Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacraments in General · Book I: On the Nature and Causes of the Sacrament
Chapter 26: That the faith or probity of the minister is not required for the Sacraments to be efficacious
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 follows the third question, concerning the qualities of the minister of the Sacraments: whether faith or charity is necessarily required, so that heretics, unbelievers, schismatics, and wicked Catholics cannot confer the Sacraments. But we do not ask whether they sin in conferring the Sacraments; for that is properly a Scholastic question; but only whether whatever unbelievers or wicked men do is void, even though they be otherwise lawfully ordained priests or bishops, and omit nothing of the things which pertain to the substance of the Sacraments.
Now of this matter there seems to be no controversy, or almost none, in this time. For although Luther sometimes says that the Spirit of Christ, which is received in Baptism, is the foundation of the power of conferring the Sacraments — from which it follows that only the good, who have the Spirit of Christ, efficaciously confer the Sacraments — yet he himself afterward taught that the faith or probity of the minister is so far from being required that even the Devil, made a minister, can minister the Sacraments, as we said above. The Augsburg Confession too, article 8, confesses that the Sacraments are efficacious, though they be ministered by hypocrites and evil men. Which same Calvin has, book 4 of the Institutes chapter 15 section 16. Whence in the Antidote to the Council of Trent, to canon 12 session 7, where anathema is said to those who deny that the Sacraments are efficacious if ministered by evil men, he writes nothing else but this word, Amen. Finally Kemnitz in the second part of the Examen page 155 affirms that canon 12 of the Council does not displease him.
The opinion that the Sacraments are not efficacious unless ministered by the upright and faithful is wont to be attributed to the Hussites and Anabaptists. But it is strange if the Hussites so think, since they were wont to seek the ordinations of their priests from the Roman Pontiff, whom yet, with all Catholic bishops, they held and hold for heretics. And certainly if the Hussites hold valid the ordinations of those whom they think heretics, much more easily would they hold valid the Baptism conferred by them; which is plain from Luther's book to the Senate of Prague, where he dissuades the Bohemian Hussites from seeking ordinations from the Romans, since both they are heretics to the Romans, and the Romans to them. That, then, which John Hus in the articles condemned in the Council of Constance, session 15, says — that an evil or foreknown prelate is only equivocally a pastor, and that no one is a bishop while he is in mortal sin — is either understood only as to jurisdiction, or the Hussites do not in this part follow their master. To the Anabaptists Kemnitz attributes this error in the place cited; but because their doctrine is in many things hidden, and not publicly divulged, we do not know on what foundations they rest. Wherefore it will be enough here first to indicate what were formerly the errors on this matter; then by what Fathers and by what reasons they were confuted; lastly how their objections are dissolved.
As to the first: about 1300 years ago, in Asia and Africa, an error began to arise, that the Sacraments were not valid which were given by heretics and schismatics after their separation from Catholic unity. Of the Asiatics Eusebius reports this, book 7 of the history chapter 6, from the epistle of Dionysius of Alexandria. Of the Africans it is established both from the same Eusebius book 7 chapter 2, and from Augustine book 2 On Baptism chapter 7, where he also indicates that the first author of this error was Agrippinus, Bishop of Carthage, the predecessor of St. Cyprian; which Vincent of Lerins more clearly testifies in the Commonitory, where he says that Agrippinus, first of all mortals, judged that men should be rebaptized. St. Cyprian followed his predecessor, with many Bishops of Africa, yet so that he did not for that reason separate himself from the unity of the Church, as is plain from the epistles to Quintus, to Pompey, and to Jubaianus; wherefore he was never held a heretic. Nor are there lacking those who assert that he afterward recalled his opinion, as St. Augustine testifies in epistle 48 to Vincentius; as also that the other Bishops, who with Cyprian had defined that error, recalled their opinion, moved by the authority of Stephen the Roman Pontiff, St. Jerome writes in the Dialogue against the Luciferians.
A little later the heretic Donatists followed, who pertinaciously held and augmented the same error. For, in the first place, Agrippinus and Cyprian did not hold for heretics those who thought the contrary; whence neither did they rebaptize those baptized by Catholics, even by such as were contrary to them in that opinion. But the Donatists rebaptized even Catholics, whom they thought heretics; for so Augustine says in the book On the one Baptism chapter 13, comparing the Donatists with Agrippinus and Cyprian: “To rebaptize heretics, which they are said to have done, was then of human error; but to rebaptize Catholics, which these still do, is always of diabolical presumption.” Second, the Donatists defended the error after the definition of the Church in a general Council, which is proper to heretics. Agrippinus and Cyprian saw no absolute definition of the Church, as Augustine testifies book 2 On Baptism chapters 7 and 9. Third, Cyprian only disapproved the Sacraments given by heretics and schismatics — that is, by those who were outside the Church; but he did not disapprove the Sacraments given by evil ministers within the Church itself, as Augustine demonstrates book 4 On Baptism chapter 2, book 3 against the epistle of Parmenian chapter 2. But of the Donatists, some excluded all manifest sinners from the administration of the Sacraments, as Augustine testifies book 2 against the epistle of Parmenian chapter 10; others, absolutely all evil men, even hidden ones, as the same Augustine reports book 2 against Cresconius chapter 28. After the Donatists the Luciferians taught the same error, at least in part. For, on the testimony of St. Jerome in the Dialogue against the Luciferians, they admitted Baptism conferred by heretics, but not Ordination; although one Hilary, a Deacon, as Jerome there says, would not admit even Baptism. There were then others in the time of St. Bernard, who were called Apostolics, who denied that evil men could efficaciously minister the Sacraments, as he himself testifies sermon 66 on the Canticles. Which same the Albigenses afterward also taught, as St. Antoninus reports in the Theological Summa part 4 title 11 chapter 7 section 5. Between the two arose the Waldenses, who granted to good laymen the ministries of the Sacraments, and took those same from evil priests, on the testimony of St. Antoninus, part 4 title 11 chapter 7 section 2. And to this St. Thomas looked, book 4 against the Gentiles chapter 77, when he says that it is a certain error, that all the good and none of the evil can be fit ministers of the Sacraments; which is altogether the same as that which Luther said at first, that all those, and they alone, are priests who have the Spirit of Christ. Finally, after all these arose John Wycliffe, who not a little enriched this heresy. For they deny that not only sinners, whether hidden or manifest, but even those good in the present but to be evil at some time — that is, the foreknown — can confect the Sacraments. See of this error the Council of Constance session 8, and Thomas Waldensis tome 2 chapter 14.
