Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacraments in General · Book I: On the Nature and Causes of the Sacrament
Chapter 22: On the end and necessity of the Sacraments
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).
Three things will have to be explained concerning the final cause of the Sacraments. First, the end itself must be treated. Second, the necessity, which is known from the end. Third, the opinion of the Church is to be defended against the falsehoods and calumnies of the heretics. As to the first, two things can be asked when it is asked what is the end of the Sacraments. First, to what end God instituted the Sacraments. Second, why for attaining that end he instituted such means, when he could have attained that end by other means, and even without any means. The former question has already been explained in the disputation on the definition of a Sacrament; for we have already shown that the Sacraments were instituted to justify men, and to be signs and instrumental causes of the grace of God. The latter question is easy, nor is there any controversy about it. And indeed the authors gather many reasons, both on the part of God, and on the part of man, and on the part of the Sacraments themselves, why it was useful to institute Sacraments — that is, sensible signs — to justify men. But these are the chief causes.
The first, because it agrees with human nature, which consists of body and spirit. For so St. Chrysostom says, homily 60 to the people, and 83 on Matthew: “If thou wert incorporeal, he would have given thee bare and incorporeal gifts; but since the soul is inserted into a body, he presents to thee intelligible things in sensible ones.” Like things teach Gregory Nazianzen and Gregory of Nyssa, in the sermon On Baptism. The second, that it might more clearly appear that the grace which is given through the Sacraments is from God alone. For if it were given through some spiritual actions, men might have suspected that men are justified by the proper power of that action; but now, since so excellent a gift is given through corporeal and abject things, no room is left for such a suspicion. For which cause also the Lord, John 9, enlightened the blind man with spittle and clay, not with any precious ointment; and willed to subject the world to himself through poor and obscure men. The third, that they might at once be instruments of justification, and signs by which the faithful might be distinguished from the unfaithful, and by which the people of God might be gathered, and by which also God might be worshipped by sacred ceremonies. For they could not be signs to distinguish some from others, nor ceremonies of religion, unless they were external and sensible. See many such reasons in Hugh, book 1 On the Sacraments part 9 chapter 3, and the Master and the Doctors, book 4 of the Sentences distinction 1, and St. Thomas book 4 against the Gentiles chapter 56, and among the more recent William Alan, in the book On the Sacraments in general chapter 24.
As to the second, concerning necessity, there is a twofold necessity. One is called the necessity of precept, the other the necessity of means. And although sometimes these two necessities are conjoined — for by this very fact that something is a means necessary to salvation, it is at the same time also a natural precept, if it be placed in our power — yet this is the difference, that when someone from invincible ignorance, or another just cause, does not fulfill the precept, he receives no detriment; but if someone does not receive a necessary means, he receives great detriment, because he does not attain the end, even though it happen to him from invincible ignorance. For example, the Sacrament of Confirmation is a precept, but not a means simply necessary to salvation; therefore he who neglects to receive that Sacrament sins, but if from a legitimate cause he does not receive it, he neither sins nor is hindered from salvation. But because Baptism, in reality or in desire, is both a precept and a means, therefore he who is not baptized, or at least does not desire Baptism, is not saved, even though it happen from ignorance or impotence. Again, the necessity of means is either a necessity simply, in the way that wings are necessary for flying; or for well-being, in the way that a horse is necessary for making a journey. Finally, each necessity is either absolute and natural, as in the examples given, or from the institution and will of another, in the way that in games to touch the goal is a means necessary for the prize; or it is partly from institution, partly from natural congruity, as when a general grants his soldiers a city to plunder, if they take it by force. From these it can easily be understood what is the necessity of the Sacraments.
Let this, then, be the first proposition: “No Sacraments have absolute necessity, but all their necessity depends on the divine precept and institution, with a natural congruity adjoined.” For it is certain that God could justify men without any Sacraments. Nor is there any controversy about this. Second proposition: “All the Sacraments are necessary by the necessity of precept, though not to each one.” About this proposition there is no controversy with the heretics. Third proposition: “Baptism and Penance are necessary, the divine institution being posited, by the necessity of means simply; Baptism indeed to all, Penance to those who after Baptism sin mortally.” In this we do not agree. For the adversaries confess indeed that the Sacraments are necessary because they are precepts, and also necessary as useful means; yet they acknowledge no Sacrament simply necessary as a means. And the reason is that, since faith alone justifies, the Sacraments are applied only to excite or nourish faith. But without the Sacraments, by the word alone, faith can be begotten, nourished, increased; therefore no Sacraments are simply necessary. But this controversy is to be treated in the disputation on Baptism and Penance; now two most plain places of Scripture will suffice, John 3: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Luke 13: Unless you do penance, you shall all likewise perish.
