Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacraments in General · Book I: On the Nature and Causes of the Sacrament
Chapter 7: Whether the name Sacrament should be used
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).
Concerning the name Sacrament there are two controversies of the heretics, both among themselves and with us. One, whether this name is to be used. The other, what this word Sacrament properly signifies.
As to the former, Martin Luther, at the beginning of his new preaching, seemed to abhor this name not a little. For in the book On the Babylonian captivity, which he published in the year '20, in the chapter On Matrimony, he says: “The whole Holy Scripture does not have this name Sacrament in the signification in which our usage takes it, but in the contrary. For everywhere it signifies not the sign of a sacred thing, but a sacred, secret, and hidden thing.” Then in the book On abrogating the Mass, which he published in the year '21: “A pious and faithful conscience,” he says, “ought deservedly and worthily to dread to call this a sacrifice, or to believe it to be one, which is most certain before God and in the Scriptures is not called a sacrifice; and to call that alone a sacrifice which is agreed to be called a sacrifice by God. For what is a more raving rashness than so to set the mouth against heaven as to call this a sacrifice and worship of God, which he does not call a sacrifice and worship of God?” So he. Since, then, Luther affirms that the word Sacrament is not in Scripture in the sense in which the Church uses the Sacraments, and at the same time affirms that it is a raving rashness to use names in signifying the things of God which God himself does not use in Scripture, certainly it is gathered that it did not please him that we should use this name.
Wherefore Melanchthon, following Luther, in the Commonplaces published in the years '21 and '22, entitles the chapter in which he treats of the Sacraments “On signs”; and in the middle of that chapter: “What others,” he says, “call Sacraments, we call signs.” Nay, so great was the desire of these men to make all things new, that he would rather they were called by a Greek word, and one utterly unheard of to the Latins, [sphragides], that is, seals, than Sacraments. Andreas Karlstadt likewise, in the book On images and Sacraments, following the same Luther, deals professedly against the name Sacrament.
Further, Zwingli, the Father of the Sacramentarians, in the book On true and false religion, published in the year '25, says indeed that he does not wish to make a tumult over this name, yet openly reprehends it. For thus he has it in the chapter On the Sacraments: “I could greatly wish that this word, Sacrament, had never been received among the Germans.” So also Calvin, book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 14, section 13, says that he does not wish to contend about the name Sacrament, and yet not obscurely reprehends it, while he thus speaks: “It abundantly appears that the Ancients, who gave the name of Sacraments to signs, in no way regarded what had been the use of this word among the Latin writers, but forged this new signification for their own convenience, by which they might simply designate sacred signs.” So he.
But Luther, when he had seen that Karlstadt and Zwingli, with whom he waged enmities, abhorred the word Sacrament, quickly changed his opinion, and began to approve the name Sacrament. For thus he writes in the book against the Heavenly Prophets, part 2: “Karlstadt says that Christ and the Apostles did not call the supper a Sacrament, and that he wishes to have the name from the Bible: that God imposes names on his creatures, and that we, who are men, ought not to give names to divine things.” And below: “Come, murderer of souls, you and the spirit of sin, we confess indeed that God did not say Sacrament, nor command that it be called a Sacrament; but here answer us in turn, where did he forbid it to be called a Sacrament? Who then gave you the power of forbidding what God does not forbid? Is he not a true murderer of souls, who sets himself in the place of God over us, and takes away our liberty?” And then he asserts and proves that it is lawful to use this name, nay even that it is fitting to use it. All of which fight no more against Karlstadt and Zwingli than against Luther himself, from whom they had learned it, as we have shown.
But Luther changing his opinion, the other Lutherans also changed theirs. For both in the Augsburg Confession they receive the name Sacrament; and Philip, in the Commonplaces of the year '36, entitles the chapter “On the Sacraments,” which before he had entitled “On signs.” Brentius too, in the Württemberg Confession, in the chapter On the Sacraments, retains the same name. And finally Kemnitz, in the second part of the Examen not far from the beginning, says that this word is [agraphon], that is, not written in the divine letters, and yet is to be retained and preserved. Only the controversy remains, then, with the Sacramentarians, and with the former opinion of Luther.