As to the second: many and ancient Supreme Pontiffs refuted this heresy. And first, at its very rise, St. Stephen Pope and Martyr, as Eusebius reports book 7 of the history chapter 2 and following. Then Siricius in epistle 4 to Himerius, Innocent I in epistle 22 to the Bishops of Macedonia, Leo epistle 77 to Nicetas, Anastasius II in the epistle to the Emperor Anastasius, and others. Second, Councils condemned the same heresy. First the general Council of Nicaea. For St. Augustine most frequently testifies this, book 2 On Baptism chapters 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, and elsewhere; but because Augustine nowhere calls that Council Nicene, many doubt of what Council he speaks. But there is no cause of doubting; for he calls it the plenary Council of the whole world. But Augustine knew no Council of the whole world except the Nicene. For only four general Councils were held in Augustine's time: the Nicene, the Sardican, the first Constantinopolitan, and the first Ephesine. But of these the first Ephesine was indicted a little before Augustine's death, and celebrated after his death, from the epistle of the Africans to the Emperor Theodosius the younger. The Constantinopolitan Council did not treat of this question. Add that Augustine book 2 On Baptism chapter 9 testifies that the plenary Council in which this truth was defined was celebrated before he himself was born. But it is established that only the Nicene was celebrated before Augustine's birth. For the Council of Nicaea was held in the year 327; Augustine was born in the year 357; the Constantinopolitan Council was held in the year 383. See the Chronicle of Eusebius with the addition of Prosper. The Sardican Council neither treated of that question, nor was known to Augustine, as we showed in the disputation on the right of appeal, and the sixth Council of Carthage. Besides, in the Council of Nicaea canon 19 the Paulianists are bidden to be rebaptized, from which it is plainly deduced that the Baptism of the other heretics was approved by the Council. Finally (which one thing should suffice) St. Jerome in the Dialogue against the Luciferians, at the end, thus says: “The Synod of Nicaea too receives all heretics, except the disciples of Paul of Samosata.” So he. Where he most plainly says that by the Nicene Synod the Baptism of all heretics was approved (for of this he was speaking), except certain ones who, namely, did not use the legitimate form. Not long after, the same error was condemned by the first Council of Carthage canon 1, Gratus the Bishop presiding, in the times of the Emperor Constantine, which Council St. Augustine also mentions, book 2 chapter 2 On Baptism against the Donatists. Likewise the first Council of Arles canon 8, at the same time; and long after, the Council of Constance session 8, and the Tridentine session 7 canon 12. Third, very many Doctors refuted it, and chiefly Augustine in all his books against the Donatists; Optatus in the books against Parmenian; Jerome in the Dialogue against the Luciferians; Nazianzen in the oration On Baptism; St. Thomas book 4 against the Gentiles chapter 77; and Thomas Waldensis tome 2 from the beginning through many chapters, where he also brings forward many testimonies of many.
Now the chief arguments which they use are three. First, they bring the tradition and most ancient custom from the time of the Apostles. For that St. Stephen the Pope chiefly used this argument St. Cyprian testifies in the epistle to Pompey. The same argument St. Augustine uses everywhere, book 1 On Baptism chapter 9: “By the strength of custom,” he says, “the whole world was held, and this alone was opposed to those willing to introduce a novelty.” And Vincent of Lerins in the Commonitory says that this argument, drawn from the tradition and custom of the Church, availed so much with the Catholic Church that by this one the cause of St. Cyprian was overcome, who with the greatest eloquence, and a most frequent Council of holy Bishops, and many testimonies of divine Scripture, fought against the truth. From which we understand that Luther with his followers has a spirit contrary to that which the old and true Church of Christ had. For Luther, on account of one testimony of Scripture wrongly understood, despises the eternal custom, as he himself speaks in the book On abrogating the Mass, and in the book On instituting ministers to the Praguers. But the old Church, from a custom of two hundred or three hundred years, explained all the testimonies which Cyprian with his followers brought; and deservedly. For since it is certain that the perpetual custom of the whole Church cannot fight with the word of God, and the custom is clearer than the word itself, they rightly judged that the word of God is to be interpreted from the custom, not that the custom is to be abolished on account of the obscure and ambiguous word of God, as the Lutherans in this time contend must be done. Second, they brought a reason founded in the word of God, which can be concluded by this syllogism. The minister of the Sacraments works by the divine power and authority; but God does not take away from the minister the power given him on account of his sin or unbelief; therefore, etc. The Major is proved; for the Scriptures everywhere teach this. John 1: This is he who baptizeth in the Holy Ghost. The chief author, then, in Baptism is Christ, not the minister, as Augustine deduces at length hence, tract 5 on John. 1 Corinthians 3: Neither he that planteth is any thing, nor he that watereth, but God that giveth the increase. Besides, if the ministers baptized by their own power, there would be diverse Baptisms, some better than others according to the diversity of the merits and excellence of the baptizers. But there is one Baptism, to the Ephesians 4. Likewise the Apostles never called the Baptism theirs which they conferred on others, though sometimes they called the Gospel theirs which they preached, Romans 16 and 2 Timothy 2: According to my gospel. In Baptism, then, they acknowledged nothing of their own but the bare ministry. Finally it was just that the Sacraments should not depend on human power, lest men should grow accustomed to trust in men, since it is written: Cursed be the man that trusteth in man. Now the minor proposition is proved. For the authority of conferring the Sacraments is not sanctifying grace, but a grace freely given; it does not, then, so fight with wickedness of life that it cannot be together with it. For it is established that such graces can be in sinners, as is plain of Caiphas, who prophesied, though he was most wicked, John 11:51; likewise of those who Matthew 7:22 say: Have we not in thy name cast out devils? etc. Second, the authority of conferring the Sacraments is given not for the utility of him who has it, but of others; therefore it was not fitting that it be taken away on account of the sin of him who has it; for so one would be punished for the fault of another. Third, God does not take