Fourth proposition: “The Eucharist, Confirmation, and Extreme Unction are necessary by the necessity of means for well-being, the divine institution being posited.” In this we do not agree, inasmuch as we number Confirmation and Unction among the Sacraments; but of this elsewhere. As to the Eucharist, we agree that it is under a precept; but that it is necessary for well-being as a means, we seem to agree, but in fact we do not agree. For Calvin in the Antidote, and Kemnitz in the Examen, say indeed that the Sacraments are necessary as means instituted by Christ, but in explaining they so extenuate this necessity that they almost take it away. For they will have the Sacraments to be only useful for nourishing faith, because they represent to the eyes that which the word offers to the ears. Whence the Apology of the Confession, article 13, compares the Sacraments to a picture; as, then, pictures cannot be called necessary to salvation, except perhaps for very rude men, so neither the Sacraments, according to their opinion. Kemnitz strives in the place cited to refute this likeness of the picture, and to show I know not what greater necessity. But he cannot deny that that likeness is in the Apology, which he professes to follow in all things. And besides, in other words he says the same; for he will have the Sacraments to be nothing else than rites in which the promise is visibly represented, as it is audibly, so to speak, represented in the word. And so in truth they do not acknowledge a necessity, though they lie that they acknowledge it, but only a certain thin utility of the Sacraments.
Fifth proposition: “Order is necessary, not to individual men, but to the Church itself in general, by the necessity of means simply, the divine institution being posited.” Sixth proposition: “Matrimony is necessary for well-being, not to individual men, but to the Church in general.” About these there is no controversy. See St. Thomas part 3 question 65 article 4.
As to the third, the falsehoods and calumnies of Calvin and Kemnitz are to be refuted, against canon 4 of session 7 of the Council of Trent, where the necessity of the Sacraments is treated. The words of the Council are thus: “If anyone shall say that the Sacraments of the new law are not necessary to salvation, but superfluous, and that without them, or the desire of them, men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification, though all are not necessary to each one, let him be anathema.” By which canon the Council defines three things. First, that the Sacraments are not superfluous to salvation, but necessary; which is defined against the Anabaptists and Zwinglians, who (as we saw above in the disputation on the definition) would have the Sacraments useful for distinguishing the faithful from the unfaithful, but not for obtaining salvation. And this part of the definition Calvin and Kemnitz willingly admit and approve. Second, that certain Sacraments are so necessary that without them, or the desire of them, salvation cannot be had. But this is against the Lutherans and Calvinists, who attribute such necessity to faith alone. Third, that not all the Sacraments are necessary to each one; which is asserted on account of Order and Matrimony. In which part of the definition they reprehend only this, that we number these among the Sacraments; but of this we must speak elsewhere. Let us come now to the falsehoods.
This canon Calvin thus calumniates in the Antidote: “Here the good Fathers, by reason of their grossness, do not observe that whatever grace is conferred on us through the Sacraments is nonetheless to be imputed to faith. For he who separates faith from the Sacraments does just as if he should take the soul from the body. Therefore, as we do not exclude the doctrine of the Gospel when we say that we obtain the grace of Christ by faith alone, so neither the Sacraments, of which the reason is the same, since they are seals of the Gospel.” So he. By which words he reprehends that part of the canon where the Council condemns those who say that men are justified by faith alone without the Sacraments. And he reprehends it because he thinks that the opinion of the Lutherans, not understood, is condemned by the Council. For although the Lutherans confess that faith alone justifies, and accordingly that the Sacraments do not justify in the manner in which faith justifies, yet they admit that the Sacraments too justify in another manner; in the way that they do not deny that God justifies, and that the Passion of Christ justifies, and that a sermon too justifies in a certain manner of its own. For God is said to justify by remitting sins from his authority and receiving us into grace; Christ is said to justify meritoriously, because he merited for us grace and the remission of sins; the word and the Sacrament justify instrumentally, inasmuch as they excite or nourish faith, which apprehends justification; but faith justifies because immediately, or as a certain spiritual hand, it apprehends justification; in which manner of justifying faith has no companion. And so ineptly does the Council, from Calvin's opinion, gather that the Lutherans exclude the Sacraments from justification because they teach that faith alone justifies.