But we can easily prove that this name is to be used and preserved. First, because it is found in the Scriptures. But two things are to be noted before we explain this argument. First, indeed, that the sacred Scriptures were written by the Prophets and Apostles not in Latin, but either in Hebrew or in Greek; and accordingly that the Latin word Sacrament is not to be demonstrated from the Scriptures, but the Greek word which answers to it, namely [mysterion]. For the Latin Sacrament is altogether the same as the Greek Mystery. Nor is there any dissension in this; for the adversaries confess that Sacrament and Mystery are the same, and therefore say that either word is [agraphon] in our signification.
Secondly, that the name Sacrament can be proved from the Scriptures in one way among Catholics, in another among heretics. For among Catholics, who confess that Matrimony is properly a Sacrament, we prove that the name Sacrament is in the Scriptures, not only in general, but also in species, that is, as it signifies those seven things which we properly call Sacraments. For the Apostle says, to the Ephesians 5: For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh. This is a great sacrament (or, as it is in the Greek, mystery); but I speak in Christ and in the Church. Where the Apostle, the Council of Trent being witness, session 24, calls Matrimony, that is, the conjunction of man and woman, a Sacrament properly so called; for that conjunction is a sign of a sacred and hidden thing, that is, of the conjunction of Christ with the Church. Nor does it stand in the way that Paul seems to speak of the marriage of Adam and Eve, which indeed was not a Sacrament of the new law. For Paul, although he alleges the words of Adam, yet accommodates them to the marriages of his own time; for to every marriage agrees what Adam said, They shall be two in one flesh. Whence Paul does not say, This sacrament was great, but, This is a great sacrament, namely after that the promise of grace was added to it by Christ.
But among heretics, who do not admit Matrimony to be a Sacrament properly so called, we cannot prove from the Scriptures the name Sacrament, as it is the specific and proper name of our Sacraments. For nowhere in Scripture is Baptism, or the Eucharist, or Penance, or Order, or even Confirmation, or Unction, called a Mystery or Sacrament. Yet we can show from the Scriptures the name Sacrament, as it is a generic name and common to our seven Sacraments and certain other things — namely, as it signifies the sign of a sacred or hidden thing; which indeed is enough that we may use this name even by the testimony of the Scriptures. For a generic name truly agrees with a thing, although it does not agree with that thing alone.
That name, then, we demonstrate against Luther to be had in the Scriptures, from Daniel chapter 2, where the statue of Nebuchadnezzar is very often called a Mystery or Sacrament, because it was a sign of a hidden thing, that is, of the succession of four kingdoms, and of the kingdom of Christ to arise after them. From which we gather that the Hebrew word raz and the Chaldee, does not only signify a secret thing, as Isaiah 24, My secret to myself, but also the sign of a secret thing, as in this place of Daniel; although even in this place I would not deny that it sometimes signifies a secret thing. For sometimes the Scripture calls a Mystery the very forgotten dream, and accordingly hidden and secret; sometimes the very signification of that statue which had appeared through the dream.
Likewise we prove it from that of the Apocalypse 17: And on her forehead a name written, A mystery. And below: I will tell thee the sacrament of the woman. For hence we have that that woman of harlot form, whom John saw, was a certain Sacrament, that is, a sign of a hidden thing, namely of the Roman Empire, or of Antichrist, as we have expounded elsewhere. For it is not the hidden thing itself, but the woman who was seen, that is called a Mystery and Sacrament, on account of the signification which she contained, as is plain from the name written on her forehead.
The same is proved from that of 2 Thessalonians 2: For the mystery of iniquity already worketh. For the Apostle calls the Mystery of iniquity the persecutions of the primitive Church stirred up by the Emperors and heretics, because they signified the persecutions to be stirred up in the last days by Antichrist. For so expound that place Chrysostom, Theophylact, Ambrose, and almost all the rest.
