Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacraments in General · Book I: On the Nature and Causes of the Sacrament
Chapter 15: The definitions of the Anabaptists and Zwinglians are 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).
The second opinion concerning the nature of a Sacrament is that of certain men whom Luther and Calvin everywhere call fanatics. These teach that the Sacraments are nothing else than certain signs instituted to distinguish the Christian people from the Jews and pagans; in the way that of old the toga was a sign to the Romans by which they were distinguished from the Greeks, and in the way that now the diverse forms and colors of garments distinguish the diverse kinds of Monks. The author of this opinion Luther makes Andreas Karlstadt, in the sermon On the words of the supper, This is my body. This Andreas had once been among the first of Luther's disciples and friends; wherefore in his second writing against the King of England Luther calls him his Absalom, so that, as Judas was to Christ his master, so Karlstadt was rebellious and faithless to him. From this opinion Philip Melanchthon did not at first shrink, as is plain from the Commonplaces published in the year '22, where he thinks this opinion probable, in the chapter On signs, at the end: “Probable also,” he says, “is the view of those who have compared these signs to military symbols or watchwords, that they were only marks by which it might be known to whom the divine promises pertained” — although afterward he impugned it in the Apology of the Confession article 13, and in the Commonplaces last published.
Where it is to be noted that the two first opinions which Kemnitz enumerates — one, namely, that the Sacraments are signs by which Christians are distinguished from non-Christians; the other, that they are certain symbols of the Christian society — are more rightly made one opinion by Philip in the places noted. For those men acknowledge only two Sacraments, Baptism and the Supper. And Baptism indeed they make a symbol by which we are distinguished from non-Christians; but the Supper a symbol of the Christian society among us.
This opinion is partly true, partly also false. For although the Sacraments have that use, that they distinguish the true religion from certain false ones, yet this is not the only or the chief use of our Sacraments. For, first, in the Scriptures we nowhere read that Baptism, the Eucharist, or the other Sacraments were instituted to distinguish the Christian people from other peoples; but we read frequently that they were instituted to this end, that they might justify men. Mark last: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. He did not say, shall be distinguished from others, but, shall be saved. Acts 2: Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. And Acts 22: Be baptized, and wash away thy sins, invoking his name. Add the places cited above, which teach the same, namely that the Sacraments were instituted for justifying. Second, other signs are better for distinguishing the people of God from other peoples, such as the confession of faith, which belongs to true Catholics alone, since Baptism is common with heretics; as also mutual charity, which is in Catholics alone, since all the Sacraments are common with schismatics. Wherefore the Lord, John 13, did not say, By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have Baptism or the Eucharist, but, if you have love one for another. Third, all the Sacraments have their force from the Passion of Christ, in sign of which from the pierced side of the Lord flowed blood and water, John 19. For the water signified Baptism, as Ambrose book 10 on Luke chapter 105, Chrysostom, Cyril, Theophylact on chapter 19 of John, Leo epistle 4 chapter 6, Damascene book 4 chapter 10, Jerome epistle 83 to Oceanus, and Augustine teach, tract 120 on John, who also tract 15 proves this same thing from those words of Paul to the Ephesians 5, Christ loved the Church, and delivered himself up for it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life, and book 15 of the City of God chapter 26 proves the same by other testimonies. But certainly, if they had only to distinguish, in the way that togas distinguish, there was no need of the Passion of Christ, but human good pleasure would have sufficed. Finally, that opinion is very far from the sense and words of all the Fathers; in whose name let us hear Augustine alone, question 84 on Leviticus: “Without the sanctification of invisible grace, what do the visible Sacraments profit?” And book 19 against Faustus chapter 11: “The force of the Sacraments avails unspeakably much, and therefore, being despised, makes men sacrilegious; for that is impiously despised without which piety cannot be perfected.”