away, on account of sins, the power of jurisdiction, as is plain 1 Peter 2, where the Apostle bids that Christians obey their masters, not only the good and gentle, but also the froward; and in the same place he bids obedience to be given to kings and other magistrates of the gentiles, who were unbelievers; therefore much less does he take away the power of order. For if the power were taken away to punish him who has it, the power of jurisdiction ought rather to be taken away than that of order; because the former is more loved, and accordingly he is more punished from whom it is taken; and besides, the power of jurisdiction depends more on the probity of life of him in whom it is than the power of order. For the passions rule more in commanding than in ministering the Sacraments, as is plain by experience. Fourth, God does not take away from men, on account of sins, their natural powers for natural works, as is well known; therefore neither ought he to take away the supernatural power for supernatural works, in which the merit of the worker does not consist. For God provided no less for the good of the whole Church than for the good of this world. Fifth, Judas was a sinner and reprobate, and yet baptized, as Augustine gathers tract 5 on John from that of John 4: He himself did not baptize, but his disciples. And that Judas baptized efficaciously, the same Augustine teaches from this, that we do not read that those whom he had baptized were rebaptized.
The third argument is taken from like things. For, in the first place, among the Jews those circumcised by the Samaritans, who were heretics to the Hebrews, were not circumcised again, but were admitted as duly circumcised, as Augustine teaches book 1 against Cresconius chapter 31. Next, the word of God is efficaciously preached by the wicked, as Augustine gathers book 4 On Baptism chapter 11 from Matthew 23: What they say, do; but what they do, do ye not; and to the Philippians 1: Some out of contention preach Christ not sincerely, thinking to raise affliction to my bonds. But what then? So that by all means, whether by occasion or by truth, Christ be preached; in this also I rejoice, yea, and will rejoice. Besides, it matters nothing to the efficacy of the sowing and planting, as the same Augustine reasons book 3 against Cresconius chapter 8, whether it be done with washed or with soiled hands, provided the seed be good and the earth fertile, and the heat of the sun and the rain from heaven be not lacking. Likewise, as Nazianzen teaches in the oration On Baptism, an iron seal imprints the image of the king no less rightly than a golden seal. Likewise, as the same Augustine teaches book 3 On Baptism chapter 10, the light of the sun, or even of lamps, is not defiled, even though it pass through mud and miry places. Finally, as the same Augustine has, tract 5 on John, it matters little whether the water pass to the little beds to be watered through a stone channel or a silver one.
As to the third: the arguments of the heretics are most diligently refuted by Augustine in the seven books against the Donatists. The chief were these. The first: No one gives what he has not. Heretics and the impious have not the remission of sins; therefore they do not give it; wherefore they do not efficaciously minister the Sacraments. I answer to the Minor, that heretics have not the remission of sins formally, yet have it ministerially; in the way that a servant, who often has not one penny, yet carries many gold pieces from his master to some other. And in natural and artificial things the effect ought not to be like the instrument, but the principal cause. Heat has not the substantial form of fire, nor has the axe the form of a chair; and yet they effect them instrumentally. Add, besides, that the Sacrament itself is to be distinguished from its effect; and among the effects the character is to be distinguished from grace; for all these can be separated from one another. It can happen, then, that a heretic baptize, and confer both the character and grace, as if he baptize an infant. Likewise that he confer not grace, because he who is baptized places the obstacle of unbelief, believing the heretic; but not for that reason is the Baptism void, for it effects the character. Likewise that he confer neither the character nor grace, as if he give Extreme Unction to a sick heretic; yet even then he ministers a true Sacrament, and an efficacious Sacrament, although it work nothing in the receiver on account of his indisposition. Where it is to be noted with Augustine book 6 On Baptism chapter 1 that this was the chief cause of the error of Cyprian and others, who did not distinguish between the Sacraments and their use and effect.
The second argument, against the solution of the preceding: He who has not the Holy Spirit cannot remit sins; for it was said John 20: Receive ye the Holy Spirit, whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them. But heretics and the impious have not the Holy Spirit; therefore, etc. I answer by denying the minor. Since by the Holy Spirit in that place we understand the power of remitting sins, as Chrysostom and Cyril understand on that place. But the power can be also without sanctifying grace. And that by the name of the Holy Spirit can be understood any of his gifts, though they make not a man holy, is plain from 1 Corinthians 12: To every one is given the manifestation of the spirit unto profit; to one is given by the spirit the word of wisdom, etc. And 1 Corinthians 14: The spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. Where he calls “spirit” the gift of prophesying given by the Holy Spirit. It could also be said that the Lord meant to signify by those words, Receive ye the Holy Spirit, etc., that the effect of the Sacraments chiefly depends on the power of the Holy Spirit; and accordingly that it is necessary that the Spirit at least assist, and so be taken at least as assisting and working in the Sacraments, though he work not in the minister himself. But the Holy Spirit always assists his Sacraments (as Augustine rightly teaches book 3 On Baptism chapter 10), even though the minister be an adulterer or a murderer; because the Sacrament is never adulterous. Finally, because there are not lacking those who in this place by the Holy Spirit understand the Spirit as bestowing grace and charity and diffusing it in our hearts, as Ambrose sermon 10 on Psalm 118, and Augustine in the commentary on chapter 20 of John, therefore we can add that the grace indeed of the Holy Spirit is given through sacred Ordination together with the power of remitting sins; but that it cannot thence be gathered that he who has not grace cannot remit sins. For that grace is not the same as the power of remitting sins, nor so conjoined with it that it cannot be separated; for it is given not that he who has it may be able to remit sins, but that he may not offend God in so holy a ministry, if he, remaining an enemy of God, should presume to reconcile others to God.