Finally the same is most effectively proved from that to the Ephesians 5: This is a great sacrament. For although Erasmus and Calvin contend that Paul calls a Mystery not the conjunction of man and woman, but of Christ and the Church, because the Apostle adds, But I speak in Christ and in the Church, yet they are most manifestly deceived. For that Paul attributes the name of Sacrament not to Christ and the Church, but to the conjunction of man and woman, is plain both from the relative pronoun, this. For it refers to what had been said, namely, They shall be two in one flesh; and also because otherwise the whole argument of the Apostle would perish. For he wishes to prove that husbands ought to love their wives; and this he proves because that, They shall be two in one flesh, is a great Sacrament in Christ and in the Church. But if this whole Mystery is in the conjunction of Christ and the Church, and pertains nothing to marriage, what, I ask, does Paul prove? See the commentary of Jerome, Chrysostom, Oecumenius, and the other Fathers on this place. The sensible and external conjunction, then, of man and woman is a Sacrament, that is, a sign of a sacred, spiritual, and hidden thing, that is, of the conjunction of Christ and the Church. Wherefore Kemnitz, persuaded by these testimonies, confesses that the name Sacrament, as it is generic, is written, although as specific it is not written.
It is false, therefore, what Luther said, that Sacrament in the whole Scripture signifies a sacred secret thing, but nowhere the sign of a sacred, secret thing. Nor is it less false what he added in the same place, that the Catholics, wherever they found the name Sacrament in Scripture, made a sign out of it; for we do not everywhere say that a sign is signified by the name Sacrament, but only in certain places; elsewhere it signifies a secret thing, as Tobit 12, It is good to hide the secret of a king. And Ephesians 1, That he might make known unto us the sacrament of his will. And 1 Timothy 3 he calls the Incarnation the great sacrament of godliness. Nor were the Scholastics ignorant of this; nay rather all, with the Master, point out these various acceptations of Sacrament according to the Scriptures. See book 4 distinction 1, and St. Thomas part 3 question 60 article 1.
But if Sacrament be derived from consecrating and initiating, which pleases Zwingli — as we shall say afterward — there is had in the Scripture of the Old Testament a Hebrew word answering to our Latin word, namely the rite of consecration, Exodus 28, Leviticus 8, and elsewhere.
The second argument is taken from the Fathers. For the most ancient Fathers used this name to signify Baptism, the Eucharist, and other sacred Symbols of that kind. Tertullian, the most ancient of the Latins, in the book On prescriptions chapter 40: “The very things also of the divine Sacraments,” he says, “the devil emulates in the mysteries of idols: he too dips certain persons, and signs his soldiers on their foreheads, etc.” See also book 1 against Marcion, before the middle. St. Cyprian, book 2 epistle 1, of Baptism and Confirmation says: “If they be born of both Sacraments.” Book 2 epistle 3, to Caecilius: “By which very Sacrament,” he says (the Eucharist), “our people is shown to be made one.” And book 4 epistle 7, to Magnus: “For not so in the saving Sacrament are the contagions of sins washed away, as in the carnal and secular bath the filth of the skin and the body is washed off.” The same word is used by Lactantius book 4 chapter 17, Hilary on that of Psalm 121, Jerome on chapter 44 of Ezekiel and on chapter 1 of Malachi, Augustine in epistle 118 and book 2 On Christian doctrine chapter 3, and finally all the later writers.
From which opinions of the Fathers we gather that this name is most ancient, and accordingly to be retained, even if it were not had in the Scriptures — in the way that we retain many other names which are not in the Scriptures, such as Trinity, consubstantial, person, etc. For most dangerous is the liberty of new words in the Church, since little by little out of new words new things also arise, when it is lawful for anyone to coin names in divine things. Whence blessed Paul also forbids the profane novelties of words, 1 Timothy 6; and St. Augustine, book 10 of the City of God chapter 23: “The Philosophers,” he says, “speak with free words, nor in matters most difficult to understand do they fear the offense of religious ears; but for us it is right to speak according to a certain rule, lest the license of words should beget an impious opinion even about the things which are signified by them.”
