Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacraments in General · Book I: On the Nature and Causes of the Sacrament
Chapter 6: The falsehoods of Tileman Heshusius
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).
Tileman Heshusius, who calls himself Bishop of Samland, wrote a book On six hundred errors of the Pontificians; which book has not even one grain of salt. For he gathers errors so inconsiderately that either they are mere falsehoods, or their contradictories are heresies among all the Lutherans.
And to discuss only, for example's sake, locus 13, which is on the Sacraments: the third error which he notes is taken from the Roman Catechism, in these words: “The virtue which flows from the Passion of Christ — that is, the grace which he merited for us on the altar of the cross — must be derived into ourselves through the Sacraments, as through a certain channel.” So he. Where, first, he corrupted the words of the Roman Catechism; since out of alveus (channel), which is the word in the Catechism, he made alvus (belly), that he might make the Catechism's sentence sordid and ridiculous. Next, the sentence of the Catechism cannot be condemned without all the Lutherans also being condemned. For take the contradictory sentence, which without doubt will be this: Christ on the cross did not merit grace for us, or, if he merited it, yet it is not derived to us through the Sacraments, as through a channel. But certainly this sentence all the Lutherans condemn, since they will have grace from Christ's Passion to be offered and applied to us through words and Sacraments. Nor does it matter that they do not name a channel; for they name an instrumental cause, which is far more than a channel. See Kemnitz in the second part of the Examen, page 97, and Calvin in the Antidote to the Council, session 7, canon 4.
The fifth error in Tileman is that the Sacraments of the old law did not imprint a character, which is a spiritual sign. Take, then, the contradictory: namely, the Sacraments of the old law did imprint a spiritual character; and inquire whether it be approved by even one of the Lutherans. For the Lutherans nowhere prefer, though they almost equate, the Sacraments of the old law to the Sacraments of the new law; and yet with the highest consent they deny that the Sacraments of the new law imprint a character. Which Heshusius himself also denies in the same place, in the seventh error.
The ninth error is that a good interior motion is not required in him who receives the Sacrament. This error Heshusius attributes to Gabriel, book 4 of the Sentences, distinction 1, question 3. But the very words of Gabriel which he cites detect the fraud. For Gabriel does not say that an interior motion is not required, since he openly requires faith and penance with all the other Doctors; but he says, with Scotus, that an interior motion is not required which is meritorious of grace, whether of congruity or of condignity. For Scotus, and Gabriel, and many others teach that certain interior motions are meritorious of justification by congruity, but they add that if sometimes these motions are not so perfect as to merit by congruity, yet they suffice with the Sacrament for justification.
The tenth error is that the Sacraments of the old law did not confer grace, neither ex opere operato, nor ex opere operantis, that is, by way of merit, even if they were done in faith and charity. So he. But take the contradictory proposition and say: The Sacraments of the old law conferred grace ex opere operato, or ex opere operantis, that is, by way of merit. But this whole proposition is heretical to all the Lutherans. For all execrate what we say about the opus operatum, and much more what we say about the opus operantis. For that the Sacraments confer grace ex opere operantis is to confer grace from the dignity and merit of the work; but they acknowledge no worthy or meritorious work, but will have all to be mortal sins — and chiefly this same Heshusius, in the same book, under the titles On justification, On the law, On works.
The thirteenth error is taken from the Council of Trent, session 7, canon 13: “They teach,” he says, “that without the external Papistic rites neither the truth, nor the dignity, nor the efficacy of the Sacraments can stand.” So he. But this is a most impudent imposture. For the Council teaches nothing of the kind. For these are the words of the Council, which Heshusius himself sets down in the same place, so that he may not only be, but also be held, an impostor: “If anyone shall say that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, accustomed to be used in the solemn administration of the Sacraments, may be despised, or omitted without sin by the ministers at their pleasure, or changed into other new ones by any pastor of the Churches whatsoever, let him be anathema.”
