Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacraments in General · Book I: On the Nature and Causes of the Sacrament
Chapter 5: The falsehoods of Martin Kemnitz
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).
Martin Kemnitz repeats much from the falsehoods of Luther and Calvin; he also adds much of his own. But because it would be long to relate all, I shall note only a few things from the beginning of the second part of the Examen, where he treats of the Sacraments in general.
First, then, in the Examen published in the year 1566, in octavo, page 14, he thus lies: “How, by Matrimony — which Siricius the Pontiff defines to be a living according to the flesh, which cannot please God — how, I say, does the justice of faith either begin, or is increased, or is repaired by Matrimony, according to their own description of the Sacrament laid down in the decree?” This falsehood is taken from the first epistle of Siricius, chapter 7, where that holy Pontiff, wishing to prove that priests ought to contain themselves even from a wife, assumes for his argument those words of Romans 8: They who are in the flesh cannot please God. Hence, then, Kemnitz deduces that Matrimony, on the authority of Siricius, is nothing else than a life according to the flesh, which cannot please God.
But Kemnitz ought to have noticed that Siricius does not speak of a just and lawful marriage, but of the marriage of priests, which is unlawful, and a marriage in name only, but in the thing itself a sacrilegious unchastity. For in the same epistle, chapter 4, he had already said before that lawful marriages are blessed in the Church by the priest; and certainly he did not mean to say that a life according to the flesh, which cannot please God, is blessed in the Church. And so lawful spouses can so live that they please God, and are said not to be in the flesh but in the spirit, if they use their lawful wife lawfully; but priests, to whom marriage is forbidden, cannot take wives, or use them, without displeasing God and living according to the flesh; and this is what Siricius most truly wrote.
Secondly he lies on page 39, where, speaking of the Sacraments of Order and Matrimony, he thus says: “And although Richard disputes that even by these rites sanctifying grace is conferred, yet the rest acknowledge that this cannot stand.” This falsehood is most impudent, since almost all the Theologians say the same as Richard says. It will suffice here to cite the testimony of St. Thomas, who part 3, question 65, article 1, teaches and proves that there are seven Sacraments of the new law; and in the answer to the last, he thus says: “In every Sacrament of the new law grace is infused.”
Thirdly he lies on page 40, where, asking of blessed water, the blessed rose, the blessed sword, and like things, why they are not Sacraments, he thus says: “The Scholastics indeed answer something, one this, another that, but yet they neither extricate themselves nor satisfy their readers, except that Gabriel's candor is approved, who says that blessed water is not a Sacrament because it lacks divine institution.” Here are two falsehoods. One, that the Scholastics labor much to show why water and the rose and the like, when they are blessed in the Church, are not Sacraments. But the Scholastics dispose of this so lightly that many do not even touch it, as being known of itself, and others explain it only in passing. For none of these is an efficacious sign of justifying grace, which is the chief thing in all the Sacraments.
The other falsehood is that Gabriel candidly confesses that nothing is lacking to blessed water for it to be a Sacrament except divine institution. This, I say, is a most true falsehood; for Gabriel, in book 4 distinction 1, question 1, article 1, where he treats of this matter, says indeed that blessed water was instituted not by God but by the Church, and therefore is not a Sacrament, but he does not say that nothing else is lacking to it except divine institution; nay, he openly indicates that many other things also are lacking to it. For he does not there dispute properly of blessed water, but explains the definition of a Sacrament; and because he had said that divine institution is required for the Sacraments, thence he deduces that from the definition of a Sacrament are excluded blessed water, the washing of the bath, and all natural signs. Wherefore, just as it is not lawful to gather from this his disputation that nothing is lacking to the washing of the bath for it to be a Sacrament except divine institution, so it is not lawful to gather that nothing is lacking to blessed water except divine institution for it to be a Sacrament.
Fourthly he lies on pages 94 and 95, where there are almost as many falsehoods as words: “Certain men,” he says, “such as Alensis, Thomas, Durandus, etc., held that a certain supernatural virtue is conferred through the word upon the very external elements of the Sacraments.” But he does not seem to have read these authors; since Durandus teaches the contrary, and impugns St. Thomas in book 4 distinction 1 question 4.
