Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacraments in General · Book I: On the Nature and Causes of the Sacrament
Chapter 12: Whether the definition of a Sacrament agrees univocally with the Sacraments of the old and new law
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).
There follows the third and last question: whether the definitions laid down agree with a Sacrament in general, or only with the Sacraments of the new law. There are two opinions of the Theologians. The first is that of the Master in book 4 distinction 1, and there also of Albert, Thomas, Bonaventure, and others, who teach that no definition agrees univocally with the Sacraments of the new and old law, but that all agree properly and perfectly with the Sacraments of the new law, and that the same agree with the Sacraments of the old law analogically and imperfectly.
The foundation of this opinion is that the cited authors think it is of the notion of a Sacrament, even in general, not only to signify but also to effect sanctification; and again they judge that the Sacraments of the old law did not effect true sanctification, but only a certain legal sanctification, which is a figure of the true sanctification which the Sacraments of the new law alone effect. For from these two they rightly conclude that Sacrament is said analogically of the Sacraments of the old and new law, just as sanctification itself, for signifying and making which they are instituted, is said analogically of the true sanctification of the soul and of the typical and legal sanctification.
The other opinion is that of St. Thomas part 3 question 60 articles 1 and 2 (for he plainly enough changed his opinion), and also of Dominic Soto and Martin Ledesma, distinction 1 question 1 articles 1 and 2. These teach that that definition, the sign of a sacred thing, agrees univocally with the Sacraments of the new and old law; and accordingly that it is the definition of a Sacrament in general. Their foundation is that they think that for the notion of a Sacrament in general it is not required that it be the cause of sanctification, but only that it signify it. Further they add that the Sacraments of the old law were most true signs of a most true sanctification, because, namely, they signified justifying grace to be given us through Christ. And from these they rightly conclude that the Sacraments of the old law agree univocally with ours in general, although in species they are distinguished, because ours effect sanctification, the old ones did not effect it. Each opinion partly pleases, partly also displeases; I lay down, therefore, the following propositions.
First proposition: “For the notion of a Sacrament in general it is not enough that it signify, but it is also required that it effect holiness or sanctification; nay, it is more proper to a Sacrament to sanctify than to signify.” This is for the first opinion. It is proved, first, because (as we said above) in the Old Testament the Sacraments are rarely said to signify, but most frequently said to consecrate and sanctify, or initiate, as is plain from Exodus 28 and Leviticus 8. In the New Testament too Baptism is called the laver of regeneration, to Titus 3. And certainly to regenerate is more to effect than to signify. Second, from the etymology: for all names similar to Sacrament signify an action, not a sign; as is plain of the name garment (vestimentum), shoe (calceamentum), impediment, ornament, firmament, foundation, and the rest of the same form; Sacrament, then, is called from consecrating, not from signifying. Third, because the whole reason why the latter opinion will have a Sacrament in general to be nothing but a sign is that definition, “A Sacrament is the sign of a sacred thing,” where it is not attributed to a Sacrament to effect a sacred thing, but only to signify. But we have already shown that this definition is not perfect, since Augustine himself, who is its author, condemns it, seeing that he will have it agree even with sacrifice.
Second proposition: “The Sacraments of the old law are not Sacraments because they signify justifying grace, but because they signify and effect legal holiness.” This too is for the first opinion against the second. And it is proved, first, from the preceding conclusion. For if for a Sacrament in general it is more required to sanctify than to signify, surely the old Sacraments, if in any way they were Sacraments, not only signified but also effected. Second, because to signify grace to be given to others is not of a Sacrament as it is a Sacrament, but as it is a figure and type of a future thing. For a Sacrament, as a Sacrament, expresses an order to him who is initiated by the Sacrament, not to others, as St. Thomas rightly teaches in the first part of the second part, question 101 article 4, and question 102 article 5; but a figure expresses an order to future things. And it is confirmed: because to signify grace to be given to others was not proper to the old Sacraments, but also to the sacrifices and other observances of the Hebrews, as St. Augustine demonstrates, book 19 against Faustus chapters 8, 9, 10, and 11. Nor those only, but also the brazen serpent signified the healing from sins which Christ was to bring, John 3; the Manna the sweetness of the Eucharist; and the passage of the Red Sea salvation through Baptism, 1 Corinthians 10; and yet neither that serpent, nor the Manna, nor the ark were Sacraments of the Old Testament or the New.