A like calumny Kemnitz has, page 80: “What is chiefly to be observed,” he says, “is that they oppose the necessity of the Sacraments to justification by faith alone; whereas the things which are necessary to salvation are to be distinguished: as Christ meriting, the Father giving, the organs or instruments of the word and Sacraments, through which the Holy Spirit offers, applies, seals, increases, and confirms in believers those benefits of the new testament, and lastly faith, which apprehends and receives those benefits. Each of these in its own manner and in its own degree is ordered to our salvation. And as it does not follow, The Sacraments are necessary to salvation, therefore not Christ alone by his merit acquired it for us, so also it does not follow, The Sacraments are necessary to salvation, therefore we do not receive the grace of justification by faith alone.” So he. But this is a manifest calumny and falsehood. For the Council rightly understood their opinion, and properly condemned that very thing which they teach. For the Council does not condemn them for excluding the Sacraments from justification in any manner whatsoever, but for excluding them from the immediate reception and application of justification, which they attribute to faith alone. For the Catholic faith does not admit that the grace of justification is immediately apprehended and applied to men by faith alone, but will have the Sacraments too necessarily required for this; so that if faith exist in someone, however great, yet it does not justify unless a Sacrament also be present in reality or in desire. Nay, the Sacrament is more required than faith. For without a Sacrament in reality or in desire no one is justified, neither infant nor adult; but without faith some are justified, as infants, who have no faith of their own by which to receive justification, and yet are justified through the Sacrament of faith. Whence also is refuted what Calvin says, that whatever grace is conferred on us through the Sacraments is to be imputed to faith. For this is false. For the grace which is conferred through the Sacraments is to be imputed to the virtue of the Sacraments themselves, and to the institution of Christ, not to faith; for faith does not give power to the Sacraments, but only disposes the subject, as we said above.
Now Martin Kemnitz, in the second part of the Examen, page 79 and following, says that in the several words of this canon lurk snares; and he himself detects five snares; which yet in truth are not the lurking snares of the Council, but the patent calumnies of Kemnitz. First, he thus says: “In the first place the artifice of composition in this canon is to be considered. For in almost every single word peculiar snares lurk.” And below: “The other rites,” he says, “such as of Confirmation, Extreme Unction, auricular Confession, Satisfaction, etc., they will have to be simply Sacraments necessary to salvation.” That this is a falsehood is clear, both from this, that the Council did not add that word (simply), and also because the common opinion of the Theologians, from which the Council never departs, teaches only three Sacraments to be simply necessary: Baptism to all; Penance to all who sin after Baptism; and Order to the Church itself in general. Without the rest men can be saved, provided negligence and contempt be absent. See St. Thomas part 3 question 65 article 4.
Second, the same Kemnitz thus says: “For no one of sound mind ever so understood justification by faith alone as though from justification were excluded the grace of God, the merit of Christ, and the ministry of the word and Sacraments.” This is another falsehood. For although Kemnitz and Calvin teach that faith alone ought not to be opposed to the Sacraments in the business of justification, just as it is not opposed to the grace of God and the merit of Christ, yet Luther, whom Kemnitz would never deny to have been of sound mind, in many places opposed faith alone to the Sacraments, and in express words taught that men are so justified by faith alone that no part of justification pertains to the Sacraments. In the book On the Babylonian captivity, chapter On Baptism: “Baptism,” he says, “justifies no one, nor profits any, but faith in the word of the promise.” And in the assertion of the first article: “We say,” he says, “that neither the Sacraments of the new nor of the old testament justified, but faith alone.” And in the book against John Cochlaeus: “No part of justification,” he says, “can be attributed to Baptism.” So he. Who certainly would not have said, The grace of God, or the merit of Christ, does not justify, nor profits any; and no part of justification can be attributed to the grace of God, or the merit of Christ. Luther, then, opposed justification by faith alone to the Sacraments, which yet he would not have opposed to the grace of God or the merit of Christ. So also Philip Melanchthon, whom Kemnitz would never say to have been of unsound mind, in the Commonplaces published in the year 1522: “The signs do not justify,” he says, “as the Apostle says: Circumcision is nothing; so Baptism is nothing, the partaking of the Lord's table is nothing.” So he. But I ask, would Melanchthon have said, The grace of God does not justify, and the grace of God is nothing? The old Lutherans, then, opposed faith alone to the Sacraments, which they would not have opposed to the grace and merit of Christ. And the Council condemned both these profane words of the old Lutherans, and the opinion which Calvin and Kemnitz follow, although they abstain from the words.
