Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacraments in General · Book II: On the Effect, Number, and Ceremonies of the Sacraments
Chapter 2: The opinion of the heretics 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 second, ancient was the heresy of the Messalians, some 1100 years ago, who taught that men are not justified by the Sacraments of Baptism, the Eucharist, and the others, but by prayers alone. So John Damascene reports in the book On heresies: “Baptism,” he says, “does not perfect a man, nor do the divine Sacraments, when received, expiate the filth of the soul, but only the prayers which are rightly poured out by them.” The Armenians too, and certain new Cathari, if we believe Guido, denied that the Sacraments confer grace.
But these things omitted, the Lutherans on this matter sometimes write in such a way that they seem not to dissent from the Catholics, but sometimes write most plainly the contrary. Yet they always remain in the same opinion, which is that the Sacraments have not immediately any efficiency in respect of grace, but are bare signs; yet mediately effect something, inasmuch, namely, as they excite or nourish faith, which justifies men; which very thing, however — that is, to excite faith — they do only by representing. For they will have the Sacraments concur to justification in the same manner as the preaching of the word, except that preaching is applied to the ears and through hearing excites faith, while the Sacraments are applied to the eyes and through sight also excite faith. This opinion at first Luther and Philip proposed nakedly, and openly said what they thought, namely that the Sacraments effect nothing. And there are places to be noted against Kemnitz, who most impudently in the second part of the Examen page 111 says that Luther seriously and always disapproved in the Sacramentarians that profane opinion: “That the Sacraments are not organs and instrumental causes of grace, but only, like a picture, admonish and excite faith.” So he.
Let us now hear Luther. In the year 1520, in the book On the Babylonian captivity, chapter On Baptism: “Baptism,” he says, “justifies no one, nor profits any, but faith in the word of the promise, to which Baptism is added; for this justifies.” And in the same place: “The same God who now saves us through Baptism and bread, saved Abel through sacrifice, Noe through the ark, Abraham through Circumcision, and all others through their signs.” And a little below he numbers among the Sacraments of the old law, which he will not have inferior to the Sacraments of the new law as to efficacy, the sign given to Gedeon in the dew and the fleece, and the sign given to Manue in the sacrifice, and the sign offered to Achaz by Isaias chapter 7: “Our signs, and the Fathers', or Sacraments, have annexed the word of the promise, which requires faith, and can be fulfilled by no other work; therefore they are signs, or Sacraments, of justification, because they are Sacraments of justifying faith, and not of work; whence their whole efficacy is faith itself, not operation. For he who believes them, fulfills them, even though he do nothing.” And below: “Nor can it be true that there is in the Sacraments an efficacious force of justification, or that they are efficacious signs of grace; for all these things are said to the loss of faith.” Likewise in the year 1521, in the assertion of the first article, he thus wrote: “We say that neither the Sacraments of the new nor of the old Testament justified, but faith alone.” Likewise in the year 1523, in the book against Cochlaeus: “No part of justification can be attributed to Baptism; otherwise, if it justified in any part, it would not be lawful to deny that Baptism justifies without faith; but since this is denied it, it is rightly left to faith alone.”
Philip Melanchthon in the Commonplaces published in the year 1522, chapter On signs, says it is a horrible error of the Scholastics that the Sacraments justify; and adds: “The signs do not justify, as the Apostle says, Circumcision is nothing; so Baptism is nothing, the partaking of the Lord's table is nothing; but they are witnesses and seals of the divine will toward thee.” The same too in the Apology published in the year 1530, to article 13, he says that a Sacrament is a sign of the promise, and, as it were, a picture of the word; and in the book against the Anabaptists: “As the will of God is shown in the word, or promise, so also it is shown in the sign, as in a picture.” And below: “It profits also to be admonished of this, that the Sacraments do not justify.” Where you see that very likeness of a picture which Kemnitz so greatly execrates, and yet professes himself a follower of this Apology in the very beginning of the second part of the Examen. Luther and Philip were followed by the Sacramentarians, of whom Calvin book 4 of the Institutes chapter 14 section 6 uses the same likeness of a picture; and section 17: “Let it remain fixed,” he says, “that there are no other functions of the Sacraments than of the word of God, which are to offer and propose to us Christ, and in him the treasures of heavenly grace.” And below: “Besides, it must be taken heed of, lest the things which were written a little more magnificently by the ancients to amplify the dignity of the Sacraments lead us into error: namely, that we should think there is some latent virtue annexed and affixed to the Sacraments, whereby they of themselves confer on us the grace of the Holy Spirit; whereas this function alone is divinely enjoined on them, to testify to us and to sanction the good will of God toward us.” And below: “The Sacraments are to us from God what messengers of glad things, or earnests in ratifying covenants, are from men; inasmuch as they do not themselves bestow any grace, but announce and show, and (as earnests and tokens) ratify to us the things which have been given us by the divine bounty.” And section 18 he uses the example of the rainbow and the fleece of Gedeon, and others which Luther used.
