the cloaks of the philosophers?
There remains one, Schwenckfeld, who, that he might settle all the quarrels with one word, and by coining new dogmas might rightly be greeted as a heresiarch, rejected all the Christian sacraments together; as a man spiritual beyond measure and angelic, he thinks one must live by the spirit alone. Nor is it any wonder if bodily sacraments are worthless to him who despises even the letters and words of the divine Scriptures. This I wonder at more, why, not content with the silent thought of his mind, he thought his dogmas should be explained by bodily words and letters: for it does not befit so spiritual a man to entrust the secrets of his wisdom to lung and palate, to tongue and teeth. Here, namely, hearers, Satan was aiming; here he was heading by that long circuit of various heresies: to snatch altogether from Christians those saving fountains, those treasures of divine gifts, those heavenly medicines bought by the blood of Christ. But if these spiritual men had not altogether put off the man, they would surely understand that nothing could be more fittingly instituted by divine providence than that men, who consist of spirit and body, should come through bodily signs to spiritual gifts. “If you were without a body,” says St. John Chrysostom, homily 83 on Matthew, “God would have given you bare and bodiless gifts; but because you have a spirit joined to a body, spiritual things are given you in bodily things.” What of this, that the sacraments themselves are not altogether bodily, but in great part spiritual? The element is bodily, the word too is bodily; but that wonderful power and might by which it comes about that the water touches the body and washes the heart, as St. Augustine speaks, is plainly spiritual. And so the Lord declared to Nicodemus that one must be reborn not of water only but of water and the spirit; namely, as Gregory Nazianzen noted in the oration on Baptism, of water and the spirit for this reason, because a medicine partly bodily and partly spiritual fits most aptly those sick ones whose nature is made up of body and spirit.
We have spoken, hearers, of the name; we have spoken also of the nature and efficacy of the sacrament. And if I now wished to go over the opinions of the heretics on the number of the sacraments, from this too I would easily show how great their vanity and folly is, since Luther alone has counted now one, now two, now three, now even seven sacraments. And if I set about explaining their rites and ceremonies, then above all, though in a serious matter, you would laugh: for there are extant among them almost so many forms of administering the sacraments that they can scarcely be counted; and what they deny can be granted to the supreme pontiffs, that they establish some rite in the Church, any little man among them takes to himself everywhere. And if lastly I undertook to explain what the heretics think of each of the sacraments, I would never find an end. Wherefore we will choose only one out of so many, and having treated it briefly, and passed over the rest, we will make an end of speaking.
Both the Lutherans and the Calvinists labour with all their strength to teach that the true flesh of Christ is communicated to us in the sacrament; and yet with stubborn minds they reject the opinion of the Catholic Church on the conversion of the bread into the flesh. And so Calvin devised so tangled, obscure, strange and incredible a way, by which the true flesh of Christ can be drawn down to us from heaven, and as it were distilled, through I know not what pipes and channels, that I surely, even if I were a Jew or a pagan, would be confident that I could much more easily grasp and believe the conversion of the bread into the flesh which the Church teaches than that Calvinistic fiction, fabricated without authority and without reason.
But the Lutherans have brought forth for the Church another monster, far fouler still. For that it might be easy for them to have the true flesh of Christ present in the sacrament, they taught that the same flesh has been everywhere from its very conception and always, and fills all places whatever in the way God does. Which portent (for it ought not to be called a dogma, or an opinion, or a view, or even a simple heresy) fights with the Scriptures, opposes the Fathers, overturns the creed, confuses the natures of Christ with Eutyches, and lastly, which seems wonderful, destroys the very sacrament for whose establishing it was fabricated. For if the body of Christ has always been everywhere from its very conception, surely he lies who affirms that it was not somewhere at some time: then the angel lies when he says in Mark, “He is risen, he is not here”; for how is he not here, who is everywhere? The Lord himself lies when he says, “Lazarus is dead; and I am glad, for your sakes, that I was not there, that you may believe”; for how, Lord, were you not there, who were everywhere? Further, St. Augustine, to be silent about the others, in the letter to Dardanus, treating this on purpose, teaches at length that Christ is, as he himself speaks, everywhere by that by which he is God, and not everywhere by that by which he is man.
Now this monstrous Ubiquity (for by this barbarous word the barbarous error deserved to be named) so corrupts and distorts the creed of faith that it makes for us the conception of Christ, his birth, passion, death, burial, descent into hell, ascension into heaven and return from heaven, not true and proper, but metaphorical and almost imaginary, with Marcion and Mani. For the creed of the right faith holds of the conception of Christ that the body of Christ was for those nine months in the womb of the most blessed Virgin alone. But that body was also in the wombs of all women, nay and of men too, if it was always everywhere. And of the birth the creed teaches that the body of Christ came out of the womb truly and properly, and in that way was truly and properly born. But if the Ubiquitarians dream truly, before the ninth month it was outside the womb, and after the ninth month it was still in the womb; nor did it ever truly come out of it, or could it, since what is truly everywhere can in no way truly be moved. As, then, God, when he appears somewhere, is not said to have come there properly but metaphorically, because, since he is everywhere, he does not come where he was not, but appears where he was not seen: so too the birth of Christ will have to be called not true and proper, but apparent and metaphorical; since that flesh did not come where it was not, nor leave the place where it was, but only began to be seen where it was not seen before. And the same must be understood of the passion, of the death, of the burial, of the other heads of the faith. For he who was always everywhere passed not truly and properly, but only metaphorically, from the upper room to the garden, from the garden to the council of the Jews, from the council to the praetorium, from the praetorium to Calvary, from Calvary to the cross, from the cross to the tomb, from the tomb to the mountain, from the mountain to heaven. Nor could the body truly be separated from the soul in death; and since both were everywhere, this follows, which is most absurd: that when Christ was dead the body was with the soul in hell, and the soul with the body in the tomb.
What shall I now say of the human nature of Christ itself, and of that highest mystery of the Incarnation, to be adored by the angels? For if the human nature of Christ is not only everywhere, but (as the adversaries teach) has that very divine immensity which God has, so that it can fill infinite spaces, it will itself truly be absolutely immense and infinite; and since it is not infinite in bodily bulk, being wholly everywhere, it will without doubt be infinite in power; and infinite power follows an infinite nature; therefore the human nature of Christ is infinite. Wherefore either there will now be two infinite natures, which cannot be, or, which alone remains, the human nature passing into the divine, there follows the confusion of the natures and the overthrow of the whole mystery. See, hearers, how easily heresy gives birth to heresy, and by erring one comes at last to this, that the very first foundations of the faith are overturned from the roots.
What of this, that this monstrous Ubiquity takes away, as I said, the very sacrament for whose assertion it was fabricated? For if in a private house, in bread, in wine, in fruit, in fish, in vegetables, in every kind of food, in the very air we breathe, we truly take the flesh of Christ, what need is there to come together in church? Why break bread and mix wine? Why pronounce those sacred words? What has the holy supper over a common dinner? What the bread of the Eucharist over the baker's bread? What the altar over the table?