Third, Kemnitz thus says in the same place: “Nor do they refer the necessity of the Sacraments only to this, that they are instrumental causes through which the grace of justification is offered and exhibited to us by God, but they speak of obtaining or receiving the grace of justification. And this they will not have attributed to faith alone, but they adjoin the necessity of the Sacraments — that is, they understand our work which we do in the receiving of the Sacraments, so that faith not alone, but together with the dignity or merit of that our work, receives the grace of justification.” But here Kemnitz impudently lies. For no Catholic attributes the justification which we receive in the Sacraments to the dignity or merits of our work, but to the divine institution and the work of Christ. For neither Baptism nor the other Sacraments are our works, or depend on our dignity or merit; otherwise the Sacraments conferred by the impious would not be useful; the contrary of which both Catholics and Lutherans defend against the Donatists. Fourth, Kemnitz adds: “And therefore they name Sacraments of the new law, that there may be a mutual relation of the law and of our works even in the very use of the Sacraments.” Here too he lightly calumniates. For by “law” the Council does not understand a precept by which a work is commanded, but the new testament; for a Sacrament of the new law and a Sacrament instituted by Christ, who is the author of the new Testament or law, signify the same. Fifth, he adds most ineptly: “Therefore also they name desire, that is, the promising of a certain work for receiving the grace of justification.” Who would not marvel at the unskillfulness or impudence of this censor? For either he was ignorant that votum (desire) in the words of the Council signifies not a promising but a desire, or he purposely wished to cavil. Certainly the Council, when it says that the Sacraments are necessary, or the desire of them, by “desire” took the will. For as St. Augustine, book 4 against the Donatists chapter 22, teaches, the thief was saved without Baptism, because the will of receiving it was not lacking, but the necessity of not receiving it was present. And this concerning the trifles of Kemnitz, and concerning the final cause of the Sacraments.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XXII. De fine et necessitate Sacramentorum . Tria explicanda erunt circa finalem cau¬ sam Sacramentorum. Primum , de ipso fine dicendum erit. Secundo, de necessitate, quae ex fine cognoscitur. Tertio, defendenda est sententia Ecclesiae contra mendacia, et calumnias haereticorum. Quod ad primum 394 LIBER 1. attinet, duo quaeri possunt, cura quaeritur quis finis sit Sacramentorum. Primum, ad quem finem assequendum Deus instituerit Sacramenta. Secundo, cur ad eum finem assequendum talia media instituerit, cum potuerit per alia media, et etiam sine ullis mediis ad eum finem perveniri. Prior quaestio jam explicata est in dispu¬ tatione de definitione Sacramenti : jam enim ostendimus, Sacramenta instituta esse ad justificandos homines, atque ut sint signa, et causae instrumentales gratiae Dei. Posterior quaestio facilis est, nec de ea ulla est controversia. Et quidem auctores multas rationes colligunt tum ex parte Dei, tum ex parte hominis, tum ex parte Sacra¬ mentorum ipsorum, cur utile fuerit Sacra¬ menta, id est, sensibilia signa instituere ad justificandos homines. Sed hae sunt praeci¬ puae causae. Prima, quia id congruit naturae humanae, quae ex corpore, et spiritu constat. Sic enim ait S. Chrysostomus homil. 