But the same Luther in his later books, convicted (as is likely) by the arguments of the Catholics, wrote far otherwise. For in the first homily On Baptism, which he published in the year 1535, about the beginning of the second part, he thus has it: “To this Baptism was instituted, that it may serve us, profit us, give us, not anything carnal or corporeal, but eternal grace, eternal cleanness and holiness, eternal life.” And in the second homily On Baptism, which he delivered in the year 1540: “Baptism cannot but work that for which it was instituted, namely the regeneration and renovation of the Holy Spirit.” And below: “So great virtue and energy has Baptism that a man who was conceived and born in sins is regenerated before God, and he who before was condemned to death is now a son of God. Who can attain and perceive this glory and virtue of holy Baptism by the senses, by thought, by human intellect?” And below: “John meant by these words to signify that Baptism is so efficacious and of such virtue that it could wash away sins, submerge and suffocate death, and heal and cleanse all vices and filth.”
This manner of speaking the more recent Lutherans imitate, and chiefly Kemnitz. For in the second part of the Examen page 98, when he had cited some Scriptures for the efficacy of the Sacraments against the Anabaptists and Sacramentarians, he thus subjoins: “These most manifest testimonies, which attribute efficacy to the Sacraments and explain what it is, are not to be perverted by tropes from the simple and genuine signification which the proper signification of the words affords; and so the ancients understood these testimonies simply, as they sound.” And page 101: “The Sacraments are instrumental causes, so that through those means or organs the Father wills to exhibit, give, and apply his grace; the Son to communicate his merit to believers; the Holy Spirit to exercise his efficacy unto salvation to every believer.” So he; who certainly seems to speak most like a Catholic. Calvin too not rarely speaks as Catholics speak. For in the Antidote to the Council session 7 canon 5 he thus says: “It must always be repeated in memory that the Sacraments are nothing but instrumental causes of the grace to be conferred on us.” And canon 6: “If there be any who deny that the grace which they figure is contained in the Sacraments, we disapprove them.”
Nevertheless neither Luther, nor Calvin, nor Kemnitz departs from that first opinion, which in truth attributes to the Sacraments no efficiency. For when they say that the Sacraments are instrumental causes, and confer grace, and are efficacious, they always understand it by the mediation of faith, so that the Sacraments themselves do nothing else but excite or nourish faith, which alone justifies. For the same Calvin in the same place canon 5 explains how the Sacraments are instrumental causes of grace, and says that the Sacraments then at last have their effect if they serve faith. And canon 8 he says that the Sacraments effect grace in us in the same manner as the preached word of God effects it. But it is certain that the word of God effects nothing except by exciting or nourishing faith. Finally Theodore Beza (as we noted above) in the book On the sum of the Sacramentarian matter question 2 thus explains the opinion of Calvin his teacher: “Whence,” he says, “that efficacy of the Sacraments? Wholly from the operation of the Holy Spirit, but not from the signs, except inasmuch as by those external objects the inner senses are moved.” Kemnitz too, page 401 and following, explaining accurately how the Sacraments are efficacious, at last concludes that they are