Again we gather, both from the Scriptures and from the Fathers cited, that Kemnitz speaks false and contradictory things about this name. For on page 28 he thus says: “Augustine was almost the first who began to extend the word Sacrament in this matter, and to use it more widely than antiquity had done. For in the fifth epistle to Marcellinus, speaking of signs, he says: When they pertain to divine things, they are called Sacraments. So that, for Augustine, a thing is a Sacrament if it be the sign of some divine or sacred thing.” So he. But that it is false that Augustine was the first who extended this name to other sacred signs than to Baptism and the Eucharist is plain from all the Scriptures cited, and from Tertullian, Cyprian, and Lactantius in the places noted; and besides is plain from Kemnitz himself, who a little before, that is, on page 22, thus says: “The conjunction of man and wife in marriage is the Sacrament of the conjunction of Christ and the Church, to the Ephesians 5.” And below: “All figures and allegories signifying something the Fathers call Sacraments. Tertullian, book 5 against Marcion, calls them Sacraments of figures, and allegories of Sacraments, where he speaks of the two sons of Abraham. Against the Jews he calls it the Sacrament of the wood, disputing of the axe of Elisha and of the wood of Adam.” So he. Let him see how well it coheres to make Augustine the author of that thing which is found in Tertullian and the other ancient Fathers, and in the Apostle Paul himself.
Add lastly that all the vulgar tongues in the Latin Church have retained this name — the Italian, French, Spanish, German, and others; which is an argument that this name Sacrament has always been venerable in the Church. But of this first Question enough.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT VII. Sitne utendum nomine Sacramenti. De nomine Sacramenti duae sunt contro¬ versiae haereticorum, tum ipsorum inter se, tum nobiscum. Una, sitne hoc nomen usur¬ pandum. Altera, quid proprie significet haec vox Sacramentum. Quod attinet ad priorem, Martinus Luthe- rus initio novae suae praedicationis visus est ab hoc nomine non parum abhorrere. Nam in libro de captivit. Babylon, quem edidit anno 20. cap. de Matrimonio : « Non habet, inquit, universa Scriptura sancta hoc nomen Sacramentum, in ea significatione, qua nos¬ ter usus, sed in contraria. Ubique enim si¬ gnificat non signum rei sacrae, sed rem sa¬ cram, secretam, et absconditam. » Deinde in libro de abroganda Missa, quem edidit anno 21 : « Pia, inquit, et fidelis conscientia merito et digne pavere debet, ne hoc sacri¬ ficium appellet, aut credat, quod certissima est apud Deum, et in Scripturis non dici sa¬ crificium ; cthoc solum appellet sacrificium, quod constat a Deo vocari sacrificium. Quae enim furentior est temeritas, quam sic os in coelum ponere, ut hoc sacrificium et cultum Dei dicas, quod ille non dicit sacrificium et cultum Dei? » Hsec ille. Cum igitur Lutherus affirmet, vocem Sacramentum non esse in Scriptura in eo sensu, quo Ecclesia utitur Sacramentis, et simul affirmet, furentem esse temeritatem uti nominibus in rebus Dei significandis, quibus Deus ipse in Scriptura non utatur: certe colligitur non ei placuisse, ut hoc nomine uteremur. Quocirca Melanchthori Lutherum secutus