Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacraments in General · Book I: On the Nature and Causes of the Sacrament
Chapter 17: The arguments of the adversaries 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 arguments which both the Lutherans and the Calvinists use to prove that the Sacraments are seals of the promises are these. In the first place Calvin brings, book 4 chapter 14 of the Institutes section 5, the words of the Apostle to the Romans 4, where he calls Circumcision a [sphragis], that is, a seal of that covenant by whose faith Abraham had already before been justified.
I answer, first: What is said of Circumcision alone cannot rightly be drawn to all the Sacraments. For we rightly argue from the genus to the species, not the contrary. Second: The Apostle makes no mention of a promise or covenant when he speaks of the seal of Circumcision; for he calls it the seal of the justice of faith, not the seal of a promise and covenant. And it is called the seal of the justice of faith, either because (as Origen writes on this place) Circumcision sealed and closed up the justice of faith, which was to be laid open in its own time — that is, under the figure and type of that carnal Circumcision was secretly signified, and so veiled, the Circumcision of the heart, which is the true justification which Christ was to bring; or (as Chrysostom and Theophylact and others teach) it is called the seal of the justice of faith because it was given to Abraham as a sign and testimony of the justice which he had acquired for himself through faith. Third I say: This was the privilege of Abraham alone, and cannot be transferred to others, as though Circumcision (as the heretics will have it), in whomsoever it were, were a testification of that justice. For it was Abraham's privilege that he himself should be the father of all the faithful, both the uncircumcised and the circumcised. And because he was already the father of the uncircumcised faithful, since he had had faith while yet uncircumcised, as is plain from Genesis 12 and from this place of Paul: He himself first of all received the sign of Circumcision, that in this way he might also be the father of all the circumcised. But because he had this privilege by the merit of the justice which he had acquired through faith, therefore the sign of Circumcision was to him a seal of the justice of faith. But to the other Jews Circumcision is indeed a certain sign, namely that they are the children of Abraham, but it is not to them a seal of the justice of faith, just as not all the Jews are fathers of many nations.
That these things are true is plain, first, because Paul joins these two together, when he says: He received the sign of Circumcision, a seal of the justice of faith, that he might be the father of all that believe. Not all the circumcised, then, have the seal of the justice of faith, since not all are fathers of all the faithful. Second, because Paul distinguishes the sign from the seal. For when he says, He received the sign of Circumcision, a seal of the justice of faith, for “sign” in the Greek is [sēmeion], which signifies a sign in general; for “seal” is [sphragis], which properly expresses a seal. And why did he distinguish these words, unless to indicate that Circumcision is always and to all a certain sign, yet was not to all, but to Abraham alone, a seal of justice? Third, Scripture, although it speaks very often of Circumcision, yet nowhere calls it a seal except in this place, where Abraham is treated; which is a manifest argument that Circumcision was a seal to Abraham alone. And certainly, chapter 3 to the Romans, when Paul asked, What is the profit of Circumcision? and answered, Much every way, he ought, according to the adversaries, to have put in the first place this primary profit, that it is a seal of the divine promise; but of this he does not even make mention.
