Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacraments in General · Book I: On the Nature and Causes of the Sacrament
Chapter 14: The definition of the Lutherans is refuted
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).
Let us now come to sifting and refuting the definitions of the adversaries; for in this matter they are greatly discordant, which is a manifest sign that they have departed from the truth, which is one. Certainly Kemnitz, who otherwise strives to cover or reconcile the discords of his own party, in the second part of the Examen, in the chapter On the efficacy of the Sacraments, page 96, enumerates five diverse opinions of the Lutherans besides his own, which is the sixth.
The first opinion, then, of Luther is in the book On the Babylonian captivity, in the last chapter, where he says that properly a Sacrament is a promise annexed to an external sign. This the Lutherans commonly receive, but explain it a little more. For thus the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, article 13, defines it: “A Sacrament is a rite which has the command of God, and to which is added the promise of grace.” Peter Martyr has like things, though otherwise a Calvinist, on chapter 4 to the Romans, on chapters 10 and 11 of 1 Corinthians, and in the Italian explanation of the Creed, articles 9 and 10. But Martin Kemnitz most accurately strives to explain all the things that pertain to the nature of a Sacrament.
And because both in the Apology and in the Commonplaces Philip prefaces that he is giving the interpretation of the name, and often varies the words of his definition, it will be more useful to propose and sift the things which Kemnitz teaches to be required for the nature of a Sacrament. First, then, he will have a Sacrament to be an external, material or corporeal, and visible element or sign, which is handled by a certain external rite. Second, he requires that this sign have an express command or divine institution. Third, that this command be in the New Testament; which Philip also teaches in the Commonplaces, in the chapter On the Sacraments, where he says that a Sacrament is a ceremony instituted in the Gospel. Fourth, he requires that a Sacrament be not a temporary ceremony, but one to last until the consummation of the world. Fifth, he says there is required a promise concerning the grace, effect, or fruit of the Sacrament. Sixth, he says that this promise ought to be annexed to the sign, and as it were clothed with it, by divine ordination. Seventh, he adds that this promise ought to be not of any gift of God whatsoever, but of the reconciliation of the sinner and the remission of sin; which part also Luther urges strongly in the Babylonian captivity, and Philip in the Commonplaces, in the chapter On the number of the Sacraments. Eighth, he requires that the promise, which is otherwise general, be applied through the Sacrament and sealed in particular to each one who uses the Sacraments with faith.
This last particle Luther and Philip, and Kemnitz himself too, explain more clearly below in the chapter On the efficacy of the Sacrament; for they will have the Sacraments to be infallible testimonies of the grace of God, instituted for this, to excite and nourish faith, in the manner in which miracles are wont to do. Whence Philip in the Commonplaces of the year '22 compares the Sacraments to the miracles by which God formerly confirmed faith; and in the Apology article 13 he says that a Sacrament is an infallible testimony, as if God by a new miracle from heaven were promising that he would pardon. And Luther in the book against Cochlaeus: “Peter will have,” he says, “that through Baptism, as an external sign, faith which saves is provoked and exercised”; and in the book On the Babylonian captivity, in the chapter On Baptism, he compares the Sacraments with the fleece of Gedeon, with the rainbow which Noe received for a sign, and with the sign which Isaias offered to King Achaz, Isaias 7. In the Augsburg Confession itself too, article 13: “The Sacraments,” they say, “are instituted to be signs and testimonies of the will of God toward us, set forth to excite and confirm faith in those who use them.” And Kemnitz in the place cited, page 102, says that the word and the Sacrament show where faith ought to seek and find Christ the Mediator; and on pages 101 and 103 he says the Sacraments are seals of the promise. This, then, is their opinion.
Kemnitz devised this definition to show that Baptism and the Eucharist alone are Sacraments properly so called; but he has not yet obtained what he wished. For we can easily demonstrate that this definition does not agree even with these two Sacraments, and is absolutely bad.
The first particle, then, either takes the visible and handleable element for any sensible thing whatsoever, as Catholics take it — and then priestly Absolution too will be a Sacrament properly so called, for Absolution is a sensible thing, since it is perceived by the ears — or it takes (as in fact it does take) the visible and handleable element for a thing perceived by the sense of seeing and touching; and then it feigns to itself a definition without any testimony of Scripture. For Scripture nowhere has that a Sacrament is nothing but a visible and palpable thing. Nor does Kemnitz prove this particle in any other way than from this, that Baptism and the Eucharist, which are true Sacraments, are visible and handleable signs. Which argumentation either assumes what is to be proved, and what Kemnitz himself afterward strives to prove from the very definition — namely, that Baptism and the Eucharist alone are Sacraments — or, if it does not assume this, it proves nothing. For as it does not follow, “Man and bird are two-footed, therefore every animal is two-footed,” so it does not follow, “Baptism and the Eucharist are visible and handleable signs, therefore every Sacrament is a visible and handleable sign.” It is enough, then, for the nature of a Sacrament, inasmuch as it is a sensible sign, that it be perceived by some sense; nor ought the sense of hearing to be excluded, since the most excellent of all signs are those which are perceived by this sense, as St. Augustine teaches book 2 On Christian doctrine chapter 3.
The second particle, which requires an express command or divine institution, either requires that this command be expressed in the Scriptures, or it is enough if it be established that God gave this command, although it be not had so expressly in the sacred letters. If this second suffices, we admit the particle, but then we shall prove all seven Sacraments. For although it is nowhere written that God commanded or instituted the Sacrament of Confirmation, yet because we read, Acts 8, that by the imposition of the hands of the Apostles the Holy Spirit was given to the baptized, and that ordinarily, we certainly gather that this was instituted by God; for no created power can effect that by the imposition of a hand the Holy Spirit be given to men. And the same we could prove of the other Sacraments, especially with the accession of ancient tradition and the declaration of the Church. But if Kemnitz will have (as in fact he signifies that he wills) that a command of God expressed in the divine letters is required, that particle is false. For it is by accident to a command or divine institution that it be written or not written; for otherwise Baptism and the Eucharist, which Christ and the Apostles gave before the Gospels were written, would not have been true Sacraments. Since it is certain that the Gospel was not written when Christ baptized, John 3, and when he gave the Eucharist to the disciples, Matthew 26, nor even when St. Peter bade three thousand men be baptized, Acts 2 — at which time also the Sacrament of the Eucharist began to be frequented, as St. Luke there indicates.
The third particle, that this institution be in the New Testament, is indeed absolutely true, yet it destroys the opinion of the adversaries. For they, by common consent against the common consent of the Catholic Church, teach that the Baptism of John had the same force and efficacy as the Baptism of Christ; and accordingly that Christ did not so much institute the Sacrament of Baptism as approve it as already instituted by John. So Calvin teaches book 4 of the Institutes chapter 14 section 7, Kemnitz in the second part of the Examen in the chapter On the Baptism of John, Philip in the Commonplaces in the chapter On the Baptism of John and of the Apostles. But certainly, if the matter is so, the Sacrament of Baptism is not instituted in the New Testament; for the author and prince of the New Testament is Christ, as the Apostle says to the Hebrews 9, for which cause also Isaias 9 he is called the Father of the world to come. If, then, the Baptism which we use began from John, who came before Christ, and was his precursor and forerunner, it follows that this Sacrament is instituted not in the New Testament, but in the Old.
