Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacraments in General · Book II: On the Effect, Number, and Ceremonies of the Sacraments
Chapter 3: That the Sacraments confer grace ex opere operato, proved from the Scriptures
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).
It now remains to be proved that the Sacraments are true instrumental causes of grace; and lest we labor in vain, it must be demonstrated at the same time that the Sacraments are causes otherwise than a sermon is. For to all our testimonies they are wont to answer that the Sacraments are true causes of grace, but by exciting faith; in which way the word of the Gospel too is called by Paul, Romans 1, the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth. We shall bring forward six classes of arguments. The first will be from the Scriptures of the New Testament, where it is expressly had. The second from the predictions of the Prophets, and from the figures of the Old Testament. The third from Councils. The fourth from the Greek Fathers. The fifth from the Latin. The sixth from reason.
The first class of testimonies, from the New Testament. The first testimony is Matthew 3, Mark 1, Luke 3, John 1, where John the Baptist says: I baptize you with water; he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost. By which words there is no doubt that as great a difference is set between the efficacy of the Baptism of John and the Baptism of Christ as there is between water and the Spirit. But the Baptism of John was efficacious for nourishing faith, no less than the Baptism of Christ; for in the Baptism of John there was an external washing and a word of promise. For he preached the Baptism of penance unto the remission of sins, Luke 3, and at the same time preached faith in the Mediator, telling them to believe in him who was to come, Acts 19. To this argument Calvin, on chapter 3 of Matthew, answers that the efficacy of the Baptism of John and of Christ was the same; but the difference which John sets in water and the Spirit, he says, consists in this, that John was the minister of the external rite, but Christ the author of the internal sanctification. But if it is so, John ought not to have said, I baptize, he shall baptize, but, I baptize, he baptizes. Besides, if the force of each Baptism was the same, why did Paul, Acts 19, bid those be baptized with the Baptism of Christ whom he heard had already been baptized with the Baptism of John? Calvin answers, in the commentary on Acts 19, that they were not baptized again, but only visibly received the gift of the Holy Spirit, and that this is signified by those words, Having heard these things, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. But — besides that this would be a faulty equivocation, since in that whole narration the name of Baptism is taken for Baptism of water, and that it will be lawful to pervert all the Scriptures if it is lawful to twist words so plain to another sense — Luke there immediately adds: And when Paul had imposed his hands on them, the Holy Ghost came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied. That, They were baptized, does not, then, signify, They received the gift of the Holy Spirit visibly. Calvin answers that those latter words are an explanation of the former. But Luke would not say, They were baptized; and when he had imposed hands, etc., but, They were baptized; for when he had imposed hands, etc.; or certainly, They were baptized, and he imposed hands on them, etc.; for so explanations are wont to be made. But that phrase, Having heard these things, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, and when Paul had imposed his hands on them, the Holy Ghost came, evidently shows that there were two actions, and done at diverse times, Baptism and the imposition of hands. Finally, let this place be compared with another of the same author, namely Acts 8, where likewise Baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus and the imposition of hands are had, and it will be clearer than light that by Baptism in both places is understood true Baptism.
The second testimony, Mark last: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. Here the power of saving is attributed to Baptism; but it saves only by justifying and washing away the filth of sins. Nor can it be answered that it saves by exciting faith. For, first, in this place faith precedes. But it is inept to say that first the effect is put, then the cause. For as it would be absurd to say, “He that is healed and takes medicine,” so it would be absurd to say, He that believeth and is baptized, if Baptism were the cause of faith. Whence, because to hear the word of God is truly the cause of faith, it always precedes in Scripture, as John 5: He that heareth the word, and believeth, hath life everlasting. And John 6: Every one that hath heard and hath learned, cometh to me. Faith, then, is not the effect of Baptism, since it precedes it, but rather a disposition to it. Besides, to the man: Christ in this place does not join the Sacrament with a sermon, as the adversaries do; for he does not say, He that heareth the word and is baptized; but he joins it with faith, which is the effect of the word. As, then, faith among the adversaries immediately justifies by applying the merits of Christ, but not by exciting some other cause, why do they not in the same manner confess that Baptism immediately justifies by applying the merits of Christ, since Christ speaks in the same manner of faith and of Baptism?