The third definition is that of the Anabaptists, who teach that the Sacraments are nothing else than allegories, and, as it were, certain signs of good works and of a spiritual life and manners. For they will have men baptized to signify that Christians ought to sustain adversities, and death itself, for Christ. This error is reported by Philip in the Commonplaces of the years '36 and '41, chapter On the Sacraments, by John Brentius homily 23 on chapter 3 of Luke, and by Kemnitz in the second part of the Examen page 96. But this opinion can be refuted with no trouble. For although the Sacraments have this utility with the others, that they admonish men of good works and virtues (for certainly it cannot be denied that the immersion in Baptism, and the emersion, admonish of the death by which we ought to die to sin, and of the resurrection by which we ought to rise to a new life, which the Apostle also mentions Romans 6; and the Eucharist admonishes of the peace and friendship which ought to be among us: For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread, 1 Corinthians 10), yet this is not the only, nor the chief, use of the Sacraments; and accordingly neither is the essence and nature of the Sacrament placed in it. And this is proved by the same arguments which we used against Karlstadt. First, because Scripture says the Sacraments were instituted for justifying, 1 Corinthians 6: You are washed, you are sanctified. Ephesians 5: Cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life. Second, if they ought only to be allegories, there was no need that they should flow from the side of Christ; for human good pleasure would have sufficed. Third, because there were not lacking other more useful and efficacious admonitions to live well, such as the exhortations and examples of Christ and the Saints. Add, fourth, that if that opinion were true, the Sacraments would be signs only of future things. But they are also signs of past and present things; for the Eucharist represents the death of Christ, 1 Corinthians 11, and Baptism signifies the internal washing, which is then perfected, when we are outwardly baptized, according to that of Acts 22: Be baptized, and wash away thy sins.
The fourth definition is that of others, who will have the Sacraments to be signs of a grace, not which is then received, but which was already received before. This, without the name of an author, is reported and refuted by Zwingli in the book On true and false religion, chapter On the Sacraments, and by Kemnitz in the place cited in the Examen page 96. And it can easily be refuted; because Scripture in express words teaches that the Sacraments bring grace in the present, Acts 22: Wash away thy sins.
The fifth definition is that of Zwingli and his followers, excepting however Peter Martyr, as we said above. Zwingli, then, in the book On true and false religion, chapter On the Sacraments, after he had refuted the opinion of the Catholics and Lutherans, opens his mind, and teaches that the Sacraments are nothing else than a certain initiation and pledging, by which, namely, men bind themselves to Christ and give their name to his warfare. From which he deduces that the Sacraments are not testimonies of justice, properly to him who receives the Sacraments, as the Lutherans said, but are public testimonies to the whole Church concerning the obligation and fidelity which he owes to Christ, to whom he has consecrated himself. The same opinion Martin Bucer follows, in the Commentary on chapter 3 of Matthew, and in the preface of the second edition of the same commentaries, where he adds: “But if those who are baptized are predestined, then the Sacrament is not only a sign that they give their name to Christ and are received into the external Church, but also brings a certain consolation; but if they are not predestined, then the Sacrament is a bare sign that they are received into the external Church, but not by God.” Whence he also deduces that to infants not predestined Baptism profits nothing, but that they perish, although they be baptized. This opinion is like the former; for it brings indeed something true (for it cannot be denied that through the Sacraments we are initiated, and give our name to Christ, and publicly testify that we are members of the Church), but it errs in this, that it does not acknowledge another more sublime end of the institution of the Sacraments; and accordingly does not rightly explain the nature of a Sacrament. And this is proved, first, from the opinion of Zwingli: Christ does nothing, but only the man testifies that he will be faithful. But John 1 it is said: This is he that baptizeth; and to the Ephesians 5: Cleansing it, etc. Second, because Zwingli requires that men, before they receive the Sacraments, be justified and joined to Christ inwardly, and only through the Sacraments outwardly testify and profess that they wish to war for Christ and to be joined to the external Church. But the Scriptures testify that the Sacraments were instituted to sanctify and cleanse a man inwardly. For this the Apostle signifies when he says, Ephesians 5: Cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life. Looking to which place St. Augustine, tract 80 on John, wrote: “Whence is this so great virtue of water, that it touches the body and washes the heart?” Likewise John 3 and Titus 3 Baptism is called the laver of regeneration and renovation. From which places we have that through Baptism a man is born again, which pertains to the interior man, and does not only outwardly testify that he is faithful. Here also pertain the Scriptures cited against the other errors, Acts 2 and 22, 1 Corinthians 6. Third, this same thing is proved. For the Apostle Romans 6 most plainly says that Baptism signifies the death and resurrection of Christ; and 1 Corinthians 11 says that the Eucharist was instituted in memory of the Passion of the Lord. The Sacraments, then, do not signify only that a man is initiated to God, or joined with the Church.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XV.