Third proposition: “Sacrament is a univocal genus to the Sacraments of the old and new law; and accordingly the old Sacraments were simply and absolutely Sacraments.” This is for the second opinion against the first. It is proved, first: A Sacrament in general requires nothing else than a ceremony signifying and effecting some consecration or sanctification; but it does not require that that sanctification be by grace cleansing the soul from sins, for that special sanctification constitutes a certain species of Sacrament, not the genus itself absolutely. But the Sacraments of the old law truly signified and effected a certain consecration. For by Circumcision the Jews were initiated and consecrated to God, that they might be his peculiar people; by the sacerdotal Unction the sons of Aaron were truly consecrated to God, that they might discharge the priesthood; and the same can be said of their other Sacraments, of which see St. Thomas, first part of the second part, question 102 article 3. They were, then, truly and properly Sacraments. Second: There can be no religion without Sacraments, as St. Augustine teaches book 19 against Faustus chapter 11. But in the Old Testament there was a true Church, a true religion, a true sacrifice; why, then, not also true Sacraments?
Nor does it stand in the way that all things happened to the Jews in figure, 1 Corinthians 10, and accordingly the sacrifices, Sacraments, and all the rites were certain types of our sacrifice, of our Sacraments, and rites; whence it seems to be gathered that those sacrifices and Sacraments were such only by analogy to ours. This, I say, does not stand in the way; since the Jewish Sacraments were indeed a figure of our Sacraments, but not only figures, but also things per se. And so Circumcision was not only a figure of Baptism, but was also per se a ceremony instituted for initiating the men of that time and joining them to the people of God; wherefore it was a more imperfect Sacrament than Baptism is, yet it was absolutely and properly a Sacrament. For an ox too is a more imperfect animal than a man is, and yet an ox is absolutely and properly an animal; so also the Aaronic ordination was not only a figure of our ordination, but also per se a ceremony consecrating men to offer sacrifices. And the sacrifices themselves too were not only a figure of our sacrifice, but also per se sacrifices, instituted to exhibit worship to God as to the supreme beginning and end of all things. Finally the Jewish people itself too was a figure of the Christian people, 1 Corinthians 10; and yet who can doubt whether it was not also per se a certain true people? And so the Jewish things ought not to be compared with ours as a painted image with a living man, where the image is nothing but the thing of another; but as little children are compared with grown men, as the Apostle does, Galatians 4. For the Son is the image of the Father, and yet also per se a man; and as the contests and exercises of boys are compared with the contests and exercises of men. For the contests of boys are certain images of greater contests; yet they have also their own delight and utility fitting to that age.