Fifthly he lies in the same place, when he says: “They add, moreover — to show that neither they nor others understand what they say — that it (the power imparted to the Sacraments) is an incomplete being, which of itself is not in any of the ten predicaments.” But that Kemnitz does not understand what the Scholastics say can easily be believed. But that they themselves do not understand that motion — for this most of them call the power imparted to the Sacraments — is an incomplete being, which of itself is in no predicament, is a manifest falsehood. For there is no one even moderately skilled in Physics, or even in Logic alone, who does not know that motion is an incomplete being, and of itself pertains to no predicament.
Sixthly he lies in the same place, when he says that Cyprian thought Baptism to be useless which was conferred by heretics and evil ministers. For Cyprian everywhere distinguishes evil Catholic ministers from heretics, and affirms that the evil indeed baptize usefully, but heretics uselessly. Wrongly, therefore, does Kemnitz join together, according to the opinion of Cyprian, those whom Cyprian himself separates. See Augustine explaining Cyprian's opinion, book 4 On Baptism, chapter 10, and book 6, chapter 12; and Cyprian himself in the epistles to Jubaianus, to Pompey, to Stephen, and to Quirinus.
Seventhly he lies on page 95, when he thus says: “But that opinion, that grace is essentially contained in the very elements of the Sacraments, as medicine in a box, so that the virtue of the Sacraments is either the essence or a quality inhering in the corporeal elements of the Sacraments, was not approved by all even among the Scholastic writers, as by Bonaventure, Richard, etc.” Here Kemnitz sufficiently betrays his unskillfulness, and at the same time his audacity, when he reprehends what he does not understand. For, in the first place, he confounds grace with the virtue of the Sacraments, whereas they are most diverse things. For grace is the effect of the Sacrament, but the virtue is that through which the Sacrament works. Wherefore no Catholic denies that grace is contained in the Sacraments, but that physical virtue not all admit. Next, that grace essentially — that is, the very essence of grace — inheres in the Sacraments, as medicine in a box, no Catholic even says; for we all confess that grace inheres in the soul, not in the Sacraments. Yet they place it, as we said above, in the Sacrament as in a vessel, taking the name of vessel metaphorically, in the way that weapons are called the vessels of death, because in them death is contained, as an effect in its cause.
Eighthly he lies in the same place, when he says: “There were also those who placed the virtue of the Sacraments in the very work by which the Sacraments are either celebrated or received; so that the Sacraments were said to confer grace from the dignity and merit of the work which either he who celebrates or he who receives performs.” This falsehood too is a witness of Kemnitz's unskillfulness, although it is not his own, but he received it from Calvin. See above in Calvin's third falsehood. There are very many other things in Kemnitz; for these have been culled only from the beginning of the book.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT V.
Mendacia Kemnitii ,
Martinus Kemnitius multa repetit ex men¬
daciis Lutheri, et Calvini ; multa etiam ad¬
dit propria. Sed quia longum esset omnia
referre, solum pauca quaedam annotabo ex
principio 2. par. Exam. ubi agit de Sacra¬
mentis in genere.
Primo igitur in Examine edito anno 1366,
in octavo, pag. 14. sic mentitur : « Quomo¬
do per Matrimonium , quod Siricius Ponti¬
fex definit, esse secundum carnem vivere,
quod Deo placere non possit; quomodp, in¬
quam, justitia fidei per Matrimonium, vel in¬
cipit, vel augetur , vel reparatur juxta ipso¬
rum Sacramenti descriptionem in decreto
positam. » Desumptum est hoc mendacium
ex epist. I. Sirici , cap. 7. ubi sanctus ille
Pontifex probare volens, debere Sacerdotes
continere se etiam ab uxore, assumit pro
argumento illa verba Rom. VIII : Qui in car¬
ne sunt , Deo placere non possunt {i), Hinc
igitur deducit Kemnitius, Matrimonium,
auctore Siricio, nihil esse aliud, quam vitam
secundum carnem, quffi Deo placere non
potest.
