Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacraments in General · Book I: On the Nature and Causes of the Sacrament
Chapter 24: That the ordinary minister of the Sacraments is not any man whatsoever, even a baptized one
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 other question is concerning the ministerial cause in confecting and ministering the Sacraments — who properly in the Church is the minister of the Sacraments. The adversaries dissent much among themselves and with us in this question. Martin Luther says two things false and mutually repugnant. First, that absolutely all are ministers, not only men, but even demons. For thus he says in the book On the private Mass and the unction of priests, published in the year 1534: “I will not say what the Papists say, that none of the Angels, nor Mary herself, can consecrate. But on the contrary I say, if the devil himself came, and I afterward learned that the devil had thus crept into the office of pastor of the Church, called under the appearance of a man to preach, and had publicly taught in the Church, baptized, celebrated Mass, and absolved from sins, and discharged such a function according to the institution of Christ, then we should be compelled to confess that the Sacraments are therefore not inefficacious, but that we received a true Baptism, a true Gospel, a true Absolution, a true Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ.” So he. And he proves it, both because our faith, the dignity, and the efficacy of the Sacraments rest not on the quality of the person, but on the word and ordination of Christ — whether, then, it be good or evil, anointed or not anointed, lawfully called or not so called, whether Satan or an Angel, it effects the same, provided it keep the ordination of Christ — and also because Judas, who was a member of the Devil, preached and baptized no less than the other Apostles. Why, then, cannot the Devil do what his members can?
The other thing Luther says is that all baptized men, and they alone, have the power of ministering all the Sacraments; although, to take away confusion, it is not fitting that all use this power, but only those who are lawfully called, except in three cases. First, when one is in a private place, as at his own home. Second, when no one else is present, and necessity urges. Third, when another is present, but does not minister so well as I would do, according to that of 1 Corinthians 14: If anything be revealed to another, let the first hold his peace. That this is his opinion is plain from what follows. In the book On the Babylonian captivity, chapter On Order: “Let whoever has known himself to be a Christian be certain, and acknowledge, that we are all equally priests — that is, that we have the same power in the word and in any Sacrament whatsoever; but that it is not lawful for anyone to use this very power except by the consent of the community, or the call of a superior.” And a little before: “But if they were compelled to admit that we are all equally priests, as many of us as are baptized, as in truth we are,” etc. Likewise in the articles condemned by Leo X, article 13: “Where there is no priest,” he says, “any Christian can equally, even if it were a woman or a boy.” And in the assertion of the same article, rendering the reason, he says: “For he who is baptized has the Spirit of Christ; but where the Spirit of Christ is, there is the power and liberty of all.” So there. Likewise in the book which he published against the same Bull of Leo, in the year '20: “I assert,” he says, “and embrace with the whole confidence of my spirit, the articles condemned by it, and I pronounce them to be asserted by all Christians, under the penalty of eternal damnation.” And below, at the end of the book: “By these writings I testify that I confess all things condemned by that execrable Bull for Catholic dogmas.” And below: “I will lay down the last thing I have, namely this soul and this blood. For it is better that I be slain a thousand times than that I recall one syllable of the condemned articles.” So there.
Where it is to be noted in passing that Luther afterward recalled some of those same articles, and namely the 36th, on free will, which in the assertion he himself calls the chief, and the foundation of his whole doctrine. For in that 36th article he says that free will is a thing of title only; and in the assertion he explains that it is to be so understood that, according to the doctrine of Wycliffe, all things happen by absolute necessity. Which indeed he most plainly recalled in the Saxon visitation, where he teaches that a man is of free will in civil works, and that not all things happen necessarily. Besides this, in the book On abrogating the Mass, published in the year '21, he professedly teaches and proves that all Christians have the same power in ministering the word and the Sacraments: “By invincible Scriptures,” he says, “we shall establish that that legitimate and sole ministry of the word is common to all Christians, as also the priesthood and the sacrifice.” And below he proves by some examples of Scripture that it is lawful even for women to preach. Likewise in the book to the Praguers, On instituting the ministers of the Church, which he published in the year 1523: “A priest,” he says, “especially in the New Testament, is not made, but born; not ordained, but created; and he is born in Baptism, and all Christians are altogether priests.” And there at length he proves that all Christians have from Baptism the power to preach, baptize, consecrate, and absolve and bind. And of the keys he has these words: “Let the falsehoods of men cease. The keys are of the whole Church, and of any member of it, both by right and by use, and in every way.” So he. Below, however, he admonishes that it is not lawful for anyone to use this right except in necessity, but that the call and election of the multitude is to be awaited. From which he deduces two corollaries. One, that public ministers do not differ from the rest by any power or dignity, but only by the use of the power. The other, which follows from the first, that a minister can become a layman, as ministers are made from laymen. But his arguments will be set down below, when they are to be solved. This, then, is the opinion of Luther.