And that you may wonder still more, hearers, at the wisdom of the Lutherans, this new monster, within a few years, in one and the same province, by the same Lutheran authors, came forth, perished, and came to life again. For, devised by Luther himself, as Brenz proves from many testimonies of his, it flourished happily in Saxony while the same Luther reigned; then, when Luther was dead and Melanchthon held power, it began little by little to languish and fail, until at last in Saxony itself, in the Lutheran council of Dresden, which was held thirteen years ago, it was condemned, hissed off and exterminated by public decree; but in these last years, the rule of Melanchthon's party being overthrown, and Schmidlin [Jakob Andreae] ruling in Saxony, Ubiquity was called back again from the dead and restored to its seat with great honour. Such, namely, is the constancy of the Lutheran faith, that now those must be most holy dogmas of faith which thirteen years ago were most pestilent heresies.
But let there be an end; for I do not wish to make a longer speech in going over trifles of this kind. Which, if they were truly held by all men as trifles, would relieve us of great labour and business. But since so great is the craft of Satan, so great the deceit of the heretics, so great the leaning of peoples toward novelties, that very many, I do not say men, but peoples, provinces and kingdoms, have now been persuaded of them, with the greatest loss to the Catholic Church, and the darkening of the honour of God and the merits of Christ, we must therefore strive with all our strength so diligently to apply ourselves to these very studies that at some time we may be able, with Christ as our leader and helper, to uncover the frauds of the heretics, enlarge the glory of Christ, spread the Church, repair the losses, and confound Satan.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
IN SCHOLIS HABITA,
DE IIAERETICORUM LEVITATE
lA RE SACHAME-NTARLV
Ilaerclicos homines, ut est npud Isaiam proplie-
lam cap. 11). spirilu vcrtiginis agitari, cl lamquam
Babylonicacturris aedificalores, sicinlersc linguis
cl moribus cssc divisos, ul alius alium non agno-
scat, nulla rc magis, quam disputatione sacramen-
taria comprobatur. Elcnim cum dc sacramenlis a-
gitur, sivc nomcn, sivo natura, sivc numcrus, sivc
cfricacilas, sivc quid aliud in controvcrsiam addu-
catur, non modo intcr so acerbissimis contcntioni-
bus allcrcantur, scd eliam ila ineplc, atquc absur-
de plerumquc dispulanl, ut de slullitiac palma con-
lendcrc, vel de gloria imperitiae dimicarc vcllc vi-
deantur. Et quoniam praefationcm a nobis solito
pleniorcm, ac Jucundiorem novi hujus gymnasii
amplitudo, nova studiorum auspicia,novi auditorum
concursus, ipsae propemodum scdcs, ac parietcs
poslulare vidcnlur, non mcdiocriter lactor, boc sc
iiiilii hodicrna dic ad dispulandum argumcnlum ob-
lulisse. Dissercndum csl cnim dchacrellcorum hu-
jus temporis vanilatc cl lcvitale. idquc in rc sacra-
mentaria, idest, summis gravissinnsquc nostrac fi-
dei conlroversiis. Quae sane disputatio nec jucun-
ditatc vacua cssc potcrit, cum spcctaculum furio-
sorum inler se, ct cum sanis conccrtantium cxbi-
beat, necsua ctiam ulililalc privabilur, cum hoc c-
xemplo luculcntcr oslcndat, in quas errorum tcnc-
bras incidant,quaequc ad praccipitia absurdissima-
rnm hacrescon ruant, qui scmel a pracclarissima ,
munitissimaque catholicae vcritatis arce rcccssc-
rint.
Principio igilur cnm sacramcnli vocabulum in
(iuacslionem apud hacrcticos nostros vcnissel , cl
^lartinus Lulherus in Haliylonc sua caui vocem
haud multum sibi probari signilicasscl , conlinuo
disci[)uli cjus, {|ui Lulheruui , non ut honiiucui
qucndam vulgarcm, sed ut uovura prupheUim de
bELI.AUMI.VI. Vol. IH.
coelolapsum, suscipicbant, cjusquenonsenlenlias
tantum, sod etiam nutus tamquam oracula obscr-
vabant, sacramenti nomcn apertc improbarc,ac rc-
pudiare coeperunt. Itaque Andrcas Carolslailius in
lib. dc imaginibus el sacramenlis, sacramcnli no-
men palam oppugnavil. Philippus Hclanchlhon in
locis primum cdilis, capitc de signis: Quac.inquil.
alu SacraviGula nos sifina appellamm. quod si
signinomendispli-cet, Scppayloa; appelles, Zwin-
glius in lib.dc vera ctfalsa religionc: Voce??i istam,
Inquit, sacramenli, magnopere cuperem Germa-
nis numquam fuisse receplam. Galvinus, ut cac-
teris gravior ct sapientior videalur,ctsi nomcn hoc
parurii probet lib. 4. Inslitut. cap. li. non laracn
exislimat operacprctium, de nominc liligarc. iNon
diu post cxorta inler Lulhcrum ct Sacramcnlarios
gravissima simultale.cum animadvcrtercl Lulhcrus
sacramenli nomen vchementcr Sacramentariis im-
probari; probare ipse cocpil, accrrimequc tucri ac
propugnarc, ut ex co libro cognosci polcsl , quem
contra Andrcam Carolsladium scripsil : qucm (\m-
dcm Andrcam, aurcum aliquando amicum suum ,
in Absaloncm clJudam poslea conversum iniserere
dcplorat.
Lulhcrum opinionc mutata , sacramenli vocabu-
lum defendcnlem, sequutus csl cjus Achates . Phi-
lippus Mclaiichthon. qui in locis poslcrius cdilis ,
sacramcnli nomiuc passim ulitur ; Scquuti ctiam
caeteri, qui propric Lutherani dioi , atque a Sacra-
mculariis distingui volunl, Brcntius, Tilmannus ,
Ivcmnitius ct alii.
