Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacraments in General · Book I: On the Nature and Causes of the Sacrament
Chapter 20: The objections are solved
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. III, De Sacramentis in Genere, Book I: On the Nature and Causes of the Sacrament. The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
There remain to be solved the objections of Calvin, who in the first place produces the testimony of St. Augustine from tract 80 on John, where St. Augustine, after he had said: “Whence is this so great virtue of water, that it touches the body and washes the heart?” adds: “Unless by the word doing it — not because it is said, but because it is believed. For in the word itself, one thing is the passing sound, another the abiding virtue. This is the word of faith which we preach. Whence in the Acts of the Apostles: Purifying their hearts by faith. And Peter the Apostle: So baptism also saveth us, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the examination of a good conscience. This is the word of faith which we preach.” So he.
I answer: This place is wont wondrously to torment some, when yet it cannot be so very obscure, since it is a part of a sermon delivered to the people — unless perhaps we believe that St. Augustine was wont to preach in riddles, so that an Oedipus would be needed to understand him. I will report, then, what others think, and refute what does not seem rightly said. First, then, Calvin contends that this whole place is to be understood of a sermon. But he is most plainly deceived. First, because Augustine says: “Take away the word, what is water but water?” But, the sermon-word taken away, still the water of Baptism is not pure water, but sacred and sacramental water. For among us no sermon is made in Baptism, and yet Calvin confesses our Baptism to be a true Sacrament, book 4 of the Institutes chapter 15 section 16. Second, Augustine says: “The word comes to the element, and it becomes a Sacrament.” But a sermon does not come to the element, but precedes it, as the same Calvin teaches, book 4 chapter 14 section 3. He ought, then, to have said: The element comes to the word, and it becomes a Sacrament. Third, Augustine says: “Whence is this so great virtue of water, that it touches the body and washes the heart, unless by the word doing it?” And below: “Cleansing would by no means be attributed to the flowing and fleeting element, unless it were added in the word.” Where Augustine confesses that the water itself too has the power of cleansing, but has it not of itself, but from the word. But a sermon confers nothing on the water; for it is wholly referred to instructing the hearers, not to sanctifying the water. Nay, Calvin objects this to us in the commentary on chapter 5 to the Ephesians, as very absurd, that in the Sacraments we sometimes refer the words to the very element to be consecrated, and not to the people to be instructed. Fourth, Augustine says: “By this word, that it may be able to cleanse, Baptism too is consecrated.” But the same Augustine teaches that the word by which Baptism is consecrated is that invocation, “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” For thus he speaks, book 3 On Baptism against the Donatists chapter 15: “Wherefore, if with the Gospel words, In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Marcion consecrated Baptism, the Sacrament was whole.” The same he repeats in innumerable places. Fifth, Augustine says: “This word of faith avails so much in the Church of God that through her — believing, offering, blessing, dipping — it cleanses even a tiny infant, though not yet able to believe with the heart unto justice and confess with the mouth unto salvation.” But a sermon-word profits nothing unless it be actually believed, as is well known; Augustine, then, does not speak of a sermon-word.
Calvin's opinion, then, being rejected, certain of the Catholics teach that Augustine speaks of a word not of a sermon, nor of consecration, but of the institution of the Sacrament; for that in its own manner effects the Sacrament, consecrates the water, cleanses the infant, etc. But neither can this explanation be admitted. First, because it does not take away the difficulty which the adversary objected to us, from those words: “Not because it is said, but because it is believed.” And from those: “This is the word of faith which we preach”; which words are here thrice repeated by Augustine. For none of these squares with the words of the institution of the Sacrament. For the words of institution have their force not because they are believed, but because they were said by the Lord, who alone could make Sacraments out of elements. Nor are the words of institution properly the word of faith which we preach; for in the same place Augustine explains what this word of faith is, when he says: “Because if thou confess with thy mouth that Jesus is the Lord, and believe in thy heart that God raised him up from the dead, thou shalt be saved.” Second, Augustine, besides the word of which he here speaks, acknowledges no other word in the Sacrament, but a bare and single element, as is plain from those words: “Take away the word, what is water but water?” And: “The word comes to the element, and it becomes a Sacrament.” And: “Whence is this so great virtue of water, that it touches the body and washes the heart, unless by the word doing it?” This word, then, is not the word of institution, since it is certain that, besides the word of institution, the Sacraments consist of words and elements, and are not bare elements.
Likewise there is another opinion of the Catholics, that Augustine speaks only of the ceremonial or consecratory word. Which opinion is better than the other two; yet it has this one inconvenience, that it cannot render the cause why Augustine alleged from chapter 10 of the epistle to the Romans those words: This is the word of faith which we preach. Because if thou confess with thy heart, etc. And again why a little below he alleged those from chapter 15 of the Acts: Purifying their hearts by faith. And from 1 Peter 3 those: Not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the examination of a good conscience. And finally those from chapter 15 of John: Now you are clean by reason of the word which I have spoken to you. For none of these can be drawn to the words of consecration except by the greatest force, and unless from a popular sermon, as I said above, we make riddles.