John Calvin is engaged in the other extreme. For he not only does not grant that the devil, or women, or any Christians whatsoever, can preach and minister the Sacraments, but so severely defends that only certain lawfully called persons have this power, that not even in necessity does he grant to laymen, and especially to women, that they baptize. For thus he writes in the Antidote to canon 10, session 7: “No one of sound mind makes all Christians equal in the administration of the word and Sacraments; not only because all things ought to be done in the Church decently and in order, but also because by the singular command of Christ ministers are ordained to this thing.” And below: “But where will they find the office of baptizing enjoined on little women, in the way that they permit it to them?” The same he teaches at length in the Institutes book 4 chapter 3 section 10 and chapter 15 at the end. And so with Calvin we have no controversy here. For that he denies that laymen and women can baptize in the article of necessity will have to be refuted in the disputation on Baptism.
Martin Kemnitz, after his manner involving the whole matter, does not sufficiently open what he thinks. For discussing canon 10 of session 7 of the Council of Trent, which is thus: “If anyone shall say that all Christians have power in administering the word and all the Sacraments, let him be anathema,” he says three things. First, he complains that the canon was set to condemn the opinion of Luther, but mutilated and depraved: “For Luther never thought,” says Kemnitz page 138, “that any Christian promiscuously, without a lawful call, either can or ought to arrogate to himself or usurp the ministry of the word and the administration of the Sacraments in the Church.” But Kemnitz ought to have distinguished power from execution. For if he speaks of execution alone, it is true that Luther did not think that anyone can or ought to arrogate this ministry to himself without a lawful call. But neither did the Council condemn this in Luther; for we all confess this to be true. But if he speaks of power, it is false that Luther did not so think, as the places we have brought forward demonstrate. And this is what the Council condemned. Nor can the opinion of Luther be said to have been mutilated or depraved by the Council. For the Council was not bound to describe the whole book of Luther, or to relate the things which were well written by him, but it was enough to relate those things which were to be condemned. Then Kemnitz adds that the Council speaks fraudulently: “Obliquely,” he says, page 140, “and as if doing something else, they aim at this axiom: That no one, even if he be lawfully chosen and called by the Church according to the prescript of the word of God, unless he be anointed and shaven by some Bishop, has any power in the administration of the word and Sacraments; and that the Sacraments administered by such are not true and efficacious. Let the Reader understand these snares hidden in this canon.” But the canon is most plain, and Kemnitz rather lays snares against the simple understanding of it. For the Council does not say that those who are not anointed and shaven by a Bishop have no power in ministering the Sacraments. For the Council was not ignorant that for the Sacraments of Baptism and Matrimony ordination is not necessarily required; but it says that they have not power in all the Sacraments, so as to reprove the opinion of Luther, which attributes to laymen power in all the Sacraments, even of the Eucharist and of Penance. Then the Council does not name the anointed and shaven; for the anointing and shaving are accidental ceremonies, without which the essence of Ordination can stand. And so Kemnitz hides snares in his own words. Third, he says that the sense of the Canon, as the words sound, is true, but yet he does not rightly expound it: “But as to the very sense of this tenth canon, as the words are set down, I answer plainly and clearly: If any think that to any Christian promiscuously, without a peculiar and lawful call, is permitted the power of usurping and exercising the ministry of the word and the Sacraments in the Church, they are justly and deservedly condemned.” But Kemnitz does not rightly expound the Council. For the Council does not condemn those who say that it is lawful for anyone to usurp the ministry without a call; for no one says this, and accordingly there would have been no need of a canon; but it condemns those who say that all Christians have the power of ministering the word and all the Sacraments, which Luther said, and Kemnitz seems to think, though he dares not openly confess it. The doctrine of the Church, then, is to be proposed and proved, which can be comprehended in two propositions.