in locis communibus editis anno 21 et 22. caput, in quo agit de Sacramentis, inscribit de signis; et in medio ejus capitis : « Quae alii, inquit, Sacramenta, nos signa appella¬ mus.» Quin etiam tanta erat cupido istorum hominum omnia novandi, ut mallet Grasca voce, et Latinis prorsus inaudita dici aypayi- S«;, id est, sigilla, quam Sacramenta. Andreas item Carolstadius in lib. de ima¬ ginibus et Sacramentis, eumdem Lutherum secutus, ex professo agit contra nomen Sa¬ cramenti. Porro Zwinglius Pater Sacramentariorum in lib. de vera et falsa religione, edita anno 25. dicit quidem se nolle tumultuari ob hoc nomen, aperte tamen reprehendit. Sic enim habet in cap. de Sacramentis : c< Vocem is¬ tam, Sacramentum, magnopere cuperem Germanis nunquam fuisse receptam. » Sic etiam Calvinus lib. IV. Institut. cap. 14. §. 13. dicit se nolle contendere de no¬ mine Sacramenti, et tamen non obscure re¬ prehendit, dum ita loquitur : « Abunde li¬ quet Veteres, qui Sacramentorum nomen signis indiderunt, minime respexisse, quis fuisset verbi hujus usus Latinis Scriptori- 346 LIBER I. bus ; sed novam hanc significationem pro suo commodo affinxisse, qua simpliciter sa¬ cra signa designarent. » Haec ille. Ceeterum Lutherus cum vidisset Carolsta- dium et Zwinglium, cum quibus inimicitias gerebat, abhorrere a voce Sacramenti, mu¬ tavit cito sententiam, et nomen Sacramenti approbare coepit. Sic enim scribit inlib. con¬ tra coelestes Prophetas par. 2 : « Dicit, in¬ quit, Carolstadius, Christum et Apostolos non appellasse coenam Sacramentum, velle se habere nomen ex Bibliis : Deum impo¬ nere suis creaturis nomina, nos qui homines sumus, non debere indere nomina rebus di¬ vinis. » Et infra: «Age animicida, tu et spi¬ ritus peccati, fatemur quideniDeum non di¬ xisse Sacramentum, nec preeeepisse ut Sa¬ cramentum diceretur : sed hic nobis contra, ubi prohibuit Sacramentum dici? Quis ergo tibi dedit potestatem prohibendi quod Deus non prohibet? An non est verus animicida, qui se ponit loco Dei super nos, et aufert nostram libertatem? » Ac deinde asserit et probat, licere uti hoc nomine, imo et opor¬ tere uti. Quae omnia non magis contra Ca- rolstadium pugnant et Zwinglium, quam contra ipsum Lutherum, a quo illi didice¬ rant, ut ostendimus. Luthero autem sententiam mutante, muta¬ runt etiam caeteriLutherani. Nam et in con¬ fessione Augustana recipiunt nomen Sacra¬ menti: et Philippus in locis anno 36. inscri¬ bit caput de Sacramentis, quod antea inscri¬ pserat de signis. Brentius quoque in Confes¬ sione Wirtembergensi cap. de Sacramentis, idem nomen retinet. Ac demum Kemnitius in 2. par. Examinis non procul ab initio, vo¬ cabulum hoc aypayov, id est, non scriptum in divinis litteris esse dicit, et tamen retinen¬ dum et conservandum. Solum ergo contro¬ versia restat cum Sacramentariis, et cum priore sententia Lutheri. Sed facile probare possumus, nomen hoc esse usurpandum et conservandum. Primo, quia reperitur in Scripturis. Sunt autem duo notanda antequam hanc rationem explice¬ mus. Primo quidem Scripturas sacras non Latine, sed vel Hebraice, vel Graece, a Pro¬ phetis et Apostolis scriptas fuisse : proinde non esse demonstrandam ex Scripturis vo¬ cem Latinam, Sacramentum, sed Graecam, quae illi respondet, nimirum pjorripov. Idem enim omnino estLatinis Sacramentum, quod