I say, then, that Augustine in this place does not always speak of the same word, but now of the sacramental, now of the sermon-word, as has been made plain from the arguments already made. You will say: Then Augustine is engaged in a perpetual equivocation, since in the same sentences he takes the name of word so differently; for example, when he had said, “Whence is this so great virtue of water, that it touches the body and washes the heart, unless by the word doing it?” he subjoins, “Not because it is said, but because it is believed,” where he plainly speaks of the sermon-word; and accordingly either before too he was speaking of the sermon-word, or he commits a faulty equivocation. Besides, to prove that water has its force from the word, he produces the testimony of blessed Paul, from chapter 10 to the Romans: This is the word of faith which we preach. Because if thou confess, etc. And that of Acts 15: Purifying their hearts by faith. And that of 1 Peter 3: Not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the examination of a good conscience. And he adds: This is the word of faith which we preach. But what, I ask, does Augustine prove, if he speaks of the word equivocally? Finally, in the last part of the sermon, when he had said that the infant is cleansed by the water through the word, he immediately subjoins: “This whole thing is done through the word, of which the Lord says: Now you are clean by reason of the word which I have spoken to you”; which words are necessarily to be understood of a discourse of the Lord. Wherefore either the foregoing too ought to be understood of the sermon-word, and not of the sacramental, as we said a little before; or there will be in these words an intolerable equivocation.
I answer that there is no equivocation in the words of Augustine. Since he had undertaken to explain those words of the Lord, John 15: Now you are clean by reason of the word which I have spoken to you. But while he was explaining those words, he proposed to himself the question, why Christ did not rather say: Now you are clean by reason of the Baptism with which you have been washed. For although the word of the Lord preached cleanses, inasmuch as it begets faith, which is the beginning of justification, yet Baptism too cleanses, since it straightway washes away the filth of all sins. To this question he answers that Christ said, You are clean by reason of the word, and did not say, You are clean by reason of Baptism, because in every cleansing, whether it be made in a Sacrament or outside a Sacrament, always the power of cleansing arises from the word. For if the cleansing be made outside a Sacrament, it is necessarily made through actual faith; but faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ, Romans 10. But if the cleansing be made in a Sacrament, it is indeed the element that cleanses, but that it may be able to cleanse, the word of consecration is joined to it. Always, then, cleansing arises from the word. Wherefore St. Augustine does not restrict those words of the Lord, You are clean by reason of the word which I have spoken to you, to the sermon-word, but takes them generally; and in all the rest of the sermon he strives to prove this one thing, that all cleansing is done by the word. Therefore he brings forward promiscuously arguments and testimonies, now of the sacramental word, now of the sermon-word, because to him it is all one, provided he demonstrate that it is the word that cleanses.
From this foundation those three places will easily be explained, where there seemed to be a faulty equivocation. The first place was: “Whence is this so great virtue of water, that it touches the body and washes the heart, unless by the word doing it — not because it is said, but because it is believed?” These words are understood by some to be said for this reason, that unless there be present faith, either one's own in adults or another's in little ones, the Sacrament effects nothing. But this is not rightly said. For although faith is required in adults, as a certain disposition for fruitfully receiving the Sacrament, yet it is not faith that gives the power of cleansing to the element; for water has the power of cleansing not because I believe, but because it is a Sacrament instituted by God. But Augustine asks whence is the virtue of the water, not to whom the water profits. That, then, “Not because it is said, but because it is believed,” signifies that the sacramental word gives force to the water, not as it is a certain natural thing — that is, air struck (for so the word is no better than the element) — but as it is a spiritual thing, knowable by faith alone, namely as it contains the invocation of the Trinity (in the way that also the sign of the cross, and the name Jesus, are honorable and have the power of working miracles and coercing demons, not as they are natural things and perceptible by bodily sense, but as they represent a divine thing); so that the sense is: The word, not because it is said, but because it is believed — that is, not inasmuch as it is perceived by the ears, but inasmuch as it is received by faith. And that this is the true sense of this place is plain from the following words: “For in the word itself,” he says, “one thing is the passing sound, another the abiding virtue”; where he calls “passing sound” what he had called “the word because it is said,” and calls “abiding virtue” what he had called “the word because it is believed.” Besides, that “because it is believed” either signifies “because it is actually believed,” or “because it is the object of faith,” and accordingly a thing perceptible by faith; but it cannot signify “because it is actually believed”; for no actual faith is strictly necessary for Baptism. For the actual faith of the receiver of Baptism is not required, as is plain in little ones, whom Augustine in this place says most truly to be cleansed by the word in the Sacrament, even though they be not able to believe with the heart and confess with the mouth. Nor is the faith of the minister, or of the parents, or of any who offer and receive, required, as the same Augustine proves in epistle 23 to Boniface, where he says that little ones are truly cleansed even if they be baptized or offered by unbelievers. Whose actual faith, then, is required, if neither the receiver's, nor the giver's, nor the offerer's? You will say, the faith of the Church is required. But what if no one in the Church were exercising an act of faith while an infant is baptized by an unbeliever? What if, by an impossibility, the whole Church perished, and yet some Turk who knew our matters baptized an infant with the intention of doing what Christ instituted and the Church did? Certainly he would be baptized. Yet it is true, what Augustine and others say, that infants are baptized in the faith of their parents or of the Church, because in fact, if there were no faithful person, certainly no one would be moved to baptize infants; but not for that reason is actual faith so required that without it Baptism would be fruitless. But here it is diligently to be noted that it is not denied by Augustine that the word itself, as it is said and as it is a sensible thing, has virtue; for if the water itself has the virtue of cleansing, how much more the word, even as sensible? But it is denied that that virtue is from the word as it is a sensible thing. And so the whole Sacrament has virtue, but has it from the word, as the word is a spiritual thing, knowable by faith alone.