The fourth particle, that a Sacrament ought to be a perpetual ceremony — that is, one to last as long as religion itself lasts — does not displease me; for we too taught the same above. Yet let Kemnitz see what he answers to Luther, who in the book On the Babylonian captivity, in the chapter On Baptism, numbers among the Sacraments the dew falling on the fleece of Gedeon, and the shadow going backward in the dial of Achaz.
The fifth particle, that a promise of grace is necessarily required for a Sacrament, can be understood in two ways. In one way, of the promise of grace which is the effect of the Sacrament, so that the promise of grace in the Sacraments and the institution of the Sacrament as an efficacious sign or instrument of justification are the same. In another way, of a preceding promise of grace, which is sealed by the Sacrament as by a seal. For as it is one thing to promise that some seal will be efficacious for imprinting, another to promise a hundred gold pieces and seal the bond with a seal; so it is one thing to promise grace by words, and then confirm this promise by an external sign, another to promise that the Sacrament will be an efficacious instrument for justifying. Now Kemnitz confounds these two. For in this fifth particle he says that a promise concerning the grace or fruit of the Sacrament is required, where he seems to speak of the promise of the efficacy of the Sacrament; yet below, where with the other Lutherans he says that a Sacrament is the seal of a promise, he speaks of a preceding promise, of which without doubt all the Lutherans speak.
And indeed the promise concerning the efficacy of the Sacrament is found in the Word of God according to Catholics, as to all the Sacraments; but not according to the adversaries. For the Catholics acknowledge as the Word of God also the traditions; but the adversaries, who receive the Scriptures alone, will not easily show a promise concerning the grace and fruit of the Sacrament in all the Sacraments. Let the Eucharist be our example, which among the adversaries too is a Sacrament properly so called. For there are had indeed many and notable promises, John 6, such as that: He that eateth this bread shall live for ever. But the adversaries do not admit that in this chapter 6 of John the Eucharist is treated. For thus Luther speaks, book On the Babylonian captivity, chapter On the Eucharist: “First,” he says, “chapter 6 of John is wholly to be set aside, as one which does not speak even a syllable of the Sacrament.” And the same Calvin and other heretics of this time teach in the commentary on that place. That chapter set aside, they will find no promise. For Matthew 26 and Mark 14 the institution of the Sacrament is had, and not any promise; and Luke 22, where it is had, there is no promise; for only these words are had: This is my body, which shall be delivered for you. And: This is my blood, which shall be shed for you and for many unto remission of sins. Where the promise concerning the delivering of the body and the shedding of the blood is referred not to the Sacrament, but to the sacrifice, which was then offered to God in the supper, and afterward was to be offered on the cross. For the Lord does not say that his body is given to the Apostles unto remission of sins, but is given for them — namely, to God — unto remission of sins; and likewise he does not say that the blood is given to the Apostles to drink, but is shed for them unto remission of sins.
But the preceding promise, which is sealed by the Sacrament as by a seal, is not necessary, nor is it found in all the Sacraments; and accordingly the definition of the adversaries is false on this part. For in Baptism, which is a Sacrament by the consent of all, no such promise will easily be found. Luther in the Saxon visitation, and Philip in the Commonplaces chapter On Baptism, bring forward that promise, Mark last: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. But this is not a preceding promise, but is an explanation of the efficacy of the Sacrament. And besides, these words were spoken by the Lord after the resurrection; but the Sacrament of Baptism was instituted even before the Passion of Christ, and began to be brought into use, as is plain from John 3 and 4. They will say perhaps that another promise is had, John 3, in those words: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. But this is not so much a promise as a threat, from which is gathered indeed the necessity and virtue of Baptism, but not any preceding promise which is sealed by Baptism. Add that even before these words there was the Baptism of John, which the adversaries will have had the force of our Baptism. Of the Eucharist indeed there is found a certain promise (as Luther notes in the Saxon visitation) preceding the sign. For Luke 22 and 1 Corinthians 11 we have that the Eucharist is a sign of the body of the Lord delivered for us, and of the blood shed for us. But in that place we do not have that the Eucharist is a testifying and confirming sign of a promise, such as they require, as is plain from the last particle; but only a commemorative sign. For thus the Lord says: Do this in commemoration of me.
The sixth particle, that the promise ought to be annexed to the sign by divine ordination, is false. For the word which is annexed by divine ordination, and as it were clothed with the sign, that thence a Sacrament may be made, is never promissory, but assertory or deprecatory. For when water is sprinkled in Baptism, it is not said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved,” which the adversaries call a promise; but it is said, “I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” Matthew 28, which words are not promissory. And the Lord, when he first made and gave the Eucharist, did not say, He that eateth this bread shall live for ever, or anything of that kind, but said, Take and eat, this is my body. But in the Sacrament of Confirmation and of Extreme Unction we use a deprecatory word, because thus the Acts of the Apostles chapter 8, and James chapter 5, teach us; in the Sacrament of Order, an imperative one, Receive the power; in the rest, an assertory one. But if the adversaries, before they minister the Sacraments, preach the word and announce the remission of sins, and then apply the seal of the Sacraments, as Calvin prescribes in the booklet On the form of ministering the Sacraments, they do this of their own head, not (as Kemnitz requires) from divine ordination. For nowhere does there exist a divine ordination by which we are bidden not to give the Eucharist or Baptism except after a sermon. For neither the Lord, Matthew 26, nor Paul, 1 Corinthians 11, where they hand down the rite of administering the Eucharist, teach that a sermon ought to precede; and certainly in the Baptism of infants a sermon would be applied in vain.
The seventh particle, that the promise ought to be concerning the remission of sins, is also false; and indeed Kemnitz added this particle to exclude Ordination from the number of the Sacraments properly so called. For because there is found in the Scriptures an external sign by which Ordination is conferred, namely the imposition of a hand, and also the collation of grace — since the Apostle says 1 Timothy 4: Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the imposition of the hands of the priesthood — Kemnitz did not think Ordination could be excluded from the Sacraments properly so called, unless he added that this grace ought to be the remission of sins. But if that particle were true, it would exclude the Eucharist too from the Sacraments properly so called; since the Eucharist is not instituted properly to remit sins, but to nourish and increase charity. For therefore it is given under the species of bread and wine, which nourish the living, not raise the dead; and blessed Paul 1 Corinthians 11 bids that men prove themselves — namely, whether they be without sin — before they approach that table: For he that eateth unworthily, eateth judgment to himself.
The eighth particle, that the Sacrament seals like a seal, and confirms like a miracle, the promise of grace, for exciting and nourishing justifying faith, is equally false, and to be diligently refuted, both because it is the chief one, and also because Calvin too puts it in his definition. First, if the Sacraments confirmed the promises of God like a miracle or a seal, they would be better known and more efficacious for persuading faith than the very words of God are; but this is false, therefore that particle too is false. The proposition is proved, both because one thing would be applied in vain to confirm another unless it were better known and firmer than it, and also because this is the force of a seal and a miracle. For always the royal seal is better known and firmer than the letters of the king; for the seal all men know how to discern, the letters not all discern; and the seal has authority without the letters, the letters without the seal have none. So also a miracle is better known and more efficacious than preaching. For all who see a blind man enlightened, or a dead man raised, understand that this is a supernatural and divine work, and accordingly are moved to believe that which is confirmed by such a testimony; but not all who hear one preaching straightway understand that these are the words of God.