Graecis Mysterium. Neque in hoc ulla dis¬ sensio est : fatentur enim adversarii idem esse Sacramentum et Mysterium, et ideo utrumque vocabulum dicunt esse oiypufa-j in nostra significatione. Secundo, aliter ex Scripturis probari posse nomen Sacramenti apud Catholicos , aliter apud haereticos. Nam apud Catholicos, qui fatentur Matrimonium esse Sacramen¬ tum proprie dictum, probamus nomen Sa¬ cramenti esse in Scripturis, non solum in genere, sed etiam in specie, id est, ut signi¬ ficat res illas septem, quas proprie Sacra¬ menta vocamus. Ait enim Apostolus adEph. Y : Propter hoc relinquet horno patrem et ma¬ trem suam, et adhaerebit uxori suce, et erunt duo in carne una. Sacramentum , sive [ut habetur Graece) Mysterium hoc magnum est, ego autem dico in Christo, et in Ecclesia (I). Ubi Apos¬ tolus Concilio Trident. teste, sess. XXIV, Sacramentum proprie dictum vocat Matri¬ monium, seu conjunctionem viri et feminae; est enim ea conjunctio signum rei sacrae, et arcanae, id est, conjunctionis Christi cum Ecclesia. Neque obstat, quod Paulus videa¬ tur loqui de conjugio Adami et Evae, quod quidem Sacramentum novae legis non fuit. Nam Paulus etsi allegat verba Adami, tamen ea accommodat ad conjugia sui temporis : omni enim conjugio convenit quod Adam dixit : Erunt duo in carne una. Unde non ait Paulus, Sacramentum hoc magnum fuit, sed Sacramentum hoc magnum est, nimirum posteaquam a Christo addita est illi promis¬ sio gratiae. Apud haereticos autem, qui Matrimonium non admittunt esse Sacramentum proprie dictum, non possumus probare exScripturis nomen Sacramenti ; ut est nomen specificum, et proprium nostrorum Sacramentorum. Nusquam enim in Scriptura Baptismus, aut Eucharistia, aut Poenitentia, aut Ordo, aut etiam Confirmatio, aut Unctio, Mysterium vel Sacramentum appellatur. Possumus ta¬ men ex Scripturis ostendere nomen Sacra¬ menti, ut est nomen genericum et commune ad nostra septem Sacramenta, et alias res quasdam ; nimirum ut significat signum rei sacrae, vel arcanae : quod quidem satis est, ut possimus hoc nomine uti etiam testimo¬ nio Scripturarum. Nomen enim genericum vere convenit rei, licet non soli illi conve¬ niat. (1) Eph. V, 31 et 32. CAPUT VII. 347 Id igitur nomen in Scripturis haberi con¬ tra Lutherum demonstramus ex Daniele cap. II. ubi saepissime vocatur Mysterium, vel Sacramentum statua Nabuchodonosor, quia erat signum rei latentis, id esi, succes¬ sionis quatuor regnorum, et regni Christi post illa exorituri. Ex quo colligimus, voca¬ bulum rp Hebraicum etfcn Chaldaicum, non solum significare rem secretam, ut Isai. XXIV : Secretum meum mihi (lj. Sed etiam signum rei secretae, ut hoc loco Danielis; quamquam etiam hoc loco non negaverim, aliquando significare rem secretam. Nam interdum Scriptura vocat Mysterium ipsum somnium oblitum, et proinde absconditum, et secretum : interdum ipsam statuae illius, quae per somnium apparuerat, significatio¬ nem. Item probamus ex illo Apocalyp. XVII : Et in fronte ejus nomen scriptum Mysterium. Et infra : Ego dicam tibi Sacramentum mulie¬ ris (2). Hinc enim habemus mulierem illam forma meretricia, quam Joannes vidit, fuisse quoddam Sacramentum, id est, signum rei latentis, nimirum Romani Imperii, vel An- tichristi, ut alibi exposuimus. Non enim res ipsa latens, sed mulier, quae videbatur, ap¬ pellatur