First proposition: “The minister of the Sacraments ought to be a man, but not an Angel, whether good or evil.” This is against Luther, and common among the Theologians. It is to be observed, however, that if perhaps a good Angel should minister some Sacrament, it would have to be held valid, because it would be certain that it was done by an extraordinary divine dispensation. Wherefore Nicephorus reports, book 11 chapter 20, that St. Amphilochius was ordained Bishop by Angels, and that this was held valid by the Bishops of his province. But if the Devil did the same, the Sacrament would have to be repeated, because the Devil neither has power of himself, nor would receive it by a peculiar dispensation of God, but would usurp it to himself, or deceive. This proposition is proved. First: For the essence of the Sacraments, as a true and natural element is required, so a true and natural word is required. But only a man truly and naturally speaks; for to speak is an action of a living body through the instrument of the tongue and the palate; therefore neither a good nor an evil Angel can confect the Sacraments. For, as St. Thomas rightly teaches part 1 question 51 article 3 to the fourth, the Angels, even through an assumed body, cannot properly speak. Second: Even if the Angels could apply true elements and true words, yet they would not thereby effect a true Sacrament. For a Sacrament is a sign and an infallible cause of grace; but the elements and words do not have this naturally, but only as they are assumed by God as instruments of justification. Therefore they are not true Sacraments when applied by anyone whatsoever, but when applied by him to whom God commits this; in the way that the words too by which Christ and the Apostles worked miracles would not have had the same force if uttered by anyone whatsoever. For if anyone say to a lame man, Arise and walk, he will effect nothing, unless he be assumed by God as an instrument for working a miracle; therefore he cannot confect true Sacraments but he who has authority from God. But God gave this authority to men alone, not to good or evil Angels. For Matthew 28 he said to men: Going, teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, etc. Likewise Luke 22 he said to men alone: Do this in commemoration of me. John 20 he said to men alone: Whose sins you shall forgive, etc. Besides this, Ephesians 4, Christ ascending on high, led captivity captive, he gave gifts to men; where by “gifts” he understands the various ministries which are in the Church; for before he had said: To every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the giving of Christ; wherefore he saith: Ascending on high, etc. And below: And he gave some indeed apostles, and some prophets, and others evangelists, and others pastors and doctors, etc. Finally Hebrews 5: Every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men, etc. Wherefore Chrysostom book 3 On the priesthood openly testifies that it was not granted to the Angels, which is granted to men, to minister the Sacraments; and the same he has homily 85 on John, near the end. Third, it is confirmed from the doctrine of Luther. For he will have the foundation of power over the word and Sacraments to be Baptism, as is plain from the places cited; but of this foundation the Angels, both good and evil, are void. Likewise in the homily On Baptism, and elsewhere, he teaches that words and elements do not suffice, but the command of God is required; but God nowhere commanded the Angels to confect the Sacraments; therefore, etc.
Nor do the arguments of Luther made for the Devil conclude. To the first we concede that the efficacy of the Sacraments does not depend on any quality whatsoever of the minister. For it does not depend on an accidental quality, such as goodness; yet it depends on an essential quality, without which he would not be a true minister; and such, in the first place, is that he be a man. To the second, we confess that Judas, even a member of the Devil, ministered true Sacraments; but we deny that the same agrees with the Devil. For Judas administered the Sacrament not as a member of the Devil, but as a minister of Christ; and Judas was a minister of Christ because he was a true man, and had received from Christ the power of baptizing, neither of which agrees with the Devil.