The other difficult place was where Augustine alleges the Scriptures, Romans 10, Acts 15, and 1 Peter 3. But I answer that those places are not alleged to prove that the power of cleansing is in the water from the word, but to prove in general that the word has the power of cleansing; for that is Augustine's aim, as we said. And because he had already proved it from this, that the sacramental word gives the power of cleansing to the element, he proves the same by the testimonies of those Scriptures. For those places demonstrate that the hearts of men are purged by faith, and that faith is born of the word of preaching; from which it follows that the word has the power of cleansing. The third difficult place was at the end of the sermon, where, after he had said that infants are cleansed by the sacramental word, he added: “This whole thing is done through the word, of which the Lord says: Now you are clean by reason of the word which I have spoken to you.” But it has already been answered that these words of the Lord are not restricted by Augustine to the discourse which the Lord had spoken after the last supper, but are understood of the word generally, so that the sense is: You are clean by reason of my word, whether that which, by my preaching, you have heard and believed, or that by which in Baptism you have been sanctified. And this concerning that place of Augustine, and concerning the chief argument of Calvin.
The other objection is of Calvin, Brentius, Kemnitz, and others, that it is a certain species of magical incantation to mutter certain words over water, or bread, or another mute element of that kind. But this is not so much an objection as a horrible blasphemy. For, in the first place, there are two things which are condemned in magical incantations. One, that some think there is in certain figures or words a natural virtue of effecting something; and this indeed is superstition, since it is certain that neither figures nor words have any natural power of effecting anything. The other, that others think that figures or words have of themselves no virtue, yet by a covenant entered with the devil are applied to effect certain things; and this properly is magical incantation, and the greatest sin. Now the sacramental words we all confess to have no natural power; for therefore we say that divine institution is required, that from the institution of God they may effect what of themselves they could not do. And it is a mere calumny of Calvin, book 4 chapter 14 section 4, that we use the mere noise of words without sense and faith to consecrate the element; and of Kemnitz in the Examen part 2 page 101, who says that we place power in the syllables and characters, neglecting the sense of the words. For these are mere falsehoods; for we place power neither in the characters, nor in the sound, nor in the number of syllables, but in the sense and signification, and that from the institution of Christ. Since all Catholics confess that, whatever tongue we use, the Sacrament is truly perfected, provided the sense be the same; but it is agreed that the same words, if uttered or written in diverse tongues, have diverse characters, a diverse sound, a diverse number of syllables. It follows, then, that we judge, as we truly judge, that they have their force from the covenant and promise of Christ; which if it be magic, what else follows than that Christ is the Devil? For since all magic depends on a covenant with the Devil, but the force of the sacramental words depends on the covenant of Christ, it manifestly follows either that there is no magic in our Sacraments, or that Christ is the Devil. To this horrible impiety, then, our adversaries have come, that they make a Devil out of Christ. They will say that they do not make Christ a Devil, because Christ did not institute the pronouncing of words of that kind over mute elements. But we have already sufficiently proved that Christ did institute it. But I ask of them whether they believe that Christ could institute signs of that kind which should have from his covenant the power of working something. They will not deny it, I think, unless they deny that Christ is God. For God, Numbers 5, instituted certain words to be said over water, and willed the force of those words to be such that they should give the waters the virtue of straightway killing adulterous women, if they were drunk by them. Likewise Numbers 21 he instituted that those who looked upon the brazen serpent should straightway be cured of the bite of the fiery serpents. And Christ himself — did he not by words, or the imposition of a hand, or even by clay and spittle, drive away diseases? Christ, then, could institute this, that the sacramental words have force from his covenant. But again I ask, whether, if Christ had instituted this, which it is established he could do, it would be magic or not. If they say it would have been magic, they plainly confess that Christ is the Devil; if they deny it would have been magic, they cannot by any reason call us magicians; for we do only what we believe Christ instituted. But if Christ had not instituted it, we should simply be deceived, but on no part would the crime of magic touch us. Finally, magic words and signs have no power at all; for neither can the Devil give virtues to things, but the Devil alone works at their presence. But the sacramental words and signs have power from God of working what they signify; wherefore they act far more wonderfully and sublimely than any incantations can.
