Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacraments in General · Book I: On the Nature and Causes of the Sacrament
Chapter 2: On the falsehoods and calumnies of the adversaries (Luther)
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. III, De Sacramentis in Genere, Book I: On the Nature and Causes of the Sacrament. 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).
The falsehoods of the chief enemies of the Church must necessarily be noted, because this avails much to detract from their authority — Luther himself being witness, who once thus wrote in his book against Emser: “If I were once caught having so lied, being false and grossly foolish, now my whole doctrine, and honor, and faith, and fidelity would utterly have an end; everyone, as is just, would hold me for a worthless and infamous rascal.” And also because this very vice Luther did not blush to attribute to the Catholics by a most impudent falsehood. For thus he writes in the book against Cochlaeus: “But I plainly attribute this to the divine Counsels, that the Pope and the Papists have almost no patrons except those who by notable ignorance or impudent falsehoods always traduce their own authority, that no one may any longer be deceived by the Roman abomination.” And below: “The lot of the Pope is certainly to be bewailed, that his own men descend into the arena protected by nothing but falsehoods.” So he. Which words most aptly suit Luther himself; for, as John Cochlaeus testifies in the acts of Luther of the year '23, scarcely any of the Catholics wrote against Luther without convicting him of many falsehoods; of whom one, Dietenberger, collected out of two of Luther's little books above eight hundred falsehoods. Finally, by nothing do they hurt the Church more than when by their falsehoods they persuade the peoples that we think and teach otherwise than we really think and teach. Accordingly it is a most useful thing to detect their falsehoods. We therefore will briefly note only certain grosser falsehoods about the Sacraments.
Luther then, in the book On the Babylonian captivity, chapter 1, which is on the Eucharist, first lies when he says: “I care not for the Council of Constance, whose authority, if it avails, why does not that of Basel also avail, which decreed the contrary, that it is lawful for the Bohemians to take both kinds? Which this flatterer ignorantly adduces for his dream.” So there. And truly that the Councils of Constance and Basel fight with each other as to Communion under one kind is a most impudent falsehood. For the Council of Constance session 13 and the Council of Basel session 30 lay down altogether the same thing, namely that the laity are not bound by divine law to take both kinds, and therefore that the law or custom of the Church is to be kept; with which decrees it does not conflict that the Council of Basel granted the Bohemians the use of both kinds, provided they confessed that this was granted them by the Church, and that they were not bound to it by divine law.
Secondly he lies in the same place, when three or four times he repeats that St. Thomas is the author of that opinion which all Catholics hold, that in the Sacrament of the altar there is not the substance of bread and wine, but only the accidents; which is a most gross falsehood. For Innocent III, in the Lateran Council chapter 1 (to pass over more ancient testimonies), defined this very thing in the year 1215, at which time Thomas was not yet born. Thirdly he lies in the same place, chapter 2, which is on Baptism, when he says, speaking of the Scholastics: “Impious men assert that a man ought not to be certain of the remission of sins, or of the grace of the Sacraments; by which impiety they madden the whole world.” This is a falsehood, Luther himself being witness. For a little below the same man himself most truly says: “Yet all admit that the Sacraments are efficacious signs of grace.” We therefore do not bid men doubt of the grace of the Sacrament, since we say they are efficacious signs of grace. We bid them indeed doubt of their own disposition, and accordingly of the obtaining of grace; but this is not to doubt of the grace of the Sacraments. For the efficacy of the Sacrament depends not on my disposition, but on the divine institution; just as he who closes his eyes cannot see the sun, and yet does not therefore doubt of the efficacy of the sun to illuminate. Nor can the Lutherans deny this; for Luther in the book against the rebaptizers, which he published in the year 1528, thus says: “Baptism is not to be founded upon the faith of the baptizer or of the baptized, because each is uncertain of his faith, or at least stands in danger and temptation.” And in the sermon on Baptism, delivered in the year '35: “That Baptism may be certain to us, God does not found it upon our faith, since that may be uncertain and false, but upon his word and institution.” So he. We therefore do not dissent from the Lutherans (as Luther falsely says) in that we doubt of the grace of the Sacrament and they do not; but in that we doubt of the obtaining of grace on account of our own indisposition, but they do not doubt, with wonderful rashness, since they confess that the Sacraments profit not without faith, and at the same time admit that a man is easily deceived, when he thinks he believes and yet really does not believe.