Fourth proposition: “That definition (the sign of a sacred thing) agrees univocally with all the Sacraments, both old and new.” This is for the second opinion against the first. But it is to be noted that that definition can be expounded in three ways. First, so that by “sign” is understood a practical sign, by “sacred thing” justifying grace. And in this way the definition does not agree properly except with the Sacraments of the new law; but with the old only in a certain respect and analogically; because, namely, those were practical signs of legal cleanness, which is not justifying grace, except typically, as the image of a man is called a man. But this exposition is not according to the mind of St. Augustine, as we said above. Second, it can be so expounded that by “sign” is understood a practical sign, by “sacred thing” consecration in general, not descending to internal or legal justification; and in this way the definition agrees univocally with all the Sacraments. But neither is this exposition according to the mind of St. Augustine; for he does not speak of a practical sign, as St. Thomas rightly observes. Third, it can be so expounded that by “sign” we understand a bare sign, by “sacred thing” justifying grace; and in this way that definition agrees univocally with all the Sacraments; and this we say in our Conclusion, following blessed Thomas. But that definition, as we noted above, is not perfect, since it agrees also with sacrifice, on the testimony of the same Augustine in the place cited. Further, the other definitions — that is, Hugh's, the Master's, and the Roman Catechism's — do not agree except with the Sacraments of the new law; yet they could easily be accommodated to a Sacrament in general, if in place of “invisible grace, or justice,” there were put “a certain consecration,” in this manner: A Sacrament is a thing subject to the senses, which from the institution of God has the power both of signifying and of effecting a certain consecration.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XII. CAPUT XII. An definitio Sacramenti univoce conveniat Sa¬ cramentis legis veteris, et novce. A Sequitur tertia et postrema queestio : An definitiones posita conveniant Sacramento in genere , an Sacramentis tantum nova*, le¬ gis. Dua? sunt Theologorum sententiae. Pri¬ ma est Magistri in lib. IY. dist. 1. et ibidem Alberti, Thoma?, Bonaventurae , et aliorum, qui docent nullam definitionem convenire univoce Sacramentis novae, et veteris legis, sed omnes convenire proprie, et perfecte Sacramentis novae legis ; easdem vero con¬ venire Sacramentis legis veteris analogice, et imperfecte. Fundamentum hujus sententiae est, quia existimant auctores citati, de i’atione Sacra¬ menti, etiam in genere, non esse solum si¬ gnificare , sed etiam efficere sanctificatio¬ nem : et rursus censent, Sacramenta veteris legis non efficere veram sanctificationem, sed solum sanctificationem quamdam lega¬ lem, quae est figura verae sanctificationis, quam sola Sacramenta novae legis efficiunt. Ex his enim duobus x*ecte concludunt , Sa¬ cramentum dici analogice de Sacramentis veteris, et novae legis, sicut ipsa sanctifica¬ tio, ad quam significandam , et faciendam sunt instituta, dicitur analogice de vera sanc¬ tificatione animae, et de sanctificatione typi¬ ca, et legali. Altera sententia est sancti Thomaelll. par. quaest. LX. art. I. et 2. (is enim satis aperte sententiam mutavit) necnon Dominici a So- to, et Martini Ledesmiidist. I. quaest. i. art. d. et 2. Qui docent definitionem illam, sacrce rei signum, univoce convenire Sacramentis novae legis, et veteris : proinde esse illam definitionem Sacramenti in genere. Fundamentum eorum est, quia existimant ad rationem Sacramenti in genere non re¬ quiri, ut sit causa sanctificationis, sed solum ut eam significet. Porro addunt, Sacramenta legis veteris fuisse verissima signa verissimae sanctificationis, quia nimirum significabant