Scd aiidilc, si placct, quibus argumcnlis sacra-
mcnli nomen vcl oppugnet Ciuol.sladius; , vcl tlc-
fendat Luthcrus: Non ptacel. iiKpiit illc, voxisla;
neque eniiii Deiis in sacris liieris usquani impe-
ravil, ul ejasmodi voce ulercmur: ncc iicel iii
i'i{vi:r.vTi(>
rehns divini^ usnqinr^' noPiina, qiuir Dcus noti
JHSseril uiiHrpuri. (".()iilr>\. I.uUhths: Ininio vcro ,
inquil, phtcet vox ista: ncc cnini l>cuii in aacris
lilrri.^i usquuiu }>rohihuil. nc cjunniiua rocc uJr-
rcniur: ct iiuis tundcm cs.C.arolsladi, ul lc pona.^
loco Dci. ct nohis pndiihcas, quod illc non prohi-
buit? ller ineplior, nuililoros'? .Niini si non lic(>l in
reluis ilivinis liis vocihos nli. (lons l)(nis in sacris
liloris ni»n insliluil. iiuliccl noltis r.iirolsliulins, n-
biniiin lcj^oril iii Scriplnris Triniliilcm, cssrnliiiin,
pcrsoniis. vjLOOJcov. aliiKiiie iil {zenns . (niac Irila
.snnl. el ptM*vnl^Mla, non majiis iipiul catliolicos ,
(]naiii a|)n(l ipsos haerclicos Siicriimenlarios ? ol si
non licel lia|)lismnm cl encharisliinn vociire.,sacra-
mcnla. (]uoj l>eiis non jnsscril ila vocari, Cur ipsi
I{,.plismiiin cl Kiicluuisliam sii^na. symholii, losse-
rus. IrsaYioa? apivcllanl.'* .>'e(pie enini locum iii-
(licare pnicrnnl in eviin^elio. vel in Aposlolo. ubi
ejusmoiii vocihus, vel Daplismiis , vel lCucliiirislia
iioininelnr.Sod nec Lulheri riiliociiialio mnIlo|i]us
habcl pomleris, aiil solidilalis.Klenim si prohihcrc
iion liccl ca vocahiihi, (]ua(! Dens in sacris lilcris
non prohihnil: lum ijzilur proliihoiinliir .Vriani Fi-
liiim Dei dicere eTcOsu^iov Palri: siiiaiilur JLicclo-
niiini Spirilum sancliim vocarc crealiiriim: licciil
Jlichaeli Servolo V(Mhnm aelernum (lclinire, idcii-
jcm ralionem Chrisium homincmrepraescnlaiilcm:
Jiherum sil Valeiilino Gcnlili Dcum Palrcm cs-
sentiiiloKMn. Doiim Filiuni cssenliaUim nominarc;
coiic(Mliilur dcniipie. ul alia praelormillam. novls
Samosalcnis. ul vocenl imagines Trinilalis. Cerhc-
ros Iricipiles . el Iricorporcs Geriones: siciuidem
iiihil horum in sacris lileris Deus proliibuisse le-
tiilnr.
i)iianlo gravius. maluriiis. siipicnlius Ecclcsia
(alholica nomcn sacr;imtMili rclinel, qiiod eam vo-
tom iiplissimc quadrare inlelligiil in Hiiplismuin cl
Kucliarisliam, aliaqua ejusdcra gcncris sacra my-
slcria: qnodqnc eadem voce usos esse vidcal Ter-
liiUianuiii. Cyprianiim, L;iclanl um, Amhrosium,
lii(M-onymum. .Vngnslinnm. el quoUpiol jiim iiide
iib inilio Chrisliaiii nomiiiis.de sacris nosirac lidci
rebiis lalinc scrips(M-unl?.">C(l dc nominc salis mul-
la. Ad Sacraraenli nalurara , alque vim aoce-
damus.
Siriplnrcs calliolici lanla consensione docenl.
ac semper doruerunl, novae legis sacromenlii in-
slrumenla qnaedam essc noslrac juslificalionis, ul
id etiam Adversuriorum nostroruni tcslimoniocom-
proholur. Sic enim Calvinus lofiuilur lib. 't. Insli-
lul. cap. 14. § 14. Maxjno consensu sophislicae
scholac. Iradiderunl. sacramenla novae legisju-
stilicare. et conferre (jratiam, modo non pona-
inus obiceni peccali morialis. Quae senlentia di-
ci non potcst quam sU cxilialis etpeslilens.eoqne
mofjis. quod muUis anle saeculis magna Eecle-
siac jactura. ia howK orhis pnrle oblinuil. Ilacc
ilic: qiii. ul videlis, licel pro sno more calholicos,
sophislas, el Ecclesiac fidem. pestcm ac pernici-
em vocel: tamen negare non poluil magnum essc
inter calholicos oinncs conscnsum, ac senlentiam
nostrara mullis jam saeculis in hona orbis lerrarum
parle viguisse: cura de ipsis conlra reclissime, ve-
rissiiueque dicamus, nihil apud cosanliquum. ni-
liil cerlum, niliil f(M-o ah oinnihiis commnni con-
sonsiont! recoplnm, sod omci;i iiovii,incorl;i oninia
ea()ne hrevissimis. ahpic iingnstissimis linihns cir-
(Miiiiscripla. Xiim clsi piMninlti. ac pciic inniiino-
riihilos hoc tcmporo longo.l.ite^pic griissanlur Ilae-
rolici liimon in tol imimlissimas secliis sunl ipsi
divisi. ahpio dissecli, ul miilnni fermc sil eoruni
do^Miia. (piod iidmodum lalo |i;iteat, (piodipie non
iili(|na cc.rta regiono tloliniiiliir. Sano Miirtinns Ke-
innilins in sccunda parlc cxaminis tridonlini con-
cilii de saiM-aiiKMili iialiira. ct potestate disputans,
siiiiimiim inliM- siios, idesl, Liithcri poslcros acdi-
sciimlos. discordiam cssc ingcmic conlilclnr. Et
vcro iiiinium impudiMis fnisscl, si quod csl solis
luce clarins. iiiliciari vnlnissol. IVnmtM-anlur eniiii
iipii I advorsarios, ijiso cliam conscnlienlc Kenini-
tio. iil minimum sex diversac. alque absnrdissi-
iiiac. el iiiliM- so pugnanlos opinionos, dnm aiiud
somnial LiitIi(M-us. iilind sihi liiigil Carolstadius, a-
lind doliriint Anahaplistac . aliiid Zwinglius, aliud
Calvinus, aliud alii comniiniscuutiir inspicianins
panlispcr, iic levitcr disculiamns ineptias singu-
lornm,
Princcps Liilhcrus, cum in l{iibyIone, tum in
asscrlionc Arliculornm, nihil aliud sacramcntum
cssc Yoluit, nisi divinnm tcslimoniuin ad c.\citiin-
diini. vel nulriendam fidem, inslilulum, quod in-
stiir miraculi confirmcl, cl inslar sigilli ohsignct
promissioncm graliiic. Quocirca sacramenla fcro
conferrc solel cnm vellere Gedconis. cum signo
qiiod Isaias oblulitregi Achaz, cum aliis ejusmodi
rairaculis, atque prodigiis. quihus ad faciendam fi-
dom prophclae ct aposloli ulebantur.