Fourthly he lies in the same place, when he thus says: “Be a despiser of the Master of the Sentences with all his writers, who write only of the matter and form of the Sacraments — even when they write best, that is, they treat the dead and killing letter of the Sacraments; but the spirit, life, and use, that is, the truth of the divine promise and our faith, they leave altogether untouched.” It is a most open falsehood; for of the faith of the receiver of the Sacraments, and of the right use, the Master disputes much, book 4 distinctions 4 and 9, and the Scholastics in the same place. More truly of the Master wrote Francis Stancarus in the book On the Trinity and the Mediator: “I,” he says, “judge that one Peter Lombard is worth more than a hundred Luthers, two hundred Melanchthons, three hundred Bullingers, four hundred Peter Martyrs, and five hundred Calvins; all of whom, if they were pounded in a mortar, one ounce of true Theology would not be pressed out, especially in the article of the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Mediator, and the Sacraments.”
Fifthly he lies when in the same place he thus speaks: “And hence they were impelled to attribute so much to the Sacraments of the new law that they laid down that they profit even those who are in mortal sins, and that neither faith nor grace is required, but it suffices not to have placed an obstacle, that is, an actual purpose of sinning anew.” And below: “They say these profit even the impious and unbelieving, provided they place no obstacle, as though unbelief itself were not the most obstinate and most hostile obstacle of all to grace.” So he. Which opinion both he and his sons and followers often repeat; nor only the true Lutherans, but Calvin too uses the same words in the Antidote to session 7, canons 5 and 6. Where they attribute to us three things. One, that we say the Sacraments profit those who are in mortal sin; which indeed is most true, provided the sinners are willing to do penance; for Baptism and Absolution are instituted for this, to remit sins. And certainly it is a marvel that this is attributed to us as an error by the Lutherans, since they themselves will have all the Sacraments to have the promise of reconciliation and remission of sins; of which matter we shall speak below. But if they speak of impenitent sinners, it is a mere falsehood that the Catholics say the Sacraments profit sinners; for all Catholics require penance as a disposition for receiving grace. Then they attribute to us that we say grace is not required in order that the Sacraments profit us; which indeed is a manifest falsehood. For if by grace they understand the favor of God, as they ordinarily understand it, all Catholics say that justification from sins is given in the Sacraments from the grace of God and the merit of Christ, not for the merits of the one approaching. But if by grace they understand the inhering quality by which we are formally justified, we confess that this is not required before the reception of some Sacraments, as of Baptism and Penance — which even they are compelled to confess who will have the Sacraments to have the promise of the remission of sins — yet we say that this very quality is infused in the very reception of the Sacrament; and accordingly it is a mere calumny and falsehood that the Catholics do not require grace in order that the Sacraments profit. Thirdly they attribute to us that we say faith is not required, and that we do not hold unbelief for an obstacle impeding the Sacrament; in which too they most openly lie. For either they speak of the substance of the Sacrament, or of the fruit of the Sacrament. If of the substance, neither we nor they require faith; for all Catholics teach with St. Augustine, book 4 On Baptism chapter 12, that the Baptism which heretics receive without true faith is a true Baptism; and the same Luther teaches in his homilies on Baptism, and in the book against the rebaptizers; and also Calvin book 4 of the Institutes chapter 14 section 16. But if they speak of the fruit of the Sacrament, it is false that the Catholics do not hold unbelief for an obstacle; for all Catholics necessarily require in adults an actual faith, and without it say that no one is justified. See the Master book 4 distinction 4, and St. Thomas part 3 question 68 article 8; likewise the Canon Law, which Luther burned, On consecration distinction 4, through many canons. The occasion of this fraud was that the Catholics do not require in the Sacraments that special faith which the adversaries alone think to be true justifying faith. But (to pass over that this is not true faith, but a rash opinion), if it could truly be attributed to us that we do not require faith in the Sacraments because we do not require that special faith, we too could attribute to them that they do not require faith in the Sacraments, because they do not require that faith which we alone teach to be true faith. But if we must deal candidly, the questions are to be distinguished. For it is one thing to ask whether true faith is required in the Sacraments, another what true faith is; and in the former question we agree, in the latter we differ. Moreover of infants there can be no question, both because they neither place nor can place the obstacle of unbelief — for unbelief is not not to believe, but to be unwilling to believe — and also because, as infants sinned by another's will and are habitually averted from God, so it is enough if they believe by another's will and are habitually converted through the infusion of faith, hope, and charity. Whence Philip in the Loci of the year '41, chapter On the use of the Sacraments, says that it is to be understood only of adults that they must actually believe.