Where it is to be noted that by the miracles which are done to confirm faith the divine authority is not confirmed, as though a miracle were more to be believed than God speaking — for all know that God cannot lie, and that nothing is greater than the divine authority — but the authority of the one proposing the faith is confirmed. For we are more moved to believe that the things which the preacher proposes are truly revealed by God, if we see miracles, than if we rely on the authority of the proposer alone. Whence Mark last we read: But they going forth preached everywhere, the Lord working withal, and confirming the word with signs that followed. Where you see that God by signs confirms not his own authority, but the discourse of the preachers.
Now the assumption of the argument is proved — namely, that it is false that the Sacraments are better known and more efficacious than the very Word of God. For, first, nothing greater and more efficacious than the Word of God can be feigned. Second, experience teaches that a thing is more easily understood if it be said by a word than if it be signified by a nod. But what are the Sacraments, if they be compared with words, but certain nods? In like manner experience teaches that words persuade more than mute signs, provided they be not miracles. Whence Luther himself confesses that the words of the promise are far more efficacious than the Sacraments, which are mute sermons: “The word itself,” he says in the book against John Cochlaeus, “which far excels the visible sign, of itself justifies no one but the believer.”
Calvin answers, book 4 of the Institutes chapter 14 section 3, that the Sacraments confirm the promises not on the part of God, but on our part; because although, as they are from God, they are most certain, yet as they are received by us, on account of the weakness of our faith, they are not so certainly accepted unless they be confirmed by the testimony of the Sacraments. But this is easily rejected. For that the promises of God on our part need confirmation is either because we do not know what the promises of God are, and this we learn from the Sacraments; or because, since we know both that those are the promises of God and that these are Sacraments, yet we believe the Sacraments more than the promises. And this latter has already been refuted. For we do not only believe, but also know by a most evident reason, that God cannot lie, and accordingly that nothing is more certain than the promises of God; nor can the adversaries deny this. But the former too can equally easily be refuted; since it is false that the promises of God are learned from the Sacraments, whereas on the contrary rather the Sacraments are learned from the Word of God. Now indeed, if the royal seal were unknown, and could be known only from the letters to which it is appended, it would plainly be superfluous. For either men believe those letters to be the king's, the seal set aside, or they do not; if they believe, what does the seal do? If they do not believe, certainly neither do they believe the seal to be royal; it confers nothing, then. In like manner, since the Sacraments are not known to be the seals of God except because Scripture says this, if the word is believed without the Sacraments, to what purpose the Sacraments? If it is not believed, certainly neither are the Sacraments believed to be Sacraments; and accordingly they effect nothing.
To this argument Calvin answers, book 4 of the Institutes chapter 14 section 5, that in charters too the seal avails nothing without the letters, as is plain if it be appended to a paper on which nothing is written; and yet, when it is appended to a written charter, it avails much to confirm it. And he adds that it is no marvel if the promises be confirmed by the Sacraments, since even sometimes one promise is confirmed by another. But this answer does not dissolve the argument. For, to begin from the latter example, a promise confirms a promise because one does not depend on the other. The Angel, Luke 1, confirmed the promise of the Virginal conception from the promise of the conception which had already preceded in an aged and barren woman. For these two marvelous works do not depend on each other; and accordingly the one which had already preceded had great force to confirm the other which had not yet come. But the Sacraments, as we said, simply depend on the word. And as to the likeness of the seal and the charter, what Calvin says is nothing at all. For a seal appended to an unwritten paper confirms nothing indeed, yet does not therefore depend on the letters, or become nothing. Nay, from this we understand how ineptly the adversaries call the Sacraments seals, since they have an altogether contrary property. For the seals of charters have their authority without the letters of the charter, but the letters have none without the seal; whereas on the contrary in the word and the Sacraments, the Word of God has infallible authority even without the Sacraments, but the Sacraments without the word have none. Wherefore the word ought rather to be called the seal of the Sacrament, than the Sacrament the seal of the word.
They will say perhaps: Be it so, that the Sacraments do not confirm the promises after the manner of a miracle or a seal; yet they help and confirm at least in the manner in which an external action helps and confirms the discourse of one teaching. For it cannot be denied that the very action, and the motion of the hands and eyes, confer something for explaining and persuading, although the discourse holds the chief part. The Sacraments, then, will be, as it were, a certain action of God, which together with the word will move more to faith than the word alone. I answer that not even this can be granted. For action in men helps discourse because human discourse is imperfect, as are all created things, and also because action has its force not from the word, but from itself. Wherefore the heathen believed the oracles of Apollo, which they thought could not be false, although they were uttered by words alone, more than the discourse and action of any orator whatsoever. Since, then, the words of God are of themselves of the highest authority, and the Sacraments have all their force from the words, they can add nothing to the word itself. Yet it is true, what the Catholics say, that God willed to give his grace through sensible signs, that by them he might instruct men and lead them to understand spiritual things. For it is one thing to teach spiritual things by likenesses of corporeal things, another to confirm a most firm thing by another less firm.
Second argument. The essence and nature of the Sacraments cannot be better gathered from anywhere than from the words of him who instituted them. But in the holy Scriptures, which are the words of God the author of the Sacraments, the Sacraments are nowhere called testimonies of promises, but are everywhere described as instruments of justification. For John 3 we are said to be born again through Baptism; and likewise to the Ephesians 5 the Apostle says that the Church was sanctified and cleansed by the laver of water in the word of life; and to Titus 3 the Apostle calls Baptism the laver of regeneration and renovation. So also of the Eucharist, John 6, it is said: He that eateth this bread shall live for ever; and the same we could prove of the others. But these sentences cannot, except most absurdly, be so expounded that for the Sacraments to regenerate, cleanse, and give eternal life should be nothing else than to give testimony of the promises. For who would bear him who should so speak: “Baptism regenerates — that is, gives testimony of the divine will”? Or, “I baptize thee — that is, I testify”? And this argument is most efficacious against the Lutherans; since Luther, whom the rest in this matter willingly follow, in the book against Cochlaeus, thus says: “In sacred matters the most vehement and strongest place is to argue negatively from authority.” Let them either, then, produce a place where the Sacraments are called testimonies of promises, or else confess that we have a most vehement and strongest argument. They are wont to produce only three places which seem to have some appearance. One is Genesis 17, where Circumcision is called the sign of the covenant. Another, Romans 4, where Circumcision is called the seal of the justice of faith. The third, 1 Peter 3, where Peter says, Baptism saveth you, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the examination of a good conscience — or (as they render it) the stipulation, or covenant, with God. But in these places neither promise nor testimony is named, nor do these places make to the point, as we shall show below in the solution of the arguments.
Third argument. If the Sacraments were only testimonies of the promise and of grace, they would be either superfluous or at least little necessary. For we have other testimonies far more efficacious; since good works are far better testimonies of justice obtained than the washing of water or the taking of the Eucharist. For many impious men are baptized with a feigned heart, and take the Eucharist, who are accordingly worse and more hateful to God than before. 2 Corinthians 1: Our glory is this, the testimony of our conscience. 2 Peter 1: Labour the more, that by good works you may make sure your calling and election. 1 John 3: He that doth justice is just; and he that is born of God committeth not sin.