The second argument Calvin takes in the same place, section 6, from Genesis 9, where the heavenly bow is called a sign of the covenant between God and Noe; and from chapter 17, where Circumcision is called a sign of the covenant between God and Abraham and his posterity. For if the rainbow and Circumcision were seals confirming the covenant and promise of God, why cannot the same be said of Baptism and the Eucharist? And he confirms the argument, because among men too it is usual that covenants be ratified by an external sign, as by a slain sow, or by the touch of the right hand, which signs would be nothing unless the words of the covenant preceded. I answer: The rainbow and Circumcision were signs of the covenant, but for helping the memory, not for confirming faith; just as we too taught above that Baptism and the Eucharist are commemorative signs of the Passion and death of the Lord. But there is a great difference between a commemorative and a confirming sign. For a commemorative sign can be that which is set before the eyes, even though all its efficacy depend on the promise; but a confirming sign cannot be such, if it depend wholly on the promise. And that the rainbow and Circumcision were only commemorative signs is plain. For they so depended on the word of God that if anyone did not believe the word of God, or did not believe it to be the word of God, neither would he believe those to be signs; and on the contrary, if anyone believed the word, he would not need those signs. Add that St. John Chrysostom so expounded these places; for thus he says of Circumcision, homily 39 on Genesis: “Having given them the sign of Circumcision as a perpetual memorial, he entered into covenant with them.” And below he says that the sign of Circumcision was not given by God that men might believe him, but was demanded by God from men, because God did not believe men: “When,” he says, “we do not have faith in some persons, we take care to receive from them a sign in place of a pledge; likewise the Lord of all, knowing the inconstancy of minds, willed to ask this sign from them.” So he. And of the sign of the rainbow, homily 28 on Genesis, he thus speaks: “What sayest thou, O blessed Prophet? I will remember, he says, my Testament — that is, my covenant, promise, pledge — not because he himself has need of remembering, but that we, looking to that sign, may suspect nothing harsh, but straightway remember the divine promise, and be strengthened and confident.” But you will object the same Chrysostom in the same place, who thus says: “If my word does not suffice, behold I give also a sign, etc.,” where he seems to will that the rainbow was a confirming sign. But this objection will be dissolved a little later. To the confirmation from human custom, I answer that there is a great difference between the covenants of God and of men. For from a man, because we do not see his mind, and fear lest perhaps he deceive us or forget the covenant, we seek an external sign, that by it we may convict him if he deny or have forgotten; but that God cannot deceive or forget, we are most certain.
The third argument Luther takes, in the book On the Babylonian captivity in the chapter On Baptism, from the wonderful signs by which God was wont to confirm his promises; such as the sign given to Gedeon in the dew and the fleece, Judges 6, and that given to Ezechias in the shadow of the dial going backward, 4 Kings 20. But these and the like are not to the point. For miracles, because they depend not on the word but have force of themselves, since they are works above nature, are therefore rightly applied to prove that it is God who promised, or that God really promised something; but the Sacraments have no force (as we said above) without the word. And hence we understand why Chrysostom thought the rainbow to be a sign not only memorial but also confirming. For he judged the rainbow to be a thing instituted by a new miracle; for thus he says: “Although there be a great inundation of waters, yet we are not so to fear, but to be confident, looking to the miracle.” So he. But because it is more probable that the rainbow is a natural thing, therefore we said that it was only a memorial sign.
The fourth argument the Lutherans take from those words of the first epistle of Peter chapter 3: Whereunto baptism being of the like form now saveth you also, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the examination of a good conscience toward God. For Luther, in the commentary on this place, will have the Greek word [eperōtēma], which our interpreter renders “examination,” to signify a covenant, and thus expounds: “Baptism saves us, not inasmuch as it washes the body, but inasmuch as it seals the covenant which the soul has with God, while by faith it receives his promises.” From which it follows that Baptism is a seal of the promise. In almost the same way Calvin expounds it, though he will have the word [eperōtēma] to signify not a covenant, but a response and testimony. I answer: This present place is exceedingly obscure, yet it helps the cause of the adversaries in nothing. Oecumenius, in the commentary on this place, by “examination” seems to understand a pledge and earnest. For he says that Baptism is, as it were, a pledge of a good conscience — that is, those who by God's inspiration have conceived a good desire, they pursue an unspotted life, and everywhere seek after it and inquire about it; whence, when they have heard that through Baptism souls are cleansed, they straightway run to Baptism, that their filth may be purged; and in this way Baptism is a pledge of a good conscience. This exposition does not favor the heretics, as is plain; yet it does not seem according to the mind of St. Peter. For St. Peter attributes far more to Baptism than that it is a pledge of a good conscience, when he says that through Baptism we are saved.
