Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacraments in General · Book II: On the Effect, Number, and Ceremonies of the Sacraments
Chapter 1: What is the state of the question on the efficacy of the Sacraments
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. III, De Sacramentis in Genere, Book II: On the Effect, Number, and Ceremonies of the Sacraments. 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).
As to the first, it must be explained what it is that is asked when it is disputed of the efficacy of the Sacraments ex opere operato. For the adversaries, to render the opinion of the Catholics odious, wrongly expound it. Four things, then, are here to be noted. First, that the state of the question is not that which Calvin sets down, book 4 of the Institutes chapter 14 section 17, in these words: “Here it is only asked whether God works by his own proper and intrinsic virtue, as they speak, or resigns his functions to external symbols.” So he. But no one ever disputed that question; for that would be to ask whether the Sacraments are primary causes, which could never come into the mind of anyone but a madman. This alone, then, we ask: whether they are instruments of God — that is, whether God justifies us through the Sacraments — not whether the Sacraments justify without God. Just as no one ever asked whether the workman works, or whether the saw resigns its functions, since it is established that the saw does nothing without the workman.
From which it follows that it is a falsehood, and a most vain calumny of the heretics, who say that we draw men away from Christ and from his Passion, and bind them to signs, because we teach that the Sacraments are causes of justification. For on the contrary, rather by this very thing we draw men to Christ and his Passion, that we say the Sacraments are the instruments of Christ, by which he applies to us the merit of his Passion; unless perhaps he be said to draw men away from fire who says that heat is the instrument by which fire warms. And yet thus Calvin speaks in the same place, book 4 chapter 14 section 16: “He who derives the cause of justice from the Sacraments binds the wretched minds of men, of themselves more than enough inclined to the earth, by this superstition, so that they rest in the spectacle of a corporeal thing rather than in God himself.” And Luther has like things, and others.
Second, it is to be noted that there is no controversy about the manner in which the Sacraments are causes — that is, whether by physically attaining the effect, or only morally; and again, if physically, whether by some inhering quality, or by the sole motion of God; for these do not pertain to a question of faith; but only in general, whether the Sacraments are true and proper instrumental causes of justification, so that truly from the fact that one is baptized it follows that he is justified. For in this all Catholics agree, as Luther himself confesses in the book On the Babylonian captivity, chapter On Baptism: “Very many,” he says, “have thought that there is some hidden spiritual virtue in the word and water, which works in the soul of the receiver the grace of God. Others, contradicting these, hold that there is no virtue in the Sacraments, but that grace is given by God alone, because he assists by covenant the Sacraments instituted by himself; yet all in this concede that the Sacraments are efficacious signs of grace.” So he. And this suffices for faith, and for the legitimate use of the Sacraments; in the way that in the miracles of Christ it was not required that the men who were to be cured should know in what kind of cause the hem of Christ healed — it was enough that they should know and believe that the touch of that hem brought health; nor was it needful that the Apostles themselves, who cured by laying on hands, should know how it was done. So too it is not necessary that either the ministers or those who receive the Sacraments should know how the Sacraments are causes of justification.
Add that this is common to many mysteries of faith, that we only have from the Scriptures that a thing is, and yet are ignorant of the manner: as that God is three and one; that Christ is God and man; that bodies rise the same in number; that Christ is whole in the Eucharist, etc. So too in this matter it is enough that it can be proved from the faith of the Scriptures that the Sacraments are causes of grace; how it is done is most difficult to understand, much less to explain. Nor is this a marvel. For if of natural things, which God made, although they fall under the senses, a man cannot render the reason, as Solomon says, Ecclesiastes 8, how much more will an exact reason not be able to be rendered of supernatural things? Yet the Scholastics dispute of these things not uselessly, to show that in various ways what faith teaches can be defended; and they say many things probably; but these do not pertain to faith. Wherefore the adversaries, and chiefly Kemnitz in the second part of the Examen, in the chapter On the efficacy of the Sacrament and the chapter On the opus operatum, and Heshusius in the book On the 600 errors of the Pontificians title 15, which is on the Sacraments, do not rightly reprehend and impugn the opinions of the Scholastics about the manner of the Sacraments' effecting, as though we believed them to pertain to the faith of the Catholic Church.
Third, it is to be noted what it is to confer grace ex opere operato. For the adversaries reprehend the name as new, and wrongly expound the thing itself. Calvin in the Antidote to the Council of Trent session 7 canon 8 calls it “monsters of words,” to confer grace ex opere operato. Kemnitz in the second part of the Examen page 115 says that the Council, when it brought forth this word, did not keep the form of sound words which Paul bids be held, 2 Timothy 1. But there is no reason for a great contention about the name. For there is here no novelty, except that against the rule of grammar operatum is taken passively. But neither is this new. For even in the epistle to the Hebrews chapter 13, against the rule of grammar, promeretur is taken passively, when we read: For by such sacrifices God's favour is obtained. And St. Augustine on Psalm 138 preferred to say ossum, ossi rather than os, ossis, that he might be more easily understood: “It is better,” he says, “that the grammarians reprehend us than that the peoples not understand.”
As to the matter, they say that we understand two things by the opus operatum, which yet are both false and mutually repugnant. First they affirm that opus operatum signifies a meritorious work, or the dignity of the work on the part of the minister or of the recipient. First Luther so wrongly expounded it in the Babylonian captivity, chapter On Baptism, where he says that the Papists made of the Sacrament a precept, and of faith a work; as if he should say, the Papists think that the Sacraments give grace because he who receives the Sacrament does a good work commanded by God. Then Calvin book 4 of the Institutes chapter 14 section 26: “Whatever the Sophists have trifled about the opus operatum is not only false, but fights with the nature of the Sacraments, which God instituted that the faithful, empty and void of all goods, should bring nothing to them but their beggary. Whence it follows that in receiving them they do nothing whereby they may merit praise, nor in this action, which in their respect is merely passive, can any work be ascribed to them.” The same he has in the Antidote session 7 canon 8, where he refutes that the Sacraments confer grace ex opere operato in no other way than because it is absurd that the efficacy of the Sacrament depend on the merits of men. Finally Kemnitz in the second part of the Examen page 95: “There were,” he says, “those who placed the virtue of the Sacraments in the very work by which the Sacraments are either celebrated or received, so that the Sacraments were said to confer grace from the dignity and merit of the work which either he who celebrates or he who receives performs.”