60. ad populum, et 83. in Matthaeum : « Si incorporeus esses, nuda, et incorporea tibi dedisset dona, sed quoniam anima corpori inserta est, in sen¬ sibilibus intelligibilia tibi praebet. » Similia docent Gregorius Nazianzenus, et Gregorius Nyssenus, in sermone de Baptismo. Secunda, ut clarius appareret gratiam, quae datur per Sacramenta, a solo Deo esse. Si enim daretur per actiones aliquas spiri¬ tuales, suspicari potuissent homines, vi pro- pria illius actionis homines justificari : nunc autem cum per res corporales , et abjectas detur tam excellens donum, nullus relinqui¬ tur locus ejusmodi suspicioni. Qua etiam de causa Dominus Joan. IX. caecum illumi¬ navit sputo, et luto, non aliquo pretioso un¬ guento : et mundum sibi subjicere voluit per homines pauperes, et obscuros. Tertia, ut simul essent instrumenta justi¬ ficationis, et signa, quibus discernerentur fideles ab infidelibus, et quibus colligeretur populus Dei, et quibus etiam, ut sacris cai- remoniis coleretur Deus.. Nec enim poterant esse signa ad discernendos alios ab aliis, ne¬ que etiam caeremonia! religionis, nisi essent externa, et sensibilia. Yide multas ejusmodi rationes apud Hugonem, lib. I. de Sacra¬ mentis, par. 9. cap. 3. et Magistrum, ac Doctores, lib. IY. sent. dist. 1. et S. Tho- mam, lib. IV contra Gentes, cap. 56. et ex recentioribus Gulielmum Alanum, lib. de Sa¬ cramentis in genere, cap. 24. Quantum ad secundum, de necessitate, duplex est necessitas. Una dicitur necessitas pracepti. Altera necessitas medii. Et quam¬ quam interdum hae duaj necessitates con¬ junctae sint; nam hoc ipso quod aliquid est medium ad salutem necessarium simul etiam estprseceptum naturale, si in nostra potestate situm sit : tamen hoc interest, quod cum quis ex ignorantia invincibili, aut alia justa de causa non implet praeceptum, is nihil de¬ trimenti accipit : at si quis non accipiat me¬ dium nocessarium, is magnum detrimentum capit, quia non assequitur finem, licet ex ignorantia invincibili id ei accidat. Verbi gratia, Sacramentum Confirmationis est pra- ceptum ; sed non medium ad salutem sim¬ pliciter necessarium , ideo qui negligit acci¬ pere ejusmodi Sacramentum, peccat, sed si ex legitima causa non accipiat, nec peccat, nec impeditur a salute. Quia vero Baptismus in re, vel in voto est praeceptum, et medium; ideo qui non baptizatur; aut certe non desi¬ derat Baptismum, non salvatur, licet ex igno¬ rantia, vel impotentia id accidat. Rursus necessitas medii; Aut est necessi¬ tas simpliciter quomodo alse necessariae sunt ad volandum. Aut ad bene esse, quomodo equus necessarius est ad iter faciendum. Denique utraque necessitas; Aut est abso¬ luta, et naturalis, ut in exemplis positis ; Aut ex institutione, et arbitratu alterius : quomodo in ludis attingere metam, est me¬ dium necessarium ad bravium ; Aut est par- tim ex institutione, partim ex naturali con¬ gruentia, ut cum Imperator concedit militi¬ bus urbem aliquam diripiendam, si eum vi coeperint. Ex his facile poterit intelligi, qua) sit necessitas Sacramentorum. Sit igitur prima propositio : « Nulla Sa¬ cramenta habent absolutam necessitatem, sed omnis eorum necessitas pendet ex pra¬ eopto, et institutione divina, adjuncta natu¬ rali congruentia. » Certum est enim potuisse Deum sine ullis Sacramentis homines justi¬ ficare. Neque de hoc ulla controversia est. Secunda propositio : «Omnia Sacramenta necessaria sunt necessitate praecepti, licet non singulis. » De hac propositione non est controversia cum haereticis. Tertia propositio : «Baptismus, et Poeni¬ tentia necessaria sunt, posita institutione divina, necessitate medii simpliciter; Bap¬ tismus quidem omnibus, Poenitentia iis qui post Baptismum lsethaliter delinquunt. » In hac non convenimus. Nam adversarii faten- CAPUT XXII. 395 tur quidem Sacramenta esse necessaria, quia praecepta, et etiam necessaria ut media utilia : non tamen agnoscunt ullum Sacra¬ mentum necessarium simpliciter ut medium. Et ratio est, quia cum sola fides justificet, Sacramenta solum adhibentur, ut fidem excitent, aut nutriant. Atqui sine Sacra¬ mentis per solum veibum potest tides gigni, nutriri, augeri : non igitur sunt ulla Sacra¬ menta simpliciter necessaria. Sed hoec con¬ troversia tractanda est in disputatione de Baptismo, et Poenitentia : nunc sufficient duo loca Scripturae apertissima Joan. III. Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu sancto, non potest intrare in regnum Dei. Luc. XIII. Nisi Poenitentiam habueritis, omnes simi¬ liter peribitis (1). Quarta propositio : « Eucharistia, Confir¬ matio, et Extrema unctio, necessaria sunt necessitate medii ad bene esse, posita divina institutione. » In hac non convenimus, qua¬ tenus numeramus Confirmationem, et Unc¬ tionem inter Sacramenta : sed de hoc alibi. Quantum ad Eucharistiam , convenimus , quod sit in praecepto ; sed quod sit necessa¬ ria ad bene esse, ut medium, videmur con¬ venire, sed re ipsa non convenimus. Nam dicunt quidem Calvinus in Antidoto, et Kem- nitius in Examine, Sacramenta esse neces¬ saria, ut media a Christo instituta, sed inter explicandum ita extenuant hanc necessita¬ tem, ut eam fere tollant. Yolunt enim Sa¬ cramenta solum esseutiliaad alendam lidem, quia repraisentant oculis id, quod verbum offert auribus. Unde Apologia Confessionis, art. 13. comparat Sacramenta picturae : sicut ergo picturae non possunt dici neces¬ sariae ad salutem, nisi forte hominibus valde rudibus ; ita nec Sacramenta secundum ip¬ sorum sententiam. Conatur Kemnitius loco citato refellere hanc similitudinem de pic¬ tura, et ostendere nescio quam majorem necessitatem. Sed non potest negare simili¬ tudinem illam esse in Apologia, quam se in omnibus sequi profitetur. Et praeterea aliis verbis idem dicit : nihil enim vult Sacra¬ menta esse aliud, nisi ritus, in quibus vi¬ sibiliter repraesentetur promissio, sicut au- dibiliter, ut sic loquar, repraesentatur in verbo. Itaque revera non agnoscunt neces¬ sitatem, licet mentiantur se agnoscere, sed solum tenuem quamdam utilitatem Sacra¬ mentorum. Quinta propositio : « Ordo necessarius est, non singulis hominibus, sed ipsi Eccle¬ siae in universum, necessitate medii simpli¬ citer, posita divina institutione. » Sexta propositio : « Matrimonium neces¬ sarium est ad bene esse, non singulis homi¬ nibus, sed Ecclesiae in universum. » De his non est controversia. Vide S, Thomam 3. par. quaest LXY. art. 4. Quantum ad tertium, refellenda sunt men¬ dacia et calumniae Calvini et Kemnitii, con¬ tra canonem 4. sess. YI1. Concilii Triden- tini, ubi de necessitate Sacramentorum agi¬ tur. Verba Concilii ita habent : « Si quis dixerit, Sacramenta novae legis non esse ad salutem necessaria, sed superflua, et sine eis, aut eorum voto per solam fidem homi¬ nes a Deo gratiam justificationis adipisci, licet omnia singulis necessaria non sint, ana¬ thema sit. » Quo canone Concilium tria de¬ finit. Primo Sacramenta non esse superflua ad salutem, sed necessaria ; id quod defini¬ tum est contra Anabaptistas et Zwinglianos, qui (ut supra in disputatione de definitione vidimus) Sacramenta utilia esse volebant ad discernendos fideles ab infidelibus, non au¬ tem ad salutem consequendam. Atque hanc partem definitionis libenter admittunt, et probant Calvinus, et Kemnifius. Secundo, Sacramenta quredam adeo esse necessaria, ut sine ipsis, vel eorum voto non possit sa¬ lus contingere. Hoc autem est contra Luthe- ranos et Calvinistas, qui soli fidei tribuunt ejusmodi necessitatem. Tertio, non omnia Sacramenta esse singulis necessaria : id quod asseritur propter Ordinem et Matrimonium. In qua parte definitionis illud solum repre¬ hendunt, quod haec inter Sacramenta nume¬ remus : sed de hoc alibi dicendum erit. Ve¬ niamus nunc ad mendacia. Hunc canonem ita Calvinus calumniatur in Antidoto : « Hic boni Patres pro sua cras- sitie non animadvertunt, quidquid nobis gratiae per Sacramenta confertur, nihilomi¬ nus fidei imputandum. Qui enim a Sacra¬ mentis fidem separat, perinde facit, ac si animam a corpore tolleret. Ergo quemad¬ modum Evangelii doctrinam non excludi¬ mus, cum dicimus, nos sola fide Christi gra¬ tiam adipisci, ita nec Sacramenta; quorum eadem est ratio, cum Evangelii sint sigilla. » llaec ille. Quibus verbis reprehendit illam partem (1) Joan. III. 3; Luc. XIII, 3. 