The third objection of Calvin is taken from the authority of Christ, of the Apostles, of the primitive Church, and of God himself: “There is no reason,” he says, book 4 chapter 14 section 4, “that we should labor in this proof, since it is by no means obscure what Christ did, what he commanded us to do, what the Apostles followed, what the purer Church observed. Nay, from the very beginning of the world it is known that, as often as God offered any sign to the holy Fathers, there was an inseparable bond of doctrine, without which our senses would be struck dumb by the bare sight. Therefore when we hear mention made of the sacramental word, let us understand the promise which, preached with a clear voice by the minister, leads the people by the hand to that whither the sign tends, and directs us.” But there is no reason either that we should labor in the answer. For it is by no means obscure that Christ premised no sermon when he first consecrated the Eucharist, and commanded that thenceforth we should do the same. See Matthew 26, Luke 22, and 1 Corinthians 11. It is known also what the Apostles and the old Fathers followed, from those testimonies which we cited a little before; for Calvin brought no testimony except one of Augustine, which has already been explained by us. Finally, we do not deny that God too, when he gave signs to the Fathers, explained their force, and that the same is to be done by us when we instruct the Catechumens; but Calvin does not rightly gather thence that the sacramental word is nothing but a sermon. For it is one thing to preach, another to celebrate the Sacraments; each ought to be done, but not for that reason are the times and the offices not to be distinguished.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XX. Solvuntui' objectiones. Solvendae supersunt objectiones Calvini, qui p«mo loco profert testimonium S. Au¬ gustini ex tracta. 80. in Joan. ubi S. Augus¬ tinus, postquam dixerat : « Unde tanta vir¬ tus aquae, ut corpus tangat, et cor abluat? » adjungit : « Nisi faciente verbo, non quia dicitur, sed quia creditur. Nam et in ipso verbo aliud est sonus transiens, aliud virtus manens : hoc est verbum fidei, quod praedi¬ camus. Unde in Actis Apostolorum : Fide mundans corda eorum. Et Petrus Apostolus: Sic nos Baptisma salvos facit, non depositio sordium carnis, sed conscientiae bonae inter¬ rogatio. Hoc est, verbum ildei, quod prajdi- camus. » Haec ille. Respondeo : Locus hic mire torquere so¬ let nonnullos, cum tamen non usque adeo obscurus esse possit, cum sit pars quaedam concionis ad populum habitae, nisi forte cre¬ dimus S. Augustinum per aenigmata praedi¬ care solitum, ut QEdipo opus esset ad eum intelligendum. Referam igitur quid alii sen¬ tiant, et refellam ea, qua} non videntur recte dicta. Primum igitur Calvinus contendit, totum hunc locum de concione intelligendum. Sed fallitur apertissime. Primo, quoniam Au¬ gustinus ait : <i Detrahe verbum, quid est aqua, nisi aqua? » At detracto verbo con¬ cionis, adhuc aqua Baptismi non est pura aqua, "sed aqua sacra, et Sacramentalis. Nam apud nos nulla fit concio in Baptismo, et tamen Baptismum nostrum verum Sacra¬ mentum Calvinus esse fatetur, lib. IV. Instit. cap. 13. § 16. Secundo, Augustinus ait : « Accedit ver¬ bum ad elementum, et fit Sacramentum. » At concio non accedit ad elementum, sed praecedit, ut ipse idem Calvinus docet, lib. IV. c. 14. § 3. Oportuisset ergo, ut diceret : Accedit ad verbum elementum, et fit Sacra¬ mentum. Tertio, Augustinus ait : « Unde tanta vir¬ tus aqum, ut corpus tangat, et cor abluat, nisi faciente verbo?» Et infra. ((Mundatio ne¬ quaquam fluxo et labili tribueretur ele¬ mento, nisi adderetur in verbo. » Ubi fate¬ tur Augustinus, ipsam etiam aquam vim ha¬ bere mundandi, sed eam non ex se habere, sed a verbo. At concio nihil tribuit aquae ; tota enim refertur ad instruendos auditores, non ad sanctificandam aquam. Imo id no¬ bis objicit Calvinus in commentario, cap. V. ad Ephesios, tamquam valde absurdum, quod in Sacramentis interdum verba refe¬ ramus ad ipsum elementum consecrandum, et non ad populum