Refelluntur definitiones Anaboptistarum, et
Zivinglianorum.
Altera sententia do natura Sacramenti
est quorumdam, quosLutherus, et Calvinus
passim fanaticos vocant. Ili docent Sacra¬
menta nihil esse aliud, quam 6igna quae¬
dam instituta ad discernendum populum
Christianum a Judaeis et paganis, quomodo
Romanis olim toga erat signum, quo discer¬
nebantur a Graecis, et quo modo nunc di¬
versae formae, et colores vestium distinguunt
diversa genera Monachorum. Auctorem hu¬
jus sententiae Andream Carolstadium facit
Lutherus in serm. de verbis coenae : Hoc est
corpus meum. Qui Andreas fuerat olim ex
primis Lutheri discipulis, et amicis : quare
in secundo scripto contra llcgem Angliae
vocat eum suum Absalone m, ut Judas
Christo praeceptori, ita Carolstadius sibi re¬
bellis, et infidelis fuerit.
Ab hac sententia non abhorruit initio
Philippus Melanclithon, ut patet ex locis
anno 22 editis, ubi hanc sententiam proba¬
bilem putat cap. do signis, in fine : « Pro¬
babilis, inquit, et illi voluntatis, qui sym¬
bolis, seu tesseris militaribus haec signa
comparaverunt, quod essent not* tantum,
quibus cognoscerentur, ad quos pertinerent
promissiones divinae, » Tametsi postea eam
oppugnaverit in Apologia Confess. art. 13.
et in locis ultimo editis.
Ubi notandum est duas primas sententias,
quas Kemnitius enumerat; Una videlicet,
quod Sacramenta sint signa, quibus distin¬
guuntur Christiani a non Christianis; Altera,
quod sint symbola quaedam Christianae so¬
cietatis ; rectius a Philippo locis notatis,
unam sententiam fieri. Nam illi duo tantum
agnoscunt Sacramenta, Baptismum et Cee-
CAPUT XV.
367
nara. Et Baptismum quidem symbolum fa¬
ciunt, quo discernamur a non Christianis;
coenam autem symbolum Christiana; inter
nos societatis.
Haec sententia partim est vera, partim
etiam falsa. Etsi enim Sacramenta illum
usum habeant, quod distinguunt religionem
veram a quibusdam falsis, tamen non est
hic solus, vel prajcipuus Sacramentorum
nostrorum usus. Nam primo in Scripturis
nusquam legimus, Baptismum, Eucharis¬
tiam, aut alia Sacramenta instituta esse, ut
distinguant populum Christianum ab aliis
populis : legimus autem frequenter in eum
finem esse instituta, ut justificent homines,
Marci ultimo': Qui crediderit, et baptizatus fue¬
rit, salvus erit. Non dixit, discernetur ab aliis,
sed salvus erit. Actor. II : Poenitentiam agile,
et baptizetur unusquisque vestrum in nomine
Jesu Christi, in remissionem peccatorum ves¬
trorum, et accipietis donum Spiritus sancti.
Et Actor. XXII : Baptizare, et ablue peccata
tua invocato nomine ipsius (I). Adde loca su¬
pra citata, quae idem docent, Sacramenta
videlicet instituta ad justificandum.
Secundo alia signa sunt meliora ad dis¬
tinguendum populum Dei ab aliis populis,
ut confessio fidei, qua; solis convenit veris
Catholicis; cum Baptismus communis sit
cum haereticis ; ut etiam charilas mutua,
quaj in solis Catholicis est, cum Sacramenta
omnia sint communia cum schismaticis.
Quare Dominus Jo. XIII. non ait : In hoc
cognoscent omnes, quod discipuli mei estis (2),
si Baptismum habueritis, aut Eucharistiam,
sed si dilectionem habueritis ad invicem.