Sed debuit Kemnitius advertere, Siricium
non loqui de conjugio justo, et legitimo, sed
de conjugio Sacerdotum , quod illegitimum
est, et solo nomine conjugium, re autem ipsa
(1) Rom. VIII, 8.
CAPUT V.
343
sacrilega impudicitia. Nam in eadem epist.
cap. 4. jam ante dixerat, legitimas nuptias
in Ecclesia per sacerdotem benedici : et
certe non voluit dicere benedici in Eccle¬
sia vitam secundum carnem , quas Deo
placere non potest. Itaque legitimi conjuges
possunt ita vivere, ut placeant Deo, et dican¬
tur non esse in carne, sed in spiritu, si uxore
sua legitima legitime utantur : at Sacerdo¬
tes, quibus nuptiae interdictae sunt, non pos¬
sunt uxores ducere, aut illis uti , quin Deo
displiceant, et secundum carnem vivant: et
hoc est, quod verissime scripsit Siricius.
Secundo mentitur pag. 39, ubiloquensde
Ordinis et Matrimonii Sacramentis , sic ait :
« Et si Richardus disputat etiam per istos
ritus conferri gratiam gratum facientem :
reliqui tamen agnoscunt hoc subsistere non
posse. » Hoc mendacium impudentissimum
est, cum omnes fere Theologi idem .dicant,
quod Richardus dicit. Sufficiet hoc loco tes¬
timonium S. Thomse, qui III. par. qu. LXV.
art. 1 . docet, et probat , septem esse novae
legis Sacramenta ; et in responsione ad ulti¬
mum sic ait : « In quolibet Sacramento novee
legis gratia infunditur. »
Tertio mentitur pag. 40. ubi quaerens de
aqua benedictu, rosa benedicta, ense bene¬
dicto, et similibus rebus , cur non sint sa¬
cramenta, sic ait : «Aliquid quidem respon¬
dent Scholastici, alius aliud , sed tamen nec
seipsos expediunt, nec lectoribus satisfaciunt,
nisi quod Gabrielis ingenuitas probatur, qui
dicit aquam benedictam non esse Sacramen-
* tum, quia desit divina institutio. »
Duo sunt hic mendacia. Unum quod Scho¬
lastici multum laborent, ut ostendant, cur
aqua, et rosa, et similia, cum in Ecclesia
benedicuntur, non sint Sacramenta. At Scho¬
lastici adeo leviter hoc expediunt, ut multi
ne attingant quidem, ut per se notum , alii
obiter tantum explicent. Nihil enim horum
est signum efficax gratiae justificantis, quod
est praecipuum in omnibus Sacramentis.
Alterum est mendacium, Gabrielem inge¬
nue confiteri , nihil deesse aquae benedictae,
quominus sit Sacramentum, nisi divinam
institutionem. Est, inquam, hoc verissimum
mendacium , quia Gabriel in IV. dist. I.
quaest I. art. 1. ubi de hac re agit, dicit
quidem, aquam benedictam non esse a Deo
institutam, sed ab Ecclesia, et ideo non esse
Sacramentum, sed non dicit, nihil aliud ei
deesse, nisi divinam institutionem, imo
aperte indicat, alia etiam multa ei deesse.
Nam non disputat eo loco proprie de aqua
benedicta, sed explicat definitionem Sacra¬
menti : et quia dixerat , ad Sacramenta re¬
quiri divinum institutionem , inde deducit a
Sacramenti definitione excludi aquam bene¬
dictam, lotionem balnei, et omnia signa na¬
turalia. Quocirca sicut non licet colligere ex
hac ejus disputatione nihil deesse ad lotio¬
nem balnei , quominus sit Sacramentum,
nisi divinam institutionem, ita non licet col¬
ligere, nihil deesse ad aquam benedictam,
nisi divinam institutionem, quominus sit
Sacramentum.