Sixthly he lies in the assertion of the first article, where he makes Scotus the author of that opinion, that the Sacraments confer grace on him who places no obstacle; which opinion he himself calls heretical. But he most openly lies. For Innocent III had taught the same, chapter Majores, On Baptism and its effect, long before Scotus was born; and also St. Augustine in epistle 23 to Boniface, where, after he had said that Baptism profits little ones even though they do not actually believe, he thus speaks: “He who does not believe this, and thinks it cannot be, is assuredly an unbeliever, even though he have the Sacrament of faith; and far better is that little one who, although he have not yet faith in thought, yet does not oppose to it the obstacle of a contrary thought, whence he faithfully receives his Sacrament.” Seventhly he lies in the same place, when he says that the Scotists do not require in the use of the Sacrament faith, or a good purpose, or a good motion of the heart. Which falsehood the Bishop of Rochester refutes from the very words of Scotus, who in book 4 distinction 4 question 2 in express words teaches that faith and contrition, or attrition, are required. See also question 5 at the beginning, and in the answer to the last; likewise distinction 17 question 1. Eighthly he lies in the last homily on Baptism, where he thus says: “To such a pitch of impiety has it come, that to salt and water, against the word and command, they attribute as much virtue and energy as to the venerable Sacrament of Baptism.” Here are two falsehoods. One, that we consecrate salt and water against the command and word of God; for there is no word or command by which this is forbidden. And what of this, that the same Luther, in the book On the Babylonian captivity, chapter On Extreme Unction, teaches the contrary? For thus he says: “Therefore this our Sacrament of Extreme Unction I do not condemn, but that it is that which is prescribed by the Apostle James I constantly deny, since neither its form, nor use, nor virtue, nor end agrees with ours. Yet we shall number it among those Sacraments which we ourselves constitute, such as the consecration and sprinkling of salt and water; for we cannot deny that any creature is sanctified by the word of God and prayer, which the Apostle Paul teaches us.” So he. The other falsehood is that we attribute the same power to blessed water and to Baptism; for this no Catholic ever taught; otherwise we should make not seven Sacraments, but far more. Let these few things from Luther suffice.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT II. De mendaciis , et calumniis adversariorum. Necessario prorsus annotanda sunt men¬ dacia praecipuorum hostium Ecclesiae, quod hoc multum valeat ad auctoritatem detra¬ hendam, ipso teste Luthero, qui ita scripsit quondam in lib. contra Emserum : « Si se¬ mel deprehenderer, ita mentitus , falsus, et III. crasse stolidus , jam tota mea doctrina , et honor, et fideS, et fidelitas finem poenitus ha¬ berent : unusquisque me pro nequam, et in¬ fami nebulone, ut aequum est, habiturus es¬ set » : tum etiam, quod hoc ipsum vitium Catholicis tribuere impudentissimo menda¬ cio Lutherus non erubuerit : Sic enim scri¬ bit in libro adversus Cochloeum : « Sed ego plane hoc tribuo divinis Consiliis, ut Papae, et Papistae fere nullos habeant patronos, ni¬ si, qui vel insigni inscitia, vel mendaciis im¬ pudentibus semper suam auctoritatem tra¬ ducant, nequis amplius per abominationem Romanam decipiatur. » Et infra : « Ploran¬ dam certe sortem Papae , quod sui nonnisi mendaciis protecti in arenam descendunt. » Haec ille. Quae verba in ipsum Lutherum ap¬ tissime conveniunt; ut enim Joannes Co- chlaeus testatur in actis Lutheri Anni 23. nul¬ lus