Tertio, Sacramenta omnia vim habent ex
Christi passione, in cujus rei signum ex la¬
tere Domini perfosso manavit sanguis et
aqua, Joan. XIX. Aqua enim Baptismum
significavit, ut Ambrosius lib. X. in Luc.
cap. 105. Chrysostomus, Cyriilus, Theophy-
lactus in cap. XIX. Joan. Leo epistol. 4. cap.
6. Damascenus lib, IV. cap. 10. Hieronym.
epist. 83. ad Oceanum, et August. docent,
tract. 120. in Joan. qui etiam tractat. 15.
hoc idem probat ex illis verbis Pauli ad
Ephes. V. Christus dilexit Ecclesiam, et tra¬
didit semetipsum pro ea, mundam eam lavacro
aquae in verbo vitee (3), et lib. XY. Civ. cap.
26. idem probat aliis testimoniis. At certe
si solum distinguere debebant, quomodo
togae distinguunt, non erat opus Christi pas¬
sione, sed satis erat humanum beneplaci¬
tum.
Denique illa sententia longissime abest a
sensu, et verbis omnium Patrum : quorum
nomine unum Augustinum audiamus quaest.
84. in Levit. : « Sine sanctificatione invisibi¬
lis gratia), visibilia Sacramenta quid pro¬
sunt? » et lib. XIX. contra Faustum cap.
11:« Sacramentorum vis inenarrabiliter
valet plurimum, et ideo contempta sacrile¬
gos facit; Impie quippe contemnitur, sine
quo non potest perfici pietas. »
Tertia definitio est Anabaptistarum qui
docent. Sacramenta nihil esse aliud, quam
allegorias, et quasi signa quaedam bonorum
operum, et vitae ac morum spiritualium. Vo¬
lunt enim baptizari homines, ut significent
debere Christianos sustinere adversa, et
ipsam mortem pro Christo. Referunt hunc
errorem Philippus in locis anni 36. et 41.
cap. de Sacramentis, JoannesBrentiusliom.
23. in cap. III. Lucae, et Ivemnitius in II.
part. Examinis pag. 96.
Sed nullo negotio haee sententia refelli
potest. Nam etiamsi hanc utilitatem cum
aliis habent Sacramenta, ut admoneant ho¬
mines bonorum operum, et virtutum (nam
certe negari non potest, quin mersio in Bap¬
tismo, et emersio, admoneat mortis, qua mori
debemns peccato, et resruTectionis, qua re¬
surgere debemus ad novam vitam, cujus
rei meminit etiam Apostolus Rom. VI. et
Eucharistia admonet pacis, et amicitia;, qua;
inter nos esse debet : Sumus enim unum cor-
pus, qui de uno pane participamus (4), I. Co-
rinth. X.) tamen non est iste solus, nec
praecipuus Sacramentorum usus : proinde
nec in eo posita est essentia, et natura Sa¬
cramenti.
Et probatur hoc iisdem argumentis, qui¬
bus adversus Carolstadium usi sumus. Pri¬
mo, quia Scriptura dicit, Sacramenta insti¬
tuta ad justificandum, I. Corinth.VI : Abluti
estis, sancti ficati estis. Ephes.V : Mundans eam
lavacro aquae in verbo vitee { 5). Secundo, si.so-
lum deberent esse allegoria), non erat opus,
ut manarent ex latere Christi : sufficiebat
enim humanum beneplacitum. Tertio, quia
non deerant alite utiliores, et efficaciores
admonitiones ad bene vivendum, ut exhor¬
tationes, et exempla Christi, et Sanctorum.
(1) Mare. XVI, 16; Act. II, 38; XXII, 16. — (2) Joan. XIII, 35. — (3) Eph. V, 25 et 26. —
(4) I. Cor. X, 16. — (5) I. Cor. VI, 11 ; Eph. V, 25.
368
LIRER I.
Adde quarto, quod si ea sententia vera es¬
set, Sacramenta non essent signa nisi futu¬
rarum rerum. At sunt etiam signa rerum
praeteritarum, et praesentium; nam Eucha¬
ristia repraesentat Christi mortem, I. Cor.
XI. et Baptismus significat internam ablu¬
tionem, quae tunc perficitur, cum exterius
baptizamur, juxta illudActor. XXII : Bapti¬
zare , et ablue peccata tua.