Fourth argument. If the Sacraments were only testimonies of the promises, instituted for exciting faith, infants and the insane would be baptized in vain, who it is certain not only do not believe, but cannot actually believe. But all the Lutherans fight for the Baptism of little ones against the Anabaptists; the Lutherans, then, do not truly hand down the faith, what a Sacrament is. This argument compelled Luther, in the book against Cochlaeus, and the other Lutherans, to assert that infants actually believe while they are baptized; which yet is so absurd that St. Augustine in epistle 57 to Dardanus wrote that they do injury to human senses who say this. For we see infants weep at the touch of the water, flee it, and resist as much as they can; which certainly, if they did it having the use of reason, not only would they not be purged from original sin, but would even add their own actual sin.
Fifth argument. If the Sacraments were testimonies of the grace which is conferred in particular on someone, they would very often be false — namely, when the Sacrament is ministered to a man who feigns himself to believe, when in truth he does not believe. And accordingly it would not be lawful to baptize anyone, lest we compel God to testify a falsehood; for of no one do we certainly know whether he truly believes or feigns himself to believe. They will say perhaps that the Sacrament is a testimony of grace not absolutely, but if he who receives the Sacrament believes the promise. But against this I prove that the testimony is absolute, not conditional. First, Luther in the assertion of the first article says that he who does not believe the word of the minister saying, “I baptize thee,” or “I absolve thee,” makes God, whose those words are, a liar. But if those words were understood with a condition, “if the other believe,” they would not be false, nor would God be made a liar. Second, if those words were conditional, the justifying faith of the Lutherans would fall. For they will have a man to believe absolutely, without any hesitation, that he is just; therefore God absolutely testifies that he is just; for a man ought not to believe anything but what God testifies. And besides, faith ought to be secret; therefore it ought not to depend on the condition “if a man believe.” For no one, according to Luther, is certain of himself whether he truly believes; for thus Luther writes in the book against the rebaptizers, published in the year 1528: “Baptism is not to be founded upon the faith of the baptizer or of the baptized, because each is uncertain of his faith.” And below: “So it happens, and is wont to happen, concerning faith, that he who thinks he believes is often convicted of believing nothing at all; and on the contrary, he who thinks he believes nothing, he most of all believes.” Third, the adversaries so speak of this matter that they seem to believe the testimony of God in the Sacraments to be altogether absolute. For thus Philip speaks in the Commonplaces chapter On Baptism: “I,” says the minister, “by divine command and in the place of Christ baptize thee — that is, by this sign I testify that thy sins are washed away, and that thou art reconciled to the true God, etc.” Where he makes no mention of a condition. And this concerning the definition of the Lutherans.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XIV. Refellitur definitio Lutiter anorum. Accedamus nunc ad excutiendas, et refel¬ lendas adversariorum definitiones : sunt enim in hac re valde discordes ; quod est manifestum signum eos recessisse a verita¬ te, quae est una. Certe Kemnitius, qui alio- qui conatur tegere, vel conciliare discordias suorum, in 2. part. Examinis, cap. de effi¬ cacia Sacramentorum, pagina 96. enumerat quinque diversas sententias Lutheranorum praeter suam, quae est sexta. Prima igitur sententia Lutheri est in lib. de captivit. Babylon, cap. ult. ubi dicit, pro¬ prie Sacramentum esse promissionem signo externo annexam. Eam recipiunt communi¬ ter Lutherani, sed paulo magis explicant. Sic enim definit Apologia Confessionis Au¬ gustanae artic 13. « Sacramentum est ritus, qui habet mandatum Dei, et cui est addita promissio gratiae. » Similia habet Petrus Martyr, quamvis alioqui Calvinista in cap. IV. ad Rornan. in cap. X. et XI. 1. ad Go- rinth. et in explicatione Symboli Italica, art. 9. et 10. Sed Marti nus Kemnitius accu¬ ratissime conatur explicare omnia, quae ad naturam Sacramenti pertinent. Et quia tum in Apologia, tum in locis Philippus praefatur, se nominis interpreta¬ tionem dare, et saepe variat verba suae defi¬ nitionis ; utilius erit ea proponere, et excu¬ tere, quae atd naturam Sacramenti requiri Kemnitius docet. Primo ergo, vult Sacra¬ mentum esse debere externum materiale, seu corporale, et visibile elementum, seu si¬ gnum, quod certo externo ritu tractetur. Secundo requirit, ut illud signum habeat expressum mandatura, seu institutionem di¬ vinam. Tertio, ut illud mandatum sit in Testa¬ mento novo : quod idem docet Philippus in locis cap. de Sacramentis, ubi dicit, Sacra¬ mentum esse ceeremoniam in Evangelio ins- titutaim. Quarto requirit, ut Sacramentum non sit caeremonia temporaria, sed duratura usque ad mundi consummationem. Quinto requiri dicit, promissionem de gratia, effectu, seu fructu Sacramenti. Sexto dicit, eam promissionem debere esse annexam signo, et eo quasi vestitam, divina ordinatione. Septimo addit, eam promissionem esse debere non de quocumque dono Dei, sed de reconciliatione peccatoris, et peccati remis¬ sione ; quam etiam partem urgent valde Lutherus in captivit. Babylon, et Philippus in locis cap. de numero Sacramentorum. Octavo requirit, ut promissio, quse alioqui generalis est, per Sacramentum applicetur, et obsignetur in particulari singulis, qui cum fide utuntur Sacramentis. Hanc parti¬ culam clarius explicant Lutherus et Philip¬ pus, et ipse etiam Kemnitius infra capite de efficacia Sacramenti : volunt enim Sacra¬ menta esse testimonia infallibilia gratiae Dei, ad hoc instituta, ut excitent et nutriant fi¬ dem, ad eum modum, quo miracula facere solent. Unde Philippus in locis anni 22. comparat Sacramenta miraculis , quibus Deus olim fidem confirmabat : et in Apolo¬ gia artic. 