instruendum. Quarto, Augustinus ait : « Hoc verbo, ut mundare possit, consecratur et Baptismus.» At idem Augustinus docet verbum, quo Baptismus consecratur, esse illam invoca¬ tionem : « In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spi¬ ritus sancti. » Sic enim loquitur, lib. .111. de Baptismo, contra Donatistas, c. 13 : « Qua- mobrem si Evangeliois verbis : In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus sancti, Marcion Baptismum consecrabat, integrum erat Sa¬ cramentum. » Id ipsum repetit in infinitis locis. Quinto, Augustinus ait : « Hoc veibum fidei tantum valet in Ecclesia Dei, ut per ipsam credentem, offerentem, benedicen¬ tem, tingentem etiam tantillum, mundet in¬ fantem, quamvis nondum valentem corde credere ad justitiam, et ore confiteri ad sa¬ lutem. » At verbum concionale nihil pro¬ dest, nisi actu credatur, ut notum est : non igitur Augustinus de conciouali verbo lo¬ quitur. Rejecta igitur Calvini sententia, quidam ex Catholicis docent , Augustinum loqui de verbo non concionis, nec consecrationis, sed institutionis Sacramenti: illud enim suo mo¬ do efficit Sacramentum, consecrat aquas, mundat infantem etc. CAPUT XX. 387 Sed neque hfec explicatio admitti potest. Primo , quoniam non tollit difficultatem, quam adversarius nobis objecit, ex illis ver¬ bis : « Non quia dicitur, sed quia creditur.» Et ex illis : « Hoc est verbum fidei, quod praedicamus ; » quae verba ter repetuntur hoc loco ab Augustino. Nihil enim horum quadrat in verba insti¬ tutionis Sacramenti. Nara verba institutio¬ nis non ideo vim habent, quia creduntur, sed quia dicta sunt a Domino, qui solus po¬ tuit ex elementis facere Sacramenta. Neque verba institutionis sunt proprie verbum fidei, quod praedicamus : nam ibidem explicat Au¬ gustinus, quod sit hoc verbum fidei, cum ait : « Quia si confessus fueris in ore tuo, quia Dominus est Jesus, et credideris in corde tuo, quia Deus illum suscitavit a mor¬ tuis, salvus eris. » Secundo, Augustinus praeter verbum, de quo hic loquitur, non agnoscit in Sacra¬ mento aliud verbum ; sed nudum ac solum elementum, ut patet ex illis verbis : « De¬ trahe verbum, quid est aqua nisi aqua?» Et: «Accedit verbum ad elementum, et fit Sacra¬ mentum.» Et : «Unde tanta virtus aquae, ut corpus tangat, et cor abluat, nisi faciente verbo ?» Non igitur hoc verbum est verbum institutionis, cum certum sit praeter verbum institutionis, Sacramenta constare ex verbis, et elementis, et non esse nuda elementa. Alia item Catholicorum sententia est, Au¬ gustinum loqui solum de verbo caeremoniali, seu consecratorio. Quae sententia melior est caeteris duabus : tamen habet hoc unum in¬ commodum, quod non potest reddere cau¬ sam, cur Augustinus allegaverit ex c. X. epist. ad Romanos illa verba : Hoc est ver¬ bum fidei, quod praedicamus. Quia si confitea¬ ris in corde tuo etc » Et rursus cur paulo infra allegaverit illa ex cap. XV. Actorum : Fide mundans corda eorum. Et ex I. Pet. 111. illa: Non carnis depositio sordium, sed conscientiae bonce interrogatio. Et denique illa ex cap. XV. Joan. : Jam vos mundi estis propter sermo¬ nem, , quem locutus sum vobis ( I). Nam nihil horum trahi potest, ad verba consecratio¬ nis, nisi per summam vim, et nisi ex con¬ cione populari, ut supra dixi, aenigmata fa¬ ciamus. Dico igitur, Augustinum hoc loco non semper loqui de eodem verbo, sed nunc de Sacramentali, nunc de concionali, ut ex ar¬ gumentis jam factis planum factum est. Dices; ergo Auguslinus in perpetua acqui- vocatione versatur, cum iisdem sententiis tam differenter accipiat nomen verbi : exem¬ pli causa, cum dixisset : « Unde tanta virtus aquae, ut corpus tangat, et cor abluat, nisi faciente verbo? » Subjungit: « Non quiadi- citur, sed quia creditur, » ubi aperte loqui¬ tur de verbo concionali : proinde aut etiam antea loquebatur de concionali, aut vitiosam sequi vocationem committit. Praeterea ad probandum, aquam habere vim ex verbo, profert testimonium B. Pauli, ex c. X. ad Rom. : Hoc est verbum fidei. , quod prcedicamus. Quia si confitearis etc. Et illud Actor. XV : Fide mundans corda eorum. Et illud, I. Pet. III : Non