Second proposition: “The true minister of the Sacraments (Baptism and Matrimony excepted) is not any man whatsoever even baptized, but he alone who is duly ordained in the Church.” Note that Baptism is excepted because, on account of the supreme necessity of that Sacrament, the Church has always understood that it can be conferred by any man; of which matter we shall speak in the treatise on Baptism. Likewise Matrimony is excepted, since, Matrimony consisting in the mutual contract of two, it could not be otherwise than that the contracting parties themselves be the ministers. This proposition is proved against the Lutherans. First, from the Scriptures, which teach that in the Church there are diverse offices, and that not all agree with all; as Romans 12, 1 Corinthians 12, and Ephesians 4: He placed some apostles, others prophets, etc. And, Are all apostles? are all prophets? etc. The same, then, can be said of the pastors and doctors who are there named. Nor can it be answered that here the use is treated, as the Lutherans say, not the power. For certainly the Apostles did not have the Apostolic power before they received it from Christ; they received, then, not only the use, but the power itself. Second, from that of Hebrews 5: Neither doth any man take the honour to himself, but he that is called by God, as Aaron. Not all, then, who are of the people of God are by that very fact priests. Nor can this place be understood only of the exercise; for Aaron, before he was called by God to the priesthood, had neither the use nor the power. Besides, to take the honor is not to execute the power, but to receive it; which is also confirmed from what follows: So Christ also did not glorify himself, that he might be made a high priest. To take the honor, then, is to be made a high priest, not to exercise the priesthood. Third, the Apostles were baptized and baptized before the Passion of Christ. For that they baptized is had John 4; that they were baptized, Augustine teaches in epistle 108 to Seleucianus; nor is it credible that they were bidden by Christ to baptize before they themselves were baptized. But the power of consecrating the Eucharist they received afterward, Luke 22, when they heard: Do this in commemoration of me. Likewise they received the power of absolving afterward, John 20: Whose sins you shall forgive. They had not, then, received it in Baptism. Fourth: If all Christians received this power in Baptism, they would receive it because then, as Luther says, they are anointed with the grace of the Holy Spirit, and accordingly become spiritual priests. But this is false; for it would follow that those who, while they are baptized, do not receive grace, and those who afterward lose it, do not truly confer the Sacraments, which yet Luther rightly denies against the Anabaptists. Nor can it be answered that the character suffices, for the Lutherans acknowledge no character. Fifth: If all Christians had this power, no one could be deprived of the use of it except in punishment of a great crime; but among the Lutherans many are deprived of the use of this power without any fault of their own. Nor does it stand in the way that they object concerning the confusion which would arise in the Church if all used this power. For they could discharge this ministry by turns; or certainly he who wished to minister ought not to be able to be repelled, when the ministers are few, even though he were not called by the magistrate. But they themselves repel the uncalled; therefore either they do them injury, or they must confess that they have not the power. Sixth: In the old law, where the Sacraments were more imperfect, yet not all could minister them, but the priests alone. Nor is the solution valid, if you say that Christians are made spiritual priests in Baptism; for those too were made spiritual priests in Circumcision, and all could offer spiritual victims. Nay, what blessed Peter said of all Christians, But you are a chosen generation, a kingly priesthood, 1 Peter 2, the same Moses had before said of all the Israelites, Exodus 19; and yet King Ozias was punished with leprosy because he wished to discharge the priestly office, 2 Paralipomenon 26.