That this is a false exposition, and a witness of their ignorance or malice, is plain from this, that all Catholics oppose the opus operatum to the opus operantis, and by the opus operantis understand the good or meritorious work of the worker himself. Then, since both Catholics and Lutherans teach against the Donatists that the efficacy of the Sacraments does not depend on the goodness of the minister, how could it fall into the mind of anyone that the Catholics believed the Sacraments to confer grace from the dignity and merit of the minister? For it cannot be doubted that a good work and merit depend on the goodness of the worker; for a bad tree cannot bring forth good fruit, Matthew 7. In like manner, since all Catholics teach that the Sacraments confer grace, and often the first grace, so as to make a man just from impious, how can it be that they believe the Sacraments to confer grace from the dignity and merit of the receiver? For if he who receives the Sacrament could do good and meritorious works before the reception of the Sacrament, he would not be impious, but just.
The second false exposition is that to confer grace ex opere operato is to confer grace on a sinner without faith and a good motion of the heart of that same sinner, so that the force of the opus operatum was devised to exclude faith and internal penance in the business of justification. Luther in the Babylon, chapter On Baptism: “Hence,” he says, “they were impelled to attribute so much to the Sacraments of the new law that they laid down that they profit even those who are in mortal sins, and that neither faith nor grace is required.” Calvin in the Antidote session 7 canon 5: “They feign,” he says, “that there is a magical force underlying the Sacraments, which is efficacious apart from faith.” And canon 8: “If,” he says, “it be granted them, what they demand, that grace is obtained in the Sacraments ex opere operato, the part of merit is separated from faith, so that the use of the Sacrament avails of itself unto salvation.” Kemnitz in the second part of the Examen page 125: “The Pontificians,” he says, “defend the opinion of the opus operatum, namely that through the Sacraments grace is so conferred on the users that a good interior motion is not required in the receiver.” Like things have Philip in the Augsburg Confession article 13 and its Apology, and Heshusius in the book On the six hundred errors of the Pontificians title 15.
But this exposition fights with the former. For if the opus operatum is the meritorious work of the receiver, how can it be that the opus operatum excludes faith, since without faith no good merit can be understood? For without faith it is impossible to please God, Hebrews 11. It is besides a false exposition, and a mere calumny and falsehood. For the Council of Trent itself, session 6 chapter 6, expressly teaches that the beginning of justification is made both by faith and by penance; and the same all the Theologians teach, as we showed above in chapter 2 in the refutation of the falsehoods.
Therefore, that we may understand what the opus operatum is, it is to be noted that in the justification which one receives while he receives the Sacraments, many things concur: namely, on the part of God, the will of using that sensible thing; on the part of Christ, his Passion; on the part of the minister, power, will, probity; on the part of the receiver, will, faith, and penance; finally, on the part of the Sacrament, the very external action, which arises from the due application of form and matter. But of all these, that which actively, proximately, and instrumentally effects the grace of justification is that external action alone which is called the Sacrament; and this is called the opus operatum, taking operatum passively; so that for the Sacrament to confer grace ex opere operato is the same as to confer grace from the force of the sacramental action itself, instituted by God for this, not from the merit of the agent or of the receiver; which St. Augustine, book 4 On Baptism chapter 24, expressed in those words: “The Sacrament itself, of itself, avails much.” For the will of God, which uses the Sacrament, concurs indeed actively, but is the principal cause. The Passion of Christ concurs, but is the meritorious cause, not the effective, since it is not in act, but is past, though it remains objectively in the mind of God. The power and will of the minister concur necessarily, but are remote causes; for they are required to effect the sacramental action itself, which afterward immediately works. The probity of the minister is required that the minister himself not sin in ministering the Sacraments; yet it is not the cause of grace in the receiver, nor does it help the receiver by way of a Sacrament, but only by way of impetration and example. The will, faith, and penance in an adult receiver are necessarily required as dispositions on the part of the subject, not as active causes; for faith and penance do not effect the sacramental grace, nor give efficacy to the Sacraments, but only take away the obstacles which would impede the Sacraments from being able to exercise their efficacy; whence in children, where a disposition is not required, justification is made without these things.
An example can be had in a natural thing. If, to burn wood, first the wood were dried, then fire were struck from flint, then the fire applied to the wood, and so at last the burning were made, no one would say that the immediate cause of the burning is the dryness, or the striking of fire from the flint, or the application of the fire to the wood, but only the fire, as the primary cause, and only the heat, or heating, as the instrumental cause.