The third testimony, John 3: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. This place plainly makes the Baptism of water the cause of the new birth; for that the preposition of signifies, as is plain in all like expressions. Nor can it be said that to be born again of water is to be born again of faith, which the water excites. For, first, Christ ought rather to have said, Unless a man be born again of the word and the Holy Ghost, than, Of water and the Holy Ghost; since the more principal cause of exciting faith is the word than water. Second, because Christ's discourse would have been altogether unintelligible. For since he had said nothing before of faith, who could divine that he was now handing down the reason of exciting faith? Third, the proposition would be false: Unless a man be born again, etc. For if faith alone justifies, it is irrelevant to salvation whence faith be excited, whether from water, or from wine, or from another thing. And it is established that in many ways faith can be excited without the Baptism of water; for a sermon abundantly suffices to excite faith. To this place Calvin could not answer otherwise than by denying that here Baptism is treated, which before him Zwingli and Bucer also denied. And so Calvin in the commentary and book 4 of the Institutes chapter 16 section 25 denies that it must be understood of the Sacrament of Baptism, but of internal renovation alone. Wherefore by “water” he will have the Holy Spirit understood, and this to be the sense: Unless a man be born again of water — that is, of the Holy Spirit, who like water cleanses, etc. But, first, all writers hitherto have understood this place of Baptism: as Justin Apology 2, Tertullian in the book On Baptism, Cyprian book 3 to Quirinus chapter 25, Ambrose book 3 On the Holy Spirit chapter 11, Jerome on chapter 16 of Ezekiel, likewise Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory of Nyssa in the sermon On Baptism; and finally all the interpreters of this place, Origen, Chrysostom, Augustine, Cyril, Bede, Theophylact, Euthymius, and others. Second, if it were thus lawful to play in the Scriptures, we could deny the Baptism of water; for everywhere we should understand by the name of water the Holy Spirit, and in the same manner it will be lawful to pervert all the other mysteries. Third, it cannot be denied that it is a forced and absurd expression, and unusual to the Scriptures. Nor is the example valid which Calvin brings from Matthew 3: He shall baptize you in the Holy Ghost and fire, where he will have by “fire” the same Holy Spirit understood, as having a likeness with fire. For by “fire” can most rightly be understood the external fire which descended visibly upon the Apostles on the day of Pentecost, or the fire of tribulation, or the fire of Purgatory; which expositions Bede touches in the commentary on Luke 3. Besides, in this place fire is put after the Holy Spirit, and it is not so absurd, after one word, to put another by which it is declared. But the water in John 3 the Lord put before the Holy Spirit; and it is most absurd first to put the declaration, then that which is to be declared. Nor can it be denied that water, if it be taken for the Holy Spirit, is put to declare the effect of the Holy Spirit, which is to cleanse. Fourth, if water in this place were put only to explain the effect of the Holy Spirit, it would be ill joined with the word of being born again; for water, if only its signification be regarded, does not beget, but washes and cools. And so the Lord ought either to have said, Unless a man be cleansed by water and the Holy Ghost, or, Unless a man be born again of seed and the Holy Ghost. Not, therefore, does water in this place only declare the effect of the Holy Spirit, but properly signifies water, as it concurs sacramentally to spiritual regeneration.
The fourth testimony, Acts 2: Do penance, and be baptized every one of you unto the remission of your sins. Like to which is that of Acts 22: And now why tarriest thou? Be baptized, and wash away thy sins, invoking his name. In these places the remission of sins is attributed to Baptism; nor can it be said that this is because Baptism excites faith. For those whom Peter addresses, Acts 2, had already believed, as Luke there indicates. For, having heard Peter's sermon, they were pricked in heart, and said, What shall we do, men and brethren? But Peter did not say, You must believe, or believe more, but, Do penance, etc. In like manner Paul, to whom Ananias said, Acts 22, Be baptized, and wash away thy sins, had already believed, and had done penance, fasting three days. Calvin answers, both in the commentary on Acts and in book 4 of the Institutes chapter 15 section 18, that to be baptized unto the remission of sins, or to wash away sins by Baptism, is nothing else than to receive a testimony or seal of justification received, and that for strengthening and confirming faith. But (to omit what we demonstrated before, that the Sacraments cannot be seals, or are at least false seals, since the minister does not know whether he to whom he applies the divine seal is truly justified) who would not marvel at this new trope, by which “to wash away sins” signifies “to receive a seal of justification received”? For it is unheard of that a signified action be put to signify the sign, and that a future action be put to signify a past one. Examples can be: if one should say, “Drink wine,” he would say it absurdly if he meant to signify, “Look at the ivy which hangs at the inn.” In like manner, if it were said to an Emperor returning with victory, “Conquer the enemies,” and this were said to signify, “Receive a triumph in sign of a past victory,” it would be a most absurd expression. For it is not rightly said, “Conquer the enemies,” to him who has already fought and conquered.