There is another exposition of Lyra, Gagnaeus, and John of Louvain, who by “the examination of a good conscience” understand the interrogations and responses which are made before Baptism. For the priest asks the catechumen: Dost thou believe in God? and he answers, I believe. Dost thou renounce Satan and his pomps? I renounce, etc. For those who with a good conscience answer these interrogations, to them Baptism profits; to others it does not profit. This too does not favor the heretics, but does not seem literal; nor is it the exposition of Ambrose, Basil, and Augustine, as John of Louvain thought. For blessed Peter makes an antithesis, when he says: Not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the examination of a good conscience. And without doubt the formal antithesis was going to be this: Not the washing away of the filth of the flesh, but the washing away of the filth of the mind; by which antithesis our Baptism is distinguished from the Baptism of the Jews, which was only exterior. Now that part of this antithesis (namely, the washing away of the filth of the mind) is expressed by blessed Peter not in proper words, but in figurative ones, as all concede. It must, then, have been described either by its cause or by its effect. If by its effect, then the exposition of these men has no place. For that interrogation and response of which they treat — or even the faith and charity which are detected by those interrogations and responses — precede Baptism, and accordingly the washing of the mind which Baptism effects; they are not, then, effects of that washing. Therefore they must say that that washing is described by its cause, and accordingly that that interrogation which precedes Baptism is the cause of that washing. But this cannot be said. For then the Sacrament would have its efficacy ex opere operantis, not ex opere operato; for justification would be attributed to the preceding faith and love of him who receives Baptism, not to the sacramental washing itself; nor would there be a difference between our Baptism and the Jewish; for the Jewish Baptism, although it did not justify ex opere operato, yet could justify from the faith and love of the receiver, like any meritorious work. They will say perhaps that the interrogation, or the preceding faith, is not the efficient cause of the internal washing, but is a disposition. But this indeed is rightly said, but does not square with the words of the Apostle; for he attributes to this examination of a good conscience an efficiency greater than to the external washing itself, which yet is the instrument of justification.
There is, then, another exposition, which I think to be that of the Saints, of Augustine tract 80 on John and sermon 30 On the words of the Lord, and of Basil in the book On the Holy Spirit chapter 15: namely, that by St. Peter is expressed the washing of the mind, which by antithesis is opposed to the washing of the flesh, not by its cause, as the preceding opinion would have it, but by its effect. For a most usual figure is metonymy, by which through the effect we understand the cause. Peter, then, calls the internal washing the examination or response of a good conscience toward God, because from that cleanness arises peace and quiet of conscience; and accordingly the response of a good conscience, and also the interrogation, toward God, because it dares with confidence to approach God and to interrogate — that is, to converse with him, and to entreat him for oneself and for others. I add, second, that this place does not favor the adversaries, but us, even if by [eperōtēma] be taken testimony or covenant. For, in the first place, St. Peter speaks not of a testimony or covenant of God, but of our conscience; but they ought to prove that the Sacrament is a seal of the testimony or covenant of God. And there is a great difference between the testimony or covenant of God, which they will have sealed by the Sacrament, and the testimony or covenant of our conscience. For the former is the written word of God, which precedes the use and fruit of the Sacrament, that is, justification; but the testimony of conscience follows justification, and accordingly the use and fruit of the Sacrament. Second, St. Peter does not say that by Baptism a covenant or testimony is sealed, but says that souls are saved, and justification is effected, from which arises the testimony of a good conscience. Which is proved from that word “of the like form.” For the Apostle will have us saved through the waters of Baptism in the way in which those were saved through the waters of the flood who were in the ark of Noe. Now the waters of the flood did not save the ark of Noe by testifying or sealing promises, but really by raising the ark on high, lest it be overwhelmed with the other buildings of this world; so, then, Baptism also saves us, not by sealing and testifying, but really by justifying the soul; whence follows, as we said, the testimony, or interrogation, of a good conscience toward God.