Fourth, the fraud and unskillfulness of Kemnitz is to be noted. For in the second part of the Examen, chapter On the opus operatum, he confesses that certain of the Catholics, as Gropper and Alphonsus, rightly expound what the opus operatum is; but he adds that the other Catholics did not so think, nor the Council of Trent itself, and therefore that the controversy still remains entire. But the wretched Kemnitz could understand neither these nor those, or certainly would not understand them: “They feign,” he says — namely Gropper and Alphonsus — “that injury is done to the Scholastic Doctors, as though by the opinion of the opus operatum they taught that the Sacraments confer grace on someone without faith receiving grace; but they say that the Scholastics meant nothing else by the disputation on the opus operatum than that the truth of the Sacraments is not to be estimated from the dignity or merit of the working minister, but from the institution, power, and operation of God the author.” And below: “If the Pontificians meant this when they dispute of the opus operatum, since the opinion is true, there would be no controversy. But neither did all the Scholastics of old think this, nor even now do the Pontificians mean this when they fight for the opinion of the opus operatum, but a far other monster is nourished under those exotic words, and thrust upon the Church.” So he; in whose words there are three false things. First, that he says Gropper and Alphonsus feign that injury is done to the Scholastics, etc.; for they do not feign this, but say most truly, as we have often proved, and shall prove again a little later. Second, that he says there would be no controversy if all Catholics said the same as Gropper and Alphonsus. For in truth we all say the same, and yet the controversy remains. For those two authors not only say that the Sacraments do not take their efficacy from the dignity of the minister, and do not exclude faith — which pleases Kemnitz and us — but also say that the Sacraments have a true efficacy, or efficiency, for producing grace from the divine institution; which cannot please Kemnitz, since he (as we shall soon see) attributes to the Sacraments no efficiency except for nourishing faith by way of an object representing the divine promise. Third, that he says neither the Scholastics of old nor the Pontificians now understand the opus operatum as Gropper and Alphonsus expound it — namely, so as not to exclude faith. That this is a falsehood will be made plain from the refutation of his arguments.
First, then, he proves it because all the Scholastics say that the Sacraments of the new law give grace ex opere operato, but those of the old law gave it ex opere operantis; but if the opus operatum excluded the dignity of the minister, Circumcision too would have given grace ex opere operato, for the malice of the circumcising minister did no harm. Not, therefore, according to the opinion of the Scholastics, does the opus operatum exclude only the dignity of the minister, but also the faith and internal motion of the receiver, which pertain to the opus operantis and were necessary in the old law. I answer, first: Some Scholastics, as Gabriel (whom Kemnitz cites a little later), when they say that the old Sacraments did not confer grace ex opere operato, except Circumcision; and accordingly with them Kemnitz's argument would avail nothing. Second I say: the opus operatum excludes not only the dignity of the minister, but also faith and internal motion from the efficiency of the sacramental grace. For, as we said, although these are required in adults, yet they are not the things which effect grace, but the Sacrament itself, as the instrument of God. But in the Sacraments of the old law, the Sacrament itself did not properly work grace, but either the faith and devotion of the receiver, or of the whole Synagogue, or something else, as we shall say afterward. And so Kemnitz's argument proves that the opus operatum, according to the opinion of the Scholastics, excludes faith and internal motion from the efficiency of the sacramental grace; but it does not prove what was to be proved, namely that it excludes faith and internal motion simply, so that the Sacraments (as they calumniate) confer grace on those receiving them without faith and without internal conversion of the heart.
Second, he proves it from Gabriel, who in book 4 distinction 1 question 3 says that then there is an opus operatum when an internal motion is not required. I answer: he cites Gabriel corruptly; for Gabriel immediately subjoins, “a motion by which one may merit grace of congruity or of condignity.” Gabriel, then, does not exclude the internal motion disposing to grace, but the one meritorious of grace. For although that disposition can be meritorious of grace by congruity, or even of the increase of grace by condignity, if it be an act proceeding from charity, yet that is a grace which is given for the disposition; another is that which is given from the force of the Sacrament, as the same author explains in book 4 distinction 4 question 2 conclusion 4 to the first. Third, he proves it from Paludanus, who in book 4 distinction 1 question 1 conclusion 2 proof 4 says that it is not required in the Sacraments that a man dispose himself, but that the disposition is effected by the Sacrament itself, and that this is to cause grace ex opere operato. I answer: Kemnitz did not understand Paludanus. For Paludanus speaks not of the disposition which is the internal motion of the receiver, as faith and penance, which motions the same Paludanus expressly says are required in the Sacraments, distinction 4 question 5; but he speaks of a certain ultimate disposition, upon which he himself thinks grace immediately follows, and he says that this disposition is the character in three Sacraments, in the others a certain adornment of the soul. For since Paludanus could not understand how the Sacrament effected grace, he devised that opinion, that it effected a certain disposition upon which grace immediately followed. Of which matter it pertains to the Scholastics to dispute. Fourth, he proves it from Marsilius in book 4 of the Sentences question 2 article 2, and Messingprot on chapter 6 of John, who distinguish the opus operatum against the internal devotion of the worker. I answer: they distinguish, not so as to exclude it altogether, but so as to exclude it from the efficiency, as we said. Fifth, he proves it from St. Thomas, Paludanus, and Gabriel, who say that the Mass profits ex opere operato even those who have not penance in the heart. I answer: they speak of the sacrifice, not of the Sacrament. Now the sacrifice profits the impenitent by way of impetration, because it impetrates for them conversion and penance; in the way that our prayers too, though not so efficaciously, do this. Sixth, he proves it from this, that many of the Catholics prove that the Sacraments effect grace ex opere operato because Baptism profits little ones, not having faith or any internal motion; therefore in the same manner in adults they exclude faith and interior motion, for in adults too they will have the Sacraments to have force ex opere operato. I answer: the Catholics most efficaciously prove by the example of little ones that the efficacy of the Sacraments does not depend on any quality of the receiver. Nor yet does it thence follow that they exclude faith and penance in adults; for these are required in adults as dispositions, of which dispositions little ones have no need, as will be demonstrated in its place.