fere Catholicorum in Lutherum scripsit, quin eum multorum mendaciorum coargue¬ rit; e quibus unus Dietembergius e duobus Lutheri libellis supra octingenta collegit mendacia. Denique nulla re magis nocent illi Ecclesiae, quam cum suis mendaciis persua¬ dent populis , nos aliter sentire, et docere, quam revera sentiamus et doceamus. Proin¬ de res utilissima est, eorum mendacia dete¬ gere. Nos igitur solum de Sacramentis men¬ dacia quaedam crassiora breviter annotabi¬ mus. Igitur Lutherus in libro de captivitate Ba¬ bylonica, cap. I. quod est de Eucharistia, Primo mentitur, cum ait: «Non moror Con¬ cilium Constantiense, cujus auctoritas si va¬ let, cur non valet et Basileensis, quod con¬ tra statuit, Bohemis licere utramque speciem sumere? Quod iste adulator ignorans addu¬ cit pro suo somnio » Haec ibi. Et sane quod Constantiense, et Basileense Concilium inter se pugnent, quantum ad Communionem sub una specie, mendacium impudentissimum est. Idem enim omnino statuunt Concilium Constantiense, sess. XIII. etBasileense, sess. XXX. nimirum laicos non teneri divino jure ad utramque speciem sumendam , proinde servandam esse Ecclesiae legem, vel consue¬ tudinem; quibus decretis non repugnat, quod Basileense Concilium concesserit Bo¬ hemis utriusque speciei usum , modo fate¬ rentur id sibi concedi ab Ecclesia , non au¬ tem ad hoc teneri divino jure. Secundo mentitur ibidem , cum ter , aut quater repetit , S. Thomam auctorem esse illius sententiae , quam omnes Catholici te- 22 LIBER 1. 338 nent, quod in Sacramento altaris , non sit substantia panis et vini , sed accidentia so¬ lum : quod est crassissimum mendacium. Nam Innocentius III , in Lateranensi Conci¬ lio, c. i. (ut omittam testimonia antiquiora) hoc ipsum definivit anno 1215, quo tempore Thomas nondum erat natus. Tertio mentitur ibidem, cap. 2. quod est de Baptismo, cum ait loquens de Scholasti¬ cis : « Asserunt impii homines, non debere hominem esse certum de remissione pecca¬ torum, seu gratia Sacramentorum : qua im¬ pietate orbem totum dementant. » IIoc men¬ dacium est ipso Luthero testo. Nam paulo infra idem ipse verissime sic dicit : «Omnes tamen admittunt Sacramenta esse signa effi¬ cacia gratiee. » Non igitur jubemus homines dubitare de gratia Sacramenti , cum dica¬ mus esse signa efficacia gratiee. Jubemus quidem dubitare de propria dispositione, et proinde de consecutione gratiee; sed Jioc non est dubitare de gratia Sacramentorum. Non enim efficacia Sacramenti pendet ex mea dispositione, 3ed ex divina institutione: quomodo qui oculos claudit, non potest vi¬ dere Solem , et tamen non propterea dubi¬ tat de efficacia Solis ad illuminandum. Ne¬ que hoc Lutherani negare possunt ; nam Lutherus in libro contra rebaptizantes, quem edidit Anno 1528, sic ait : « Baptismus non est fundandus supra fidem baptizantis , vel baptizati, quia uterque incertus est de fide, aut saltem in periculo, et tentatione consis¬ tit. » Et in sermone de Baptismo, habito Anno 35 : « Ut Baptismus, inquit, certus sit nobis; ideo non fundat eum Deus supra fidem nos¬ tram, cum illa possit incerta , et falsa esse ; sed supra verbum, et institutionem suam. » Ilsec ille. Non ergo dissentimus aLutheranis (ut Lutherus mentitur) quod nos dubitemus de gratia Sacramenti, illi non dubitent; sed quod nos dubitemus de consecutione gratiae, ob nostram indispositionem, illi autem non dubitent, mira temeritate, cum fateantur si¬ ne fide Sacramenta non prodesse , et simul admittant facile hominem decipi , cum pu¬ tet se credere, et tamen revera non credat. Quarto mentitur ibidem , cum sic ait : « Esto contemptor Magistri Sententiarum cum omnibus suis scribentibus, qui tantum de materia , et ftrma Sacramentorum scri¬ bunt, dum optime scribunt, id est, mortuam, et occidentem litteram Sacramentorum tra¬ ctant : ceeterum spiritum, vitam, et usum, id est, promissionis divinae veritatem, et no¬ stram fidem prorsus intacta relinquunt. » Mendacium est apertissimum ; nam de fide suscipientis Sacramenta, et recto usu multa disputat Magister, lib. IV, distin. 