The fifth testimony, Acts 8: When Simon saw that by the imposition of the hands of the Apostles the Holy Ghost was given. Like to which is that of 2 Timothy 1: I admonish thee that thou stir up the grace which is in thee by the imposition of my hands. For although these places are understood of the Sacraments of Confirmation and Ordination, which among many of the adversaries are not properly Sacraments, yet if the Sacraments (as they will have it) improperly so called are true causes of grace, how much more the Sacraments properly so called? Now in these places the imposition of hands is most plainly asserted to be the cause of grace, as is plain from that particle, by. Nor can it be said that the imposition of hands is the cause of grace by exciting faith; for all those who by the imposition of hands received the grace of the Holy Spirit had already believed and were baptized.
The sixth testimony, 1 Corinthians 10: We, being many, are one body, all that partake of one bread. Where to partake of one bread is put as the cause of one body. Which in the Greek is clearer: for all of us partake of one bread. But how are we one body because we partake of one bread, unless because that bread nourishes and increases the life of this body? For in corporeal things, because the same food nourishes all the members of the same body, therefore we most rightly prove that some members are members of the same body if they be nourished by the same food. Wherefore if you take from the Sacrament of the altar the true causality of grace, it cannot be proved that we are one body because we partake of the same Eucharist. Like to this place is that of 1 Corinthians 12: For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body. Where Paul proves that we are one body because through Baptism we received one Spirit. Which argument effects nothing if Baptism does not confer the Spirit.
The seventh testimony, Ephesians 5: Christ loved the Church, and delivered himself up for it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life. Like to which is that place of Titus 3: He saved us by the laver of regeneration. Where we are most plainly said to be cleansed and saved by the laver of water, and through the laver; and each signifies an instrumental cause. Calvin answers, in the commentary on these places, that Baptism is properly called the laver of the soul, and is an efficacious symbol, because God, while he shows this sign, at the same time also works what he signifies through it. But in this manner justification, which God alone effects, is joined with Baptism by accident; and accordingly we are no more properly said to be cleansed and saved through Baptism than through any other action which is then done at the same time. Nor can Baptism truly be called the laver of regeneration if God does not through it wash us, though at the same time he wash us. If he say that God cleanses us through Baptism because, showing that symbol, he provokes faith, which cleanses, he could also say that men are made drunk by the ivy which hangs at inns, because that ivy provokes them to buy wine, which wine afterward makes them drunk.