Quarta definitio est aliorum, qui volunt,
Sacramenta esse signa gratiae, non quae tunc
percipiatur, sed quae jam antea percepta
fuerit. Hanc sine nomine auctoris referunt,
et refellunt Zwinglius in lib. de vera, et
falsa religione, cap. de Sacramentis, et
Kemnitius loc. cit. in Examine pag. 96. Et
facile refutari potest ; quia Scriptura diser¬
tis verbis docet, Sacramenta in praesenti
gratiam adferre, Actor. XXII : Ablue peccata
tua.
Quinta definitio est Zwinglii, et sectato¬
rum ejus, excepto tamen Petro Martyre, ut
supra diximus. Zwinglius igitur in lib. de
vera, et falsa religione, cap. de Sacramen¬
tis, postquam refutavit sententiam Catholi¬
corum, et Lutheranorum , aperit mentem
suam, ac docet, Sacramenta nihil esse aliud,
nisi initiationem quamdam, etoppigneratio-
nem, qua videlicet homines se obligant
Christo, et ejus militi® nomen dant. Ex quo
deducit, Sacramenta non esse testimonia
justitiae, proprie ei, qui Sacramenta suscipit,
ut Lutherani dicebant ; sed esse testimonia
publica toti Ecclesiae de obligatione, et fi¬
delitate, quam ille debet Christo, cui se con¬
secravit. Eamdem sententiam sequitur Mar-
tinus Bucerus in Comment. III. cap. Matth.
et in praefat. secundae editionis eorumdem
commentariorum, ubi addit : « Quod si ii,
qui baptizantur, sunt praidestinati, tum Sa¬
cramentum non solum est signum, quod illi
dent nomen Christo, et recipiantur in ex¬
terna Ecclesia, sed etiam adfert quamdam
consolationem; si vero non sunt pra:desti-
nati, tum Sacramentum est nudum signum,
quod illi recipiantur in externa Ecclesia,
non autem a Deo. » Unde etiam deducit,
infantibus non praedestinatis, nihil prodesse
Baptismum, sed perire eos, licet sint bap-
tizati.
Haec sententia similis est superioribus,
nam adfert quidem aliquid veri (neque
enim negari potest, quin per Sacramenta
initiemur, et nomen Christo demus, et pu¬
blice teslemur, nos esse membra Ecclesiae)
sed in eo errat, quod non agnoscit alium fi¬
nem sublimiorem institutionis Sacramento¬
rum : et proinde non recte explicat naturam
Sacramenti. Et probatur hoc primo ex
sententia Zwinglii, Christus nihil agit, sed
solum homo testatur se fore fidelem. At
Joan. I. dicitur : Hic est qui baptizat , et ad
Ephes. Y : Mundans eam etc.
Secundo, quia Zwinglius requirit, ut ho¬
mines antequam Sacramenta recipiant, sint
justificati, et conjuncti Christo interius, et
solum per Sacramenta exterius testentur, et
profiteantur se velle Christo militare, et Ec¬
clesiae externae adjungi. At Scriptura: tes¬
tantur Sacramenta esse instituta ad sanctifi¬
candum, et mundandum hominem interius.
Id enim significat Apostolus, cum ait, Ephes.
V : Mundans eam lavacro aquae in verbo vitae.
Ad quem locum respiciens S. Augustinus
tractat. 80. in Joan. scripsit : « Unde haec
tanta virtus aquae, ut corpus tangat, et cor
abluat?» Item Joan. III. et ad Tit. III. dici¬
tur Baptismus lavacrum regenerationis, et
renovationis. Ex quibus locis habemus, per
Baptismum hominem renasci, quod ad inte¬
riorem hominem pertinet, et non solum ex¬
terius testari se esse fidelem. Huc etiam
pertinent Scripturae citatae contra alios er¬
rores, Act. II. et XXII. I. Cor. VI.
Tertio probatur hoc idem. Nam Aposto¬
lus Romam. VI. apertissime dicit, Baptis¬
mum significare mortem, et resurrectionem
Christi ; et I. Corintli. XI. dicit Eucharis¬
tiam institutam in memoriam passionis Do¬
mini : Non igitur Sacramenta significant
solum hominem initiari Deo, vel conjungi
cum Ecclesia.
•