Then Kemnitz proves that the Council of Trent by the opus operatum meant to exclude faith and internal motion. First, because, since the Scholastics variously expound the opus operatum, and some will have the internal motion excluded, others not, the Council in canon 8, simply admitting the opus operatum, and not restricting it to this rather than to that exposition, is judged to have approved all. I answer: it is false that by any Scholastics the internal motion is excluded by the opus operatum. Then, if it were so, the Council would have approved none, but would only have defined in general that the Sacraments confer grace ex opere operato. Second, because the Council canon 12 defines that the Sacraments do not depend on the dignity of the minister; therefore in canon 8, by the opus operatum, it does not understand that the Sacrament does not depend on the dignity of the minister, as Gropper expounds the opus operatum, but something else, namely that the faith of the receiver is not required. I answer: for the Sacraments to confer grace ex opere operato does not properly signify a negation — that is, not to depend on the dignity of the minister — but signifies an affirmation — that is, that the Sacraments by their own force effect grace — from which follows the negation, that is, that they do not depend on the dignity of the minister or of the receiver. And so the Council in canon 8 defined that affirmation against the Lutherans; then in canon 12 it defined the negation against the Donatists and Anabaptists. Third, he proves it because the Council in that canon 8 opposes the opus operatum to faith; therefore it means that faith is excluded by the opus operatum. I answer: if the Antecedent were true, the Consequence could be denied; for if the Council opposed the opus operatum to faith, it would mean that faith is excluded from the efficiency of the sacramental grace, but not excluded simply. But yet the Antecedent is false, because the Council does not oppose the opus operatum to faith, but to faith alone. Which a little below Kemnitz himself also noted.
Besides these arguments Kemnitz adds two express falsehoods, with which he closes his disputation on the opus operatum. For not only did he impose on the Theologians an absurd exposition of the opus operatum, but he also feigns that the Theologians, already convicted by them, dare no longer defend that opinion: “The Pontifician writers themselves,” he says, “now shuffle, nor dare openly to undertake the defense of this axiom, that the use of the Sacraments without faith saves the receivers.” But this, as we have shown, was never an axiom of the Pontificians, but a falsehood of the Lutherans. Then, as a clever man, he even investigates the causes why the Scholastics fell into so absurd an error; and he sets down two causes. One, that when they had read in Augustine book 3 On Baptism chapter 14 that it makes no difference to the integrity of the Sacrament with what faith he is imbued who receives the Sacrament, and did not observe that Augustine speaks of the substance of the Sacrament, not of the utility and fruit, they thence thought that faith is not required for the Sacraments to profit. The other, that when they had read in the same Augustine in epistle 23 that little ones without actual faith salutarily receive the Sacrament, because they place not the obstacle of a contrary thought, they thought that the reason of little ones and of adults is the same. But these causes are frivolous, nay even false. For all the Theologians in book 4 distinction 4 distinguish the Sacrament from the thing of the Sacrament, and teach that the Sacrament even without faith and penance can be received, but not the thing of the Sacrament, that is, grace. Besides, the Council of Trent session 7 canon 13 on Baptism teaches that Baptism profits little ones without their actual faith; and yet session 6 chapters 6 and 8, and session 14 chapter 4, and elsewhere, teaches that in adults faith and penance are necessarily required that they may be justified, and that the Catholic Church always so thought.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT I. Quis sit status quaestionis de efficacia Sacra¬ mentorum. Quod ad Primum atlinet , explicandum est, quid sit, quod quaeritur, cum disputa¬ tur de efficacia Sacramentorum ex opere operato. Nam id adversarii, ut odiosam red¬ dant Catholicorum sententiam , perperam exponunt. Sunt igitur hic Notanda quatuor. Primo, statum quaestionis non esse eum, quem po¬ nit Calvinus lib. IV Instit. cap. 14, §. 17. his verbis : « Tantum hic quaeritur , pro- priane , et intrinseca, ut loquuntur, virtute operetur Deus , an externis symbolis resig¬ net vices suas. » Haec ille. At nemo unquam istam quaestionem disputavit : id enim esset petere, an Sacramenta sint causae primariae, quod nulli unquam venire in mentem potuit, nisi furioso. Id igitur solum quaerimus , an sint instrumenta Dei, id est, an Deus per sa¬ cramenta nos justificet, non autem an Sacra¬ menta sine Deo. Sicut nemo unquam quae¬ sivit, an faber operetur, an serrae vices suas resignet; cum constet, serram sine fabro ni¬ hil agere. Ex quo sequitur esse mendacium, et ca¬ lumniam vanissimam haereticorum, qui di¬ cunt, nos abstrahere homines a Christo, et ab ejus passione, et alligare signis, quia do¬ cemus Sacramenta esse causas justificatio¬ nis. Nam contra potius hoc ipso trahimus homines ad Christum , et ejus passionem, 422 LIBER II. quod dicimus Sacramenta esse Christi ins¬ trumenta, quibus ille nobis applicat meritum passionis suae ; nisi forte retrahere dicatur homines ab igne, qui dicit calorem esse ins¬ trumentum, quo ignis calefacit. Et tamen sic loquitur Calvinus ibidem lib. IV, cap. 14, §. 