The eighth testimony is 1 Peter 3: Whereunto baptism being of the like form now saveth you also, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the examination of a good conscience toward God. Here we have, first, that we are saved by Baptism. Then, that we are saved in a manner like that in which of old, in the time of Noe, a few were saved by water. And that water truly and efficiently saved those who were in the ark, namely by lifting the ark on high. Finally, we have the difference between the Baptisms of the Jews and ours: that those took away the filth of the flesh, ours purifies the conscience. As, then, the Baptisms of the Jews truly took away the filth of the flesh, not only by signifying but also by effecting, so our Baptism too truly washes the conscience, not only by signifying but also by effecting.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT III. -Quod Sacramenta ex opere operato conferant gratiam, ex Scripturis probatur. Probandum jam superest, Sacramenta esse veras causas instrumentales gratia? ; ac ne frustra laboremus, demonstrandum est si¬ mul, aliter esse causam Sacramenta, quam concionem. Nam ad omnia testimonia nos- CAPUT 111. 429 tra respondere solent. Sacramenta esse ve¬ ras causas gratife, sed excitando fidem, quo¬ modo etiam verbum Evangelii dicitur a Paulo Itoman. I : Virtus Dei in salutem omni credenti (I). Adferemus sex argumentorum classes. Prima erit ex Scripturis Testamenti novi, ubi expresse id habetur. Secunda ex vatici¬ niis Prophetarum, et ex figuris Testamenti veteris. Tertia ex Conciliis. Quarta ex Patri¬ bus Graecis. Quinta ex Latinis. Sexta ex ra¬ tione. Prima classis testimoniorum ex novo Testamento. Primum testimonium est Matthaei 111, Marcii, Lucae III, Joannis I, ubi Joannes Baptista loquitur : Erjo baptizo vos aqua, ille vos baptizabit Spiritu sancto (2). Quibus ver¬ bis non est dubium, tantum discrimen poni inter efficaciam Baptismi Joannis et Baptis¬ mi Christi, quantum est inter aquam et Spi¬ ritum. At Baptismus Joannis efficax erat ad alendam fidem, non minus quam Baptismus Christi; Nam in Baptismo Joannis erat ex¬ terna ablutio, et verbum promissionis. Nam praedicabat Baptismum poenitentiae in re¬ missionem peccatorum, Luc. 111. et praedi¬ cabat simul fidem Mediatoris, dicens, ut cre¬ derent in eum, qui venturus erat, Act. XIX. Ad lioc argumentum Calvinus in cap. III. Matth. Respondet, eamdem fuisse efficaciam Baptismi Joannis et Christi : discrimen au¬ tem, quod ponit Joannes in aqua et Spiritu, dicit in eo consistere, quod Joannes erat minister externi ritus, Christus autem erat auctor internae sanctificationis. At si ita est, non debuit Joannes dicere: Ego baptizo, ille baptizabit, sed : Ego baptizo, ille baptizat. Praeterea si erat eadem vis utriusque Bap¬ tismi, cur Actor. XIX. Paulus jussit bapti¬ zari Christi Baptismo eos, quos audivit jam fuisse baptizatos Baptismo Joannis. Respondet Calvinus in commentar. Act. XIX, non fuisse illos iterum baptizatos ; sed tantum accepisse visibiliter donum Spiritus sancti, et hoc significari illis verbis : His au¬ ditis baptizati sunt in nomine Domini Jesu. At praeterquam quod ista esset vitiosa aequivo- catio, cum in tota ea narratione accipiatur nomenBaptismi pro Baptismo aquae, et quod licebit, omnes Scripturas pervertere, si licet verba tam aperta alio torquere, ibidem mox adjungit I.ucas : Et cum imposuisset illis ma¬ nus Paulus, venit Spiritus sanctus super eos, et loquebantur linguis, et prophetabant . Non igitur illud : Baptizati sunt, (3) significat, Acceperunt donum Spiritus sancti visibi¬ liter. Respondet Calvinus, ista posteriora verba esse explicationem priorum. At non diceret Lucas : Baptizati sunt ; et cum imposuisset manus etc. sed Baptizati sunt: Nam cum im¬ posuisset manus etc. vel certe, Baptizati sunt, et imposuit illis manus etc. sic enim fieri solent explicationes. Illa autem phrasis: His auditis , baptizati sunt in nomine Domini Jesu, et cum imposuisset illis manus Paulus, ve¬ nit Spiritus sanctus ; evidenter ostendit, duas fuisse actiones, et diverso tempore factas, Baptismum et manus impositionem.’ Denique conferatur hic locus cum alio ejusdem auc¬ toris, nimirum Act. VIII, ubi similiter habe¬ tur Baptismus in nomine Domini Jesu, et impositio manuum, et erit luce clarius per Baptismum in utroque loco intclligi verum Baptismum. Secundum testimonium Mare. ult. : Qui crediderit, et baptizatus fuerit, salvus erit. (4) Hic tribuitur Baptismo vis salvandi, at non salvat nisi justificando et abluendo sordes peccatorum. Neque potest responderi, quod salvet ex¬ citando fidem. Nam in primis hoc loco fides prcccedit. Ineptum .autem est dicere, primo poni effectum, deinde causam. Sicut enim absurdum esset dicere: Qui curatus fuerit et acceperit medicinam ; ita absurdum e«set dicere : Qui crediderit, et baptizatus fuerit, si Baptismus est causa fidei. Unde quia audire verbum Dei est vere causa fidei, semper in Scriptura pra;cedit, ut Joan. V : Qui audit verbum, et credit, habet vitam aiternam. Et Joan. VI : Omnis qui audivit, et didicit, venit ad me (5). Non ergo fides est effectus Bap¬ tismi, cum eum praecedat, sed potius dispo¬ sitio ad illum. Praeterea ad hominem : Christus hoc loco non conjungit Sacramentum cum concione, ut adversarii faciunt; non enim dicit : Qui audierit verbum, et baptizatus fuerit; sed conjungit cum fide, quoe est effectus verbi. (1) Rom. I, 16. — (2) Matth. 111, 11; Mare. 1, 8; Luc. III, 16; Joan. I, 26; Act. I, 5. — (3) Act. XIX, 5 et 6. — (4) Mare. XVI, 16. — (5) Joan. V, 24; VI, 45. 430 LIBER II. Sicut ergo fides apud adversarios immediate justificat applicando merita Christi, non au¬ tem excitando aliquam aliam causam ; cur non eodem modo fateantur Baptismum im¬ mediate justificare applicando Christi me¬ rita, cum Christus eodem modo loquatur de fide et de Baptismo? Tertium testimonium Joan. III : Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu sancto, non potest introire in regnum Dei (1). Hic locus aperte facit Baptismum aquae causam novae nativitatis; id enim significat praepositio, Ex, ut patet in omnibus similibus locutioni¬ bus. Neque potest dici, quod renasci ex aqua sit renasci ex fide, quam excitat aqua. Nam Primo, debuisset potius Christus dicere: Nisi quis renatus fuerit€x verbo et Spiritu sancto, quam, Ex aqua et Spiritu sancto ; cum prin¬ cipalior causa excitandae fidei, sit verbum, quam aqua. Secundo, quia fuisset Christi sermo omnino inintelliglbilis. Nam cum ni¬ hil dixerit antea de fide, quis divinare pos¬ set, eum modo tradere rationem excitandae fidei? Tertio, esset falsu propositio : Nisi quis renatus fuerit etc. Nam si fides sola justifi¬ cat, impertinens est ad salutem, unde fides excitetur, sive ex aqua, sive ex vino, sive ex alia re. Et constat multis modis, fidem ex¬ citari posse sine baptismo aqua} : concio fenim abunde sufficit ad excitandam fidem. Ad hunc locum non potuit aliter Calvinus respondere, nisi negando, hic agi de Baptis¬ mo, quod etiam ante illum negarunt Zwing- lius et Bucerus. Itaque Calvinus in comment. et lib. IV Institut. cap. 16. §. 25. negat, in- telligi debere de Sacramento Baptismi, sed de sola interna renovatione. Quocirca per aquam vult intelligi Spiritum sanctum, et hunc esse sensum : Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua, id est, ex Spiritu sancto, qui instar aquse mundat etc. At primum; Omnes scriptores hactenus hunc locum intellexerunt de Baptismo; ut Justinus Apologia 2. Tertullianus in lib. de Baptismo, Cyprianus lib. III ad Quirinum c. 25. Ambrosius lib. III de Spiritu sancto cap. 11. Hieronymus in cap. XVI Ezcchielis, item Basilius, Gregorius Nazianzenus, Gregorius Nyssenus in serm. de Baptismo; denique omnes interpretes hujus loci, Origenes, Cliry- sostomus, Augustinus, Cyrillus, Beda, Theo- phylactus, Euthymius, et alii. Secundo; Si ita liceret ludere in Scriptu¬ ris, possemus negare Baptismum aquae . Nam ubique intelligemus nomine aqua) Spiritum sanctum, et eodem