The third argument: The Sacraments are of the Catholic Church alone, which Christ founded; but heretics are outside the Church, in the synagogue of Satan. I answer that the Sacraments are always of the Church, even though they be sometimes found outside the Church. Wherefore when those baptized by heretics come to the Church, what is of the Church — that is, Baptism — must be acknowledged and retained, but the error corrected. Otherwise the Gospel too, and many other good and true things, would have to be repudiated, which are sometimes found among heretics. There might, lastly, be brought certain places of the Fathers, as of Athanasius sermon 3 against the Arians, where he says that all heretics have useless water; likewise of Ambrose in the book On those who are initiated into the mysteries chapter 4, where he says: “The Baptism of the faithless does not heal”; and of Leo epistle 77 to Nicetas, last chapter, where he says that no heretic can give sanctification through the Sacraments. I answer: Athanasius says two things. First he thus says: “But the Arians come into danger of losing the integrity of the mystery — I speak of Baptism.” Second he absolutely denies that the Baptism of the Arians or of other heretics cleanses: “For it is not,” he says, “he who simply says, Lord, that gives legitimate Baptism, but he who expresses the name and has the right faith.” In the former place he treats of the very substance of the Sacrament, and therefore does not say absolutely that the Baptism of the Arians is not whole, but says there is danger lest sometimes it be not whole, because, namely, it was easy for them to corrupt the form, and in the name of the Father and of the Son to say the maker and the thing made, as he himself there says. In the latter place he treats not of the substance, but of the utility of the Sacrament; and therefore absolutely says that heretics, because they lack the right faith, do not sanctify those whom they baptize, which is understood of those who consent with them in heresy. And in the same manner speak Ambrose, and Leo, and others. Whence these Fathers never say that the Baptism of heretics is to be repeated, which they certainly would say if they were speaking of the substance.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XXVI. Non requiri fidem , aut probitatem ministri , ut sacramenta efficacia esse possint. Sequitur tertia quaestio de qualitatibus mi¬ nistri Sacramentorum, utrum requiratur ne¬ cessario fides, aut charitas , ita ut haeretici, infideles, schismatici, improbi Catholici non possint Sacramenta conferre. Non quaerimus autem, an peccent Sacramenta conferendo : ista enim est quaestio proprie Scholastica ; sed tantum an sit irritum , quidquid faciant infideles, aut improbi homines, etiamsi alio¬ qui legitime ordinati sint Presbyteri, aut Episcopi, et nihil omittant eorum, quae ad substantiam Sacramentorum pertinent. Porro controversia de hac re nulla, aut pene nulla hoc tempore esse videtur. Nam etsi Lutherus aliquoties dicat, spiritum Christi, qui recipitur in Baptismo esse fun¬ damentum potestatis conferendorum Sacra¬ mentorum, ex quo sequitur, solos bonos, qui spiritum Christi habent, efficaciter Sacra¬ menta conferre : tamen ipse idem postea do¬ cuit, adeo non requiri fidem, aut probitatem ministri, ut etiam Diabolus efficiatur Sacra¬ menta ministrare possit, ut supra diximus. Confessio quoque Augustana , art. 8. fatetur Sacramenta esse efficacia , licet ab hypocri¬ tis, et malis hominibus ministrentur. Quod idem habet Calvinus lib. IV Instit. cap. 15, §. 16. Unde in Antidoto Concilii Tridentini ad can. 12. sess. VII, ubi dicitur anathema iis, qui negant Sacramenta esse efficacia, si a malis ministrentur, nihil aliud scribit, nisi hanc vocem , Arnen. Denique Kemnitius in 2. parte Examinis pag. 155. affirmat cano- nem Concilii 12. sibi non displicere. Tribui solet Hussitis, et Anabaptistis ea sententia, quod Sacramenta non sint effica¬ cia, nisi a probis, et fidelibus ministrentur. Sed mirum est si Hussitae ita sentiant, cum ordinationes sacerdotum suorum a Romano Pontifice petere consueverint, cum tamen Romanum Pontificem, et omnes Episcopos Catholicos pro haereticis haberent, et ha¬ beant. Et certe siHussitae ratas habent ordi¬ nationes eorum , quos haereticos putant, multo facilius ratum haberent Baptismum ab eis collatum : Id patet ex lib. Lutheri ad senatum Pragensem, ubi dehortatur Bohe- mos Mussitas, ne petant ordinationes a Ro¬ manis, cum et ipsi Romanis, et Romani ipsis sint haeretici. Quod ergo .Toannes Hus in ar¬ ticulis, qui damnantur in Concilio Constan- tiensi, sess. XIV dicit, Praelatum malum, aut praescitum esse aequivoce pastorem; et nul¬ lum esse Episcopum, dum est in peccato mortali; aut intelligitur solum, quoad juris¬ dictionem ; aut certe non sequuntur in hac parte Hussitae magistrum suum. Anabaptistis tribuit hunc errorem Kemni¬ tius loco citato, sed quia doctrina