14 : « Qui justitiae causam a Sacramentis du¬ cit , miseras hominum mentes in terram, suaple sponte plus satis inclinatas, hac super- stione alligat, ut in spectaculo rei corporeae potius, quam in Deo ipso acquiescant. » Et similia Lutherus habet, et alii. Secundo notandum , non esse controver¬ siam de modo quo Sacramenta sint causae, id est, an physice attingendo effectum , an- moraliter tantum, et rursum si physice, an per aliquam qualitatem inhaerentem, an per solam Dei motionem : ista enim ad quajstio- nem fidei non pertinent; sed solum genera- tim, an Sacramenta sint verae , et propriae causae instrumentales justificationis, ut vere exeo, quod quis baptizatur , sequatur, ut justificetur. Nam iu hoc conveniunt omnes Catholici, ut Lutherus ipse fatetur in lib. de captiv. Babyl. cap. de Baptismo : « Arbi¬ trati, inquit, suntquamplurimi esse aliquam virtutem occultam spiritualem in verbo , et aqua , quae operetur in anima recipientis gratiam Dei. His alii contradicentes sta¬ tuunt, nihil esse virtutis in Sacramentis, sed gratiam a solo Deo dari, quia assistit ex pac¬ to Sacramentis a se institutis : omnes tamen in hoc concedunt Sacramenta esse efficacia signa gratiae. » Haec ille. Et hoc sufficit ad fidem, et ad legitimum usum Sacramentorum ; quomodo in miracu¬ lis Christi non requirebatur , ut homines, qui curandi essent , scirent in quo genere causae fimbria Christi sanaret, satis erat, ut scirent; et crederent, tactum illius fimbriae adferre sanitatem : neque opus erat, ut ipsi Apostoli , qui manus imponendo curabant, scirent , quomodo id fieret. Ita quoque non estnecesse, ut vel ministri , vel qui susci¬ piunt Sacramenta, sciant, quomodo Sacra¬ menta sint causae justificationis. Adde quod hoc est commune multis my¬ steriis fidei, ut tantum habeamus ex Scrip¬ turis, esse aliquid, et tamen ignoremus mo¬ dum, ut Deum esse trinum, et unum: Chris¬ tum esse Deum, et hominem : resurgere cor¬ pora eadem numero : Christum totum esse in Eucharistia etc. ita quoque in hac re satis (1) Hebr. XIII, 1G. est, probari posse ex fide Scripturarum, Sa¬ cramenta esse causas gratiae : quomodo id fiat, difficillimum est intelligere, nedum ex¬ plicare. Neque id mirum est. Nam side rebus naturalibus, quas Deus fecit, tfuamquamsub sensum cadunt , non potest homo reddere rationem, ut ait Salomon, Eccles.YIII. quan¬ to magis exacta ratio reddi non poterit de rebus supernaturalibus? Disputant tamen Scholastici de his rebus non inutiliter , ut ostendant variis modis posse defendi id, quod fides docet, et probabiliter multa di¬ cunt ; caeterum ea ad fidem non pertinent. Quare non recte adversarii, ac potissimum Kemnitius in secunda parte Examinis cap. de efficacia Sacramenti , et cap. de opere operato : et Heshusius in lib. de 600 errori¬ bus Pontificiorum tit. 15. qui est de Sacra¬ mentis, Scholasticorum opiniones de modo efficiendi Sacramentorum ita reprehendunt, atque oppugnant, quasi eas ad fidemCatho- licse Ecclesias pertinere credamus. Tertio notandum est, quid sit conferre gra¬ tiam ex opere operato. Nam adversarii re¬ prehendunt nomen, ut novum, et ipsam sen¬ tentiam perperam exponunt. Calvinus in An¬ tidoto Concilii Tridentini sess. YII , can. 8. vocat monstra verborum , conferre gratiam ex opere operato. Kemnitius in 2. par. Exa¬ minis pag. 115. dicit non servasse Conci¬ lium cum hoc verbum protulit, formam sa¬ norum verborum, quam teneri jubet Paulus, II. Tim. I. Sed non est cur de nomine magna con¬ tentio fiat. Nulla enim hic est novitas , nisi quod contra regulam Grammaticae, opera¬ tum, passive accipitur. Sed neque hoc est novum. Nam etiam in epist. ad Hebr. c. XIII. contra regulam Grammaticae passive accipi¬ tur (promeretur) cum legimus : Talibus enim hostiis 'promeretur Deus (1). Et S. Augustinus in Psalm. GXXXVIII. maluit dicere ossum ossi, quam os ossis, ut facilius intelligeretur : « Melius est, inquit, ut nos reprehendant Grammatici, quam ut non intelligant po¬ puli. » Quod ad rem attinet , duo dicunt nos in¬ telligere , per opus operatum , quae tamen, et falsa sunt, et inter se pugnantia. Primo affirmant opus operatum significare opus meritorium, seu dignitatem operis ex parte ministri , vel recipientis. Primus Lutherus ita perperam exposuit in captivitate Baby- / CAPUT I. 423 lonica cap. de Baptismo, ubi dicit, Papistas ex Sacramento fecisse pra?ceplum, et ex fide opus. Quasi dicat, Papistai putant, Sacra¬ menta dare gratiam , quia qui suscipit Sa¬ cramentum, facit opus bonum a Deo praece¬ ptum. Deinde Calvinus Iib. IV Inst. cap. 14, §. 