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XXIV. Ministrum Sacramentorum ordinarium non esse quemlibet hominem etiam baptizatum. Altera quaestio est de causa ministeriali in Sacramentis conficiendis et ministrandis, quis proprie in Ecclesia sit minister Sacra¬ mentorum. Adversarii multum inter se, et nobiscum in hac quaestione dissentiunt. Martinus Lutherus duo dicit falsa, et inter se pugnantia. Primum, omnes omnino esse ministros, non solum homines , sed etiam daemones. Sic enim ait in lib. de Missa pri¬ vata , et unctione Sacerdotum , edito anno 1534 : « EgD non dicam, quod Papistoe di¬ cunt, nullum Angelorum, nec Mariam qui¬ dem ipsam consecrare posse. Sed e contra dico, si diabolus ipse veniret, et ego postea resciscerem diabolum sic irrepsisse in offi¬ cium pastoris Ecclesia? , in specie hominis vocatum ad praedicandum, et publice in Ec¬ clesia docuisse, baptizasse , celebrasse Mis¬ sam, et absolvisse a peccatis, et tali munere functum esse juxta inslitutionem Christi, tunc cogeremur fateri, Sacramenta ideo non esse inefficacia, sed verum Baptismum, ve¬ rum Evangelium, veram Absolutionem, ve¬ rum Sacramentum corporis et sanguinis Christi nos accepisse. » Haec ille. Probat autem, tum quia fides nostra, dig¬ nitas, et efficacia Sacramentorum, non ni¬ titur qualitate personae, sed Christi verbo, et ordinatione. Sive igitur bona sit, sive ma¬ la, sive uncta , sive non uncta , sive vocata legitime, sive non sic vocata , sive Satan, sive Angelus, idem efficit, modo servetChri- sti ordinationem : tum etiam quia Judas,qui erat membrum Diaboli, non minus praedica¬ bat, et baptizabat, quam caeteri Apostoli. Cur igitur non possit Diabolus , quod possunt membra ejus? Alterum, quod Lutherusdicit, est, omnes, et solos homines baptizatos habere potesta¬ tem omnia Sacramenta ministrandi; tametsi ad tollendam confusionem , non oporteat omnes uti hac potestate , sed tantum eos, qui legitime sunt vocati, exceptis tribus ca¬ sibus. Primo, quando quis est in loco priva¬ to , ut domi sua?. Secundo, quando nemo alias adest, et necessitas urget. Tertio, quan¬ do alius adest, sed non tam bene ministrat, ut ego facerem, juxta illud I. Gorinth. XIV : Si alteri revelatum fuerit, prior taceat (1). Ilanc esse ejus sententiam patet ex se¬ quentibus. In lib. de captivit. Babylon, cap. de Ordine : « Esto, inquit , certus , et sese agnoscat quicumque se Christianum esse cognoverit, omnes nos aequaliter esse sacer¬ dotes, hoc est, eamdem in verbo , et Sacra¬ mento quocumque habere potestatem ; ve¬ rum non licere quemquam hac ipsa uti, nisi consensu communitatis , vel vocatione ma¬ joris. » Et paulo ante: « Quod si cogerentur admittere, nos omnes esse aequaliter Sacer¬ dotes , quotquot baptizati sumus, sicut re¬ vera sumus e to. » Item in articulis a Leone X damnatis, art. 13 : « Ubi, inquit, non est Sacerdos, aeque potest quilibet ChristiauuDj (1) I. Cor. XIV, 30. 400 LIBER I. etiamsi mulier , aut puer esset. » Et in as¬ sertione ejusdem articuli rationem reddens, ait : « Qui enim baptizatus est, Spiritum Christi habet; ubi autem Spiritus Christi, ibi omnium potestas, et libertas. » llu;c ibi. Item in libro , quem edidit contra eamdem Bullam Leonis, anno 20 : « Assero , inquit, et amplector fiducia tota spiritus mei articu¬ los, per eam damnatos, asserendosque pro¬ nuntio omnibus Christianis : sub poena aeter- nce damnationis. » Et infra in fine libri : « His, inquit, scriptis testor, me omnia dam¬ nata per Bullam istam execrabilem confiteri pro Cathslicis dogmatibus. » Et infra : «Ul¬ timum quod habeo exponam , nempe hanc animam, et hunc sanguinem. Melius enim est me millies occidi , quam unam sylla¬ bam damnatorum articulorum revocare. » Haec ibi. Ubi est obiter Notandum, revocasse pos¬ tea Lutherum aliquos ex iisdem articulis, ac nominatim 36. de libero arbitrio , quem in assertione primarium , et fundamentum to¬ tius doctrinae suae ipse appellat. Nam in ar¬ ticulo isto 36. dicit, liberum arbitrium esse rem de solo titulo : et in assertione explicat, id ita intelligendum esse, ut juxta doctrinam Wiclefi omnia de necessitate absoluta eve¬ niant. Quod quidem apertissime revocavit in visitatione Saxonica, ubi docet, hominem esse liberi arbitrii in operibus civilibus, nec omnia necessario evenire. Ad haec in lib. de abroganda Missa, edito anno 21. ex proposito docet, et probat om¬ nes Christianos habere eamdem potestatem in verbo, et Sacramentis ministrandis : «In¬ victis, inquit, Scripturis firmabimus legiti¬ mum illud, et unicum verbi ministerium es¬ se commune omnibus Christianis, sicut et sacerdotium, et sacrificium. » Et infra pro¬ bat aliquot exemplis Scripturae, licere etiam fieminis concionari. Item in lib. ad Pragcn- ses, et instituendis ministris Ecclesiae, quem edidit anno 1523 : «Sacerdos, inquit, in no¬ vo praesertim Testamento non fit , sed nas¬ citur, non ordinatur, sed creatur : nascitur autem in Baptismo, suntque prorsus omnes Christiani Sacerdotes. » Et ibidem prolixe probat omnes Christianos cxBaptismo habe¬ re, ut possint concionari, baptizare, conse¬ crare, et absolvere, ac ligare. Et de clavibus habet haec verba : « Cessent, inquit, homi¬ num mendacia. Claves sunt totius Ecclesiae, et cujuslibet membri ejus, tam jure , quam usu, et omnibus modis. » Hmc ille. Infra ta¬ men monet, non licere unicuique uti hoc ju¬ re, nisi in necessitate , sed expectandam es¬ se vocationem , et electionem multitudinis. Ex quibus duo corollaria deducit. Unum, quod publici ministri non differant a caete- ris potestate, vel dignitate aliqua, sed solo usu potestatis. Alterum , quod ex proximo sequitur, posse ministrum fieri laicum, ut ex laicis fiunt ministri. Porro argumenta ejus infra ponentur , cum solvenda erunt. Hcec igitur est Lutheri sententia. Joannes Calvinus in altero extremo ver¬ satur. Nam non solum non concedit diabo¬ lum, aut foeminas, aut quoslibet Christianos posse concionari, et Sacramenta ministrare, sed ita severe defendit, solum quosdam le¬ gitime vocatos habere hanc potestatem, ut ne in necessitate quidem concedat laicis, ac praesertim foeminis, ut baptizent. Sic enim scribit in Antidoto ad canon. 10, sess. 7 : « Nemo sanus Christianos omnes in verbi. Sacramentorumque administratione pares facit : non solum quia decenter , et ordino geri omnia in Ecclesia decet; sed etiam quod singulari Christi mandato ad bam rem ordinantur ministri. » Et infra: «Porro mu¬ nus baptizandi , ubi mulierculis injunctum reperient, quemadmodum illis permittunt?» Idem fuse docet in Institut. lib. IV, cap. 3, §. 10 et cap. 15. infime. Itaque cum Calvino nulla nobis hoc loco controversia est. Nam quod negat laicos, et foeminas non posse in necessitatis articulo baptizare, in disputatio¬ ne de Baptismo refutandum erit. Martinus Kemnitius more suo rem totam involvens, non satis aperit quid sentiat. Nam discutiens 10. can. sess. VII Concilii Triden- tini, qui sic habet : « Si quis dixerit, Chris¬ tianos omnes, in verbo , et omnibus Sacra¬ mentis administrandis habere potestatem, anathema sit. » Tria dicit. Queritur Primum, canonem esse positum ad damnandam Lu¬ theri sententiam , sed mutilatam, et depra¬ vatam : « Non enim Lutherus unquam sen¬ tit, » inquit Kemnitius pag. 138. « quemvis Christianum promiscue sine legitima voca¬ tione, vel posse , vel debere sibi arrogare, vel usurpare ministerium verbi, ct admiuis- trationom Sacramentorum in Ecclesia. » At debuisset distinguere Kemnitius pote¬ statem ab exeeutione. Nam si loquitur de sola exeeutione, verum est , Lutherum non sensisse, posse vel debere quemvis sibi arro¬ gare hoc ministerium sine legitima vocatio¬ ne. Sed neque Concilium id in Luthero dam- CAPUT XXIV. 401 navit; id enim omnes fatemur esse verum. Si vero loquitur de potestate , falsum est Lutherum non ita sensisse : ut loca a nobis prolata demonstrant. Atque id est , quod damnavit Concilium. Neque potest dici Lu- theri sententia a Concilio mutilata , vel de¬ pravata. Non enim Concilium debuit totum librum Lutlieri describere , aut referre ea, qusc ab illo bene* scripta sunt : sed satis fuit ea referre, qua*, damnanda erant. Deinde addit Kemnitius, Concilium frau¬ dulenter loqui : « Oblique, inquit pag. 140, et quasi aliud agentes hoc axioma petunt : Neminem, etiam si legitime juxta praescrip¬ tum verbi Dei ab Ecclesia electus , et voca¬ tus sit , nisi ab Episcopo aliquo unctus , et rasus sit, habere ullam potestatem in verbi, et Sacramentorum administratione : et Sa¬ cramenta ab illis administrata non esse ve¬ ra, et efficacia. Has insidias Lector intelli- gat occultatas in hoc canone. » Sed canon apertissimus est, et Kemnitius potius simplici ejus intelligentiaj insidias ten¬ dit. Nam Concilium non dicit , non habere ullam potestatem in Sacramentis ministran¬ dis eos , qui non sunt ab Episcopo uncti et rasi. Nam Concilium non ignorabat ad Sa¬ cramenta Baptismi et Matrimonii , non re¬ quiri necessario ordinationem, sed dicit non habere potestatem in omnibus Sacramentis; ut reprobet Lutheri sententiam, quai in om¬ nibus Sacramentis , etiam Eucharistiae , et Pcenitentife tribuit laicis potestatem. Deinde Concilium non nominat unctos, et rasos; unctio enim et rasura caeremoniae sunt ac¬ cidentales , sine quibus essentia Ordinatio¬ nis consistere potest. Itaque Kemnitius insi¬ dias in suis verbis occultat. Tertio, dicit sententiam Canonis, ut verba sonant, esse veram, sed tamen eam non