eorum est in multis occulta , et non publice evulgata, non scimus quibus fundamentis nitantur. Quare satis erit hoc loco primum indicare qui fuerint olim errores de hac re. Deinde a 408 LIBER I. quibus Patribus, et quibus rationibus confu¬ tati» Postremo quomodo eorum objectiones dissolvantur. Quoad Primum; ante annos 1300, in Asia, et Africa coepit error exoriri, non esse rata Sacramenta, quae ab haereticis, et schisma¬ ticis dabantur post separationem eorum ab unitate Catholica. De Asiasticis id refert Eusebius lib. VII. histor. cap. G. ex epist. Dionysii Alexandrini. De Africanis constat tum ex eodem Eusebio lib. VII. cap. 2. tum ex Augustino lib. II. de Baptismo, cap. 7. ubi etiam indicat primum auctorem hujus erroris fuisse Agrippinum Episcopum Car¬ thaginiensem, S. Cypriani praedecessorem : Quod clarius testatur Vincentius Lirinensis in Commonitorio, ubi dicit Agrippinum pri¬ mum omnium mortalium rebaptizandum censuisse. Secutus est praedecessorem suum S. Cy¬ prianus cum multis Africae Episcopis, sic tamen, ut non propterea se ab Ecclesiae unitate separaret, ut patet ex epistolis ad Quintum, ad Pompeium, et ad Jubaianum : quocirca numquam haereticus habitus est. Nec desunt, qui asserunt, eum postea revo¬ casse sententiam, ut S. Augustinus testatur in epist. 48. ad Vincentium : quemadmo¬ dum etiam Episcopos caeteros, qui cum Cy¬ priano eum errorem definierant , revocasse sententiam suam, permotos auctoritate Ste- phani Romani Pontificis scribit S. Hierony¬ mus in Dialogo contra Luciferianos. Secuti sunt paulo post haeretici Donatistaj, qui pertinaciter eumdem errorem tenuerunt, et auxerunt. Nam in primis, Agrippinus et Cyprianus non habebant pro haereticis, qui contrarium sentiebant : unde nec rebaptiza¬ bant baptizatos a Catholicis etiam sibi in ea opinione contrariis. Donatistaj autem re¬ baptizabant etiam Catholicos, quos haereti¬ cos putabant : Sic enim ait Augustinus in libro de unico Baptismo, cap. 13. conferens Donatistas cum Agrippino et Cypriano : <( Rebaptizare hajreticos, quod illi fecisse di¬ cuntur, tunc fuit humani erroris; rebapti¬ zare autem Catholicos, quod adhuc isti fa¬ ciunt, semper est diabolica} prajsumptio- nis. » Secundo, Donatistae errorem defendebant post Ecclesiae definitionem in Concilio ge¬ nerali, quod est haereticorum proprium. A g- grippinus, et Cyprianus non viderunt ullam absolutam Ecclesiae definitionem, ut August. testatur lib. II. de Baptismo, cap. 7 et 9. Tertio, Cyprianus tantum improbabat Sa¬ cramenta tradita ab haereticis et schismati¬ cis, id est, ab iis, qui essent extra Eccle¬ siam; at non improbabat Sacramenta tra¬ dita a malis ministris intra ipsam Ecclesiam : ut Augustinus demonstrat lib. IV. de Bap¬ tismo, cap. 2. lib. III. contra epistolam Parmeniani, cap. 2. At Donatistarum alii, omnes peccatores manifestos excludebant a Sacramentorum administratione, ut Augus¬ tinus testatur, lib. 11. contra epist. Parrae- niani, cap. 10. alii, omnes omnino homines malos, etiam occultos, ut idem Augustinus refert lib. II. contra Cresconium, cap. 28. Post Donatistas eumdem errorem saltem ex parte docuerunt Luciferiani. Nam teste S. Hieronymo in Dialogo contra Luciferia¬ nos, admittebant illi Baptisma collatum ab heereticis, sed non Ordinationem : quam¬ quam Hilarius quidam Diaconus, ut ibidem ait Hieronymus, ne Baptisma quidem ad¬ mitteret. Fuerunt deinde alii tempore S. Bernardi, qui dicebantur Apostolici, qui negabant ho¬ mines malos posse efficaciter Sacramenta ministrare, ut ipse testatur serm. 66. in Can¬ tica. Quod idem postea etiam docuerunt Albigenses, ut refert S. Antoninus in summa Theologica, par. IV. tit. 11. cap. 7. §. 5. Inter utrosque autem exstiterunt Walden- ses, qui bonis laicis concedebant ministeria Sacramentorum, atque illa eadem malis sa¬ cerdotibus detrahebant, teste S. Antonino, par. IV. tit. 11. cap. 7. §. 2. Atque huc res¬ pexit S. Thomas lib. IV. cont. Gentes, cap. 77. cum ait esse quemdam errorem, quod omnes boni, et nulli mali possint esse ido¬ nei Sacramentorum ministri : quod idem omnino est cum eo, quod Lutherus initio dicebat, eos omnes, et solos esse sacerdo¬ tes, qui habent Spiritum Christi. Denique post hos omnes exstitit Joannes Wiclef, qui hanc hseresim non parum locu¬ pletavit. Nam non solum peccatores, sive occultos, sive manifestos, sed etiam bonos in prajsenti, sed malos aliquando futuros, id est, prajscitos, negant Sacramenta posse conficere. Vide de hoc errore Concilium Constantiense sess. VIII. et Thomam Wal- densem tomo II. cap. 14. Quantum ad Secundum; Refutarunt hanc hajresim multi ac veteres summi Pontifices: Ac primum in ipso ejus exortu S. Stepha- nus Papa et Martyr, ut refert Eusebius lib. VII. histor. cap. 2. et seq. Deinde Siricius ✓ CAPUT XXVI. 409 in epist. 4. ad Himerium, Innocentius I. in epist. 22. ad Macedoniae Episcopos, Leo epist. 