Sed liiioc senlenlia lam csl absurda, ut nihil fe-
re cogilari possil absurdius. Nam signa, alquc pro-
digia ad confirmandam pracdicalionem merito ad-
hibenlur, cum sint cx sc nola et illustria, ucque
a pracdicationc ulla rationc dcpendeanl:conlra au-
lem sacramcnla nuliam ex sc vim habenl, iic ne
saoramonta quidcm cssc inlelligunlur,nisi lcslimo-
nio verbi confirmentur. Ilaque qui a praedicalore
divini vcrbi vcl morbos repenle curari, vel daemo-
nes verl)0 pelli, vel caccos iiluminari, vel ab iiife-
ris mortuos revocari conspiciunt, ipsa miraculi vi
lamquiim fiilgorc quodam ila perccllunlur, ac pro-
slcrnuntur, ulvel invili verbis lanli viri fidcm ha-
bcrc cogantur. Qui vcro aquis homincm ablui,
quod in Baplismo facimus, vidcnt, nihil miranlur,
neque facile credunt in ca lolionc aliquid sublimi-
us latere, nisi verbo Dei anle crcdiderint. Quod si
non ante sacraraenla suspicere incipimus, quam
verbo Dei fidem habeamus: quo pacto, quaeso, fic-
ri polcst, ul sacramenlis divina cioquia confirmcn-
lur? An non ridiculus essel. qui ethnico dicerct;
Ul credas vera esse quae dico, amphoram istam
aquac super caput tuum effundam? Egregia sane
probalio: nisi cnim ex Dei verbo disceremus lolio-
ncm illam. et iliam unclioncm ad purgimdos ani-
mos valcre, quis id crcderel? quis non riderel?Ne-
qne enim id Iiabet aquac nalura, ul morbos animi
curet,ct cordis maoulas eUial; sed quidquid in hoc
gcnere polcsl, ex inslilulione divina polesl, divi-
nam autcra inslitulioncm divina cloquia patefa-
ciunl.
Pli.VKF Al 10 7
Porro comparalio ilki. qiiii veiitimi (liplodiiili.si- lociim cs^c, , iirt>-iiiii,;(iltim (lucerc ;i!> ainionl.iic
cramenlum sigillo ;il> advcrsariis passimronfertiir, iici?alivc. Vel igilur locum iiuliccl iii vcrho Dei,ubi
tjim esl incpl;i\ ul uihil iucptius linp;i quciil: mul- saciMiuoiila novao lcgis, leslimoiiiii iiomiiicnlur ;
lot[uc rcclius verhum Dci. sioillum sacrauieiili. vcl cerlc ;irn;umculo vchcmeiilissimo nl rohuslis-
/iUiim sacr;uueulum. vcrhi I)ci sii^illum dici possil. simo sciiliMiliam suam uos rcfut;uc hilciilur.
?\;i\u ul siptillum. etiam sinc <iiplomale virn suaiu Venio nunc ;i'l Zwiui^dium. Is iu lib. dc vera ot
liabet, al.|ue agnoscilur cl lionoriitur; diplom;i si- lalsa religiouc, iihi Luihcri seiilenli;im, aliasiiuc
ne sii,'illo iiou agnoscitur esse diploma. iiec vim uounull;is satis ;icrilcr oppui2;n;ivil, aperil mcntcm
uUaul liabcl: sic cti;im verhum Dei sine teslimojiio suam ac docet. sacriimcnta nihil csse aliud. nisi
sacrainenti, suam. camque summam habct aucto- quandam oppigiicrationeui, ac vchiti jusjurandum,
rilatcra: sacramcnlum vcro sine verbi teslimonio, quo se hoinincs Christo. et cjus Kcclcsi;ie fidelcs
nullam. i>ion igilur sacrameutum, ulilli volunt, si- fore puhhce prolilcntur; ox qiiu illud scquilur. iii
jiillum vcrbi, sed vcrbum. sigillum s;icramenli no- sacramculorum cclcbralionc nihil Christum agere,
niin;iri de!)uissot. cl non modo non purg;ir(>, peccat;i. neque homiucs
Dciu.h- <i sacramcntum, ut Lulhcrani vohitil, iii- rcnovare, ul voluul c;iili(dici. sed ne atleslari qui-
hil est ;iliutl, nisi excilandae, vel alemhie lidci iu- dem noslr;ie juslificationi , ut docent Luther^ini.
slrumenlum, quorsum infantes. amentes,dormien- Quae scnteniia lantum .'djesl. ut ullo Scriptur;io
les intcrdum iii Ecclesia baptizanlur? Niim ea vis leslimnnio coufirmari queal.ul ciim uuivcrsis Scri-
iii sacramenlis, ut iis eliam qui usum ralionis noii pluris ;ipcrlissime pugnet. Kani si Daplismus meu
habcnt, lidem persuadeanl? An [lotius recle docont lantum ost oppignenitio , non nulom (Uiristi aclio,
Anabaptislae solis adultis, sanis ac vigilanlihus sa- quid est (juod ait Joaunes: lUc esl qnl haptizat. ?
crauicnta prodcssc? Hinimc rcro. inquiunl. Lullie- quid esl illud, quod ait Aposlolus: Clirislus dile-
i;ini. quin potius graviter errant Anabaptistae, xil Ecdesiam, ct Iradidit semclipsum vro ca ,
homines fanatici ac furiosi, dum infantcs bapti- mundans eam lavacro aquae in verbo vilaePe.l si
zariprohibent. ISam ctsi parvuli alio tempore Baplismus non purgal pcccata . sed lestimonium
judicio ralionis carent, tamen dum baptizantur, solum praehel ruturao lidolitalis.cur Paulo Auanias
sic in carum mentibus operatur IJeus , ut ct ver- dixil: Jiaptizare, el ablue pcccata tua? €ur i|>se
bum Dci audiant, et Deum etiam agnoscant, ac Paulus Baptismum definivit iav^icrum regeneratio-
diUgant: quemadmodum olim s. Joanncs inu- nis? et quid sihi vult illud, quod j;mi cilavinius ,
tcro matris. Christi pracsenliam sensit . et prae Mundans eam lavacro aquae in verbo vitac? De-
gaudio exultavit. En vobis quo se miseri praeci- nique ut alia inulia praeloream , res esl in Eccle-
|)il;int:nec esl omnino locus alius.quo se recipianl: sia explorata ac cerla. el ipsis etiam focminis ac
urgcut enim vehcmcnter Anaba[)listae, et sic un- pueris nota, sacramenla chrisli;iua ex Chrisli piis-
.li(|U(! Lulheranns clausos tencml, ul vel capi de- sione ac mcrilis virn luibere: ;ilque in ejiis rei si-
he;inl. vcl in liujus novi erroris fovcam sponle c;i- gnum s;inguinom, el ;iquam ex Chrisli latcre pro-
dcie. Sed noque il;i cirugiunt: nam in ista ips;i fo- fluxisso. Tu,nc. in(|uit s. I^eo cpisl. i. c;ip. 0. re-
ve;i ;irmato dilemmatc obruuntur, atquo conficiun- gencrationis potentiam sanxit, quando delaterc
iiir Liitheraiii. Vidistis, opinor , aliquaudo. infan- cjus proflucrunt sanguis rcdemptionis et aqna el
los duin ba[)lizantur, quam refugianl, ejulent,obIu- baptismatis. Quod idcm Amhrosius in Lucam, Au-
ctentur? Quacro igitiir. vol intclligunl (juid ;igant, guslinus, Chrysoslomus, Cyrillus, Theophylacttis
vel non inleUigunt.Si uon iutclligunt.nec credunt: iii Joannem, ;innol;irunl. Al([uo hinc aposiohis Pau-
si non crediinl. pcrpemm b;inti/antur; et viccrunt lus duo illa coujiinxil; Tradidil semeiipsum pra
Aii;ih;iptisl;io. Si intolligunt, s;icrilcgi sunt, qui sic ea; et, Mundans eam lav icro aquac: qui;i videli-
|)ci'vic;icitcr s;icranienl;i rocus;inl.ncc tam i)urg;in- cet nihil css(!t aqua, nisi a(]u;i. nisi vim ([u;indam
Iiir. ([Uiim m;icul;iiitur. Non igilur baplizeulur ; ct mirific;im ex illius sangiiine tr;iheiel , qui Iradidil
vicerunl An;ib;iptistae. Quid? quod has ineptias scmclipsum in montcm, ut cxhihcrct i|)se sibi glo-
jam olim in epist. ad Dardaniim risil Augustinus,et riosam Ecclesiam. Ilinc denique cl .loanncs cla-
iiil cxemphim s. Joannis. (|ui singulari mir;iculo in mal://mc e.s^ quivenit por aquain elsanguinem:
iilcro exiill;ivit, argute res()on(hl; ;ili([ii;indo eliam cl rursum repetit: ISon inqua soluni: nimiruin ut
;isiii.'im Balaiiin sa|)ienler esse Ioquutam,nec lamen quondam Jo;innes Baplista:8r;(i in aqua et sangui-
oh id admonitos (!sse hominos in dcliberalionibus ne. idest, iu ;iqu;i admixta s;inguini, atque ob eum
siiis ;isiuiii;i e\[)cclare cousilia. s;inguincn» ;id omiii;i (diienda pecc;ila enic;i<'.issima.