Mysterium, et Sacramentum, ob significationem, quam continebat, ut patet ex nomino scripto in fronte. Idem probatur ex illo II. Thessal. II : Nam Mysterium jam operatur iniquitatis (3). Vocat enim Apostolus Mysterium iniquitatis, per¬ secutiones Ecclesiae primitivae ab Imperato¬ ribus, et haereticis excitatas, quia significa¬ bant persecutiones excitandas in novissimis diebus ab Antichristo. Ita enim exponunt eum locum Chrysostomus, Theophylactus, Ambrosius, et alii fere omnes. Denique idem probatur efficacissime ex illo ad Ephesios V : Sacramentum hoc magnum est. Tametsi enim Erasmus , et Calvinus Mysterium a Paulo dici contendunt, non conjunctionem viri et foeminae, sed Christi, et Ecclesiae, eo quod addat Apostolus : Ego autem dico in Christo et in Ecclesia , tamen apertissime falluntur. Quod enim Paulus Sa¬ cramenti nomen non tribuat Christo, et Ec¬ clesiae, sed conjunctioni viri, et foeminae, patet tum ex relativo pronomine, hoc. Refert enim id , quod dictum fuerat, nimirum ; Erunt duo in carne una (i) : tum etiam quia periret tota ratio Apostoli. Vult enim pro¬ bare , debere viros diligere suas uxores : id vero probat, quia illud : Emnt duo in carne una , est magnum Sacramentum in Christo, et in Ecclesia. Quod si totum hoc Mysterium est in conjunctione Christi, et Ecclesiae, et ad conjugium nihil pertinet, quid, quaeso, Paulus probat? Vide commen¬ tarium Hieronymi, Chrvsostomi, QEcumenii, et aliorum Patrum in hunc locum. Conjunc¬ tio igitur sensibilis, et externa viri et foe¬ minae, Sacramentum est, id est, signum rei sacrae spiritualis, et latentis, id est, conjunc¬ tionis Christi, et Ecclesiae. Quocirca Kemni- nitius his testimoniis persuasus, fatetur no¬ men Sacramenti ut genericum est, scriptum esse, licet ut specificum, non sit scriptum. Falsum igitur est, quod Lutherus dicebat, Sacramentum in universa Scriptura signifi¬ care rem sacram secretam ; nusquam autem signum rei sacrae, secretae. Nec minus fal¬ sum est, quod ibidem addidit. Catholicos ubicumque in Scriptura invenerunt nomen Sacramenti, ex eo fecisse signum : non enim ubique dicimus, Sacramenti nomine signifi¬ cari signum, sed solum quibusdam in locis, alibi autem significare rem secretam , ut Tob. XII : Sacramentum Regis abscondere bo¬ num est. Et Ephes. I : Ut notum faceret nobis Sacramentum, voluntatis suce ( 5). Et I. Timoth. III. vocat incarnationem, magnum pietatis „ Sacramentum. Neque id ignorarunt Scholas¬ tici, quin potius omnes cum Magistro indi¬ cant has acceptiones varias Sacramenti se¬ cundum Scripturas. Vide in IV. dist. I. et S. Thom. III. p. q. LX. art. 1. Quod si Sacramentum dicatur a sacrando, et initiando, quod placet Zwinglio : ut pos¬ tea dicemus, habetur in Scriptura Testa¬ menti veteris vox Hebraea, nostrae Latinae voci respondens, nimirum roSa seu nttt-Jn, id est, ritus consecrationis, Exod. XXVIII, Levit. VIII. et alibi. Secunda ratio sumitur ex Patribus. Anti¬ quissimi enim Patres hoc nomine usi sunt ad significandum Baptismum, Eucharistiam, et alia id genus sacra Symbola. Tertullianus vetustissimus Latinorum, lib. de proescrip. cap. 1 6: (v Ipsas quoque, inquit, res Sacramen¬ torum divinorum, in idolorum mysteriis dia¬ bolus aemulatur : tingit et ipse quosdam, signat in frontibus milites suos etc. » Vide (1) Isai. XXIV, 16. — (2) Apoc. XVII, 5 et 7. — (3) II. Thessal. II, 7 — (4) Eph. V, 31 et 32. — (5) Tob. XII, 7; Eph. 1, 9. 