The fifth argument might be, for the adversaries, the testimony of the holy Fathers, who not rarely call the Sacraments seals or signets. I answer: The Fathers speak of the signets of the Sacraments in a far other signification than the heretics do. For the Fathers never call the Sacraments signets or seals of the promises of God, as the heretics will have it, but speak of signets in one of these three ways. First, they call the Sacraments signets because they seal the faithful, and, as certain marks, separate them from those who are not of the flock or of the army of the Lord. So Basil takes this word in his exhortation to Baptism; likewise Jerome on chapter 4 to the Ephesians, and Augustine book 19 against Faustus chapter 11, and elsewhere here and there. So too Gregory Nazianzen takes it, in his oration On Baptism, not far from the beginning, where he says that Baptism can be called a seal, because it so preserves the baptized man as royal marks preserve sealed things. For no one dares to touch those which have the seal of some great King. Second, they call the Sacraments signets because they enclose within themselves a sacred thing, that is, invisible grace. For that which is enclosed is wont to be sealed, according to that of Apocalypse 5: A book sealed with seven seals. And in this signification Augustine calls the Sacraments sacred signets, in the book On catechizing the unlearned chapter 26, and the Scholastics the seal of Confession. In almost this manner too Gregory Nazianzen, in his oration On Baptism, near the end, calls Baptism a seal, in that it seals and closes up many mysteries which are disclosed to the faithful alone: “The rest,” he says, “thou shalt learn within, which also thou shalt keep hidden and closed within thyself, sealed and retained by Baptism.” Third, they call Baptism the seal or sealing of faith, because Baptism is the public approbation and testification of the faith of him who is baptized. For so Tertullian uses this word in the book On Penance, where he says that catechumens are long proved whether they believe, and at length, when it has been established that they truly and constantly believe, Baptism is given them for the sealing and approbation of faith. In which way also Basil uses the same word in book 3 against Eunomius, where he says that one must first believe, and then at last receive Baptism, the seal of faith. In the book On the Holy Spirit chapter 12 too he calls Baptism the seal of faith, because he who is baptized by that sign testifies that he believes. Finally Baptism can also be called the seal of faith, because it perfects and in a manner completes the faithful man; in the way the ancients called death, or being slain for Christ, the signet of martyrdom, as Eusebius reports book 5 of the history chapter 3. For the confession of the Martyrs, and their sufferings for Christ, do not have perfect praise while there is danger of inconstancy and change, but are then at last reckoned perfect, and as it were fortified and sealed by a certain seal, when they are consummated by a precious death. And thus far concerning the definition.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XVII. Refelluntur argumenta adversariarum . Argumenta, quibus cum Lutherani, tum Calvinistse utuntur, ut probent Sacramenta esse sigilla promissionum, haec sunt. Primo loco adfert Calvinus lib. IV. cap. 14. Instit. § 5. verba Apostoli ad Rom. IV. ubi Cir¬ cumcisionem vocat <Tfpu-/i$«, id est, sigillum ejus pacti, cujus fide jam antea Abraham fuerat justificatus. Respondeo Primo ; Quae de sola Circum¬ cisione dicuntur, non possunt trahi recte ad omnia Sacramenta. Recte enim argumenta¬ mur a genere ad speciem, non contra. Secundo ; Apostolus nullam facit mentio¬ nem promissionis, aut pacti, cum loquitur de sigillo Circumcisionis : vocat enim eam sigillum justitiae fidei, non sigillum promis¬ sionis, et