396 LIRER T. canonis, ubi Concilium damnat eos, qui di¬ cunt, homines justificari sola fide sine Sacra¬ mentis. Ideo autem reprehendit, quia putat a Concilio damnari sententiam Lutherano- rum non intellectam. Nam etsi fatentur Lu- therani solam fidem justificare, et proinde Sacramenta non justificare, eo modo, quo fides justificat, tamen admittunt etiam Sa- cramenla alio modo justificare; quomodo non negant, Deum justificare, et Christi passionem justificare, et concionem etiam suo quodam modo justificare. Nam Deus justificare dicitur, ex auctoritate peccata re¬ mittens, et in gratiam nos recipiens : Chris¬ tus justificare dicitur meritorie, quia meruit nobis gratiam, et remissionem peccatorum ; verbum, et Sacramentum justificant instru- mentaliter, quatenus excitant, vel nutriunt fidem, quae justificationem apprehendit; fides autem justificat, 'quia immediate vel uti quaedam spiritualis manus, justificationem apprehendit; quomodo justificandi fides co¬ mitem nullum habet. Itaque inepte Conci¬ lium ex Calvini sententia colligit Luthcranos excludere Sacramenta a justificatione, quia doceant solam fidem justificare. Similem calumniam habet Kemnitius, pag. 80 : « Quod, inquit, praecipue obser¬ vandum est, necessitatem Sacramentorum opponant justificationi per solam fidem, at¬ que ea, quae ad salutem necessaria sunt, distinguenda sunt, ut Christus promerens, Pater donans, organa, seu instrumenta verbi, et Sacramentorum, per quae Spiritus sanctus beneficia illa novi testamenti offert, appli¬ cat, obsignat, auget, et confirmat, in cre¬ dentibus, et demum fides, quae beneficia illa apprehendit, et accipit. Singula haec suo modo, et in suo gradu ad salutem nostram ordinata sunt. Et sicut non sequitur, Sacra¬ menta ad salutem sunt necessaria, ergo non solus Christus suo merito nobis eam acqui- sivit : ita etiam non sequitur, Sacramenta ad salutem sunt necessaria, ergo non per solam fidem gratiam justificationis accipi¬ mus. » llaec ille. Atqui haec est calumnia, et mendacium manifestum. Concilium enim recte intellexit eorum sententiam, et idipsum proprie dam¬ navit, quod illi docent. Nam non damnat eos concilium, quod excludant Sacramenta a justificatione quovis modo, sed quod ex¬ cludant ab immediata acceptione et applica¬ tione justificationiSj quam ipsi soli fidei tri¬ buunt. Fides enim Catholica non admittit sola fide immediate apprehendi, et applicari hominibus gratiam justificationis, sed vult ad id necessario requiri etiam Sacramenta, adeo ut si fides in aliquo existat, quamvis maxima, non tamen justificet, nisi adsit etiam Sacramentum in re, vel in voto ; Imo magis requiritur Sacramentum, quam fides. Nam sine Sacramento in re, vel in voto nemo justificatur, neque parvulus, ne¬ que adultus ; sine fide autem aliqui justifi¬ cantur, ut parvuli, qui fidem propriam nul¬ lam habent, qua recipiant justificationem, et tamen per Sacramentum fidei justifican¬ tur. Unde etiam refellitur, quod ait Calvinus, quidquid nobis gratiae per Sacramenta con¬ fertur, id fidei imputandum. Id enim falsum est. Gratia enim quae per Sacramenta con¬ fertur, imputanda est virtuti ipsorum Sacra¬ mentorum, et Christi institutioni, non fidei : fides enim non tribuit vim Sacramentis, sed solum disponit subjectum, ut supra di¬ ximus. Jam vero Martinus Kemnitius in 2. par. Examinis, pag. 79. et sequentibus, dicit in singulis dictionibus hujus canonis latere in¬ sidias : detegit autem ipse quinque insidias : quae tamen revera non sunt latentes insidiae Concilii, sed patentes calumniae Kemnitii. Primo, sic ait : « Principio artificium com¬ positionis in hoc canone considerandum est. In singulis enim ferme dictionibus peculia¬ res latent insidiae. » Et infra : « Reliquos, inquit, ritus, ut Confirmationis, Extremae unctionis, auricularis Confessionis, Satisfac¬ tionis etc. volunt simpliciter esse Sacramen¬ ta ad salutem necessaria. » Hoc esse mendacium perspicuum est, tum ex eo, quod Concilium non addidit vocem illam (simpliciter) tum etiam quia commu¬ nis sententia Theologorum, a qua Concilium numquam recedit, solum tria Sacramenta docet esse necessaria simpliciter; Baptis¬ mum omnibus; et Poenitentiam omnibus, qui peccant post Baptismum; et Ordinem ipsi Ecclesiae in universum. Sine reliquis posse homines salvari, modo absit negligen- tia, et contemptus. Vide S. Thorham 3. parte, quaest. LXV. art. 4. Secundo sic ait idem Kemnitius : « Ne¬ que enim quisquam sanus justificationem per solam fidem ita unquam intellexit, quasi a justificatione excludatur gratia Dei, meri¬ tum Christi, et ministerium verbi, et Sacra¬ mentorum. » CAPIT XX 111. 