26 : « Quidquid, inquit, de opere operato nugati sunt Sophistae, non modo falsum est, sed pugnat cum Sacramentorum natura, quae instituit Deus, et fideles vacui bonorum omnium, et inopes, nihil praeter mendicita¬ tem eo adferant. Unde sequitur ea recipien¬ do nihil istos agere , unde laudem merean¬ tur, vel in hac actione, quae eorum respectu mere passiva est, nullum illis posse opus ad- scribi. » Idem habet in Antidoto sess. VII, can. 8. ubi non aliter refellit, Sacramenta conferre gratiam ex opere operato, nisi quia absurdum est ex meritis hominum pendere efiicaciam Sacramenti. Tandem Kemnitius in 2. par. Examinis pag. 95 : « Fuerunt, in¬ quit, qui virtutem Sacramentorum in. ipso opere, quo Sacramenta, vel celebrantur, vel suscipiuntur, constituerunt; ita ut Sacra¬ menta dicerentur conferre gratiam ex digni¬ tate, et merito operis, quod exercet , vel is, qui celebrat, vel qui suscipit. » Hanc esse falsam expositionem, et testem ignorantiae, vel malitiae ipsorum patet ex eo, quod omnes Catholici opponunt opus opera¬ tum operi operantis , et per opus operantis intelligunt opus bonum, seu meritorium ip¬ sius operantis. Deinde cum tam Catholici, quam Lutherani doceant contra Donatistas, Sacramentorum efficaciam non pendere a bonitate ministri, quomodo potuit cadere in mentem alicujus, ut Catholici crederent, Sa¬ cramenta conferre gratiam ex dignitate , et merito ministri? Neque enim dubitari po¬ test, quin bonum opus, et meritum pendeat a bonitate operantis, nam : Non potest arbor mala bonos fructus facere [i), Matth. VII. Pari ratione cum omnes Catholici doceant Sacra¬ menta conferre gratiam et saepe primam gra¬ tiam , ita ut hominem ex impio justum fa¬ ciant, quomodo potest fieri, ut credant Sa¬ cramenta conferre gratiam ex dignitate, et merito suscipientis? Nam si is, qui suscipit Sacramentum , posset bona opera, et meri¬ toria facere ante susceptionem Sacramenti, non esset impius, sed justus. Secunda expositio falsa, est, quod conferre gratiam ex opere operato sit conferre gra¬ tiam peccatori sine fide, et bono motu cor¬ dis ejusdem peccatoris, ita ut vis operis ope¬ rati sit excogitata ad excludendam fidem, et poenitentiam internam in negotio justifica¬ tionis. Lutherus in Babylone cap. de Baptis¬ mo : « Hinc, inquit, impulsi sunt tantum tri¬ buere Sacramentis novae legis, ut ea statue¬ rent prodesse etiam iis, qui in peccatis mor¬ talibus sunt, nec requiri fidem, aut gratiam,» Calvinus in Antidoto sess. VII, can. 5: « Fin¬ gunt, inquit , subesse vim magicam Sacra¬ mentis, quae sit extra fidem efficax. » Et ca¬ non. 8 : « Si, inquit, conceditur illis, quod postulant, opere operato comparari gratiam in Sacramentis, separatur a fide pars meriti, ut per se valeat Sacramenti usus ad salu¬ tem. » Kemnitius in 2. par. Examinis pag. 125: « Pontificii, inquit, defendunt opinio¬ nem operis operati, quod scilicet per Sacra¬ menta ita conferatur utentibus gratia, ut non requiratur bonus motus interior in suscipien¬ te. » Similia habent Philippus in Confessio¬ ne Augustana art. 13. et Apologia ejusdem, et Heshusius in libro de sexcentis erroribus Pontificiorum tit. f5. At haec expositio pugnat cum superiore. Nam si opus operatum est opus meritorium suscipientis, quomodo potest fieri , ut opus operatum excludatfidem, cum sine fide nul¬ lum bonum meritum possit intelligi? nam sine fide impossibile est placere Deo (2), Hebr. XI. Est praeterea expositio falsa , et mera calumnia, ac mendacium. Nam ipsum Con¬ cilium Tridentinum sess. VI, cap. 6. diserte docet, initium justificationis fieri et fide, et poenitentia, et idem omnes Theologi docent, ut supra cap. 2. ostendimus in refutatione mendaciorum. Igitur ut intelligamus , quid sit opus ope¬ ratum ; Notandum est, in justificatione, quam recipit aliquis , dum percipit Sacramenta, multa concurrere; nimirum ex parte Dei, voluntatem utendi illa re sensibili ; ex parte Christi, passionem ejus; ex parte ministri, potestatem, voluntatem, probitatem; ex parte suscipientis, voluntatem, fidem et poeniten¬ tiam ; denique ex parte Sacramenti , ipsam actionem externam, quae consurgit ex debi¬ ta applicatione formae et materiae. Caeterum ex his omnibus id, quod active, et proxime, atque instrumentaliter efficit gratiam justifi¬ cationis, est sola actio illa externa, quae Sa¬ cramentum dicitur, et haec vocatur opus ope- (1) Matth. VII, 18. — (2) Hebr. XI, 6. m LIBER II. ratum, accipiendo passive (operatum) ita ut idem sit Sacramentum conferre gratiam ex opere operato, quod conferre gratiam cx vi ipsius actionis Sacramentalis, a Deo ad hoc instituta;, non ex merito agentis , vel susci¬ pientis : quod S. Augustinus lib. IV de Bap¬ tismo cap. 24. expressit illis verbis; «Ipsum per se ipsum Sacramentum multum valet. » Nam voluntas Dei, qua; Sacramento utitur, concurrit quidem active, sed est causa prin¬ cipalis. Passio Christi concurrit, sed est cau¬ sa meritoria, non autem effectiva, cum non sit actu, sed praeterierit, licet maneat objec- tive in mente Dei. Potestas, et voluntas mi¬ nistri concurrunt necessario, sed sunt causae remota;; requiruntur enim ad efficiendam ipsam actionem Sacramentalcm, quae postea immediate operatur. Probitas ministri requi¬ ritur, ut ipse minister non peccet Sacramen¬ ta ministrando , non tamen ipsa est causa gratiae in suscipiente, nec juvat suscipientem per modum Sacramenti, sed solum per mo¬ dum impetrationis et exempli. Voluntas, fi¬ des, et poenitentia in suscipiente adulto ne¬ cessario requiruntur, ut dispositiones expar¬ te subjecti, non ut causae activae : non enim fides et poenitentia efficiunt gratiam Sacra- mentalem, neque dant efficaciam Sacramen¬ tis, sed solum tollunt obstacula, quae impe¬ dirent, ne Sacramenta suam efficaciam exer¬ cere possent; unde in pueris , ubi non re¬ quiritur dispositio, sine his rebus fit justifi¬ catio. Exemplum esse potest in re naturali. Si ad ligna comburenda , primum exsiccaren¬ tur ligna, deinde excuteretur ignis ex silice, tum applicaretur