carnis depositio sordium, sed conscientiae bonce interrogatio. Et addit : Hoc est verbum fidei quod praedicamus. Sed quid, quaeso, probat Augustinus, si aequi- voce de verbo loquitur? . Denique in extrema concione cum dixis¬ set, aqua per verbum mundari infanlem, subjungit continuo : « Hoc totum fit per ver¬ bum, de quo Dominus ait : Jam vos mundi estis propter verbum, quod locutus sum vo¬ bis; » quae verba de concione Domini sunt intelligenda necessario. Quare vel etiam su¬ periora intelfigi debent de concionali verbo, et non de Sacramentali, ut nos paulo ante dicebamus; vel erit in his verbis intolerabi¬ lis aequivocatio. Respondeo, nullam esse in verbis Augus¬ tini aequivocationem. Siquidem ipse expli¬ canda susceperat illa verba Domini, Joan. XV: Jam vos mundi estis propter verbum , quod locutus sum vobis. Dum autem illa verba ex¬ plicaret, proposuit sibi ipsi quaestionem, cur non dixerit potius Christus: Jam vos mundi estis propter Baptismum, quo loti estis. Nam etiamsi verbum Domini praedicatum mun¬ dat, quatenus gignit fidem, quae est initium justificationis, tamen etiam Baptismus mun¬ dat, cum statim abluat sordes omnium pec¬ catorum. Ad hanc quaestionem respondet, Christum dixisse : Vos mundi estis, propter verbum , et non dixisse: Mundi estis propter Baptismum quia in omni mundatione, sive ea fiat in Sa¬ cramento, sive extra Sacramentum, semper vis mundandi oritur ex verbo. Nam si iit mundatio extra Sacramentum, necessario fit per actualem fidem : fides autem ex auditu, (1) Rom. X, 8 et 9; Act. XV. 9; I. Petr. III, 21 ; Joan. XV, 3. 388 LIBER I. auditus autem per verbum Christi, Rom. X. Si vero mundatio fit in Sacramento ; elemen¬ tum quidem est, quod mundat, sed ut mun¬ dare possit, adjungitur ei verbum consecra¬ tionis. Semper igitur mundatio oritur ex verbo. Quocirca S. Augustinus illa verba Domini : Vos mundi estis propter verbum , quod locutus sum vobis, non restringit ad ver¬ bum concionis, sed geueratim accipit; et in toto reliquo sermone id unum probare co¬ natur , omnem mundationem fieri par ver¬ bum. Idcirco promiscue adfert argumenta, et testimonia, nunc de verbo Sacramentali, nunc de Goncionali , quia illi perinde est, modo demonstret verbum esse , quod mun¬ dat. Ex hoc fundamento facile explicabuntur tria illa loca , ubi videbatur esse vitiosa sequivocatio. Primus locus erat : « Unde tanta virtus aquae, ut corpus tangat , et cor abluat, nisi faciente verbo, non quia dicitur, sed quia creditur? » Ileec verba a nonnullis intelliguntur ideo esse dicta, quia nisi adsit fides vel propria in adultis, vel aliena in par¬ vulis , Sacramentum nihil efficit. Sed hoc non recte dicitur. Quia licet fides in adultis requiratur, ut dispositio quaedam ad Sacra¬ mentum fructuose recipiendum, tamen non est fides , quae dat virtutem mundandi ele¬ mento : non enim ideo aqua habet vim mun¬ dandi, quia ego credo , sed quia est Sacra¬ mentum a Deo institutum. Id autem quaerit Augustinus, unde sit vir¬ tus aquae, non cui prosit aqua. Illud ergo : Non quia dicitur, sed quia creditur, significat, verbum Sacramentale non dare vim aquae, ut est res quaedam naturalis, id est, aer per¬ cussus ; sic enim nihilo melius est verbum elemento : sed ut est res spiritualis, et sola fide cognoscibilis, nimirum, ut continet in¬ vocationem Trinitatis (quomodo etiam sig¬ num crucis, et nomen Jesus, honorabile est, et vim habet operandi miracula, ac daemo¬ nes coercendi ; non ut est res naturalis, et sensu corporeo perceptibilis, sed ut reprae¬ sentat rem divinam) ita ut sensus sit : Ver¬ bum non quia dicitur, sed quia creditur, id est, non quatenus auribus sentitur, sed quatenus fide percipitur. Esse autem hunc sensum verum hujus lo¬ ci, patet ex sequentibus verbis : « Nam, in¬ quit, et in ipso verbo aliud est sonus tran¬ siens, aliud virtus maneus ; » ubi id vocat sonum transeuntem, quod vocaverat, Ver¬ bum quia dicitur; id vocat virtutem ma¬ nentem, quod vocaverat, verbum quia cre¬ ditur. Praeterea illud ; (Juia creditur, vel signifi¬ cat, quia creditur actu . vel quia est objec¬ tum fidei , et proinde res fide perceptibilis : non autem potest significare, quia creditur actu; nulla enim actualis fides est in rigore necessaria ad Baptismum. Nam non requi¬ ritur fides actualis suscipientis Baptismum, ut patet in parvulis , quos Augustinus hoc loco dicit verissime per verbum in Sacra¬ mento mundari, etiamsi non valeant corde credere, et ore 'confiteri. Nec requiritur fi¬ des ministri, aut parentum, aut quorumlibet offerentium, et susceptorum , ut idem Au¬ gustinus probat in epist. 