pacti. Vocatur autem sigillum jus¬ titiae fidei, vel quia (ut Origenes in hunc lo¬ cum scribit) Circumcisio obsignabat, et clau¬ debat justitiam fidei, quae suo tempore pate¬ facienda erat ; id est, sub figura, et typo Circumcisionis illius carnalis occulte signifi¬ cabatur, et proinde velabatur Circumcisio cordis, quae est vera justificatio, quam Chris¬ tus allaturus erat : vel, (ut Chrysost. et Theophyl. et alii docent) vocatur sigillum justitia! fidei, quia fuit data Abrahamo in si¬ gnum, et testimonium justitia!, quam sibi ac¬ quisierat per fidem. Tertio dico ; Fuisse hoc privilegium solius Abrahae, et non posse transferri ad alios, quasi Circumcisio (ut ha!retici volunt) in quocumque esset, testificatio esset jutistiae illius. Nam privilegium Abrahse fuit, ut ipse esset pater omnium fidelium, tam praeputia¬ torum, quam circumcisorum. Et quia jam erat pater praeputiatorum fidelium, quia fi¬ dem habuerat adhuc praeputiatus existens, ut patet Genes. XII. et ex hoc loco Pauli : Accepit ipse primus omnium signum Circumci¬ sionis , ut hoc modo esset etiam pater omnium circumcisorum (1). Quia vero hoc privile- (1) Rom. IV, 11 et 12. CAPUT XVII. 373 gium habuit merito justitiae, quam acquisie¬ rat per fidem, ideo fuit illi signum Circum¬ cisionis sigillum justitiae fidei. Porro, caete- ris Judaeis Circumcisio est quidem signum quoddam, nimirum quod sint filii Abrahae, sed non est illis sigillum justitiae fidei, sicut non sunt omnes Judaei patres multarum gentium. Haec esse vera, patet Primo ; Quia Paulus haec duo conjungit, cum ait : Accepit signum Circumcisionis signaculum justitia; fidei , ut sit pater omnium credentium. Non igitur habent signaculum justitiae fidei omnes circumcisi, cum non omnes sint patres omnium fide¬ lium. Secundo ; Quia Paulus distinguit signum a signaculo,seu sigillo. Nam cum ait: Accepit signum Circumcisionis , signaculum justitiae fidei ; pro signo, in Graeco est <njg sfov, quod signum in genere significat; pro signaculo est trtfpayi^, quod proprie sigillum exprimit. Cur autem distinxit haec vocabula, nisi ut in¬ dicaret Circumcisionem semper, et omnibus esse signum quoddam, non tamen omnibus, sed soli Abrahae fuisse sigillum justitiae. Tertio ; Scriptura, cum saepissime loqua¬ tur de Circumcisione, nusquam tamen vocat sigillum, nisi hoc loco, ubi de Abrahamo agitur : quod est argumentum manifestum, soli Abrahamo fuisse Circumcisionem sigil¬ lum. Ac certe cap. III. ad Rom. cum Paulus quaereret : Qua; utilitas Circumcisionis? Et responderet: Multum per omnem modum (I) : debuisset secundum adversarios primo loco ponere hanc primariam utilitatem, quod sit sigillum divinae promissionis: at hujus ne meminit quidem. Secundum argumentum Calvinus ibidem § 6. sumit ex Genes. IX. ubi arcus coelestis di¬ citur signum foederis inter Deum, et Noe ; et ex cap. XVII. ubi Circumcisio dicitur signum foederis inter Deum, et Abraham, posteros¬ que illius. Si enim Iris, et Circumcisio sigilla fuerunt confirmantia pactum, ac promissio¬ nem Dei, cur non idem de Baptismo, et Eu¬ charistia dici possit. Et confirmat argumen¬ tum, quia inter homines quoque id usitatum est, ut pacta sanciantur signo externo, ut porca caesa, vel contactu dexterae, quae signa nihil essent, nisi praecederent verba pacti. Respondeo; Iris, et Circumcisio signa foe¬ deris erant, sed ad memoriam juvandam, non ad fidem confirmandam : quemadmodum nos etiam supra docuimus, Baptismum, et Eucharistiam esse signa commemorativa passionis, et mortis Domini. Multum autem interest, inter signum commemorativum, et confirmativum. Nam signum commemorati¬ vum esse potest id, quod oculis objicitur, etiamsi tota ejus efficacia pendeat a promis¬ sione ; at signum confirmativum non potest esse, si omnino pendeat a promissione. Fuisse autem signa commemorativa tantum, Iridem et Circumcisionem, patet. Nam ita pendebant a verbo Dei, ut si quis non cre¬ deret verbo Dei, aut non crederet illud esse verbum Dei, non etiam crederet illa esse si¬ gna ; et contra, si quis crederet verbo, non egeret illis signis. Adde quod S. Joannes Chrysostomus ita exposuit haec loca : sic enim ait de Circum¬ cisione homil. 