4 et 9. et Scholastici ibidem. Verius de Magistro scri¬ psit Franeiscus Stancarus in lib. de Trinita¬ te, et Mediatore : «Ego, inquit, judico unum Petrum Lombardum pluris esse, quam cen¬ tum Lutheros, ducentosMelanclithones, tre¬ centos Bullingeros , quadringentos Petros Martyres, et quingentos Calvinos : qui om¬ nes si in mortario contunderentur, non ex¬ primeretur una uncia verse Theologice, prae¬ sertim in articulo de Trinitate, Incarnatione, Mediatore, et Sacramentis. » Quinto mentitur, cum ibidem sic loquitur: « Et hinc impulsi sunt tantum tribuere Sa¬ cramentis nova; legis, ht ea statuerent, pro¬ desse etiam iis , qui in peccatis mortalibus sunt, nec requiri fidem, aut gratiam , sed sufficere, non posuisse obicem, hoc est, ac¬ tuale propositum denuo peccandi. <> Et in¬ fra : « Prodesse dicunt ea etiam impiis et incredulis, modo non ponant obicem, quasi ipsa incredulitas non sit omnium obstinatis¬ simus, et hostilissimus obex gratiae. » Haec ille. Quam sententiam saepe repetunt tum ipse, tum etiam filii, et sectatores ejus; nec solum veri Lutherani , sed etiam Calvinus iisdem verbis utitur in Antidoto sess. VII, can. 5 et 6. Ubi tria nobis tribuunt. Unum quod dicamus, Sacramenta prodesse iis, qui sunt in peccato mortali : quod quidem ve¬ rissimum est, modo peccatores poenitentiam agere velint; nam Baptismus , et Absolutio ad hoc sunt instituta, ut peccata remittant. Et certe mirum est, hoc nobis tamquam er¬ rorem tribui a Lutheranis , cum ipsi velint omnia Sacramenta habere promissionem re¬ conciliationis , ac remissionis peccatorum : de qua re infra dicemus. Si vero loquantur de peccatoribus impoenitentibus, est merum mendacium, quod Catholici dicant , Sacra¬ menta prodesse peccatoribus : omnes enim Catholici requirunt poenitentiam, tamquam dispositionem ad gratiam recipiendam. Deinde nobis tribuunt, quod dicamus non requiri gratiam ad hoc, ut nobis prosint Sa¬ cramenta: quod quidem mendacium est ma¬ nifestum. Nara si per gratiam intelligant fa¬ vorem Dei, ut ipsi ordinarie intelligunt, om¬ nes Catholici dicunt, justificationem a pec¬ catis dari in Sacramentis cx gratia Dei , et merito Christi, non ob merita accedentis. Si vero per gratiam intelligant inheerentem qua- CAPUT III. 339 litatem, qua formaliter justificamur; Fate¬ mur hanc non requiri ante perceptionem ali¬ quorum Sacramentorum, ut Baptismi, et Pmnitentiae, quod etiam ipsi fateri coguntur, quivoluntSacramenta habere promissionem remissionis peccatorum : tamen hanc ipsam dicimus infundi in ipsa perceptione Sacra¬ menti; proinde mera calumnia, et mendacium est, quod Catholici non requirant gratiam, ut Sacramenta prosint. Tertio nobis tribuunt , quod dicamus non requiri fidem , et quod incredulitatem non habeamus pro obice impediente Sacramen¬ tum : in quo etiam apertissime mentiuntur. Nam vel loquuntur de substantia Sacramen¬ ti, vel de fructu Sacramenti : .si de substan¬ tia , nec nos , nec ipsi , requirimus fidem. Nam omnes Catholici docent cum S. Augus¬ tino lib. IV. de Baptismo , cap. 12. verum esse Baptismum, quem sine vera fide hae¬ retici recipiunt. Et idem docet Lutherus in homiliis de Baptismo , et in lib. contra re¬ baptizantes; necnon etiam Calvinus lib. IY Instit. cap. 14, §. 