348 LIBER I. etiam lib. I. in Marcion. ante medium. S. Cyprianus lib. II. epist. 1. de Baptismo et Confirmatione dicit : « Si Sacramento utroque nascantur. » Lib. II. epist. 3. ad Ca?cilium : « Quo et ipso, inquit, Sacramen¬ to (Eucharistia*) populus noster ostenditur adunatus. » Et lib 1Y. epist. 7. ad Magnum: a Neque enim sic in Sacramento salutari de¬ lictorum contagia, ut in lavacro carnali et sae¬ culari, sordes cutis, et corporis abluuntur. » Eadem utuntur voce Lactantius lib. 1Y. cap. •17. Hilarius in illud Psal. CXXI. Et abun¬ dantia diligentibus tc (1). Hieronymus in cap. LX1V. Ezech. et in cap. I. Malach. Augus¬ tinus in epist. 118. et lib. II. doct. Christ. cap. 3. et demum omnes posteriores. Ex quibus Patrum sententiis colligimus, nomen hoc esse antiquissimum, et proinde retinendum, etiam si in Scripturis non ha¬ beretur : quomodo retinemus multa alia nomina, quae non sunt in Scripturis, ut Tri¬ nitatem, consubstantialem, personam etc. Periculosissima enim est vocum novarum libertas in Ecclesia, cum paulatim ex novis vocibus, novae etiam res oriantur cum uni¬ cuique licet in rebus divinis nomina lingere. Unde et B. Paulus prohibet profanas vo¬ cum novitates I Timoth. YI. et S. Augusti¬ nus lib. X. Civit, cap. 23 : « Liberis, inquit, vocibus loquuntur Philosophi, nec in rebus ad intelligendum difficillimis offensionem religiosarum aurium pertimescunt : Nobis autem ad certam regulam loqui fas est, ne verborum licentia, etiam de rebus, qua} his significantur, impiam gignat opinionem. » Rursus colligimus, tum exScripturis, tum ex Patribus citatis, Kemnitium falsa, etpug- nantia de hoc nomine loqui. Nam pag. 28. sic ait : « Augustinus primus ferme coepit vocabulum Sacramenti in hac quidem ma¬ teria Qxtendere, et latius usurpare, quam antiquitas fecerat. In epistola enim quinta ad Marcellinum de signis loquens inquit : a Quae cum ad res divinas pertinent, Sacra¬ menta appellantur. Ut igitur Augustino ali¬ quid sit Sacramentum, satis est, si rei alicu- jus divinae, vel sacrae signum sit. » Haec ille. At falsum esse primum Augustinum fuisse, qui extenderit hoc nomen ad alia sacra signa, quam ad Baptismum, et Eucharis¬ tiam, patet ex omnibus Scripturis citatis, et ex Tertulliano, Cypriano, ac Lactantio locis notatis : et praeterea patet ex ipso Kemnitio, qui paulo ante, id est, pagina 22, sic ait : « Conjunctio viri et uxoris in conjugio, est Sacramentum conjunctionis Christi, et Ec¬ clesiae ad Ephes. Y. » Et infra : « Omnes figuras, et allegorias significantes aliquid Patres vocant Sacramenta. Tertullianus lib. V. contra Marcionem vocat Sacramenta figurarum , et allegorias Sacramentorum , ubi de duobus Abrahae filiis loquitur. Adver¬ sus Judaeos vocat Sacramentum ligni, dis¬ putans de securi Elisaei, et de ligno Ad«e. s> Haec ille. Qui viderit quam bene cohaereat, Augustinum auctorem illius rei facere, quae apud Tertullianum, aliosque vetustos Patres, et apud ipsum Apostolum Paulum inve¬ niatur. Adde postremo, quod omnes linguae vul¬ gares in Latina Ecclesia hoc nomen retinue¬ runt, ut Italica, Gallica, Hispanica, Germa¬ nica, et aliae ; quod est argumentum semper fuisse hoc nomen Sacramentum, in Ecclesia, venerabile. Sed de hac prima Quaestione satis.