ignis ligno , et sic tandem fieret combustio; nemo diceret, causam im¬ mediatam combustionis esse siccitatem, aut excussionem ignis ex silice , aut appl.catio- nem ignis ad ligna, sed solum ignem, ut causam primariam, et solum calorem, seu calefactionem, ut causam instrumentalem. Quarto , notanda est fraus et imperitia Kemnitii ; Nam in 2. par. Examinis cap. de opere operato, fatetur quosdam ex Catholi¬ cis , ut Gropperum et Alphonsum recte ex¬ ponere, quid sit opus operatum; sed addit, non ita sensisse reliquos Catholicos , neque ipsum Concilium Tridentinum , et ideo ad¬ huc remanere integram controversiam. At miser Kemnitius neque hos , neque illos in- telligere potuit , aut certum intelligere no¬ luit : «Fingunt, inquit, nimirum Gropperus et Alphonsus , injuriam fieri Doctoribus Scholasticis , quasi opinione operis operati docuerint , Sacramenta alicui conferre gra¬ tiam sine fide gratiam accipiente, sed dicunt, nihil aliud ipsos disputatione de opere ope¬ rato voluisse, quam Sacramentorum verita¬ tem non esse ex ministri operantis dignitate, seu merito aestimandam, sed ex Dei auctoris institutione, potentia, et operatione.» Et in¬ fra : « Si hoc vellent Pontificii , quando de opere operato disputant, quia sententia vera est, nulla esset controversia. Sed nec olim Scholastici omnes hoc senserunt, et ne nunc quidem Pontificii hoc volunt , quando pro opinione operis operati dimicant, sed longe aliud monstrum sub. exoticis illis verbis ali¬ tur, et Ecclesia obtruditur. » lliec ille; In cujus verbis tria sunt falsa. Primum, quod ait, Gropperum et Alphon¬ sum fingere fieri Scholasticis injuriam etc. non enim id fingunt, Sed verissime dicunt, ut saepe probavimus, et probabimus iterum paulo post. Secundum, quod ait, nullam fore contro¬ versiam, si omnes Catholici idem dicerent, quod Gropperus et Alphonsus. Nam revera idem dicimus omnes, et tamen controversia manet. Nam illi duo auctores non solum di¬ cunt, Sacramenta non sumere efficaciam a dignitate ministri , et non excludere fidem, quod placet Kemnitio et nobis; sed etiam dicunt. Sacramenta habere veram efficaciam , seu efficientiam ad producendam gratiam ex institutione divina , quod Kemnitio pla¬ cere non potest , cum ipse (ut mox videbi¬ mus) nullam tribuat Sacramentis efficien¬ tiam , nisi ad alendam fidem per modum objecti repraesentantis divinam promissio¬ nem. Tertium, quod ait, neque olim Scholasti¬ cos, neque nunc Pontificios iutelligere opus operatum, quomodo exponunt Gropperus et Alphonsus, nimirum ut non excludat fidem, lloc autem esse mendacium, planum fiet ex refutatione argumentorum ejus. Primum ergo id probat, quia Scholastici omnes dicunt, Sacramenta nova; legis dare gratiam ex opere operato ; legis autem vete¬ ris dedisse ex opere operantis : At si opus operatum excluderet dignitatem ministri -etiam Circumcisio dedisset gratiam ex ope¬ re operato : nihil enim nocebat circumci¬ dentis malitia ministri. Non igitur ex sen¬ tentia Scholasticorum opus operatum exclu¬ dit tantum dignitatem ministri , sed etiam fidem, et motum internum suscipientis, quae CAPUT I. 425 pertinent ad opus operantis, et erant neces¬ saria in lege veteri. Respondeo primum : Aliquos Scholasti¬ cos , ut Gabrielem (quem paulo post citat Kemnitius) cum dicunt, Sacramenta vetera non contulisse gratiam ex opere operato, ex¬ cipere Circumcisionem : proinde apud eos nihil valeret Kemnitii argumentum. Secundo dico, opus operatum non solum excludere dignitatem ministri, sed etiam fi¬ dem, et motum internum ab efficientia gra¬ tia; Sacramentalis. Nam, ut diximus, etiam¬ si ista requiruntur in adultis, tamen non sunt ista, quae efficiunt gratiam, sed ipsum Sa¬ cramentum, ut instrumentum Dei. In Sacra¬ mentis autem legis veteris, non ipsum Sa¬ cramentum proprie operabatur gratiam, sed vel fides, et devotio suscipientis , vel totius Synagoga;, vel quid aliud, ut postea dice¬ mus. Itaque argumentum Kemnitii probat, opus operatum ex sententia Scholasticorum excludere fidem et motum internum ab effi¬ cientia gratiae Sacramentalis , non tamen probat, quod erat probandum excludere sim¬ pliciter fidem et motum internum, ita ut Sa¬ cramenta (ut ipsi calumniantur) conferant gratiam accipientibus ea sine fide , et sine interna conversione cordis. Secundo probat ex Gabriele , qui in IV. dist. i, q. 3. dicit, tunc esse opus operatum, cum non requiritur motus internus. Respondeo : Corrupte citat Gabrielem : nam mox subjungit Gabriel , quo motu de congruo, vel de condigno mereatur gratiam. Non igitur Gabriel excludit motum internum disponentem ad gratiam , sed meritorium gratia;. Nam etiamsi illa dispositio potest esse meritoria gratite de congruo, vel etiam augmenti gratia; de condigno , si sit actus ex charitate procedens : tamen illa est gra¬ tia, qua; datur ob dispositionem ; alia, qua; datur ex vi Sacramenti, ut idem auctor ex¬ plicat in IV. dist. 4, quaest. 2, conclus.' 4. ad primum. Tertio probat ex Paludano, qui in IV. dist. 1, qu. 1, conclus. 2, probat. 4. dicit, non requiri in Sacramentis, ut homo sedisponat, sed dispositionem effici ab ipso Sacramen¬ to , et hoc esse causare gratiam ex opere operato. Respondeo : Non intellexit Kemnitius Pa- ludanum. Non enim loquitur Paludanus de dispositione, quae est motus internus susci¬ pientis, ut fides, et poenitentia, quos motus expresse dicit requiri in Sacramentis idem Paludanus dist. 4, quaest. 