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT VI. Mendacia Tilemanni Heshusii. Tilemannus Heshusius, qui se Episcopum Sambiensem vocat, librum scripsit de sex¬ centis erroribus Pontificiorum ; qui liber non habet vel unam micarn salis : colligit enim errores tam inconsiderate, ut vel sint mera mendacia, vel contradictorii eorum sint hae- reses apud omnes Lutheranos. Ac ut solum, causa exempli, discutiamus locum 13, qui est de Sacramentis, tertius error, quem notat, est desumptus ex Cate- chismo Romano in haec verba : « Virtutem, quae ex passione Christi manat, hoc est, gra¬ tiam, quam ille nobis in ara crucis meruit, per Sacramenta, quasi per alvum quamdam in nos ipsos derivare oportet. » Haec ille. Ubi primum corrupit verba Catechismi Ro¬ mani ; siquidem ex alveo, quae vox est in Catechismo, iste fecit alvum, ut sordidam et ridiculam faceret Catechismi sententiam. Deinde sententiaCatechismi non potest dam¬ nari, quin damnentur etiam omnes Lutlie- rani. Sume enim sententiam contradicen¬ tem, quae sine dubio haec erit : Christus in cruce non meruit nobis gratiam, vel si me¬ ruit, ea tamen non derivatur ad nos per Sa¬ cramenta, quasi per alveum. At certe hanc sententiam Lutherani omnes damnant, quip¬ pe qui volunt gratiam ex Christi passione nobis per verba et Sacramenta offerri et ap¬ plicari. Neque refert quod ipsi non nomi¬ nant alveum : nam nominant instrumenta- lem causam, quod est longe amplius, quam alveus. Vide Kemnitium in 2. par. Examinis, pag. 97. et Calvinum in Antidoto Concilii, sess. VII, can. 4. Quintus error apudTilemannum est, quod Sacramenta veteris legis non impresserint characterem, qui est signum spirituale. Su¬ me igitur contradicentem, nimirum. Sacra¬ menta veteris legis imprimebant characte¬ rem spiritualem ; et quaere si vel ab uno ex Lutheranis approbetur. Lutherani enim non anteponunt usquam, licet fere aequent, Sa¬ cramenta legis veteris Sacramentis novae le¬ gis; et tamen summo consensu negant, Sa¬ cramenta novae legis imprimere characte¬ rem. Id quod negat etiam ipse Heshusius ibi¬ dem in 7 errore. Nonus error est, quod non requiratur bo¬ nus motus interior in suscipiente Sacra¬ mentum. Hunc errorem tribuit Heshusius Gabrieli lib. IV. sent. dist. 1. quaest. 3. Sed 'verba Gabrielis, quae ipse citat, detegunt fraudem. Nam Gabriel non dicit non requiri motum interiorem, cum aperte requirat fi¬ dem et poenitentiam cum omnibus aliis Doc- toribus, sed dicit cum Scoto, non requiri motum interiorem, ‘qui sit meritorius gratiae de congruo, vel de condigno. Scotus enim, et Gabriel, et multi alii docent, motus quos¬ dam interiores esse meritorios de congruo justificationis, sed addunt, quod si aliquan¬ do isti motus non sint tam perfecti, ut me¬ reantur de congruo, tamen sufficere cum Sacramento ad justificationem. CAPUT VI. 345 Decimus error est, quod Sacramenta vete¬ ris legis non contulerint gratiam, neque ex opere operato, neque ex opere operantis, seu per modum meriti, etiam si in fide et charitate fierent. Haec ille. Sed accipe con¬ tradicentem propositionem, et dic : Sacra¬ menta legis veteris contulerunt gratiam ex opere operato, vel ex opere operantis, seu per modum meriti. Atqui haec tota est haere¬ tica omnibus Lutheranis. Nam omnes exe- crantur, quod dicimus de opere operato; et multo magis, quod dicimus de opere operan¬ tis. Sacramenta enim gratiam conferre ex opere operantis, est gratiam conferre ex di¬ gnitate et merito operis ; ipsi autem nullum agnoscunt opus dignum aut meritorium, sed omnia esse volunt peccata mortalia, atque in primis idem Heshusius in eodem lib. tit. de justificatione, de lege, de operibus. Decimustertius error est ex Concilio Tri- dentino desumptus, sess.VII. can. 13 : « Do¬ cent, inquit, sine externis Papisticis ritibus nec veritatem, nec dignitatem, nec effica¬ ciam Sacramentorum consistere. » Haec ille. At haec impudentissima ifnpostura est. Con¬ cilium enim nihil ejusmodi docet. Haec enim sunt verba Concilii, quae ibidem ponit Hes¬ husius, ut nimirum non solum sit, sed etiam habeatur impostor : « Si quis dixerit recep¬ tos et approbatos Ecclesiae Catholicae ritus in solemni administratione Sacramentorum adhiberi consuetos, aut contemni, aut sine peccato a ministris pro libito omitti, aut in novos alios per quemcumque Ecclesiarum pastorem mutari posse, anathema sit. » CONTROVERSIA PRIMA DE NOMINE SACRAMENTI.