efficacious in the same manner as the promise itself, or the word of the promise. And page 402: “The word,” he says, “and the Sacraments show us where faith ought to seek, and where it can find Christ the Mediator, the Father, and the Holy Spirit.” And page 105, explaining how faith in the Sacraments justifies: “The sense is not that faith receives grace without the medium or organ of the word and Sacraments; for the object of faith is the word and Sacraments; nay, in the word and Sacraments the true object of faith is the merit of Christ, the grace of God, and the efficacy of the Spirit; and faith therefore justifies because it apprehends and receives that in the word and Sacraments; and in this sense, as the faith of the word, so also the faith of the Sacrament is said to justify.” So he. Finally, with whatever words of the Catholics the Lutherans use, they cannot yet in any way think what we think — that the Sacraments are true and immediate causes of justification — unless they depart from that first principle of theirs, “faith alone justifies,” which hitherto they have not done.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT II, Sententia haereticorum de efficacia Sacra¬ mentorum. Quantum ad secundum , antiqua fuit hac- resis Messalianoruin , ante annos 1100. qui docebant, Sacramentis Baptismi, Eucharis¬ tiae, et aliis non justificari homines, sed so¬ lis precibus. Ita refert Joannes Damascenus in lib. de haeres. : « Baptismum, inquit, ho¬ minem non perficere, nec divina Sacramen¬ ta accepta animi sordes expiare , sed solas preces, quae ab illis recte fundantur. » Ar- meni quoque, et novi quidam Cathari , si Guidoni credimus , negabant, Sacramenta gratiam conferre. Sed his omissis , Lutherani de hac re in¬ terdum ita scribunt, ut videantur a Catholi¬ cis non dissentire, interdum autem apertis¬ sime scribunt contraria. Semper tamen in eadem sententia manent, quae est, Sacramen¬ ta non habere immediate ullam efficientiam respectu gratiae, sed esse nuda signa: tamen mediate aliquid efficere , quatenus videlicet excitant, vel alunt fidem, quae homines jus¬ tificat; quod tamen ipsum, id est, exciture fidem, non faciunt nisi repraesentando. Vo¬ lunt enim eodem modo concurrere ad justi- CAPUT II. 427 ficationcm Sacramenta, quo praedicatio ver¬ bi, nisi quod praidicatio adhibetur auribus, et per auditum excitat fidem , Sacramenta adhibentur oculis, et per visum excitant etiam fidem. Hanc sententiam initio Lutherus et Phi¬ lippus nude proponebant, atque aperte dice¬ bant quod sentiebant, nimirum Sacramenta nihil efficere. Sunt autem loca notanda con¬ tra Kemnitium, qui impudentissime in 2. par. Exam. pag. 111. dicit, Lutherum serio et semper improbasse in Sacramentariis pro¬ fanam illam sententiam : « Quod Sacra¬ menta non sint organa, et causae inslrumen- tales gratiae, sed solum instar picturae com¬ monefaciant, et excitent fidem. » Haec ille. Audiamus nunc Lutherum. Anno 1520, in lib. de captivit. Babylon, cap. de Baptismo: « Baptismus, inquit, neminem justificat, nec ulli prodest; sed fides in verbum promissio¬ nis, cui additur Baptismus ; haec enim justi¬ ficat. » Et ibidem : « Idem Deus , qui .nos nunc per Baptismum, et panem salvat, sal¬ vavit Abel per sacrificium, Noe per arcam, Abraham per Circumcisionem, et alios om¬ nes per sua signa. » Et paulo infra numerat inter Sacramenta veteris legis, quae non vult esse inferiora Sacramentis novae legis, quoad efficaciam , signum datum Gedeoni in rore et vellere, et signum datum Manue in sacri¬ ficio ; et signum oblatum Achaz ab Isaia c. VII : « Nostra et Patrum signa, seu Sacra¬ menta habent annexum verbum promissio¬ nis, quod fidem exigit , et nullo opere alio impleri potest; ideo sunt signa , seu Sacra¬ menta justificationis, quia sunt Sacramenta justificantis fidei, et non operis : unde et to¬ ta eorum efficacia est ipsa fides, non opera¬ tio. Qui enim iis credit, is implet ea, etiamsi nihil operetur. » Et infra : « Nedve- rum esse potest, Sacramentis inesse vim ef¬ ficacem justificationis, seu esse ea signa ef¬ ficacia gratiae : haec enim omnia dicuntur in jacturam fidei. » Item anno 1521. in assert. 