77. ad Nicetam, Anastasius II, in epist. ad Anastasium Imperatorem, et alii. Secundo damnarunt eamdein hceresim Concilia. Primo Concilium Nicaenum gene¬ rale. Id enim frequentissime testatur S. Au¬ gustinus lib. II. de Baptismo, cap. 3, i, 5, 7, 9, et alibi, sed quia nusquam Augusti¬ nus vocat illud Concilium Nicamum, mulli dubitant de quo Concilio loquatur. At nulla est causa dubitandi ; nam vocat Concilium plenarium orbis terrae. Nullum autem novit Augustinus orbis teme Concilium, nisi Ni¬ caenum. Nam quatuor tantum facta sunt Au¬ gustini tempore Concilia generalia, Nicae¬ num, Sardicense, Constantinopolitanum I. et Ephesinum I. Sed ex his Ephesinum I. indictum fuit paulo ante mortem Augustini, et post mortem ejus celebratum; ex epistola Africanorum ad Imperatorem Theodosium juniorem. Concilium Constantinopolitanum de hac questione non tractavit. Adde quod Augustinus lib. II. de Baptis¬ mo, cap. 9. testatur Concilium plenarium, in quo haec veritas definita est, ante cele¬ bratum fuisse, quam ipse nasceretur. Con¬ stat autem solum Nicaenum celebratum esse ante Augustini nativitatem. Nam Concilium Nicaenum actum est anno 327. Augustinus natus est anno 357. Concilium Constantino¬ politanum actum est anno 383, Yide Chro¬ nicum Eusebii eugi additione Prosperi. Con¬ cilium Sardicense nec de ista quaestione tractavit, nec notum fuit Augustino ut os¬ tendimus in disputatione de jure appellatio¬ nis, et VI Concilio Carthaginiensi. Praeterea in Concilio Nicaeno canon. 19. jubentur Paulianistae rebaptizari, ex quo' aperte deducitur caeterorum haereticorum Baptisma approbatum a Concilio fuisse. Denique (quod unum sufficere deberet) S. Hieronymus in Dialogo contra Luciferia- nos extremo, sic ait : « Synodus quoque Nicaena omnes haereticos suscipit, exceptis Pauli Samosateni discipulis. » Haec ille. Ubi apertissime dicit, a Synodo Nicaena appro¬ batum Baptisma haereticorum omnium (de hac enim re loquebatur) exceptis quibus¬ dam, qui nimirum non utebantur forma le¬ gitima. Non diu post damnavit eumdem errorem Concilium. Carthaginiense I. can. I. praesi¬ dente Grato Episcopo, temporibus Constan¬ tini Imperatoris, cujus Concilii meminit etiam S. Augustinus, lib. II. cap. 2. de Baptismo contra Donatistas. Item Arelatense I. canon. 8. eodem tempore : ac diu postea Concilium Constantiense sess. VIII. et. Tri- dentinum sess. VII. can. 12. Tertio, refutarunt Doctores permulti, ac praecipue Augustinus in omnibus libris con¬ tra Donatistas. Optatus in libris contra Par- menianum, Ilieronym. in Dialogo contra Luciferianos, Nazianzenus in orat, de Bap¬ tismo, S. Thomas lib. IV. contra Gentes cap. 77. et Thomas Waldensis tom. II. ab initio per multa- capita, ubi etiam multorum multa profert testimonia. Porro argumenta praecipua, quibus utun¬ tur, tria sunt. Primo adferunt traditionem, et consuetudinem antiquissimam ab Apos¬ tolorum tempore. Iloc enim argumento prae¬ cipue usum sanctura Stephanum Papam testatur S. Cyprianus in epist. ad Pom¬ peium. Eodem argumento utitur passim S. Augustinus lib. I. de Baptismo, cap. 9. « Consuetudinis, inquit, robore tenebatur oi’bis terrarum, et haec sola opponebatur inducere volentibus novitatem. » Vincentius autem Lirinensis in commonitorio, dicit tantum valuisse apud Ecclesiam Catholicam hoc argumentum ductum a traditione, et consuetudine Ecclesiae, ut hoc uno supera¬ ta fuerit causa S. Cypriani, qui summa elo¬ quentia, et frequentissimo sanctorum Epis¬ coporum Concilio, et multis divinae Scrip¬ turae testimoniis contra veritatem pugnabat. Ex quo intelligiraus Lutherum cum suis, contrarium spiritum habere ei, quem habuit vetus, et vera Christi Ecclesia. Lutherus enim propter unum Scripturae testimonium perperam intellectum, contemnit aeternam consuetudinem, ut ipsemet loquitur in lib. de abroganda Missa ; et in lib. de instituen¬ dis ministris ad Pragenses. At vetus Eccle¬ sia ex consuetudine ducentorum, vel trecen¬ torum annorum explicabat omnia testimo¬ nia, quae Cyprianus cum suis adferebat; et merito : Nam cura certum sit, consuetudinem universas Ecclesiae perpetuam non posse cum verbo Dei pugnare, et clarior sit consuetudo, quam ipsum verbum; recte judicabant illi, ex consuetudine verbum Dei esse interpretan¬ dum, non ob verbum Dei obscurum et ambi¬ guum, consuetudinem abolendam, utLuthe- rani hoc tempore faciendum esse contendunt. Secundo adferebant rationem in verbo Dei fundatam, quas potest hoc syllogismo concludi. Minister Sacramentorum ope- •110 LIBER I. ratur virtute, et auctoritate divina, Deus autem non aufert a ministro datam ei potes¬ tatem ob ejus peccatum, aut infidelitatem; ergo.etc, Probatur Major ; nam Scripturae passim hoc docent. Joan. I : Hic est qui baptizat in Spiritu sancto. Praecipuus ergo auctor in Baptismo Christus est, non minister, ut fuse hinc deducit Augustinus, tract. 