Scd Lulhcrum dimitlam, si unum ab eo quae- Scdsi v.-raeslnova thcoIogiaZwinglii,orratJoanncs.
sicro. inquonam evaugclio, vcl apostolo, vel [iro- (alliUir P;iulus,hallucinantur Palres univcrsi.inanis
[)hela legerit, siicr;micuta novae legis esse tesliino- esl confcssio populorum ac geiilium,Christus i|)so
ni;i, vclsigilla vcrhi Dci? Nos quidcm p;i*sim higi- rrustra hitiis suum a|)criri, ot s;inguinom_ot aquam
mus .foannis .'LActor.22. l.ad Corinth.C). adEphes. inde manaro voluil. Quid enim opus fiiil Chrisli
1. ;id Tiluin 3. 1. Pclri .'{. B;iplismo r(m;isci, ;iblui, passione, ;ic niortc a<l s;icr!iiiiciitii institiionda. si
[mrgiiri sanclilicari, renovari, s;dvari lideles: ohsi- niliil siicrum, nihil divinuiii liiibiMit, iiihil [lossunl,
gu;iri promissioncs nusqu;im logimus, nisi forh; iii nihil ehiciuul. noo siint aliud nisi lcstimoni;i. vel
ev;ingeIio secundum Lulhorum. Xcqiie polcst Lu- pignora quaodam hun)an;i?
thcrus hoc ai-guiiicnluni conlemiKMt! , cuni in lih. Jam vcro Joiiniics Ciilviiuls inirii c;illidiliil^.i'um
iidversus Joiinnciii Cochlaeum scri[)luni rcli(|ucrit. Ltijhcrumsimul ac Z\viii<;liuiii ;iiii[)lccli velh; yid<!a-
in rcbussacris vchcmenlissimuin ct robustissimum luf, ab utro([ue dissentil, ahiue ulro([uc icjcclu,
BQ
7007
iMui:iAiin
consliUiil. Ilisonim vrr-
J ■' H. vj I. MTillU
I : s;itiaimMili con-
Ijiieri: :>acr(iinnnnm, exli-rum est siimbulnmjjuo
f ' ' , con-
■ : , . . — -nncn-
i. (iv imlteciUUalcm, ct uosvirissini
, tn tani corani vo ct an-
t," i ^i "< "^ ^'>l<n/n<r AUiis noii ju-
urcl, (liilviiii > , iin i'\ l.nllirri. /.\vin;;Uii|UC
scMitcn(i.i cs^c coiitialam? ^tuod cnitn Calvinus ail:
> i.iMii lMMic\(ilt'iMi;ic a Doniino
• . Min lidci iiiiliccillilalcni, c\
laiUicro sum|itum vidcri polosl: qnod vcro addil.
cudcm nos sacr.uncnto lcslari novjirani oip;! Domi-
num |uclalcm,ad /,\\int;liiscnlcnii;im pcrlincl. Scd
iioii lanta crat vcl iii Calvino niiMlcsli;i. vd in Ln-
liicru cl /vviui^liu auclorilas, ul liorum illc disci-
pulus aul csse. anl liahcri sc p;ilcrcliir. Ilaiiun li-
ccl Z\viin;liu CaUinns conccd;il, sacr.iincnla cssc
(|uaiidain veiuli prorcssioncm no.slr;io cr^Mi Dcum
lidelilatis: iD cu lainon ah co dissi iilit, (|nod iicjinl
liunc csbc vcl solum. vcl iiiiin;uiiim s;icraniciilo-
lorum usum. et ea de caussa, noniinc Zwinjilii
pr;:ctcrmisso.cjusscntcnliamloconolalo pahim op-
puijnat.umniaipic ipsins arjriiinonln si^Mll;diin dilu-
il. Inlcr Lullicrum aulom.cl (',;ilviiuim lioc iiiUMcst
quod cum ulerquc sacramcnla facial toslimonia,
vcl sigilla divimie promissioiiis.e;im proiiiissionniii
cssc vull Lullicrus juslilicalionis praesciilis,Calvi-
uus clecLonis aolcrnae.
(>uamobrcm in Anlidolo Concilii , scssione se-
^' . ■• " i:e (|uinlo.inraiilos liaplirari dicil.non ul in
■ icin liUitrum ;i Deo rccipiiinUir, scd ul ob-
- -::clur promissio viloe, quac ad cos pcr grali;im
■^liiialionis jam anln pcrliiicbal, VA scssiono
^ . :, canone scplinio ad eum fincm sacramciila
rcrcrcnda essc afliruKil. iil ccrlos nos rcd(!;iiit pcr-
pcluae adopUonis el^raliae. ad quam vi(jclicct
unte uiundi coiislilulionom pracdosUiKili surnus.
Sed haec scnlcnlia niulu> iKiiiiiiiil.us r;dsa. ab-
surda, perniciosa, impia est. IVam et cum Scriplu-
hs apcrlc piij:n;it,oi niiillis rejinnmcocloriun clati-
dil, ei sucraiiicnlum falsmn, inMiislros s;icrib'gos,
Dcum mendacem ct quasi pcrjurum facil. Si fal-
suQi, nun est, sacramcnla solum ad praclerilum,
iUcsl. ad tiratiam clccUonis rcforri: curAnnnias in
prcscnti dicil: Kxurrjc cl txiplizarc.oAahlue pec-
cuUUiw.vCurDapliMnum Paulus vocal lavacrum
r • ■ ralionisVCnr cundcni Daplisnmni rclrus ac-
' . .1 iu renii^sioncm pcccalorum ? El quao
landem esl isla tomcritas, vel furor polius, cl a-
T pro\ocare catbolicosait ScripUiras, el la-
; — .,.iid ScripUiraeomncs clamcnl nollo audirc,
id vcru obsUnale asscrcrc.ac Uicri.qiiod nusciuam
»n divinis lileris ostendi qucai?