13 dicit, Sacramentum esse testi¬ monium infallibile, ac si Deus novo mira¬ culo de coelo promitteret, se velle ignoscere. Et Lutherus in lib. contra Cochlaeum : « Vult, inquit, Petrus per Baptismum, ceu signum externum, fidem provocari, et exer¬ ceri, qute salvet ; » et in lib. de captiv. Ba¬ bylon. cap. de Baptismo, confert Sacramen¬ ta cum vellere Gedeonis, cum Iride, quam Noe in signum accepit, et cum signo quod Isaias obtulit Regi Achaz, Isaiae VII. In ips a CAPUT XIV. 361 etiam Confessione Augustana, articul. 13 : « Sacramenta, inquiunt, sunt instituta, ut sint signa, et testimonia voluntatis Dei erga nos, ad excitandam, et confirmandam fidem, in his qui utuntur, proposita. » Et Kemnitius loco citato pag. 102. dicit, verbum et Sacra¬ mentum monstrare, ubi fides debeat quae¬ rere, et invenire Christum Mediatorem, et pag. 101. et 103. dicit. Sacramenta esse si¬ gilla promissionis. Haec igitur est ipsorum sententia. Excogitavit hanc definitionem Kemnitius, ut ostenderet solum Baptismum, et Eucha¬ ristiam esse Sacramenta proprie dicta: sed nondum obtinuit quod voluit. Nam facile demonstrare possumus, ne his quidem duo¬ bus Sacramentis eam definitionem conve¬ nire, et absolute malam esse. Prima igitur particula vel accipit elemen¬ tum visibile, et tractabile pro qualibet re sensibili, ut accipiunt Catholici, et tum etiam Absolutio sacerdotalis erit Sacramen¬ tum proprie dictum. Est enim Absolutio res sensibilis, cum auribus percipiatur : vel ac¬ cipit (ut revera accipit) elementum visibile, et tractabile pro re, quae sensu videndi, et tangendi percipiatur; et tum fingit sibi de¬ finitionem sine ullo testimonio Scripturae. Scriptura enim nusquam habet Sacramen¬ tum non esse, nisi rem visibilem, et palpa¬ bilem. Neque alio modo probat Kemnitius hanc particulam nisi ex eo, quod Baptismus, et Eucharistia, quae sunt vera Sacramenta, si¬ gna sunt visibilia, et tractabilia. Quae argu¬ mentatio aut assumit quod probandum est, et quod ex ipsa definitione postea idem Kemnitius probare conatur, nimirum Bap¬ tismum, et Eucharistiam sola esse Sacra¬ menta : aut si hoc non assumit, nihil probat. Ut enim non sequitur; Homo et avis sunt bipedia, igitur omne animal est bipes : ita non sequitur, Baptismus, et Eucharistia sunt signa visibilia, et tractabilia, igitur omne Sacramentum est signum visibile, et tractabile. Satis est igitur ad Sacramenti na¬ turam, quatenus signum est sensibile, ut aliquo sensu percipiatur; nec debet excludi sensus audiendi, cum excellentissima om¬ nium signorum sint ea, quae hoc sensu per¬ cipiuntur, ut S. 'Augustinus docet lib. 11. doct. Christ. cap. 3. Secunda particula, quae requirit expres¬ sum mandatum, seu institutionem divinam, aut requirit, ut hoc mandatum sit expres¬ sum in Scripturis, aut satis est, si constet Deum hoc mandatum dedisse, licet in sacris litteris non habeatur ita expresse. Si hoc secundum sufficiat, admittimus particulam, sed tunc probabimus omnia septem Sacra¬ menta. Licet enim nusquam scriptum sit, Deum mandasse, vel instituisse Sacramen¬ tum Confirmationis, tamen quia legimus, Actor. VIII, per manus impositionem Apos¬ tolorum datum fuisse baptizatis Spiritum sanctum, idque ordinarie , certo colligimus, a Deo id fuisse institutum : nec enim potest ulla creata potestas efficere , ut per imposi¬ tionem manus , hominibus detur Spiritus sanctus. Quod idem probare possemus de aliis Sacramentis, accedente praesertim an¬ tiqua traditione, et Ecclesiae declaratione. Sin autem vult Kemnitius (ut revera se velle significat) requiri mandatum Dei ex¬ pressum in divinis litteris; falsa est ea par¬ ticula. Nam per accidens est ad mandatum, sive institutionem divinam, quod sit scripta, vel non scripta : nam alioqui non fuissent vera Sacramenta, Baptismus et Eucharistia, quam Christus, et Apostdli dabant antequam scriberentur Evangelia. Siquidem certum est non fuisse scriptum Evangelium, quando Christus baptizabat, Joannis III. et quando Eucharistiam discipulis dedit, Matth. XXVI. nec etiam quando S. Petrus jussit baptizari tria millia hominum, Actor. II. quo etiam tempore coepit frequentari Sacramentum Eucharistiae, ut ibidem indicat S. Lucas. Tertia particula, ut haec institutio sit in Testamento novo, vera quidem est absolute, tamen destruit sententiam adversariorum. Ipsi enim, communi consensu contra com¬ munem consensum Ecclesiae Catholicae, do¬ cent, Baptismum Joannis habuisse eamdem vim, et efficaciam cum Baptismo Christi; ac proinde Christum non tam instituisse Baptismi Sacramentum, quam illud jam a Joanne institutum approbasse. Ita Calvinus docet lib. IV Instit. cap. 14. §. 7. Kemnitius in II. part. Examinis cap. de Baptismo Joan¬ nis, Philippus in locis, cap. de Baptismo Joannis et Apostolorum. At certe, si res ita se habet, non est Bap¬ tismi Sacramentum in novo Testamento in¬ stitutum : novi enim Testamenti auctor , et princeps Christus est. ut Apostolus ait ad Hebraeos IX propter quod et Isai. XI dicitur Pater futuri saeculi. Si igitur Baptismus, quo utimur, a Joanne coepit, qui ante Christum venit, et ejus praecursor, et praenuntius fuit,- 362 LIBER I. sequitur ut hoc Sacramentum non sit in novo Testamento, sed in veteri institutum. Quarta particula , quod Sacramentum de*- beat esse caeremonia perpetua, id est, dura¬ tura quamdiu religio ipsa durat, mihi non displicet : nam etiam nos supra idem docui¬ mus. Videat tamen Kemnitius quid Luthero respondeat, qui in lib. de captiv. Babylon, cap. do Baptismo, numerat inter Sacra¬ menta rorem cadentem in vellus Gedeonis, et umbram retrocedentem in horologio Achaz. Quinta particula, quod ad Sacramentum necessario requiratur promissio grati® : duo¬ bus modis intelligi potest. Uno modo de pro¬ missione gratiae, quae sit effectus Sacra¬ menti, ita ut idem sit promissio gratiae in Sacramentis, et institutio .Sacramenti, ut signi efficacis, seu instrumenti justificatio¬ nis. Alio modo de promissione gratiae prae¬ cedente, qu® Sacramento tamquam sigillo obsignetur. Sicut enim aliud est promitte¬ re, sigillum aliquod fore efficax ad impri¬ mendum; aliud promittere centum aureos, et syngrapham sigillo obsignare : ita aliud est promittere gratiam verbis, etdeinde hanc promissionem signo externo confirmare ; aliud vero promittere Sacramentum fore in¬ strumentum efficax ad justificandum. Porro Kemnitius confundit heee duo. Nam in hac particula quinta dicit, requiri promis¬ sionem de gratia, seu fructu Sacramenti, ubi videtur loqui de promissione efficaci® Sacramenti ; tamen infra, ubi cum c®teris Lutheranis dicit, Sacramentum esse sigillum promissionis, loquitur de promissione