gratiam justificantem nobis dandam per Christum. Atque ex his recte concludunt, Sacramenta legis veteris univoce convenire cum nostris in genere, licet in specie distin¬ 357 guantur; quia nostra efficiunt sanctificatio¬ nem, vetera non efficiebant. Utraque sen¬ tentia partim placet, partim etiam displicet: pono igitur sequentes propositiones. Prima propositio : « Ad rationem Sacra¬ menti in genere non satis est, ut significet, sed requiritur etiam, ut efficiat sanctitatem, seu sanctificationem : imo magis proprium .est Sacramenti sanctificare , quam significa¬ re. » Haec est pro prima sententia. Probatur primo, quia (ut supra diximus) in Testamento veteri Sacramenta raro dicuntur significare; frequentissime autem dicuntur consecrare, et sanctificare, seu initiare, ut patet Exod. XXVIII. et Levit. VIII. In Testamento etiam novo Baptismus dicitur lavacrum regenera¬ tionis, adTit. III. Et certe regenerare magis efficere, quam significare est. Secundo, ab etymologia : Nam omnia no¬ mina similia Sacramento, actionem signifi¬ cant, non signum : ut patet de nomine ves¬ timenti, calceamenti, impedimenti, orna¬ menti, firmamenti, fundamenti, et cseteris ejusdem forma? ; Sacramentum igitur a sa¬ crando dicitur, non a significando. Tertio, quia tota ratio, cur posterior sen¬ tentia velit, Sacramentum in genere nihil esse, nisi signum; est illa definitio : «Sa¬ cramentum est signum sacrae rei : » ubi non tribuitur Sacramento efficere rem sacram, sed solum significare. At jam nos ostendimus istam definitionem non esse perfectam, cum ipse Augustinus , qui ejus est auctor, eam condemnet, quandoquidem vult eam conve¬ nire etiam sacrificio. Secunda propositio : « Sacramenta vete¬ ris legis non ideo Sacramenta sunt, quia si¬ gnificant gratiam justificantem, sed quia si¬ gnificant et efficiunt sanctitatem legalem. » Ilaec est etiam pro prima sententia contra secundam. Et probatur primo ex praecedente conclusione. Si enim ad. Sacramentum in genere magis requiritur sanctificare, quam significare, profecto Sacramenta vetera, si ullo modo Sacramenta erant, non solum si¬ gnificabant, sed etiam efficiebant. Secundo, quia significare gratiam aliis dandam, non est Sacramenti, ut Sacramen¬ tum est, sed ut figura , et typus rei futura?. Nam Sacramentum, ut Sacramentum, dicit ordinem ad cum , qui Sacramento initiatur, non ad alios : ut recte docet S. Thomas I. 2. quoest. CI. art. 4. et quaest. CU. art. 5. figura autem dicit ordinem ad futura. Et confirmatur : quia significare gratiam dan- 338 LIBER I, dam aliis, non erat proprium Sacramentis veteribus, sed etiam sacrificiis, aliisque ob¬ servantiis Hebraeorum, ut S. Augustinus de¬ monstrat, lib. XIX. contra Faustum, cap. 8, 9, 10 et 11. Nec solum illa, sed etiam serpens aeneus significabat curationem a peccatis, quam Christus allaturus erat, Joan. III, Manna dulcedinem Eucharistiae. et transitus maris rubri, salutem per Baptismum, I. Cor. . X. et tamen nec serpens ille, nec manna, nec arca Sacramenta erant Testamenti ve¬ teris, aut novi. Tertia propositio : « Sacramentum est ge¬ nus univocum ad Sacramenta legis veteris, et novae ; proinde Sacramenta vetera erant simpliciter, et absolute Sacramenta. » Haec est pro secunda opinione contra primam. Probatur primo. Sacramentum in genere nihil aliud requirit , nisi caeremoniam signi¬ ficantem, et efficientem alicujus consecratio¬ nis, seu sanctificationis: non autem requirit, ut illa sanctificatio sit per gratiam mundan¬ tem animam a peccatis , ista enim specialis sanctificatio constituit speciem quamdam Sa¬ cramenti, non ipsum genus absolute. Sacra¬ menta autem veteris legis vere significabant, et efficiebant quamdam consecrationem. Nam per Circumcisionem initiabantur Judaei, et consecrabantur Deo, ut essent populus ejus peculiaris; per Unctionem sacerdotalem vere consecrabantur Deo filii Aaron, ut fun¬ gerentur sacerdotio, atque idem de aliis eo¬ rum Sacramentis dici potest; de quibus videS. Thomam, 1. 