39. in Genesim : «Dato, in¬ quit, eis perpetuo memoriali inierit cum eis Circumcisionis signum. » Et infra dicit, si¬ gnum Circumcisionis non esse datum a Deo, ut homines ei crederent, sed fuisse postula¬ tum a Deo ab hominibus, quia Deus non credebat hominibus : « Quando, inquit, non habemus aliquibus fidem, curamus, ut ab ip¬ sis signum, pignoris loco accipiamus : simi¬ liter et omnium Dominus sciens mentium in¬ constantiam, hoc ab cis signum petere vo¬ luit.» Haec ille. Porro de signo Iridis hom. 28. in Genesim, sic loquitur : « Quid dicis, inquit, o beate Propheta? Recordabor, in¬ quit, Testamenti mei, id est, pacti mei, pro¬ missionis, pollicitationis : non quia ipse opus habeat recordatione, sed ut nos ad illud si¬ gnum respicientes nihil durum suspicemur, sed statim recordemur divinae promissionis, et roboremur, et confidamus. » Sed objicies eumdem Chrysostomum ibi¬ dem, qui sic ait : « Si sermo meus non suffi¬ cit, ecce et signum do etc. » ubi videtur velle Iridem fuisse signum confirmativum. Sed haec objectio paulo post diluetur. Ad confirmationem ex humana consuetu¬ dine, Respondeo, multum interesse inter pacta Dei, et hominum. Nam ab homine, quia non videmus ejus animum, et time¬ mus, ne forte nos decipiat, aut obliviscatur pacti, quaerimus signum externum, ut eo il¬ lum convincamus, si negaverit, aut oblitus fuerit : at Deum non posse fallere, vel obli¬ visci, certissimi sumus. Tertium argumentum sumit Lutherus in 374 LIBER I. lib. de Babylonica captivitate cap. de Bap¬ tismo, ex signis mirabilibus, quibus Deus confirmare solitus est promissiones suas : quale fuit signum in rore, et vellere datum Gedeoni, Judic. VI. et in umbra horologii retrocedente datum Ezechise, III. Reg. XX. Sed haec et similia non sunt ad rem. Nam miracula, quia non pendent a verbo, sed ex se vim habent, cum sint opera supra natu¬ ram ; ideo recte adhibentur ad probandum, Deum esse, qui promisit, vel Deum revera aliquid promisisse : Sacramenta vero nullam vim habent (ut supra diximus) sine verbo. Atque hinc intelligimus, cur Chrysostomus putaverit Iridem esse signum non tantum memoriale, sed etiam confirmativum. Exis¬ timavit enim ipse Iridem rem esse novo mi¬ raculo institutam ; sic enim ait : «Etsi aqua¬ rum magna sit inundantia ; neque sic me¬ tuendum, sed confidendum nobis ad mira¬ culum respicientibus. » Haec ille. Quia ta¬ men probabilius est, Iridem rem esse natu¬ ralem, ideo diximus, signum fuisse tantum memoriale. Quartum argumentum sumunt Lutherani ex illis verbis prioris epistolae Petri cap. III : Quod et vos similis formee salvos facit Bap¬ tisma, non carnis depositio sordium , sed cons- cientice borne interrogatio in Deum (i). Luthe- rus enim in commentario hujus loci, Grae¬ cam vocem enepur/iuct, quam noster interpres vertit interrogationem, vult significare pac¬ tum, et hoc modo exponit: « Baptismus sal¬ vos nos facit, non quatenus lavat corpus, sed quatenus obsignat pactum, quod habet anima cum Deo, dum ficle accipit promissio¬ nes ejus. » Ex quo sequitur, Baptismum esse sigillum promissionis : Eodem fere modo exponit Calvinus, licet vocem empa>mp.a non pactum, sed responsionem, et testimonium significare velit. Respondeo ; Locus hic praesens admodum obscurus est, tamen nihil juvat causam ad¬ versariorum. QEcumenius in commentario hujus loci, per interrogationem videtur in- telligere pignus, et arrabonem. Dicit enim Baptisma esse quasi pignus bonas conscien¬ tiae, id est, qui Deo inspirante conceperunt bonum desiderium, illi vitam immaculatam sectantur, eamque ubique exquirunt, et de ea interrogant: unde cum audierunt per Baptismum mundari animas, mox accurrunt ad Baptismum, ut purgentur sordes ipso¬ rum, atque