recte exponit : « Quod vero, inquit, ad ip¬ sam sententiam decimi hujus canonis, sicut verba posita sunt, attinet, plane et clare respondeo : Si qui existimant cuivis Chris¬ tiano promiscue sine peculiari, et legitima vocatione permissam esse potestatem usur¬ pandi, et exercendi ministerium verbi, et Sacramentorum in Ecclesia, eos jure, et merito damnari. » At non recte exponit Concilium Kerani- tius. Non enim Concilium damnat cos, qui dicunt, licere unicuique sine vocatione usurpare ministerium ; id enim nemo dicit, proinde non fuisset opus canone ; sed damnat cos, qui dicunt, omnes Christianos Tom. III. habere potestatem, verbum, et Sacramenta omnia ministrandi, quod Lutherus dixit, et Kemnitius sentire videtur, licet aperte con¬ fiteri non audeat. Proponenda est igitur, et probanda Ecclcsiaj doctrina, quae duabus propositionibus comprehendi potest. Prima propositio : « Minister Sacramen¬ torum homo esse debet, non autem Angelus, sive bonus, sive malus. » Haec est adver¬ sus Lutherum, et communis apud Theo¬ logos. Est tamen observandum, quod si forte Angelus bonus Sacramentum aliquod mi¬ nistraret, illud habendum esset ratum, quia certum esset id factum esse divina dispensa¬ tione extraordinaria. Quocirca refert Ni- cephorus lib. XI. cap. 20. S. Anphilochium ab Angelis ordinatum Episcopum ; idque ratum habitum ab Episcopis ejus provinciae. At si Diabolus idem faceret, iterandum esset Sacramentum , quia Diabolus nec habet ex se potestatem, nec peculiari Dei dispensa¬ tione acciperet, sed sibi usurparet, aut fal¬ leret. Probatur haec propositio. Primo ; Ad es¬ sentiam Sacramentorum, ut requiritur ve¬ rum, et naturale elementum ita requiritur verum et naturale verbum. Sed solus homo vere, et naturaliter loquitur : loqui enim est actio corporis viventis per instrumentum lin¬ guae, et palati ; non igitur Angelus bonus, vel malus Sacramenta conficere potest. Nam, ut recte docet S. Thomas I. par. qu. LI. art. 3. ad. 4. Angeli etiam per corpus assumptum non possunt proprie loqui. Secundo : Etiamsi vera elementa, veraque verba Angeli adhibere possent, tamen non propterea illa verum Sacramentum effice¬ rent. Nam Sacramentum est signun , et causa infallibilis gratite : non autem id ha¬ bent elementa, et verba naturalitep, sed so¬ lum ut a Deo assumuntur, ut instrumenta justificationis. Ergo non sunt vera Sacra¬ menta cum a quocumque adhibentur, sed cum adhibentur ab eo , cui Deus id committit : quomodo etiam verba, qui¬ bus miracula faciebant Christus, et Apos¬ toli , non a quocumque prolata fuissent, eamdem vim habuissent. Si enim quis dicat claudo : Surge et ambula, nihil efficiet, nisi a Deo assumatur, ut instrumentum ad miraculum faciendum : non igitur vera Sa¬ cramenta conficere potest, nisi qui a Deo habet auctoritatem. Sed Deus hanc auctori¬ tatem solis hominibus dedit, non Angelis 26 402 LIBER I. bonis, vel malis. Nam Mattb. XXVIII, ho¬ minibus dixit : Euntes docete omnes gentes, baptizantes eos in nomine Patris , etc. Item Luc. XXII : solis hominibus dixit : Hoc facite in meam commemorationem. Joan. XX: solis hominibus dixit : Quorum remiseritis peccata etc. Ad hccc Ephes. IV. Christus as¬ cendens in altum captivam duxit captivitatem, dedit dona hominibus ; ubi per dona intelligit varia ministeria, qute sunt in Ecclesia ; nam antea dixerat : Unicuique nostrum data est gratia secundum mensuram donationis Christi , sicut scriptum est : Ascendens in al¬ tum etc. Et infra : Et ipse dedit quosdam quidem Apostolos, alios Prophetas, alios Euan¬ gelistas, alios Pastores, et Doctores etc. De¬ nique Hebr. V : Omnis pontifex ex hominibus assumptus pro hominibus constituitur etc. (1) Quare Chrysostomus lib. 111. de sacerdotio, aperte testatur, Angelis non esse concessum, quod est concessum hominibus, ut Sa¬ cramenta ministrent : et idem habet homil. 