2. quasst. CII. art. 3. Erant igitur illa vere, et proprie Sacra¬ menta. Secundo. Nulla esse potest religio sino Sacramentis, ut S. Augustinus docet, lib. XIX. contra Faustum , cap. 11. Sed in Tes¬ tamento veteri erat vera Ecclesia, vera reli¬ gio, verum sacrificium, cur igitur non etiam vera Sacramenta ? Neque obstat, quod omnia contingebant Judaeis in figura, I. Cor. X. ac proinde sa¬ crificia, Sacramenta, ritus omnes, typi qui¬ dam erant nostri sacrificii , nostrorum Sa¬ cramentorum, ac rituum ; unde videtur col¬ ligi, non fuisse illa sacrificia, et Sacramenta, nisi per analogiam ad nostra. Hoc, inquam, non obstat; siquidem Sacramenta Judaica erant quidem figura Sacramentorum nostro¬ rum, sed non solum figurae , verum etiam res per se. Itaque Circumcisio non solum erat figura Baptismi , sed etiam erat per se caeremonia instituta ad initiandos homines illius temporis, et adjungendos populo Dei ; quare erat imperfectius Sacramentum, quam sit Baptismus, tamen absolute, et proprie Sacramentum erat. Nam etiam bos est ani¬ mal imperfectius , quam sit homo, et tamen bos absolute, et proprio animal est: sic etiam ordinatio Aaronica non solum figura erat ordinationis nostrae , sed etiam per se caere¬ monia consecrans homines ad sacrificia of¬ ferenda. Et ipsa quoque sacrificia non solum figura erant sacrificii nostri , sed etiam per se sacrificia, instituta ad cultum Deo exhi¬ bendum, ut summo rerum omnium princi¬ pio, et fini. Denique ipse etiam populus Ju¬ daicus figura erat populi Christiani , 1. Cor. X. et tamen quis ambigere potest , an non fuerit etiam per se verus quidam populus? Itaque non debent conferri res Judaica3 cum nostris, ut imago picta cum homine vivo, ubi nihil est imago, nisi res alterius : sed ut filii parvuli conferuntur cum viris per¬ fectis, ut facit Apostolus , Gal. IY. Est enim Filius imago Patris , et tamen etiam per se homo : et ut comparantur certamina, atque exercitationes pueriles cum certaminibus, et exercitationibus virorum. Sunt enim certa¬ mina puerilia imagines quaidam majorum certaminum ; tamen habent etiam suam ob¬ lectationem, et utilitatem illi tempori con¬ gruentem. Quarta propositio : « Illa definitio (Sacrae rei signum) convenit univoce Sacramentis omnibus tum veteribus , tum novis. » Haec est pro secunda opinione contra primam. Notandum est autem tribus modis posse ex¬ poni definitionem illam. Primo, ut per sig¬ num intelligatur signum practicum ; per rem sacram, gratia justificans. Et hoc modo non convenit definitio proprie, nisi Sacramentis nova3 legis ; veteribus autem solum secun¬ dum quid, et analogice : quia videlicet illa erant signa practica munditiae legalis, quae non est gratia justificans, nisi typice, ut imago hominis dicitur homo. Sed ista expo¬ sitio non est ad mentem S. Augustini, ut supra diximus. Secundo potest sic exponi, ut per signum, intelligatur signum practicum , per rem sa¬ cram, consecratio in genere , non descen¬ dendo ad justificationem internam, vel lega¬ lem : et hoc modo definitio convenit univoce omnibus Sacramentis. Sed neque, haec ex¬ positio estad mentem S. Augustini; enim non loquitur ipse de signo practico, utS. Thomas recte advertit. Tertio potest sic exponi, ut per signum, intelligamus nudum signum, per rem sa¬ cram , gratiam justificantem : et hoc modo convenit univoce definitio illa omnibus Sa- cramentis; et hoc dicimus in Conclusione, secuti B. Thomam. Caiterum ista definitio ut supra monuimus, non est perfecta, cum conveniat etiam sacrificio , eodem teste Au¬ gustino loco citato. Porro definitiones caeterte, id est. Hugonis, Magistri, et Catechismi Romani, non conve¬ niunt nisi Sacramentis novse legis : tamen facile possent accommodari ad Sacramentum in genere, si loco, invisibilis gratia? , Seu jus¬ titia , poneretur, consecrationis cujusdam , hoc modo ; Sacramentum est res sensibus sub¬ jecta, quse ex Dei institutione consecrationis cujusdam, tum significandae, tum efficiendae vim habet.