Absurdam vcro S(Mil»M.Uam cssc.pcr sacramcnla
obsignari consoicnliis proiiiissiune.s,lieri polcsl c\
parvulorum Bapli.smo pianissiinum. .<iquidcm rilc,
liliier parvulos baplixari. Calvinus conlra
..... , Ualas muUis in locis doccl,cum lamcn pnr-
vuli ul usu ralionis, ila cUam conscicnli;i c;ircaiil:
quod ne ipse (|uidcm Oilvinus negare ausus fuil in
4. lib. In.sUtut. cap.HJ.El vcro si promissio diplo-
m;i (piodd;im osl, saoramonUim sigillum. cl coii-
.scicnlia ocra,vcl cli;irl;i. ul C;ilviniis ^igniiical: c-
gro^riuni s;ini' niir;iculnin C;ilviiiisl;i(; l;iciunl, ouni
parvulos b:ipli'/:iiil: ii;iin ol diploma scrilniiil siiu;
cli;irUi, ol M;:illnin iiiipi iiiuiiil sinc ccr;i.
Essc aiiloiii o:iiidi'iii soiiIimiU:iiii niullis ;ic polis-
sinuini parvulis pcrniciosani,dubilari ccrte non po-
tcsl. .N;iiii (11111 s;i(r;inuMiln C;ilviiuis. (iliis pr;u',-
.scrliiii luiniiiiuiu lidcliuiii. (pios jiislos ac s;inclos
iiasci doc(d. ad accipiciuhim Cliribti gr:iliam iiiiiii-
me ncccssaria csse, niultis pcrsu;iscril, id consc-
(puilumcst.utnoiipaiici c;i(ioiii s;icr;imcnla conlcm-
pscrint, ntquc iiidics ni;ij;is coiiiciiiiuinl. ;il(iuc in-
tcrim niullorum aniniac parvuloruni, qu;ic sanclac
a C;ilvino cssc fi^unUir. non cxpiiiUic snlutaribus
iKliiis. iii aclornis .^^oriHbtispcrscvcrcn!.
Sod ilUid gravissinium.quod isUi C;ilvini scnlcn-
li;i s;icr;iinonUim. nt diNi, falsum, iTiinislruin s;ic:i-
logiim.Doiim nion(l;KMMn f;u'il.l']t('nim si sacrnnuMi-
luiii diviiiiuii osl jiisjiir;ui(liini, :ilquo sigilbun, quo
eleclionis aclcrnao promissio obsiEjnnlur, quolics
oonlinijil (onntin^il niilom frcquculissiiuc), ul rc-
prolii ti;ipli/.oiitur totics ilcm coiitingit, iit sncr;i-
mciit;ili;i vcrbasinl Inlsn, cl oro minislri mcnlinlur
Dcus. Fingile animis adcssc Jnm lioc loco Pbilip-
pum di;iconuiii. (pii uniiriuuii Simonciu bnpli/cl:
ccrlc (M1I11 IMiilippus ;iqii;un ;ispcrgit, ac dicit; Ego
le bapUzo, eodcin ipso mcnicnlo, si Culvlno crc-
diiuus, cl Dctis (lioil: Etjo Dciis aclcrnus teslor ac
juro, el sigillo nico diviiio confirmo,tc Siiuoncm ;i
iiicj;im indc ab aclcrnitate clcclum, ct nd rcgnuiu
coclorum irrcvocnbililcr prncdcslinaluni.Alqui f;il-
suni iusjur;indum. rnlln.\ sigilliim biissc, nciuo esl
(ini ncscint, ouin Siiuon illeiiiipius, Ii;icrosi;ircli;i.
ct uiagnus landem perieril. Neque vero salis sibi
cnvcl (^;ilvinus. cum nil Dcum, qnod nd sc ;illinc!,
vcrum sigillum ac lcslimoniiiin oircrrc. Nam iion
ollcrl solum, scd cliam rcipsa pracbcl. cum rcipsii
bomincs bnpliznnlur ncque enim sacramentum ob-
hiUo, scd iusli(ic;ili() est divinnc bcncvolcnlinc, ul
idciii ipsc (ioocl Calviiuis in Cntecliisiiio brcviorc.
Ihupie luin offcrt lcslimonium, tum oircrl sncr;i-
iiuMitiiiu: cum nulcm sncr;iiiuMilum prncbct, ac di-
cil: Ego tc bnpii/o. non oncrl, scd pr;icbcl lcsli-
iiionium. cl (luidcm fnlsum el fallax, ciim rcprobi
b;iiilizanlur.
Tres adliuc supcrsunl c.xculicndiic opinioncs;
scd cas, quin niagnn p;irs liorn prnolcriisse vidc-
lur, brcvilcr Icvilcrqne nllingnm. Igilur Andre;!s
C;iioIsta(lius, ul ipsc quoqiic dux novi agminis h;i-
bcri poss(!l. novuiii dogina cxcogilnviUnimirum ;is-
scruil, nibil cssc niiud sacr;mienta clirisli;inn,qnniu
symbola quacdam,nc lcsseras,quibus inlcrnoscun-
Uir Cliristinni ;i .liidaois. Mnbumeliinis, l*n;-!;anis:
qu;ilcs cr;iiil olim ;ipud liouuiiius lognc, pniliii a-
pud pliilosopbos, cl nunc apud Cbrislianos vcsli-
mciiUi varin monnoboium. lAcque muUum ab bac
scnlenli;i discrep;il, qiiod AnabapUslno dc sacr;i-
menlis dispul;inl. Si(iuid<Mii sncrninciila csse vo-
lunt allcgorias, ul ipsi loquuntur , opcrum bono-
ruiiKuon cnim ;ili;i dc c:iuss;i liomin^s bnptizari.ct
corpiis Doniini suincrc, nisi ut ndmoiuMintur ca
cacremouin, sibi crucem cl morlcm pro Cbristo;
si rcslulcril, forli nnimo csse lolcrandam.