16. Si vero loquuntur de fructu Sacramenti, falsum est Catholicos non habere pro obice incredulitatem : om¬ nes enim Catholici requirunt necessario in adultis actualem fidem, et sine ea dicunt ne¬ minem justificari. Yide Magistrum lib. 1Y, dist. 4. et S. Thomam III. par. qu. LXV1II, art. 8. Item Jus Canonicum, quod Lutherus combussit, de consecrat, dist. 4. per multos canones. Occasio hujus fraudis fuit , quod Catho¬ lici non requirant in Sacramentis fidem il¬ lam specialem, quam adversarii solum esse * putant veram fidem justificantem. Sed (ut omittam quod ista non est vera fides, sed opinio temeraria) si ideo vere nobis tribui posset, quod non requiramus fidem in Sacra¬ mentis , quia non requirimus fidem illam specialem; nos etiam illis tribuere posse¬ mus , quod non requirant fidem in Sacra¬ mentis, quia non requirunt eam fidem, quam nos solam docemus esse veram fidem. Caeterum si candide agendum sit, distin— guendae sunt quaestiones. Aliud enim est quaerere, an in Sacramenlis requiratur vera fides , aliud autem, quaenam sit vera fides. Et quidem in priore quaestione convenimus, in posteriore dissidemus. Porro de infantibus non potest esse quaes- . tio, tum quia ipsi nec ponunt , nec possunt ponere obicem incredulitatis ; incredulitas enim non est non credere, sed nolle crede¬ re : tum etiam quia infantes sicut peccave¬ runt aliena voluntate , et sunt aversi a Deo habitualiter, ita satis est , si credant aliena voluntate , et converrantur habitualiter per infusionem fidei, spei, et charitatis. Unde Philippus in locis anni 41. c. de usu Sacra¬ mentorum dicit, de adultis solum esse intel- ligendum , quod oporteat eos actu credere. Sexto mentitur in assertione primi articu¬ li, ubi Scotum facit auctorem illius sententiae, quod Sacramenta conferant gratiam non po¬ nenti obicem : quam sententiam ipse haere¬ ticam vocat. Sed mentitur apertissime. Nam Innocentius III idem docuerat, cap. Majores, de Baptismo, et ejus effectu; longo tempore antequam Scotus nasceretur : necnon S. Augustinus in epist. 23. ad Bouifacium, ubi posteaquam dixerat, parvulis prodesse Bap¬ tismum etiamsi actu non credant; ita loqui¬ tur : « Hoc qui non credit, et fieri non pos¬ se arbitratur, profecto infidelis est, etiamsi habeat fidei Sacramentum : et longe melior est ille parvulus, qui etiamsi fidem nondum habeat in cogitatione, non tamen ei obicem contrariae cogitationis opponit; unde Sacra¬ mentum ejus fideliter percipit. » Septimo mentitur ibidem, cum ait, Sco- tistas non requirere in usu Sacramenti fidem, nec bonum propositum, seu bonum motum cordis. Quod mendacium refellit Roffensis ex ipsis verbis Scoti, qui inIY, dist. 4. quae. 2. diserfis verbis docet, requiri fidem et con¬ tritionem, seu attritionem. Vide etiam q. 5. in principio, et in responsione ad ultimum; item. dist. 17, quaest. 1. Octavo mentitur in homil. ult. de Baptis¬ mo, ubi sic ait : « Huc impietatis ventum est, ut sali et aquae contra verbum, et man¬ datum sacratae, tantumdem virtutis et ener¬ giae tribuerint, quantum venerabili Baptismi Sacramento. » Hic sunt duo mendacia. Unum, quod nos contra Dei mandatum, et verbum consecremus salem et aquam ; nullum enim verbum, seu mandatum exstat, quo id pro¬ hibeatur. Quid , quod ipse idem Lutherus lib. de captivit. Babylon, cap. de extrema unctione, contrarium docet? Sic enim ait : « Igitur, inquit, hoc Unctionis extremae nos¬ trum Sacramentum non damno, sed hoc es¬ se , quod ab Apostolo Jacobo praescribitur, constanter nego, cum nec forma, nec usus, nec virtus, nec finis ejus cum nostro consen¬ tiat. Numerabimus tamen ipsum inter ea Sacramenta, quae nos constituimus, ut sunt salis et aquae consecratio, et aspersio : ne- 340 LIBER I. que enim negare possumus, creaturam quam¬ libet per verbum Dei, et orationem sanctifi¬ cari , quod Apostolus Paulus nos docet. » Hsec ille. Alterum mendacium est , quod eamdem vim tribuamus aquae benedictae, etBaptismo: id enim nullus unquam Catholicorum docuit: alioqui non septem Sacramenta , sed multo plura faceremus. Haec pauca ex Luthero suf¬ ficiant.