23. ad Bonifacium, ubi dicit, vere mundari parvulos etiamsi ba¬ ptizentur, vel offerantur ab infidelibus. Cujus igitur fides actualis requiritur, si nec susci¬ pientibus, nec dantis, nec offerentis? Dices, requiritur fides Ecclesiai. Sed quid si nullus in Ecclesia actum fidei exerceret, dum infans ab infideli baptizatur? quid si per impossibile Ecclesia tota periret, et ta¬ men Turea quispiam, qui nosset res nostras infantem baptizaret cum intentione faciendi quod Christus instituit, et Ecclesia faciebat? certe ille esset baptizatus. Verum est tamen, quod Augustinus et alii dicunt, infantes baptizari iu fide parentum, vel Ecclesiae, quia de facto, si nullus esset fidelis, certe nullus moveretur ad baptizandum infantes : sed non ideo fides actualis ita requiritur, ut sine illa Baptismus infructuosus esset. Est autem hic diligenter notandum, non negari ab Augustino, verbum ipsum, ut di¬ citur, et ut est res sensibilis, habere virtu¬ tem ; nam si aqua ipsa habet virtutem mun¬ dandi, quanto magis verbum, etiam ut sensibile? sed negari virtutem illam esse a verbo, ut est res sensibilis. Itaque totum Sacramentum habet virtutem, sed habet a verbo, ut verbum est res spiritualis, et sola fide cognoscibilis. Alter locus difficilis erat, ubi Augustinus allegat Scripturas, Rom. X. Actor. XV. et I. Pet. III. Sed respondeo, Hia loca non al¬ legari ad probandum, vim mundandi esse in aqua a verbo; sed ad probandum in ge¬ nere, verbum habere vim mundandi : ille enim est Augustini scopus, ut diximus. Et quia id jam probaverat ex eo, quod verbum Sacramentale dat vim mundandi elemento : idem probat testimoniis illarum Scriptura¬ rum. Nam illa loca demonstrant fide purgari CAPUT XX. 389 corda hominum, fidem autem nasci ex ver¬ bo praedicationis; ex quibus sequitur, ver¬ bum vim habere mundandi. Tertius locus difficilis erat in fine sermo¬ nis, ubi postquam dixerat, verbo Sacramen- tali mundari infantes, addidit : « Totum hoc fit per verbum, de quo Dominus ait : Jam vos mundi estis propter verbum, quod lo¬ cutus sum vobis. » Sed jam responsum est, ista verba Domini ab Augustino non restrin¬ gi ad sermonem, quem Dominus locutus fuerat post ultimam crenam, sed intelligi de verbo generaliter, ut sensus sit : Vos mundi estis, propter verbum meum, sive quod me condonante audistis, et credidistis, sive quo in Baptismo sanctificati estis. Atque haec de isto loco Augustini, ac de praecipuo argu¬ mento Calvini. Altera objectio est Calvini, Brentii, Kem- nitii, et aliorum, quod sit species quaedam magicae incantationis, demurmurare certa verba super aquam, vel panem, aut aliud ejusmodi mutum elementum. Sed haec non tam objectio, quam horribi¬ lis blasphemia est. Nam in primis duo sunt, quae damnantur in incantationibus magicis. Unum, quod aliqui putent in certis figuris, aut verbis esse naturalem virtutem aliquid efficiendi, atque haec quidem superstitio est; cum certo constet, nec figuras, nec verba vim naturalem ullam habere aliquid effi¬ ciendi. Alterum, quod alii existiment, figu¬ ras, aut verba nihil ex se habere virtutis, tamen ex pacto cum diabolo inito adhiberi ad res certas efficiendas ; et haec proprie magica est incantatio, et peccatum maxi¬ mum. Porro verba Sacramentalia omnes fate¬ mur nullam vim naturalem habere; ideo enim dicimus requiri divinam institutionem, ut ex Dei institutione efficiant, quod ex se facere non poterant. Estque mera calumnia Calvini, lib. IV. cap. 14. §. 