pr®- cedente, de qua sine dubio loquuntur omnes Lutherani. Et quidem promissio de efficacia Sacra¬ menti invenitur in Verbo Dei secundum Ca¬ tholicos, quantum ad omnia Sacramenta ; non autem secundum adversarios. Catholici enim agnoscunt pro Verbo Dei, etiam tradi¬ tiones; adversarii autem, qui solas Scriptu¬ ras recipiunt, non facile ostendent promis¬ sionem de gratia, et fructu Sacramenti , in omnibus Sacramentis. Exemplo nobis sit Eucharistia, qu® apud adversarios etiam est Sacramentum proprie dictum. Nam haben¬ tur quidem mult®, et insignes promissiones, Joan VI. ut illa : Qui manducat hunc panem , vivet in aeternum (1). Sed adversarii non ad¬ mittunt in hoc VI. cap. Joan. agi dc Eucha¬ ristia. Sic enim loquitur Lutherus lib. de captiv. Babylon, cap. de Eucharistia : « Pri¬ mum, inquit, cap. VI Joan. in totum est se¬ ponendum, ut quod nec syllaba quidem, dfe Sacramento loquitur. » Quod idem docent Calvinus, et alii hatretici hujus temporis in commentario ejus loci. Eo capite seposito, nullam invenient promissionem. Nam Matth. XXVI, Mare. XIV. institutio Sacramenti, non habetur et Luc. XXII , ubi habetur, ulla promissio : solum enim h®c verba ha¬ bentur : Hoc est corpus meum , quod pro vobis tradetur. Et : Hic est sanguis meus, qui pro vobis, et pro multis effundetur in remissio¬ nem peccatorum (2). Ubi promissio de tradi¬ tione corporis, et effusione sanguinis non re¬ fertur ad Sacramentum, sed ad sacrificium, quod tunc Deo Offerebatur in crena, et pos¬ tea offerendum erat in cruce. Non enim Do¬ minus dicit, corpus suum dari Apostolis in remissionem peccatorum : sed dari pro illis, nimirum Deo, in remissionem peccatorum ; et similiter non dicit sanguinem propinari Apostolis, sed effundi pro illis in remissionem peccatorum. Promissio autem prrecedens qu® a Sacra¬ mento tamquam sigillo obsignetur, non est necessaria , nec in omnibus Sacramentis in¬ venitur : proinde falsa est ex hac parte defi¬ nitio adversariorum. Nam in Baptismo, qui Sacramentum est, omnium consensu, non facile invenietur ejusmodi promissio. Lutherus in visitatione Saxonica, et Phi¬ lippus in locis cap.de Baptismo, adferuntil- lam promissionem Mare. ult. Qui crediderit, et baptizatus fuerit, salvus erit (3). Sed ista non est promissio pr®cedcns, sed est explicatio efficaci® Sacramenti. Et pr®ter.ea ista verba post resurrectionem a Domino dicta sunt : Baptismi autem Sacramentum etiam ante passionem Christi institutum est, et in mores induci coeptum, ut patet Joan. II I. et IV. Dicent fortasse, haberi aliam promissio¬ nem Jo. III. illis verbis : Nisi quis renatus, fuerit ex aqua , et Spiritu sancto, non potest introire in regnum Dei (4). Sed h®c non tam promissio, quam comminatio est, ex qua colligitur quidem necessitas, et virtus Bap¬ tismi; sed non promissio aliqua pr®cedens, qu® Baptismo obsignetur. Adde quod etiam ante ista verba fuit Baptismus Joannis, (I) Joan. VI, 59. — (2) Matth. XXVI, 26 et seq. ; Mare. XtV, 22 et seq.; Luc. XXII, 19 et 2C. l3) Mare. XVI, 16. — (4) Joan. III. 3. CAPUT XIV. 363 quem adversarii volunt vim habuisse nostri Baptismi. Eucharistiae quidem invenitur promissio quaedam (ut Lutherus notat in Saxoniea vi¬ sitatione ) praecedens signum. Nam Luc, XXII. et XI. Corinth. I. halamus Eucharis¬ tiam esse signum corporis Domini pro nobis traditi, et sanguinis pro nobis effusi Sed eo loco non habemus, Eucharistiam esse signum testificativum, et confirmativum promissio¬ nis, quale ipsi requirunt, ut patet ex ultima particula ; sed signum commeraorativum tantum. Sic enim Dominus ait : Hoc facite in meam commemorationem (1). Sexta particula, quod promissio debeat esse annexa signo divina ordinatione, falsa est. Nam verbum, quod divina ordinatione annectitur, et quasi vestitur signo, ut inde fiat Sacramentum, numquam est promisso- rium, sed assertorium, vel deprecatorium. Cum enim aqua aspergitur in Baptismo, non dicitur : « Qui crediderit, et baptizatus fue¬ rit, salvus erit, » quam adversarii promissio¬ nem appellant; sed dicitur : « Ego te bap¬ tizo, in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus sancti, » Matth. XXVIII. quae verba non sunt promissoria. Et Dominus, cum primo Eucharistiam fecit, et dedit, non ait : Qui manducat hunc panem , vivet in aeternum , aut aliquid ejusmodi, sed ait : Accipite , et come¬ dite, hoc est corpus meum . In Sacramento au¬ tem Confirmationis, et Extremae unctionis, utimur verbo deprecatorio, quia sic docent nos Acta Apostolorum cap. VIII. et Jacobus cap. V. in Sacramento Ordinis, imperatorio : Accipe potestatem, in reliquis, assertorio. Quod si adversarii, antequam Sacramenta ministrent, verbum praedicant, et remissio¬ nem peccatorum annuntiant, ac deinde si¬ gillum adhibent Sacramentorum, ut Calvi¬ nus praescribit in libello de formula Sacra¬ mentorum ministrandorum; id faciunt ex capite suo, non autem (ut Kemnitius requi¬ rit) ex divina ordinatione. Nusquam enim exstat divina Ordinatio, qua jubeamur non dare Eucharistiam , aut Baptismum , nisi post concionem. Nam nec Dominus, Matth. XXVI. nec Paulus I. Corint. XI. ubi tradunt ritum Eucharistiaj administrandae, docent, concionem praecedere debere : et certe in Baptismo infantium, frustra adhiberetur concio. Septima particula, quod illa promissio de¬ beat esse de remissione peccatorum, falsa etiam est : et quidem Kemnitius hanc parti¬ culam addidit, ut excludat ordinationem a numere Sacramentorum proprie dictorum. Nam quia in Scripturis invenitur signum ex¬ ternum, quo confertur Ordinatio, nimirum impositio manus, et etiam collatio gratiaj, cum Apostolus dicat I. Timoth. IV : ISoli negligere gratiam, quae in te est, quae data est tibi per prophetiam cum impositione manuum presbyterii (2), non putavit Kemnitius posse excludi Ordinationem a Sacramentis proprie dictis, nisi adderet, eam gratiam debere esse remissionem peccatorum. At si vera esset ista particula, excluderet etiam Eucharistiam a Sacramentis proprie dictis : siquidem Eu¬ charistia non est instituta proprie ad remit¬ tenda peccata, sed ad charitatem nutrien¬ dam, et arguendam. Ideo enim datur sub specie panis, et vini, quae nutriunt vivos, non excitant mortuos, et B. Paulus I. Co¬ rinth. XI. jubet, ut homines probent se, ni¬ mirum an sint absque peccato, antequam ad eam mensam accedant : Qui enim mandu¬ cat indigne, judicium sibi manducat (3). Octava particula, quod Sacramentum ob¬ signet instar sigilli, et confirmet instar mira¬ culi