397 Hoc est alterum mendacium. Nam etiamsi Kemnitius et Calvinus doceant, solam fidem non debere opponi Sacramentis in negotio justificationis, sicut non opponitur gratiic Dei, et merito Christi; tamen Lullierus, quem sanum fuisse Kemnitius numquam negaret, multis in locis opposuit solam fi¬ dem Sacramentis, ac disertis verbis docuit, ita sola fide homines justificari, ut nulla pars justificationis ad Sacramenta pertineat. In lib. de capt. Babyl. cap. de Baptismo : « Baptismus, inquit, neminem justificat, nec ulli prodest, sed fides in verbum promissio¬ nis. » Et in assert. I. art. : « Nos dicimus, inquit, nec novi, nec veteris testamenti Sa¬ cramenta, sed solam fidem justificasse : » Et in lib. contra Joannem Cochlceum. « Non potest, inquit, ulla pars justificationis tribui Baptismo. » Haec ille. Qui certe non dixis¬ set, gratia Dei, aut meritum Christi non jus¬ tificant, nec ullis prosunt; et nulla pars justificationis tribui potest gratiae Dei, aut merito Christi. Lutherus igitur opposuit jus¬ tificationem per solam fidem Sacramentis, quam tamen non opposuisset gratiae Dei, aut merito Christi. Sic etiam Philippus Me- lanchthon, quem insanum fuisse Kemnitius numquam diceret, in locis editis, anno 1522 : « Non justificant, inquit, signa, ut Aposto¬ lus ait : Circumcisio nihil est : ita Baptismus nihil est, participatio mensae Domini nihil est. » H;ec ille. Sed quaeso, an dixisset Me- lanchthon, gratia Dei non justificat, et gra¬ tia Dei nihil est? Igitur opponebant veteres Lutherani solam fidem Sacramentis, quam non opposuissent gratiae, et merito Christi. Porro Concilium simul damnavit et has pro¬ fanas voces veterum Lutberanorum , et sententiam, quam sequuntur Calvinus, et Kemnitius, licet a verbis abstineant. Tertio, sic ait ibidem Kemnitius : « Ne¬ que necessitatem Sacramentorum, eo tan¬ tum referunt, quod sint causae instrumenta- Ies, per quas a Deo nobis offeratur, et ex¬ hibeatur gratia justificationis, sed loquuntur de adipiscenda, seu accipienda gratia justi¬ ficationis. Et hoc nolunt soli fidei tribui, sed adjungunt necessitatem Sacramentorum : hoc est, intelligunt nostrum opus, quod in susceptione Sacramentorum facimus, ita ut fides non sola, sed una cum dignitate, seu merito illius nostri operis accipiat gratiam justificationis. » Hic vero impudenter mentitur Kemnitius. Nullus enim Catholicorum justificationem, quam in Sacramentis accipimus, tribuit di¬ gnitati, aut meritis operis nostri, sed insti¬ tutioni divinae, et operi Christi. Nec enim Baptismus, aut alia Sacramenta sunt opera nostra, aut pendent ex nostra dignitate, aut merito; alioqui Sacramenta ab impiis colla- ta non essent utilia ; cujus contrarium tum Catholici, tum etiam Lutherani defendunt contra Donatislas. Quarto addit Kemnitius : « Et propterea nominant Sacramenta novae legis, ut sit mutua relatio legis, et nostrorum operum in ipso etiam Sacramentorum usu. » Hic etiam leviter calumniatur. Non enim per legem intelligit Concilium proeceptum, quo opus imperatur, sed testamentum no¬ vum; idem enim significant Sacramentum novte legis, et Sacramentum a Christo in¬ stitutum, qui est auctor novi Testamenti, seu legis. Quinto adjungit ineptissime : « Ideo etiam votum nominant, hoc est, pollicitationem certi operis ad accipiendam justificationis gratiam. Quis nos miretur imperitiam, vel impu¬ dentiam hujus censoris? Nam vel ignoravit, votum in verbis Concilii non pollicitationem, sed desiderium significare, vel de industria cavillari voluit. Certe Concilium, cum ait, Sacramenta esse necessaria, vel eorum vo¬ tum, per votum voluntatem accepit. Nam ut S. Augustinus, lib. IV. contra Donatistas, cap. 23. docet, sine Baptismo, latro salva¬ tus est, quia non ejus accipiendi voluntas defuit, sed non accipiendi necessitas adfuit. Atque haec de nugis Kemnitianis, etde causa finali Sacramentorum.