4. quod solo strepitu verborum sine sensu, et fide utamur ad elementum consecrandum ; et Kemnitii in Examine, parte 2. pag. 101. qui dicit, nos vim ponere in syllabis, et characteri¬ bus, neglecto sensu verborum. Ista enim sunt mera mendacia : nam nos nec in cha¬ racteribus, nec in sono, aut numero syllaba¬ rum, sed in sensu, et significatione vim po¬ nimus. idque ex Christi institutione. Siquidem fatentur omnes Catholici, qua¬ vis lingua utamur, vere perfici Sacramen¬ tum, modo sensus sit idem; constat autem eadem verba, si diversis linguis efferantur, vel scribantur, diversos habere characteres, diversum sonum, diversum numerum sylla¬ barum. Sequitur igitur, ut existimemus, ut vere existimamus, ea ex pacto, et promis¬ sione Christi vim habere; qua? si magia est, quid aliud sequitur, quam ut Christus sit Diabolus? Nam cum omnis magia pendeat ex pacto Diaboli, vis autem Sacramentnlium verborum pendeat ex pacto Christi : mani¬ feste sequitur, aut nullam in Sacramentis nostris esse magiam, aut Christum esse Dia¬ bolum. Ad hanc igitur horribilem impieta¬ tem adversarii nostri devenerunt, ut ex Christo Diabolum faciant. Dicent, se non facere Christum Diabolum, quia Christus non instituit, ejusmodi verbo¬ rum pronuntiationem super muta elementa. Sed jam satis probavimus, Christum insti¬ tuisse. Cseterum quaero ab eis, an credant Christum potuisse instituere ejusmodi signa, quae vim haberent ex pacto ipsius aliquid operandi. Non, opinor, negabunt, nisi Chris¬ tum negent esse Deum. Nam Deus, Num. V. instituit verba quae¬ dam, qua; dicerentur super aquas, ac voluit eam esse vim illorum verborum, ut virtu¬ tem tribuerent aquis continuo interficiendi mulieres adulteras, si ab eis biberentur. Item Num. XXI. instituit, ut qui aspicerent aeneum serpentem, continuo curarentur a morsu serpentium ignitorum. Et Christus ipse, nonne verbis, aut manus impositione, aut etiam luto, et sputo pellebat morbos? Potuit igitur Christus hoc instituere, ut verba Sacramentalia vim habeant ex pacto ipsius. Rursus autem quaero, an si id Christus instituisset, quod eum facere potuisse con¬ stitit, esset magia, necne? Si dicant magiam futuram fuisse, aperte fatentur Christum esse Diabolum : si negant futuram fuisse magiam, non possunt ulla ratione nos ma¬ gos appellare; id enim solum facimus, quod Christum instituisse credimus. Si autem Christus id non instituisset, falleremur sim¬ pliciter, sed nulla ex parte magiae crimen nos attingeret. Denique verba, et signa magica, non ha¬ bent ullam vim ; neque enim Diabolus dare potest rebus virtutes, sed solus Diabolus operatur ad eorum praesentiam. At verba, et signa Sacramentalia vim habent a Deo operandi quod significant : quare longe mi¬ rabilius, et sublimius agunt, quam ullae in¬ cantationes possint. 890 LIBER I. Tertia objectio Calvini sumitur ab aucto¬ ritate Christi, Apostolorum, primitivae Ec¬ clesiae, et ipsius Dei : « Non est, inquit lib. IV. cap. i 4. §. 4. quod in hac probatione laboremus, quando minime obscurum est, quid Christus fecerit, quid nobis facere man¬ daverit, quid secuti sint Apostoli, quid pu¬ rior Ecclesia observaverit. Imo ab initio usque mundi notum est, quoties signum ali¬ quod obtulit Deus sanctis Patribus, insepa¬ rabilem fuisse doctrinae copulam, sine qua attoniti nudo aspectu sensus nostri redde¬ rentur. Ergo cum de verbo Sacramentali fieri mentionem audimus, promissionem in- telligamus, quae clara voce a ministro prae¬ dicata, plebem eo manu ducat, quo signum tendit, ac nos dirigit. » Sed nihil est etiam quo nos in responsione laboremus. Nam minime obscurum est, Christum nullam praemisisse concionem, cum Eucharistiam primus consecravit, et ut deinceps idem faceremus, mandavit. Vide Matth. XXVI. Lucae XXII et I. Corinth. XI. Notum est etiam quid Apostoli, et veteres Patres secuti sint, ex his testimoniis, quae nos paulo ante citavimus, Calvinus enim nullum attulit testimonium, praeter unum Augustini, quod jam a nobis est explicatum. Denique non negamus, et Deum cum signa dedit Patribus, eorum vim explicuisse, et nobis idem esse faciendum, dum Catechu¬ menos instituimus : sed non recte inde col¬ ligit Calvinus, verbum Sacramentale nihil esse, nisi concionem. Aliud enim est con¬ donari, aliud Sacramenta celebrare : utrum¬ que fieri debet, sed non idcirco distinguen¬ da non sunt, et tempora, et officia.