4. articuli ita scripsit : « Nos dicimus, nec novi , nec veteris Testamenti Sacramenta, sed solam fidem justificasse. » Item anno 1523. in lib. contra Gochlaeum ; « Non po¬ test ulla pars justificationis tribui Baptismo: alioqui si ulla parte justificaret, non liceret negare, Baptismum sine fide justificare : cum autem ei denegetur, soli fidei recte re¬ linquitur. » Philippus Melanchthon in locis editis anno 1522, cap. de signis, horrendum esse dicit errorem Scholasticorum, quod Sacramenta justificent; et addit: « Non justificant signa, ut Apostolus ait, Circumcisio nihil est : ita Baptismus nihil est, participatio mensae Do¬ mini nihil est; sed testes sunt, xat afpuyiSzf divinae voluntatis erga te. » Idem etiam in Apologia anno 1530 edita, ad art. 13. dicit, Sacramentum esse signum promissionis, ac veluti picturam verbi : et in libro contra Anabaptistas : « Sicut voluntas Dei ostendi¬ tur in verbo, seu promissione, ita etiam os¬ tenditur in signo, tamquam in pictura. » Et infra : « Prodest et hoc moneri, Sacramenta non justificare. » Ubi vides illam ipsam si¬ militudinem picturae, quam tantopere exe- craturKemnitius, et tamen profitetur se Apo- logioe hujus sectatorem in ipso principio 2. part. Exam. Lutherum et Philippum secuti sunt Sacra- mentarii, ex quibus Calvinus lib. IV Instit. cap. 14. §. 6. utitur eadem similitudine pic¬ turae, et §. 17 : « Fixum, inquit, maneat, non esse alias Sacramentorum, quam verbi Dei partes : quae sunt offerre nobis, ac pro¬ ponere Christum, et in eo coelestis gratiae thesauros. » Et infra ; «Cavendum praeterea, inquit, ne in errorem nos abducant, quae ad amplificandam Sacramentorum dignitatem paulo magnificentius a veteribus scripta sunt : ut scilicet arbitremur, latentem ali¬ quam virtutem Sacramentis annexam, affi- xamque esse, quo ipsa per se Spiritus sancti gratiam nobis conferant, cum hoc tantum illis divinitus injunctum sit munus, testifi¬ cari nobis ac sancire Dei in nos benevolen¬ tiam. >) Et infra : « Sacramenta id sunt no¬ bis a Deo, quod ab hominibus rerum lecta¬ rum nuntii, vel arrhas in pactis sanciendis ; utpote quas non a se quidem largiantur ali¬ quid gratiae, sed renuntient, et ostendant, atque (ut sunt arrhae et tesserae) rata apud nos faciant, quae divina largitate nobis do¬ nata sunt. » Et §. 18. utitur exemplo Iridis et velleris Gedeonis, atque aliis, quibus ute¬ batur Lutherus. Porro idem Lutherus in libris posteriori¬ bus convictus (ut verisimile est) argumentis Catholicorum, longe aliter scripsit. Nam in hom. 1. de Baptismo, quam anno 1535 edi¬ dit, circa principium 2. part. ita habet : «Ad hoc institutus est Baptismus, ut nobis ser¬ viat, nobis prosit, nobis donet, non aliquid carnale, vel corporale , sed aeternam gra¬ tiam, aeternam munditiam, et sanctitatem, aeternam vitam. » Et in hom. 2. de Baptis- 428 LIBER II. mo, quam habuit anno 1540 : « Non potest, inquit, non id operari Baptismus, ad quod institutus est, videlicet regenerationem, et renovationem Spiritus sancti. » Et infra : «Tantam virtutem et energiam habet Bap¬ tismus, ut homo, qui in peccatis conceptus et natus est, regeneretur coram Deo, et qui ante ad mortem erat damnatus, jam sit fi¬ lius Dei. Quis hanc gloriam et