PR.VEFATK) f>
Sed non cst quod mullum laboremusln liisscn- quanla eorum vanitas cl slultilia sit: cnm unus Lu-
lcnliis rcrcllcndis. oum cas Lulhcrus, Pliilippus, thcrusmodo unura,raodo duo, modo Iria, raodo c-
Zwinglius. Calvinus, Kcnmitius, atquc alii ex Ad- tiam septcm sacramcnla numcraverit.Si vero cliam
versariis ita confiilarint ct cxploserint, ut pene e- rilus,ac caercmonias corum cxplicure aijgrcdcrer,
tiam cxtinxcrit; ac scpclierinl. Et sane si non cst tum vero maximc.quamvis in rc scria,ridcrclis: Tot
alia sacramenlorum ulihlas, nisi ut Ecclesiam ab enim ferme apnd cos cxstanl formac sacramcnto-
aliis horainum coetibus dividant.vel operum bono- rnm adminislrandorum, ul numerari vix queant el
rum fidcles admoneanl, adeo parum valent, ut pc- quod summis pontificibus tribui posse ncgant. ul
ne supervacanca dici possint, Ilabcmus enim alia rilum aliquera in Ecclesia slatuanl, id sibi apud
symbola multo quam sacramenla sinl: illuslriora, cos quivis homuncio passim assumit. Qnod si po-
et efricaciora. Quid an non conlessio fidci melior stremo quid de sacramentis singulis haerclici sen-
tesscra est, quam baptismus, cum confcssio vcrac liant, explicandum suscipcrcm, nullum unqnam
iidci calholicornm propria sit. Baptismum aulem exituni reperirem.Quamohrem unum lanlum e lani
communem cum iiaerclicis habeamus? An non et- multis seligemus, coque breviler pertractalo,prae-
iam longe efQcacius movenl ad opcra bona exor- termissis caeteris, fincm dissercndi faciemus.
lalioQCs et exempla, quam caercmoniae illae sa- Laborant totisviribus cumLutherani,lumCalvini-
cramentales? Et quid opus erat, ut sacramenta ex stae, utveram Chrisli carncm in sacramenlo nobis
Christi lalere perfosso manarent, si nihil majus communicari doceant; et tamen Ecclesiae calholi-
effeclura erant, quam allegoriae quaedam, vcl cae sententiam de conversione panis in carnem
quam Uomanorum togae.vel palliaphilosophorum? pervicacibus animis rejioiunt. Ilaque Calvinus a-
Unus restat Swenchfeldius,qui ut uno verbo con- deo implicatam, obscuram, mirabilem, incredibi-
lentioncs omnes diriraeret, et nova dogniata cu- lcm, rationem excogilavil, qua Chrisli vera caro
dendo hacresiarcha jure salulari posset, omnia si- per nescio quasfislulas, el canales ad nos de coe-
mul chrisliana sacramenta repudiavit; quippe ho- lo derivari, et quasi dislillari possil; ul ego sane
ino supra modum spirilalis, atque angelicus, solo etiamsi Judacus, vel Paganus essem, multo facilius
spirilu vivendum putat. Nec mirum si sacramenta caperc et credere me posse confidcrem conversio-
ci corporalia sordeant, qui Scripturarum etiam di- nem panis in carnem. quam docel Ecclcsia, quam
vinarum lileras, et verba contemnit. Illud magis ealvinisticum, illud, sinc aucroritate, et sine ratio-
admiror. cur non lacita menlis cogitatione coulen- ne fabricatum figmenlum.
tus, verbis et lileris corporalibus dogmata sua ex- Lulherani antem aliud monslrum longe eliam
plicanda putaveril: non enim decet virum tam tclrius Ecclesiae pcpererunt. Nam ul facilc eis es-
spirilalem, pulmoni ac paIalo;Iinguae ac denlibus set veram Christi carnem in sacramenlo habere
sapicntiae suae arcana commiltere. IIuc vidclicet praesentem, eandcm carncm ab ipsa sua conce-
Aud.Satlian spcctabat.buc tendebal longo illo am- ptione ubique tuisse.ac sempcr,omnia(iue omninu
bitu haeresnm variarum, ut fontes illos salutares, loca, eo modo quo Dens fucil, replere docuerunt.
thesauros illos charismalum divinorum, pharmaca Quod portentum (neque enim dogma, vcl scnlen-
illa coclcstia Christi sanguine comparata omnino lia, vcl opinio, vel simplcx ctiam hacresis noraina-
Chrislianis criperet. Sed si non plane isti spirila- ri dcbet) Scripturis repugnal, advcrsalur Palribus.
les hominesbominem exuissent,intelligerent ppo- cverlil, symbolum, Chrisli naturas cum Eutycliel*!
fecto, nihil raagis apposilum a divina providentia conlnndil; et ipsnm deniqne quod miraudum vi-
instilui potuisse, quam ut homines, qui spiritu el delnr, sacranicnlum deslruil, pro (pio aslrucmJo
corpore constant.per c.orporalia signa ad dona spi- rahricatnm cst. Nam si Clirisii corpus ab ipsa sua
ritalia pervenirenl: Si In, inquit s. Joanries chry- conceplione semper nbi^iuc fuil,mcnlilnr cerle qui
soslomus hom. 8.3. in Malth. incorporcus essc, illud alicidii aliquando non fuissc anirmal: ergo
nuda tibi Deu$, cl incorporea dona tradidisscl: mcnlilur angclus, cuai a|)ud Marcura aii:' Surrexii
scd quoniani corpori adjunclum spirilim liahcs, non csl hic: (luomodo enim hic uon esl, qui ubi-
in rebus corporalilms spirilalia lihi traduntur. (pie est? Dominus ipse mentiturcura ait: Lazarus
Qnid? qned \\\sn cliam sacraraenta non omnino niorluus cst, ct (laudeo proplcr vos, ut crcdalis,
corpor;dia,sed magna cx iiarle spiritalia sunt?Cor- quia 7ion eram ihi: (piomodocniiu Domine ibi non
porale est elementum.corporale etiam verbum;sed cras, qui nbique eras? Porro s. Aiiguslinus, ut de
mirifica illa virtns ct potestus qiia sit, ut aqua cor- cactcris la('cum, iii (qiisl. ad Dardaiium ex propo-
pus langat, et cor ablnat,ul sanctiis loquitur Augu- silo Iioc tractans, copiose (l»)cet, esse Chrislura.ul
slinns, plane spirilalis cst. Ilaque Dominus Mco- ipse loquitur, per id (luod Dcus cst, ubi([uc;pcr id
demo, non cx aqm» solum, sed ex aqua et spirilu (piod horao esl, non ubique.
rcnascmidiim esse pronunciavit, nimirnm, ut Gre- Jani vcro synibolum fidci monstrnosa ista Ubi-
gorius nay.ianzcnus iu oralioiie de IJaplismalc an- (piilas (hoc cnim barbaro vocabulo barbarns error
notavit, idco cx aqua et spirilu, quia medicamcn- iiominari meruit),ila cornimpil, alque dcpravat, ut
liim parlim coiporale, partiin spiritale, aptissime Christi conccptionem, ortuni, [lassionem, obilum.
convcnil iii eos acgrotos, (piorum luilura corpore sepultnram, descensionem ad iiiferos, nivcrsionem
elspirilu conlinelur, ab iufcris, ascensionein iii cocluiu. rcv(U-sion(!iu a
Diximus Aiid. de nomine. diximus etiam de na- coelo, non vera et propria, sed melaphorica, ac
turn et cflicacilate sacraiiicnli. <hiod si jam de nu- pcu(; |)liauta.slica ciiiu Murcioiio c.l .llaiiichuco iio
mcro sucraiiK^ntorum, haerelicorum seiilculias c- bis cllicial. Id (uiim habct dc Clirisli conc(!plioiic.