5. in Joan. I. Corint. III : Neque qui plantat est aliquid, neque qui rigat , sed qui magmentum dat Deus (I). Praeterea si ministri sua virtute baptizarent, essent diversa Baptismata, alia aliis meliora pro diversitate meritorum, et excellentiae baptizantium. At unum est Bap¬ tisma, ad Ephes. IV. Item Apostoli num- quam appellarunt Baptismum, suum, quem aliis conferebant, cum tamen aliquando ap¬ pellarent Evangelium suum, quod praedica¬ bant, Rom. XVI. et II. Timot. II : Juxta Evangelium meum. Ergo in Baptismo nihil suum agnoscebant, nisi nudum ministerium. Denique ajquum fuit, ut Sacramenta non penderent ab humana virtute, ne homines in hominibus confidere assuescerent, cum scriptum sit : Maledictus homo qui confidit in homine (2). Probatur jam minor propositio. Nam auc¬ toritas conferendi Sacramenta, non est gratia gratum faciens, sed gratis data : non ergo ita pugnat cum improbitate vitee, utsi- mul cum ea esse non possit. Constat enim ejusmodi gratias in peccatoribus esse pos¬ se, ut patet de Caipha, qui prophetavit, cum tamen esset pessimus. Joan. XI. 51. item de illis, qui Matth. VII, 22. dicunt : Nonne in nomine tuo daemonia ejecimus ? etc. Secundo ; Auctoritas conferendi Sacra¬ menta, non datur in utilitatem habentis, sed aliorum : igitur non erat conveniens, ut auferretur propter peccatum habentis ; sic enim unus puniretur ob culpam alterius. Tertio ; Deus non aufert ob peccata po¬ testatem jurisdictionis, ut patet I. Pet. II. ubi jubet Apostolus, ut Christiani obediant Dominis] suis, non tantum bonis et modes¬ tis, sed etiam discolis : et ibidem jubet obe- diri Regibus, aliisque magistratibus genti¬ lium, qui infideles erant ; igitur multo minus aufert potestatem ordinis. Nam si potestas auferretur ad puniendum eum, qui illam habet, magis deberet auferri potestas juris¬ dictionis, quam ordinis; quia illa magis amatur, et proinde magis punitur, cui illa tollitur, et praeterea magis dependet potes¬ tas jurisdictionis a probitate vitae ejus, in quo est, quam potestas ordinis. Nam magis dominantur passiones in imperando, quam in Sacramentis ministrandis, ut patet expe¬ rientia. Quarto; Non aufert Deus hominibus ob peccata naturales potentias ad opera natu¬ ralia, ut notum est : igitur nec auferre debet supernaturalem potestatem ad opera super- naturalia, in quibus non consistit meritum operantis. Nam non minus Deus providit bono totius Ecclesia}, quam bono mundi hujus. Quinto ; Judas peccator erat et reprobus, et tamen baptizabat, ut colligit Augustin. tract. 5. in Joann. ex illo Joan. IV : Ipse non baptizabat , sed discipuli ejus. Et quod efficaciter Judas baptizaverit, docet idem Augustinus ex eo, quod non legimus rebap- tizatos, quos ille baptizaverat. Tertium argumentum sumitur a similibus rebus. Nam in primis apud Judaeos circum¬ cisi a Samaritanis, qui ha}retici erant He¬ braeis, non circumcidebantur iterum, sed admittebantur, ut rite circumcisi, ut Augus¬ tinus docet lib. I. contra Cresconium, cap. 31. Deinde, verbum Dei efficaciter praedi¬ catur ab improbis, ut colligit Augustinus lib. IV. de Baptismo, cap. H. ex Matth. XXIII : Qua' dicunt , facite ^quee faciunt, nolite facere; et ad Philippens.I ; Quidam ex conten¬ tione Christum annuntiant non sincere , existi¬ mantes pressuram se suscitare vinculis meis. Quid enim? dum omni modo , sive per occasionem, sive per veritatem Christus annuntietur, et in hoc gaudeo, sed et gaudebo (3). Praeterea nihil refert ad efficaciam sementis, et plantatio¬ nis, ut idem Augustinus ratiocinatur lib. III. in Cresconium, cap. 8. an lotis manibus, an sordidis id fiat, modo bonum sit semen, et terra fertilis, nec desit calor solis, et pluvia de coelo. Item ut Nazianzenus docet in orat, de Baptismo, non minus recte imprimit ima¬ ginem Regis sigillum ferreum, quam sigil¬ lum aureum. Item ut idem Augustinus do¬ cet lib. III. de Baptismo, cap. 10. lumen solis, vel etiam lampadum non inquinatur, etiamsi per lutum transeat, et loca coenosa. Denique, ut idem habet Augustinus tract. (1) Joan. I, 33; I. Cor. III, 7. — (2) Roro. XVI, 25; II. Tiro. II, 8. — (3) Matth. XXIII. 3; Philip. 1, 17 et 18. CAPUT XXVI. 411 5. in Joan. parum refert, utrum aqua ad areolas irrigandas per canalem lapideum, an per argenteum transeat. Quoad Tertium; Argumenta haereticorum refelluntur ab Augustino diligentissime in libris septem contra Donatistas, Praecipua erant haec. Primum : Nemo dat, quod non habet. Haeretici et impii non habent remis¬ sionem peccatorum ; igitur non dant : quare non efficaciter Sacramenta ministrant. Respondeo ad Minorem, haereticos non habere remissionem peccatorum formaliter, tamen habere ministerialiter, quomodo fa¬ mulus, qui saepe non habet unum obolum, tamen defert multos aureos a Domino suo ad alium aliquem. Et in rebus naturalibus et artificialibus, effectus non debet esse si¬ milis instrumento, sed causae principali. Non habet calor formam substantialem ignis, nec habet dolabra formam cathedrae : et ta¬ men eas efficiunt instrumentaliter. Adde Praeterea distinguendum esse ipsum Sacramentum ab effectu ipsius ; et inter ef¬ fectus distinguendum esse characterem a gratia : haec enim omnia separari