promissionem gratiae, ad excitandam et alendam fidem justificantem, aeque falsa est, et diligenter refutanda, tum quod sit prajeipua, tum etiam, quod eam ponat Cal¬ vinus quoque in sua definitione. Primo, si Sacramenta confirmarent pro¬ missiones Dei instar miraculi, vel sigilli, es¬ sent notiora, et efficaciora ad fidem persua¬ dendam, quam sint ipsa Dei verba : hoc autem falsum est, igitur et illa particula falsa est. Probatur propositio , tum quia frustra adhiberetur unum ad confirmandum aliud, nisi esset eo notius, et firmius : tum .etiam, quia haec est vis sigilli et miraculi. Semper enim sigillum Regium notius est et firmius, quam littera? Regis : sigillum enim omnes norunt discernere, litteras non omnes discernunt; et sigillum sine litteris auctorita¬ tem habet, litterae sine sigillo non habent. Sic etiam miraculum notius est, et efficacius, quam praedicatio. Omnes enim qui vident csecum illuminari, aut mortuum excitari in- telligunt illud esse opus supernaturale, et divinum, et proinde moventur ad credendum id, quod tali testimonio confirmatur : non autem omnes , qui audiunt praedicantem, (1) Luc. XXII, 19. — (2) I. Tim. IV, 14. - (3) I. Cor. IX, 29. 364 LIBER 1. continuo intelligunt, illa esse verba Dei. Ubi notandum est, miraculis, quce fiunt ad confirmandam fidem, non confirmari di¬ vinam' auctoritatem, quasi magis credendum sit miraculo, quam Deo dicenti ; omnes enim sciunt, Deum non posse mentiri, et nihil esse majus divina auctoritate ; sed confir¬ mari auctoritatem proponentis fidem. Magis enim movemur ad credendum vere esse a Deo revelata, qua? prmdicator proponit, si miracula videamus, quam si sola proponen¬ tis auctoritate nitamur. Unde Mare. ult. le¬ gimus : Illi autem profecti , praedicaverunt ubi¬ que Domino cooper ante, et sermonem confir¬ mante sequentibus signis (1). Ubi vides, Deum confirmare signis non suam ipsius auctorita¬ tem, sed praedicatorum sermonem. Probatur jam assumptio argumenti, quod videlicet falsum sit Sacramenta esse notiora, et efficaciora ipso Dei verbo. Nam primo nihil fingi potest majus, et efficacius Dei verbo. Secundo experientia docet, facilius intelligi, si quid verbo dicatur, quam si nutu significetur. Quid autem sunt Sacramenta, si cum verbis comparentur, nisi nutus qui¬ dam? Pari ratione experientia docet, magis persuadere verba, quam muta signa, modo non sint miracula. Unde Lutherus ipse fate¬ tur, multo efficaciora esse promissionis ver¬ ba, quam Sacramenta, quae sunt mutae con¬ ciones : «• Verbum ipsum (inquit in lib. con¬ tra Joannem Cochla;um) quod longe praiva- let signo visibili, nullum per sese justificat, nisi credentem. » Respondet Calvinus lib. IV. Instit. cap. 14, § 3. Sacramenta non confirmare promis¬ siones ex parte Dei, sed ex parte nostra : quia licet ut a Deo sunt, certissima; sint, ta¬ men ut a nobis recipiuntur, ob nostrae fidei imbecillitatem , non ita certo accipiuntur, nisi confirmentur testimonio Sacramento¬ rum. Sed hoc facile rejicitur. Nam quod pro¬ missiones Dei ex parte nostra egeant confir¬ matione, vellit, quia nescimus, qua; sint Dei promissiones, idque ex Sacramentis di¬ scimus , aut quia cum sciamus et illas promissiones Dei, et haec Sacramenta esse; tamen magis credimus Sacramentis, quam promissionibus. Atque hoc posterius jam re¬ futatum est. Non enim solam credimus, sed etiam scimus evidentissima ratione, Deum non posse mentiri, proinde nihil esse certius pro¬ missionibus Dei : neque id adversarii negare possunt. Illud autem prius, aeque facile refu¬ tari potest : siquidem falsum est, promissiones Dei disci ex Sacramentis, cum contra potius Sacramentaex verbo Dei discantur. Jam vero, si sigillum Regium esset ignotum, et solum posset cognosci ex litteris, quibus est appen¬ sum; esset plane superfluum. Nam \el cre¬ dunt homines litteras illas esse Regis, secluso sigillo, vel non; si credunt, quid facit sigil¬ lum? si non credunt certe, neque credunt si¬ gillum esse Regium : nihil igitur confert. Pari ratione, cum Sacramenta non sciantur esse Dei sigilla, nisi quia Scriptura hoc dicit, si creditur verbo sine Sacramentis, quorsum Sacramenta? si non creditur, certe nec Sa¬ cramenta creduntur esse Sacramenta : proinde nihil operantur. Ad hoc argumentum respondet Calvinus lib. IV. fnstitut. cap. 14 § 5, in diplomati¬ bus quoque nihil valere sigillum sine litteris, ut patet si appendatur chartae, in qua nihil sit scriptum ; et tamen cum appenditur diplomati scripto, multum valere ad illud confirmandum. Et addit nihil esse mirandum, si promissiones Sacramentis confirmentur, cum etiam interdum una promissio per aliam confirmetur. Sed haec responsio non diluit argumentum. Nam ut incipiam a posteriore exemplo pro¬ missio promissionem confirmat, quia una non ppndet ab alia. Confirmavit Angelus, Lucae I. promissionem conceptus Virginei, ex promissione conceptus, qui jam pra;ces- sei’at in foemina anu, et sterili. Non enim pendent invicem duo ista opera mirabilia : proinde unum, quod jam praecesserat, ma¬ gnam vim habuit ad confirmandum alterum, quod nondum venerat. At Sacramenta, ut diximus, simpliciter pendent ex verbo. Quod vero attinet ad similitudinem sigilli, et di¬ plomatis, nihil omnino est, quod Calvinus dicit. Nam sigillum appensum chartae non scriptae, nihil quidem confirmat, tamen non ideo pendet a litteris, aut nihil est. Im6 hinc intelligimus, quam inepte adversarii Sacra- v menta sigilla appellent, cum omnino contra¬ riam habeant proprietatem. Nam diploma¬ tum sigilla habentsuam auctoritatem sine lite¬ ris diplomatis, litterae autem non habent sine sigillo : contra vero in verbo, et Sacramen¬ tis, verbum Dei, etiam sine Sacramentis in¬ fallibilem habet auctoritatem; Sacramenta (1) Mare. XVI, 20. CAPUT XIV. sine verbo nullam habent. Quare verbum potius appellandum esset sigillum Sacra¬ menti, quam Sacramentum, sigillum verbi. Dicent fortasse : Esto, Sacramenta non confirment promissiones, more miraculi, vel sigilli : tamen juvant, et confirmant saltem eo modo, quo actio externa juvat, et confir¬ mat orationem docentis. Negari enim non potest, quin aliquid conferat ad explicandum et persuadendum ipsa actio, et motus ma¬ nuum et oculorum, licet primas partes te¬ neat oratio. Erunt igitur Sacramenta, quasi actio quaedam Dei, quae simul cum verbo, magis movebit ad fidem, quam solum ver¬ bum. Respondeo, ne id quidem concedi posse. Nam actio in hominibus ideo juvat orationem quia oratio humana