uumerarc vellcm:liinc eliau! lucile dcmonslrarem, symbulum rcctae fidei, in bolius bcatis.^imac Vir-
10
i'ii\i:i \in>
;:inis utero CUrisli corpu* novcin illis nioasibus
luissc: AU|ui iilfin illu»! rorpus iu ulrris oiunium
rotMuinaruiu, im:no eliaiu »'l virormii fuil.si uhiquc
srmppr fuil. Uo orlu voro iii symbulum dorol.Cliri-
>h corpus iiou fXiuMo mriise vcre. rl proprio p\ ii-
Ipro prodn.isc; cl ou ino«lo vore. el proprio n;ilum
••>•«»•. .\l si vera soniui.inl rbKpiisl.ie. .iiilf iioiiiim
meiisem er.il e\lra uieruiu.elposl uouuiii lueiisom
a<ihuccml in ulero; ncque imle unquam vero pro-
(liil, nul proilire polesl, riiiu ul, ipiud v.to iil»i(Hio
rsl. nulla ralioiie vere luoven (pieal. yuemadmo-
>luin ijjilur Peus rum apparol aliciibi. uon co vc-
iiisse propric, scil nioUi|)borioo dicilur. ijuia ubi-
«|ue rum sil. non vonil ubi non eral, scd apparol
ubi non videbalur: sio oliaiii Clirisli orlus, lum ve-
rus HC proprius, scd apparcus. ac melapliorictis
diccnduscril: ouiii non veneril illa oaro iibi uou o-
r;.l. noc looum desoriioril. ulu oral. sod corui lan-
luin ooepenl. ubi aiiloa minimo ooruobalur. Ouod
idem <lc passionc. de morle. «le sopulluia.de cne-
lcris lldoi capitibus inkllijii dobol. Oiii oiiim scm-
pcr ubique fuil.nou vore olpniprio. sod moiaplio-
ricc soluin Ironsiil dc ooeiiaculo ad liorlum. (i(!
h(»rlo ad ooiioiliuin Judaeormn. dii oouoilio ad
praeiurium. do praelorio ad oalvariiim. de oalvario
.'ui oruoom. do orucc ad sepulcbruin. de sepuloliro
;iii moulcm, dc inoiilo ad ooelum. Noc iioluil verc
III morlc corpus ab aninia soparari: cl ouin ulrum-
qiie ubique fueril. id ffliciUir. «iuod osl absurdis-
siinum. ut fueril Cbrislo morluo. eorpus cum aiii-
iiia in inferno, cl anima cuiii corporc iu scpul-
obrti.
Quid jam de ipsa bumana rjuisli nalura. dcquc
illo summo, alquc angelis adoraiido iucarnaliouis
mysterio dicam? Nain sibumaiia Clirisli nalura iioii
inodo ubiquc csl, sod (ul advcrsani doceul) illain
ipsam habel divinam immensilalcm: quani I)(^us
liabel. ul infinila spatia replere queal.eril ipsa vc-
in ei absolulc immiMi^a cl inliuiln: cl cum molc
rorporoa non sil infiuila, quippe quac lola ubique
rsl. cril sine dubio inlinila virlule: virlus aulcm
inliiiila nalurain scqiiilur inlinitam: i^ulur (llirisli
o.Tn» nalura esl inlinila. Qnare vcl diiae jam crunl
inlinitnc nalurae, quod flcri ncquit.vei quod solum
rcslat. biimana in divinam Iranseunle nulura. el
nalurarum confusio. cl lolius myslcrii labclacla-
lio coiiscqueUir. En nobis qiiam facilc liaercsis
Itaercsim parit , el eo tandcm crruudo vcnilur,
ut ipsa prima lidei fundamcnla radicitus evcrtan-
tiir.
«Jiiid. qiiod porlontosa isla llbiipiitas, sacramen-
liim ipsum. iildioobam, lollit, pro ipio asserciulo
fabnoala esl? ,^am si ipsa privala domo in paiie. in
vino. iii pomis, iu pisoibus, iii oleribiis. in omni
cibonim j;enore,iii ipso aerequeuiallraliimus.Clin-
sli oarnem vcrc sumimus, (]uid ik^ccssc csl iu lic-
clcsiam oouvenire? cpiid paiicm rraugcrc <;l vinuiii
misooro? (luid verba illa sa('ra proiumoian;? Quid
liabol sacra oocua prae vulj^ari praiidio? Qiiid pa-
nis Kuobaristiac prac pauc pistoris? quid allaru
pracmousa.
.\t(pio iil ma;:is adliuc, l.iillierauorum sapienlia m
admiromiiii.uovuiii lioc moiislrum intra piiuoos an-
nos, iii una eademqiu; provin(;ia,iisdcm aiioloribus
I.otli(>raiiis prodiil, periit, revixit;siquidcin ab ipso
l.ullicro.iil c\ uuillis cjiis l(5siimouiis Brentius pro-
bat. exeoj,Mliiluin codctn rcgnante Liithero lelici-
ler iii Saxonia noruit, Lulbcro dciude morluo, ac
rerum poiientc Melauclitliouc,paulalim langucsce-
re ao (lolicere coepil: donec tandem in ipsa Saxo-
iiia iu Drcsdeusi Lulhcranorum concilio.quod anle
aiuios iredeoim habilum csl, publico decrelo dain-
natuiu.e\i)l()siiin.exleriniualuiii esl: scd his |)!'oxi-
mis aiinis ,M(danclilliouico cverso impcrio. atque
imperaule i:i Saxouia Selimidclino, rursiis ab infe-
ris r('V(tcala. el in suain sedcni reslituta inagno
eiim lioii()r(! Ibiquilas est.Ita vidclicct cst constan-
lia lidei Lulhoranac, ut nunc sacrosancla fidei dog-
niala ess(! debeaiil. quae anlc aunos tredecim pc-
stiloiilissimae bacrcses eraul.
Sed linis sit, nolo cnim in cjusmodi nugis pcr-
cciiseiidis orationem ponere longiorem. Quae la-
men. si iilvercsunl, sic ab omnihus hominibus
luibenMVpiir pro nugis.lahorc nos at(pie ncgolio ma-
gno levarcnt. Scd quoniam tanta est Satanae ver-
suiia. laula haerelicorum fallacia, lanla populoruni
ad rcs iiovas propensio, ul pcrmullis jain, non in-
quain hominibus. sed populis, provinciis, reguis ,
ouin summa Eeelcsiae catlioliene Jactura, el ho-
noris Dei. Chrislique merilorum obscurationc per-
suasae sint: idoirco nobis tolis viribus etiilen(juiii
es!, ul in haecipsa sludia. ita diligcnler incumba-
miis, iil aliqurindo haercticorum fraudes dclcgerc ,
Chrisli gloriam amplificarc Ecclcsiam propagare,
damna rcsarciro, Salanani confundere Chrislo du-
ce, el adjulore valcamus.