85. in Joan. prope fin. Tertio, confirmatur ex doctrina Lutheri ; Nam ipse vult fundamentum potestatis in verbum, et Sacramenta, esse Baptismum, ut patet ex locis citatis : at l\pc fundamento carent Angeli tum boni, tum mali. Item in homil. de Baptismo, et alibi, docet, non sufficere verba, et elementa, sed requiri Dei mandatum; at Deus nusquam mandavit Angelis, ut Sacramenta conficerent ; igitur etc. Neque argumenta Lutheri pro Diabolo facta concludunt. Ad Primum concedimus, Sacramentorum efficaciam non pendere a qualitate ministri quacumque. Non enim pendet a qualitate accidentali, ut est boni¬ tas; tamen pendet ad qualitate essentiali, sine qua non esset verus minister ; talis autem in primis est, ut sit homo. Ad secundum, fatemur Judam, et mem¬ brum Diaboli fuisse, vera Sacramenta mi¬ nistrasse : negamus autem idem convenire Diabolo. Nam Judas, non ut membrum Diaboli, sed ut minister Christi Sacramen¬ tum administravit : fuit autem Judas Christi minister, quia verus homo erat, et a Christo acceperat potestatem baptizandi , quorum neutrum Diabolo convenit. Secunda propositio : « Verus minister Sacramentorum (Baptismo et Matrimonio exceptis) non est quilibet homo etiam bap- tizatus, sed is solum, qui rite in Ecclesia ordinatus est. » Nota, excipi Baptismum , quia propter summam ejus Sacramenti necessitatem, semper Ecclesia intellexit posse a quolibet homine conferri ; de qua re dicemus in ma¬ teria de Baptismo. Item excipi Matrimonium, quoniam cum Matrimonium consistat in contractu mutuo duorum; non poterat aliter fieri, quam ut ipsi contrahentes essent mi¬ nistri. Probatur htec propositio adversus Luthe- ranos. Primo, ex Scripturis, quse docent, in Ecclesia esse diversa officia, nec omnia omnibus convenire ; ut Roman. XII. I. Co- rinth. XII. et Ephes. IV : Alios posuit Apo¬ stolos, alios Prophetas etc. Et nunupuid omnes Apostoli, numquid omnes Propheta?? etc. (2) Idem ergo dici potest de pastoribus et doc- toribus, qui ibidem nominantur. Nec res¬ ponderi potest hic agi de usu, ut Lutherani dicunt, non de potestate. Nam certe Apos¬ toli non habebant potestatem Apostolicam, antequam illam a Christo acciperent : non igitur acceperunt usum tantum, sed ipsam potestatem. Secundo, ex illo Heb. V. Nemo assumit sibi honorem, nisi qui vocatur a Deo tamquam Aaron (3). Non igitur omnes, qui sunt de po¬ pulo Dei, sunt hoc ipso Sacerdotes. Neque potest hic locus intelligi de exercitio tantum : nam Aaron antequam vocaretur a Deo ad sacerdotium , non habebat neque usum, neque potestatem. Praeterea assumere ho¬ norem, non est exequi potestatem, sed ac¬ cipere eam ; quod etiam confirmatur ex se¬ quentibus : Sic et Christus non semetipsum clarificavit, ut Pontifex fieret. Igitur assu¬ mere honorem est fieri Pontificem, non au¬ tem exercere Pontificatum. Tertio, Apostoli baptizati sunt et bap¬ tizabant ante Christi passionem. Nam quod baptizarent, habetur Joan. IV. quod bapti¬ zati fuerint, docet Augustinus in epist. 108. ad Seleucianum : nec est credibile , eos a Christo jussos baptizare , antequam ipsi baptizarentur. At potestatem consecrandi Eucharistiam acceperunt postea Luc. XXII, cum audierunt : lloc facite in meam com¬ memorationem. Similiter et absolvendi po¬ testatem acceperunt postea Joan. XX : (1) Mattii. XXVIII, 19; Luc. XXII, 19; Joan. XX, 23; Epii. IV, 8, 7 et 11; Hebr. V, 1. — (2) Rom. XII, G; I Cor. XII, 4 et eeq. ; Eph. IV, 11. — (3) Hebr. V, 4. Quorum remiseritis (i). Non igitur accepe¬ rant in Baptismo. Quarto ; Si omnes Christiani accipe¬ rent in Baptismo hanc potestatem , ideo acciperent, quia tunc, ut ait Lutherus, un¬ guntur gratia Spiritus sancti, et proinde fiunt spirituales Sacerdotes. At id falsum est ; nam sequeretur eos, qui dum baptizan¬ tur, non recipiuntf gratiam, et eos, qui pos¬ tea eam perdunt, non vere conferre Sacra¬ menta, quod tamen Lutherus recte negat contra Anabaptistas. Nec potest responderi sufficere characterem, nam Lutherani non agnoscunt ullum charaeterem. Quinto ; Si omnes Christiani haberent hanc potestatem : nemo posset privari usu ejus, nisi in poenam magni criminis : atqui apud Lutheranos multi privantur usu hujus potestatis sine ulla sua culpa. Neque obstat quod illi objiciunt de confusione, qua2 nas¬ ceretur in Ecclesia, si omnes uterentur hac potestate. Nam possent per vices fungi hoc ministerio : aut certe non deberet posse re¬ pelli, qui vellet ministrare, quando pauci sunt ministri, etiamsi non esset vocatus a Magistratu. At ipsi repellunt non vocatos ; ergo vel injuriam eis faciunt, vel fateri de¬ bent, eos non habere potestatem. Sexto ; In lege veteri, ubi erant Sacra¬ menta imperfectiora, non tamen omnes poterant ea ministrare, sed soli sacerdotes. Nec valet solutio, si dicas Christianos esse factos in Baptismo spirituales sacerdotes : nam etiam illi fiebant in Circumcisione spirituales sacerdotes, et poterant omnes offerre spirituales hostias. Imo quod dixit B. Petrus de omnibus Christianis : Vos au¬ tem genus electum , regale sacerdotium (2). I. Pet. III. idem antea dixerat Moses de omnibus Israelitis Exod. XIX. et tamen Ozias Rex lepra punitus fuit, quia fungi voluit munere sacerdotali. II. Paralipom. XXVI.