virtutem sa¬ crosancti Baptismi sensibus, cogitatione, in¬ tellectu humano assequi et percipere po¬ test? » Et infra : «Yoluit Joannes his verbis significare Baptismum tam efficacem , ac tantae virtutis esse, ut peccata abluere, mor¬ tem submergere et suffocare, et omnia vitia et sordes sanare et mundare posset. » Hunc modum loquendi imitantur rcccn- tiores Lutherani, atque in primis Kemnitius. Nam in 2. par. Exam. pag. 98. ubi citasset aliquot Scripturas pro efficacia Sacramento¬ rum contra Anabaptistas et Sacramenlarios, ita subjungit : « Ha?c manifestissima testi¬ monia, quse Sacramentis efficaciam tribuunt, et qualis ea sit, explicant, non sunt per tro¬ pos pervertenda a simplici et genuina signi¬ ficatione, quam propria vocabulorum signi¬ ficatio praebet : et ita veteres licec testimo¬ nia simpliciter, sicut sonant, intellexerunt. » Et pag. 101 : « Sacramenta sunt causae ins- trumentales, ita quod per illa media, seu organa Pater vult gratiam suam exhibere, donare, applicare : Filius meritum suum communicare credentibus; Spiritus sanctus efficaciam suam exercere ad salutem omni credenti. » Ha?c ille : qui certe Catholicissi¬ me loqui videtur. Calvinus quoque non raro ita loquitur, ut loquuntur Catholici. Nam in Antid.Conc. sess. VII, can.5. sic ait : «Sem- per memoria repetendum est, Sacramenta nihil quam instrumentales esse conferendae nobis gratiae causas. » Et can. 6 : «Si qui sint, qui negent, Sacramentis contineri gra¬ tiam, quam figurant, illos improbamus. » Vorumtamen nec Lutherus, nec Calvinus, nec Kemnitius recedit a prima illa sententia, quae nihil revera tribuit Sacramentis effi¬ cientiae. Nam cum dicunt. Sacramenta esse causas instrumentales, et conferre gratiam, et esse efficacia, semper intelliguut, me¬ diante fide, ita ut ipsa nihil aliud agant, nisi excitare vel nutrire fidem, quae sola jus¬ tificat. Nam idem Calvinus ibidem can. 5. expli¬ cat, quomodo Sacramenta sint causa? instru¬ mentales gratia?, ac dicit, tunc demum Sa¬ cramenta suum effectum habere, si fidei ser¬ viant. Et can. 8 dicit, eodem modo efficere in nobis gratiam Sacramenta, quo efficit verbum Dei pra?dicatum. At certum est, verbum Dei non efficere, nisi excitando vel nutriendo fidem. Denique Theodorus Beza (ut supra notavimus) in lib. de sumina rei Sacramentaria? q.2. ita explicat Calvini pra?- ceptoris sui sententiam : « Unde efficacia, inquit, illa Sacramentorum ? a Spiritus sancti operatione in solidum, non autem a signis, nisi quatenus externis illis objectis interiores sensus moventur. » Kemnitius quoque pagina 401 et seq. ex¬ plicans accurate, quemadmodum sint effica¬ cia Sacramenta, tandem concludit esse effi¬ cacia, eo modo, quo ipsa promissio, seu pro¬ missionis verbum. Et pagina 402 : « Ver¬ bum, inquit, et Sacramenta monstrant no¬ bis ubi fides debeat quaerere, et ubi possit invenire Christum Mediatorem, Patrem et Spiritum sanctum. » Et pag. 105. explicans quomodo fides in Sacramentis justificet : « Non est sensus, inquit, quod fides gratiam accipiat sine medio aut organo verbi et Sa¬ cramentorum : objectum enim fidei est ver¬ bum et Sacramenta, imo in verbo et Sacra¬ mentis verum fidei objectum est Christi ftc- ritum, gratia Dei, et efficacia Spiritus : et fides ideo justificat, quia illa in verbo et Sa¬ cramentis apprehendit et accipit; et hoc sensu sicut fides verbi, ita etiam fides Sa¬ cramenti dicitur justificare. » Haec ille. Denique quibuscumque verbis Catholico¬ rum utantur Lutherani, non possunt tamen ullo modo sentire, quod nos sentimus, Sa¬ cramenta esse veras et immediatas causas justificationis, nisi recedant a primo illo suo principio, sola fides justificat, quod hacte¬ nus non fecerunt.