possunt ab invicem. Poterit igitur fieri, ut haereticus baptizet, et characterem, ac gratiam confe¬ rat, ut si baptizet infantem. Item ut gratiam non conferat , quia is qui baptizatur ponit obicem infidelitatis credens haeretico : sed non ideo inanis est Baptismus; nam efficit characterem. Item ut nec characterem, nec gratiam conferat, ut si det extremam unctio¬ nem aegroto haeretico : tamen adhuc etiam tunc verum Sacramentum, et Sacramentum efficax ministrat, licet in suscipiente nihil operetur ob ejus indispositionem. Ubi no¬ tandum cum Augjustino lib. VI de Baptismo cap. 1. hanc fuisse praecipuam causam erro¬ ris Cypriani, et aliorum, qui non distingue¬ bant inter Sacramenta, et eorum usum et ef¬ fectum. Secundum argumentum contra solutionem praecedentis : Qui non habet Spiritum sanc¬ tum, non potest remittere peccata : dictum est enim Joan. XX : Accipite Spiritum sanc¬ tum, quorum remiseritis peccata , remittuntur m(l). At haeretici, et impii non habent Spi¬ ritum sanctum; ergo etc. Respondeo, negando minorem. Siquidem per Spiritum sanctum eo loco intelligimus potestatem remittendi peccata, ut intelligunt Chrysostomus etCyrillus in eum locum. Po¬ test autem et potestas esse sine gratia gratum faciente. Quod autem nomine Spiritus sancti intolligi possint quaelibet ejus dona, licet non faciant hominems anctura, patet ex I. Cor. XII : Unicuique datur manifestatio spiritus ad utilitatem , alii datur per spiritum sermo sa¬ pientia ? etc. Et I. Corinth. XIV: Spiritus Pro¬ phetarum Prophetis subjecti sunt (2). Ubi spi¬ ritum vocat donum prophetandi a Spiritu sancto datum. Posset etiam dici, voluisse Dominum sig¬ nificare illis verbis : Accipite Spiritum Sanc¬ tum etc. effectum Sacramentorum praecipue pendere a virtute Spiritus sancti : proinde necessarium esse, ut saltem assistat Spiritus, et sic accipiatur saltem ut assistens, et ope¬ rans in Sacramentis , licet non operetur in ipso ministro. Assistit autem Spiritus sanc¬ tus Sacramentis suis semper (ut Augustinus recte docet lib. III de Baptismo cap. 10.) etiamsi minister sit adulter, vel homicida; quia Sacramentum numquamest adulterum. Denique , quia non desunt qui hoc loco per Spiritum sanctum intelligant Spiritum, ut gratiam, et charitatem largitur, ac diffun¬ dit in cordibus nostris , ut Ambrosius serm. 10. in Psal. CXVI1I. et Augustinus in com¬ mentario cap. XX Joannis : ideo possumus addere, gratiam quidem Spiritus sancti dari per sacram Ordinationem cum potestate re¬ mittendi peccata ; sed non inde colligi pos¬ se, eum, qui gratiam non habet, non posse peccata remittere. Non enim gratia illa idem est cum potestate remittendi peccata , ne¬ que cum illa ita conjuncta, ut separari ne¬ queat : nam non datur , ut qui eam habet, possit peccata remittere, sed ut non offendat Deum in tam sancto ministerio , si ipse ini¬ micus Dei permanens alios Deo reconciliare praesumat. Tertium argumentum : Sacramenta sunt v solius Ecclesiae Catholicae , quam Christus condidit; at haeretici sunt extra Ecclesiam in synagoga Satanae. Respondeo, Sacramenta semper esse Ec¬ clesiae , etiamsi interdum extra Ecclesiam reperiantur. Quocirca cum veniunt ad Ec¬ clesiam baptizati ab haereticis, agnoscen¬ dum est quod est Ecclesiae, id est , Baptis¬ ma, et retinendum, corrigendus vero error. Alioqui etiam Evangelium, et alia multa bo¬ na, et vera repudianda essent , quae inter¬ dum apud haereticos inveniuntur. (1) Joan. XX, 22 et 23. — (2) I. Cor. XII, 7 et 8; XIV, 32. 412 LIBER I. Possent Ultimo adferri qucedam loca Pa¬ trum, ut Athanasii serm. 3. contra Arianos; ubi dicit, omnes haereticos habere inutilem aquam. Item Ambrosii lib. de iis, qui mys¬ teriis initiantur cap. 4. ubi dicit : « Non sa¬ nat Baptismus perfidorum; » Et Leonis ep. 77. ad Nicetam cap. ult. ubi dicit, nullum haereticum posse dare per Sacramenta sanc¬ tificationem. Respondeo ; Athanasius duo dicit. Primum sic ait : « Ariani autem veniunt in pericu¬ lum, ne amittant integritatem mysterii , lo¬ quor autem de Baptismate. » Secundo ab¬ solute negat Baptismum Arianorum , aut aliorum haereticorum mundare: «Non enim, inquit , qui simpliciter ait , Domine, is est, qui donat legitimum Baptisma , sed qui no¬ men exprimit, et fidem rectam habet.» Prio¬ ri loco agit de ipsa substantia Sacramenti, et ideo non dicit, absolute Baptismum Aria¬ norum non esse integrum, sed ait periculum esse, ne aliquando non sit integrum , quia nimirum facile erat , ut corrumperent for¬ mam, et nomine Patris, et Fili dicerent fac¬ torem, et facturam, ut ipse ibidem ait. Pos¬ teriori loco non agit de substantia , sed de utilitate Sacramenti : et ideo absolute haere¬ ticos, quia carent recta fide, non sanctifica¬ re eos, quos baptizant, quod intelligitur de illis, qui eis in haeresi consentiunt. Et eodem modo loquuntur Ambrosius , et Leo, et alii. Unde numquam dicunt isti Patres , Baptis¬ mum haereticorum esse iterandum , quod certe dicerent , si de substantia loqueren¬ tur.