hac ratione est Baptisma pignus bonae conscientiae. Haec expositio non favet haereticis, ut pa¬ tet; tamen non videtur ad mentem S. Petri. Nam sanctus Petrus longe amplius tribuit Baptismo, quam ut sit pignus bonae cons¬ cientiae, cum ait, per Baptismum nos sal¬ vari. Est alia expositio Lyrani, Gagnaei, et Joan- nis a Lovanio, qui per interrogationem bonae conscientiae, intelligunt interrogationes et responsiones, quae fiunt ante Baptismum. Interrogat enim sacerdos cathecumenuin : Credis in Deum? et respondet, Credo. Abre¬ nuntias Satanae, et pompis ejus? Abrenuntio etc. Qui enim bona conscientia respondent his interrogationibus, illis prodest Baptis¬ mus ; aliis non prodest. Ilaec etiam non favet haereticis, sed non videtur litteralis; nec est Ambrosii, Basilii, et Augustini, ut putavit Joannes a Lovanio. Nam B. Petrus antithesim facit, cum ait : Non carnis depositio sordium, sed conscientiae bona> interrogatio. Et sine dubio formalis an- tithesis haec erat futura ; Non ablutio sor¬ dium carnis, sed ablutio sordium mentis : qua antithesi distinguitur Baptismus noster a Baptismo Judaeorum, qui erat exterior tantum. Porro illa pars hujus antithesis (ni¬ mirum, ablutio sordium mentis) a B. Petro non est expressa propriis verbis, sed figura¬ tis, ut omnes concedunt. Oportet igitur des¬ criptam esse per causam, vel per effectum : si per effectum, tunc non habet locum expo¬ sitio istorum. Nam interrogatio illa, et res¬ ponsio, de qua ipsi agunt, sive etiam fides et charitas, quae per illas interrogationes, et responsiones deteguntur, praecedunt Baptis¬ mum, et proinde ablutionem mentis, quam facit Baptismus: non igitur sunt effectus il¬ lius ablutionis. Ergo necesse est ut dicant, illam ablutionem describi per causam, ac proinde interrogationem illam quae praecedit Baptismum, esse causam illius ablutionis. At hoc dici non potest. Nam tunc Sacramen¬ tum haberet efficaciam ex opere operantis, non ex opere operato ; tribueretur enim jus¬ tificatio praecedenti fidei, et dilectioni susci¬ pientis : Baptismum, non ipsi ablutioni Sa- cramentali : nec esset differentia inter Bap¬ tismum nostrum, et Judaicum; nam Baptis¬ mus Judaicus, licet ex opere operato non justificaret, tamen ex fide, et dilectione sus- # (1) I. Petr. III, 21. CAPUT XVII. 375 cipientis justificare poterat , ut quodlibet opus meritorium. Dicent fortasse, interrogationem, seu fi¬ dem procedentem non esse causam efficien¬ tem ablutionis interna?., sed esse dispositio¬ nem. At istud quidem recte dicitur, sed non quadrat verbis Apostoli : ipse enim tribuit efficientiam huic interrogationi bonse cons¬ cientiae, majorem, quam ipsi ablutioni ex¬ ternae, quie tamen instrumentum est justifi¬ cationis. Est igitur alia expositio, quam puto esse Sanctorum, Augustini tract. 80. in Joan- nem, et serm. 30. de verbis Domini, et Ba- silii lib. de Spiritu Sancto cap. 15. ut vide¬ licet exprimatur a S. Petro ablutio mentis, quae per antithesim opponitur ablutioni car¬ nis, non per causam, ut volebat ’pra?cedcns opinio, sed per effectum. Est enim usitatis¬ sima figura metonymia, qua per effectum intelligimus causam. Vocat igitur Petrus ablutionem internam, interrogationem, seu responsionem bonae conscientiae in Deum, quia ex illa munditia oritur pax, et quies conscientiae ; et proinde responsio bonae conscientiae, et etiam interrogatio apud Deum, quia audet cum fiducia Deum acce¬ dere, et interrogare, id est, cum eo collo¬ qui, eumque rogare pro se, et pro aliis. Addo Secundo, locum hunc non favere adversariis, sed nobis, etiamsi per enepuTYipx accipiatur testimonium, vel pactum. Nam in primis S. Petrus non loquitur de testimo¬ nio, vel pacto Dei, sed conscientia? nostrae : ipsi autem probare deberent, Sacramentum esse sigillum testimonii, seu pacti Dei. Mul¬ tum autem interest inter testimonium, seu pactum Dei, quod illi obsignari volunt Sa¬ cramento, et testimonium, seu pactum cons¬ cientiae nostra?. Illud enim est verbum Dei scriptum, quod praecedit Sacramenti usum, et fructum, id est, justificationem : testimo¬ nium autem conscientiae sequitur justifica¬ tionem, et proinde Sacramenti usum et fructum. • Secundo, S. Petrus non dicit. Baptismo obsignari pactum, seu testimonium; sed di¬ cit, salvari animas, et effici justificationem, ex qua oritur testimonium bonae conscien¬ tia?. Id quod probatur ex illo verbo : « simi¬ lis formae». Vult enim Apostolus eo modo nos salvari per aquas Baptismi, quomodo per aquas diluvii salvati sunt, qui erant in arca Noe. Porro aqua? diluvii non salvarunt arcam Noe testificando, vel obsignando, pro¬ missiones, sed reipsa elevando arcam in su¬ blime, ne obrueretur cum cceteris aedificiis hujus mundi : sic igitur et Baptismus salvos nos facit, non obsignando, et testificando, sed reipsa justificando animam ; unde se¬ quitur, ut diximus, testimonium, sive inter¬ rogatio conscientia? bona? in Deum. Quintum argumentum esse posset pro ad' versariis, testimonium sanctorum Patrum, qui non raro Sacramenta vocant sigilla, seu signacula. Respondeo : Longe alia significatione lo¬ quuntur Patres de signaculis Sacramento¬ rum, quam ha?retici faciant. Patres enim numquam Sacramenta vocant signacula, vel sigilla promissionum Dei, ut haeretici vo¬ lunt; sed aliquo horum trium modorum lo¬ quuntur de signaculis. Primo signacula vo¬ cant Sacramenta, quia obsignant fideles, et tamquam nota quaedam eos separant ab iis, qui non sunt de grege, vel de exercitu Do¬ mini. Ita accipit hanc vocem Basilins in exhortatione ad Baptismum : item Hierony¬ mus in cap. IV. ad Ephesios, et Augustinus lib. XIX. contra Faustum cap. 11. et alibi passim. Ita quoque accipit Gregorius Nazian- zenus, oratione de Baptismo, non procul ab initio, ubi dicit, Baptismum vocari posse si¬ gillum, quia ita conservat hominem bapti- zatum, ut notae regiae conservant res obsi¬ gnatas. Nemo enim audet contingere eas, quae magni alicujus Regis sigillum habent. Secundo vocant Sacramenta signacula, quia claudunt intra se rem sacram, id est, invisibilem gratiam. Id enim, quod claudi¬ tur, obsignari solet, juxta illud Apocal. V : Liber signatus sigillis septem. Atque hac si¬ gnificatione vocat Augustinus Sacramenta sacra signacula in lib. de cetechizandis ru¬ dibus cap. 26. et Scholastici, sigillum Con¬ fessionis. Hoc etiam fere modo Gregorius Nazianzenus, oratione de Baptismo, prope fipem, vocat sigillum Baptisma, eo quod obsignet, et claudat multa mysteria, qua? solis fidelibus deteguntur : « Ca?tera, in¬ quit, intus addisces, qua? etiam ipsa apud te ipsum occulta, clausaque habebis, Bap¬ tismo obsignata, atque retenta. » Tertio vocant Baptismum sigillum, vel obsignationem fidei, quia Baptismus est pu¬ blica approbatio, et testificatio fidei ejus, qui baptizatur. Sic enim utitur hac voce Tertullianus in lib. de Poenitentia, ubi dicit, catechumenos diu probari an credant, et tandem ubi constiterit, eos vere, et#on- 376 LIBER I. stanter credere , Baptismum illis dari in obsignationem , et approbationem fidei. Quomodo etiam utitur eadem voce Basilius in III. lib. contra Eunomium, ubi dicit, pri¬ mum oportere credere , et tum demum accipere sigillum fidei Baptismum. In libro quoque de Spiritu sancto cap. 12. vocat Baptismum sigillum fidei, quia is qui bapti¬ zatur, eo signo testificatur se credere. Denique vocari potest etiam Baptismus sigillum fidei, quia perficit, et absolvit quo¬ dammodo hominem fidelem : quomodo ve¬ teres vocabant mortem, seu occisionem pro Christo, signaculum martyrii, ut Eusebius refert lib. Y. hist. cap. 3. Confessio enim Martyrum, et supplicia pro Christo non ha¬ bent perfectam laudem, dum periculum est inconstantiae, et mutationis, sed tunc de¬ mum perfecta, et quasi sigillo quodam mu¬ nita, et obsignata censentur, quando morte pretiosa consummantur. Atque hactenus de definitione. CONTROVERSIA III. DE CAUSIS SACRAMENTI.