imperfecta est, ut sunt omnes res creatae, et etiam quia actio non habet vim suam a verbo, sed a se. Quocirca magis credebant Ethnici oraculis Apollinis, quae falsa putabant esse non posse, quamvis solis verbis ederentur, quam orationi, et ac¬ tioni cujuslibct oratoris. Cum ergo verba Dei sint per se summae auctoritatis, et Sa¬ cramenta omnem vim suam habeant a ver¬ bis, nihil addere possunt ipsi verbo. Verum est tamen, quod Catholici dicunt, Deum voluisse dare gratiam suam per signa sensibilia, ut per ea instrueret homines, et deduceret ad intelligenda spiritualia. Aliud enim est docere spiritualia per similitudines rerum corporalium, aliud confirmare rem firmissimam per aliam minus firmam. Secundum argumentum. Essentia, et na¬ tura Sacramentorum non potest aliunde me¬ lius colligi, quam ex verbis illius, qui ea instituit. Sed in Scripturis sanctis, quae sunt verba Dei auctoris Sacramentorum, nusquam dicuntur Sacramenta testimonia promissio¬ num, sed ubique describuntur, ut instru¬ menta justificationis. NamJoan. III. dicimur nasci denuo per Baptismum, et similiter ad Ephes. V. dicit Apostolus, Ecclesiam sancti- ficatam, ct mundum lavacro aquae in verbo vitai, et ad Tit. III. vocat Apostolus Baptis¬ mum, lavacrum regenerationis, et renova¬ tionis. Sic etiam de Eucharistia Jo. VI. di¬ citur : Qui manducat hunc panem, vivet in ce ternum (1), atque idem de aliis probare possemus. Non possunt autem nisi absurdis¬ sime istae sententiae, ita exponi, ut Sacra- mentaregenerare, mundare, dare vitam aeter- 365 nara, divinarum nihil aliud sit, quam testimo¬ nium dare promissionum. Quis enim ferret eum, qui ita diceret : Baptismus regenerat, id est, dat testimonium divinae voluntatis? vel, ego te baptizo, id est, ego testificor? Estque hoc argumentum contra Lutheranos efficacis- simum : siquidem Lutherus, quem caeteri in hac re libenter sequuntur, in lib. contra Co- chlaeum, sic ait : « In rebus sacris vehemen- tissimus, et robustissimus locus est, arguere ab auctoritate negative. » Vel igitur profe¬ rant locum, ubi Sacramenta dicantur testi¬ monia promissionum, aut certe fateantur vehementissimum, et robustissimum, argu¬ mentum nos habere. Tria tantum loca proferre solent, quae spe¬ ciem aliquam videantur habere. Unus est Genes. XVII. ubi Circumcisio dicitur signum foederis. Alter Rom. IV. ubi Circumcisio di¬ citur signaculum justitiae fidei. Tertius, 11. Petr. III. ubi Petrus dicit, salvos facit Bap¬ tisma, non carnis depositio sordium, sed conscientiae bonae interrogatio , sive ( ut ipsi reddunt) stipulatio, vel pactum cum Deo. Sed in his locis non nominatur promissio, vel testimonium, neque haec loca ad rem fa¬ ciunt, ut infra ostendemus in solutione ar¬ gumentorum. Tertium argumentum. Si solum essent Sa¬ cramenta testimonia promissionis, et gratiae, vel supervacanea, vel certe parum necessa¬ ria essent. Nam habemus alia testimonia longe efficaciora siquidem bona opera sunt testimonia adeptae justitiae longe meliora, quam ablutio aquae, vel sump¬ tio Eucharistiae. Nam multi impii bap¬ tizantur ficto corde, et Eucharistiam sumunt, qui proinde pejores sunt, et magis invisi Deo, quam antea II. Gorinth. I: Gloria nostra haec est, testimonium conscientia; nostree, II. Pet. I : Satagite, ut per bona opera certam vestram vocationem et electionem faciatis, 1. Joan. 111 : Qui facit justitiam, justus est, et qui natus est ex Deo, non peccat (2). Quartum argumentum. Si sacramenta so¬ lum essent testimonia promissionum, adexci- tandamfideminstituta, frustra baptizarentur infantes et amentes, quos certum est, n on modo non credere, sed nec posse credere actu. At Lutherani omnes pugnant pro Baptismo par¬ vulorum contra Anabaptistas : non igitur vere tradunt fidem Lutherani, quid sit Sa¬ li) Joan. VI, 52. — (2) II. Cor. I, 12; II. Petr. I, 10: I. Joan. III, 7 et 9. 366 LIBER I. craraentum. Hoc argumentum coegit Lu- therum in lib. contra Gochlseum,, et Luthe- ranos caeteros asserere, infantes actu credere dum baptizantur ; quod tamen adoo est ab¬ surdum, ut S. Augustinus in epist. 57. ad Dardanum scripserit, eos injuriam facere humanis sensibus, qui hoc dicunt. Videmus enim infantes ad contactum aquae ploraro, refugere, ac reniti, quantum possunt : quod certe si facerent usum rationis habentes, non modo non purgarentur ab originali peccato, sed adderent etiam proprium actuale. Quintum argumentum. Si Sacramenta es¬ sent testimonia grati se, quse in particulari confertur alicui, scepenumero falsa essent, nimirum cum Sacramentum ministratur ho¬ mini, qui' fingit se credere, cum revera non credat. Proinde non liceret ullum baptizare, ne cogeremus Deum testificari falsum : de nullo enim certo scimus credat ne vero an fingat se credere. Dicent fortasse, Sacramentum testimo¬ nium esse gratiee non absolute, sed si is, qui suscipit Sacramentum, credat promis¬ sioni. Sed contra, probo testimonium esse ab¬ solutum, non conditionatum. Primo, Luthe- rus in assert. 1. art. dicit, eum qui non cre¬ dit verbo ministri dicentis : Ego te baptizo, vel, Ego te absolvo, facere Deum menda¬ cem cujus illa verba sunt. At si illa verba intelligerentur cum conditiono, si alter cre¬ dat : non essent falsa, nec fieret Deus men¬ dax. Secundo, si essent illa verba conditionata, rueret fides justificans Lutheranorum. Nam ipsi volunt hominem debere credere abso¬ lute sine ulla haesitatione, se esse justum : ergo Deus absolute testatur illum esse jus¬ tum ; non enim debet homo credere, nisi quod Deus testatur. Et praeterea fides debot esse secreta, ergo non debet pendere a con¬ ditione, si homo credat. Nam nemo certus est secundum Lutherum, de se an vere cre¬ dat : sic enim scribitLutlierus in lib. contra rebaptizantes edito anno 1528 : « Baptismus non est fundandus supra fidem baptizantis, vel baptizati, quia uterque incertus est de fide. » Et infra : « Ita evenit, et solet fieri de fide, ut qui arbitratur se credere, nihil omnino credere saepe convincatur, et e con¬ tra, qui nihil se putat credere, is omnium maxime credat. » Tertio. Adversarii ita de hac re loquun¬ tur. ut omnino absolutum esso testimonium Dei in Sacramentis credere videantur. Sic enim loquitur Philippus in locis cap. de Baptismo : « Ego, inquit minister, mandato divino, et loco Christi baptizo te, id est, hoc signo testificor ablui peccata tua, et te re¬ conciliatum esso vero Deo, etc. » ubi nul¬ lam facit mentionem conditionis. Atque h®o de definitione Lutheranorum.