Quarto mentitur pag. 94. et 93 , ubi tot
sunt fere mendacia, quot verba : « Quidam,
inquit, ut Alensis , Thomas , Durandus etc.
senserunt ipsis externis Sacramentorum ele¬
mentis per verbum conferri quamdam virtu¬
tem supernaturalem. » At non videtur legisse
hos auctores : Siquidem Durandus contra¬
rium docet , et S. Thomam oppugnat in IV.
dist. 1 . quaest. 4.
Quinto mentitur ibidem , cum ait : « Ad¬
dunt autem, ut ostendant, nec se, nec alios,
quod dicunt, intelligere, esse ens incomple¬
tum (vim inditam Sacramentis) quod per se
non sit in aliquo ex decem praedicamentis. »
Sed Kemnitium non intelligere quid Scho¬
lastici dicant, facile credi potest. Illos autem
ipsos non intelligere motionem, hanc enim
plerique vocant vim Sacramentis inditam,
esse ens incompletum , quod per se in nullo
praedicamento sit; mendacium est manifes¬
tum. Non enim ullus est vel mediocriter pe¬
ritus Physicae, aut etiam solius Logicae, quin
sciat motum esse ens incompletum , et ad
nullum praedicamentum per se pertinere.
Sexto mentitur ibidem, cum ait : Cypria¬
num existimasse, Baptismum esse inutilem,
qui conferebatur ab haereticis et malis mi¬
nistris. Nam Cyprianus ubique distinguit
malos ministros Catholicos ab haereticis et
malos quidem affirmat utiliter baptizare,
haereticos autem inutiliter. Male igitur Kem-
nitius conjungit ex sententia Cypriani, quos
Cyprianus ipse disjungit. Vide Augustinum
explicantem Cypriani sententiam, lib. IV de
Baptismo, cap. 10. et lib. VI, cap. 12. et
ipsum Cyprianum in epistolis ad Jubaja-
num, ad Pompejum, ad Stephanum, et ad
Quirinum.
Septimo mentitur pag. 93. cum sic ait :
« Illa vero opinio, quod in ipsis Sacramen¬
torum elementis gratia essentialiter conti¬
neatur, sicut medicina in pixide, ita ut vir-
344
LIBER I.
tus Sacramentorum sit vel essentia, vel qua¬
litas haerens in corporalibus Sacramento¬
rum elementis, etiam inter Scolasticos scrip¬
tores, non fuit omnibus probata, ut Bona-
venturae, Richardo etc. » Hic satis prodit
suam imperitiam Kemnitius, et simul auda¬
ciam, cum ea reprehendit, quae non intelli-
git. Nam in primis confundit gratiam cum
virtute Sacramentorum, cum tamen sint res
diversissimae. Gratia enim est effectus Sa¬
cramenti, virtus autem id, per quod Sacra¬
mentum operatur. Quocirca gratiam conti¬
neri in Sacramentis nullus Catholicus negat,
virtutem autem illam physicam non omnes
admittunt. Deinde gratiam essentialiter, id
est, ipsam essentiam gratiae haerere in Sa¬
cramentis, ut medicinam in pixide, nullus
etiam Catholicorum dicit : Fatemur enim
omnes, gratiam haerere in anima, non in Sa¬
cramentis. Ponunt tamen, ut supra diximus,
eam in Sacramento, ut in vase, metaphorice
accipiendo nomen vasis, quomodo dicuntur
tela vasa mortis, quia in eis mors contine¬
tur, ut effectus in causa.
Octavo mentitur ibidem, cum ait : « Fue¬
runt etiam, qui virtutem Sacramentorum in
ipso opere, quo Sacramenta vel celebrantur,
vel suscipiuntur, constituerunt: ita ut Sa¬
cramenta dicerentur conferre gratiam ex di¬
gnitate et merito operis, quod exercet vel is,
qui celebrat, vel qui suscipit. » Hoc etiam
mendacium testis est imperitiseKemnitiance,
quamquam non est ejus proprium, sed a
Calvino illud accepit. Vide supra in tertio
Calvini mendacio. Plurima sunt aliainKem-
nitio,hsec enim solum ex initio libri decerpta
sunt.