5. sed loquitur de quadam dispositione ultima, ad quam putat ipse continuo sequi gratiam, et eam dispo¬ sitionem esse dicit characterem in tribus Sa¬ cramentis, in aliis ornatum quemdam animae. Cum enim non posset Paludanus intelligere, quomodo Sacramentum efficeret gratiam, excogitavit illam sententiam, quod efficeret quamdam dispositionem , ad quam continuo sequeretur gratia. De qua re ad Scholasti¬ cos pertinet disputare. Quarto probat ex Marsilio in IV. sentent. qusestion. 2, artic. 2. etMesingpro in VI cap. Joannis, qui distinguunt opus operatum con¬ tra devotionem internam operantis. Respondeo : Distinguunt , non ut exclu¬ dant omnino, sed ut excludantab efficientia, ut diximus. Quinto probat ex S. Thoma, Paludano, et Gabriele, qui dicunt, Missam prodesse etiam illis ex opere operato, qui non habent in coi1- de poenitentiam. Respondeo : Loquuntur de sacrificio, non de Sacramento. Poi'ro sacrificium prodest impoenitentibus per modum impetrationis, quia impetrat illis conversionem et poeniten¬ tiam : quomodo etiam oi-ationes nosti'se, li¬ cet non tam efficaciter, id faciunt. Sexto probat ex eo , quod multi Catholi¬ corum probant, Sacramenta efficere gratiam ex opere operato , quia Baptismus prodest parvulis, non habentibus fidem , aut ullum internum motum. Ergo eodem modo in adul¬ tis excludunt fidem et motum interiorem : nam etiam in adultis volunt , Sacramenta vim habere ex opere operato. Respondeo : Cathofici efficacissime pro¬ bant exempla parvulorum , Sacramentorum efficaciam non pendere ab ulla qualitate suscipientis. Nec tamen ideo sequitur, eos ex- cludei'e in adultis fidem et poenitentiam : nam haec exquiruntur in adultis, ut disposi¬ tiones, quibus dispositionibus non egent pax- vuli, ut suo loco demonstrabitur. Probat deinde Kemnitius, Concilium Tri- dent. per opus operatum excludere voluisse fidem, et motum internum. Primo ; Quia cum Scholastici vai’ie exponant opus opei’atum, et alii excludi velint motum internum , alii nolint : Concilium canon 8. simpliciter ad¬ mittens opus operatum , et non restringens ad hanc potius, quam ad illam expositionem, censetur omnes appx'obasse. Respondeo, Falsum est ab Scholasticis ullis per opus operatum excludi motum internum. Deinde * 426 LIBER II. si ita esset, Concilium nullam approbasset, sed solum in genere definivisset, Sacramen¬ ta conferre gratiam ex opere operatq. Secundo; Quia Concilium can. 12. definit, Sacramenta non pendere ex dignitate mi¬ nistri. Igilur in hoc can. 8. per opus opera¬ tum non intelligit, Sacramentum non pen¬ dere a dignitate ministri , quomodo opus operatum exponit Gropperus; sed aliquid aliud nimirum non requiri fidem suscipien¬ tis. Respondeo; Sacramenta conferre gra¬ tiam ex opere, operato, proprie non signifi¬ care negationem, id est, non pendere a dig¬ nitate ministri, sed significare affirmationem, id est, Sacramenta vi sua efficere gratiam, ex qua sequitur negatio, id est, non pendere a dignitate ministrantis, vel suscipientis. Itaque Concilium can. 8. definivit illam affir¬ mationem contra Lutheranos : deinde can. 12. definivit negationem contra Donatistas et Anabaptistas. Tertio probat; Quia Concilium in isto can. 8. opponit opus operatum fidei : ergo intelli¬ git excludi fidem per opus operatum. Res¬ pondeo ; Si esset verum Antecedens, negari posse Consequentiam, Nam si Concilium opponeret opus operatum fidei , intelligeret excludi fidem ab efficientia gratiae Sacramen- talis, non autem excludi simpliciter. Sed ta¬ men falsum est Antecedens, quia Concilium non opponit opus operatum fidei, sed soli fi¬ dei. Quod paulo infra annotavit etiam Kem- nitius. Praeter haec argumenta addit Kemnitius duo expressa mendacia, quibus claudit suam disputationem de opere operato. Nam non solum imposuit Theologis absurdam expo¬ sitionem operis operati , sed etiam fingit, jam Theologos ab ipsis convictos , non au¬ dere amplius eam opinionem defendere : « Ipsi, inquit, Pontificii scriptores jam ter- giversantur, nec manifeste audent suscipe¬ re defensionem hujus axiomatis , quod usus Sacramentorum sine fide salvet suscipien¬ tes. » Atqui hoc, ut ostendimus , non fuit unquam axioma Pontificiorum, sed menda¬ cium Lutheranorum. Deinde ut homo solers, investigat etiam causas , cur in tam absur¬ dum errorem Scholastici inciderint : et po¬ nit duas causas. Unam , quod cum legerint apud Augustinum lib. III de Baptismo cap. 14. non interesse ad integritatem Sacramen¬ ti, qua fido sit imbutus , qui recipit Sacra¬ mentum , et non adverterint , Augustinum loqui de substantia Sacramenti, non de uti¬ litate et fructu ; inde putaverint, non requiri fidem ut Sacramenta prosint. Alteram, quod cu#i legerint apud eumdera Augustinum in epist. 23. parvulos sine fide actuali salubri¬ ter percipere Sacramentum ; quia non po¬ nunt obicem contrariae cogitationis ; putave¬ rint, eamdem esse rationem parvulorum et adultorum. Sed frivolae , imo etiam falsae sunt istae causae. Nam omnes Theologi in IV. dist. 4. distinguunt Sacramentum a re Sacramenti ; et docent, Sacramentum etiam sine fide et poenitentia posse recipi, non autem rem Sa¬ cramenti, id est, gratiam. Praeterea Conci¬ lium Tridentinum sess. VII, can. 13. de Bap¬ tismo, docet, Baptismum parvulis prodesse sine actuali ipsorum fide ; et tamen sess. VI, cap. 6 et 8. et sess. XIV, cap. 4. et alibi, do¬ cet , in adultis necessario requiri fidem et poenitentiam, ut justificari possint; et sem- per Ecclesiam Catholicam ita sensisse.