modo licebit pervertere omnia alia mysteria. Tertio; Negari non potest, quin sit coacta et absurda, et Scripturis inusitata locutio. Nec valet exemplum, quod Calvinus profert ex Matth. III : Ille vos baptizabit in Spiritu sancto et igni (2). Ubi vult per ignem intelligi eumdem Spiritum sanctum, ut habet simili¬ tudinem cum igne. Nam per ignem rectissi¬ me potest intelligi externus ignis, qui des¬ cendit visibiliter super Apostolos in die Pen¬ tecostes, vel ignis tribulationis, vel ignis Purgatorii : quas expositiones attingit Beda in commentar. Luc. III. Praeterea in hoc loco ignis postponitur Spiritui sancto, et non est ita absurdum, post unum vocabulum poni alterum, quo illud declaretur. At aquam Joan. III. Dominus praeposuit Spiritui sanc¬ to ; absurdissimum autem est, prius poni de¬ clarationem, deinde id, quod declarandum est. Neque negari potest, quin aqua si acci¬ pitur pro Spiritu sancto, ponatur ad decla¬ randum effectum Spiritus sancti, qui est mundare. Quarto ; Si aqua hoc loco non poneretur, nisi ad explicandum effectum Spiritus sanc¬ ti, male conjungeretur cum verbo renascen¬ di ; aqua enim , si tantum inspiciafur ejus significatio, non gignit, sed lavat, et refri¬ gerat. Itaque vel dicere debuisset Dominus : Nisi quis mundatus fuerit aqua et Spiritu sancto, vel : Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex se¬ mine et Spiritu sancto. Non igitur aqua so¬ lum hoc loco declarat effectum Spiritus sanc¬ ti, sed proprie significat aquam, ut concur¬ rit Sacramentaliter ad spiritualem regene¬ rationem. Quartum testimonium Act. II : Poeniten¬ tiam agite , et baptizetur unusquisque vestrum in remissionem peccatorum. Cui simile est illud Actor. XXII : Et nunc quid moraris ; bapti¬ zare, et ablue peccata tua, invocato nomine ipsius (3). In his locis tribuitur Baptismo re¬ missio peccatorum : nec potest dici id fieri, quod Baptismus excitet fidem. Nam quos Petrus alloquitur Act. II. jam crediderant, ut Lucas ibidem indicat. Audita enim Petri concione, compuncti sunt corde, et dixerunt: Quid faciemus viri fratres ; Petrus autem non ait : Oportet credere , vel magis credere, (1) Joan. III, 3. - (2) Matth. 111, 11. — (3) Act. II, 38; XXII, 16. CAPUT III. sed : Poenitentiam agite etc. Pari ratione Pau¬ lus, cui dixit Ananias Actor. XXII : Bapti¬ zare , et ablue peccata tua , jam crediderat, et poenitentiam egerat triduo jejunans. Respondet Calvinus, tum in commentario Actorum, tum lib. IV Instit. cap. 15. §. 18. baptizari in remissionem peccatorum, seu abluere peccata Baptismo , nihil esse aliud, nisi accipere testimonium , seu sigillum ac¬ ceptae justificationis, idque ad fidem robo¬ randam, et confirmandam. Sed (ut omittam , quod antea demonstra¬ vimus, Sacramenta non posse esse sigilla, vel certe esse falsa sigilla, cum non sciat mi¬ nister, an ille cui applicat sigillum divinum, sit vere justificatus) quis non miretur novum istum tropum, quo abluere peccata, signifi¬ cat, accipere sigillum justificationis accep¬ tas? Inauditum est enim, ut actio significata, ponatur ad significandum signum; et quod actio futura ponatur ad significandam pras- teritam. Exempla esse possunt, si quis dice¬ ret : Bibe vinum, absurde id diceret, si sig¬ nificare vellet : Inspice hederam , quse in hospitio pendet. Pari ratione , si Imperatori revertenti cum victoria, diceretur : Vince hostes, idque diceretur ad significandum : Accipe triumphum in signum praeteritae vic¬ toriae, absurdissima esset locutio. Non enim recte dicitur : Vince hostes, ei, qui jam pug¬ navit, et vicit. Quintum testimonium Act. VIII.: Cum vi¬ disset Simon, quia per impositionem manuum Apostolo7'um daretur Spiritus sanctus : cui loco similis est ille II. Timoth. II : Admoneo te, ut ressuscites gratiam, quae est in te per impositio¬ nem manuum mearum( 1). Etsi enim haec loca intelliguntur de Sacramentis Confirmationis et Ordinationis , quae apud multos adversa¬ riorum non sunt proprie Sacramenta : ta¬ men si Sacramenta, ut ipsi volunt , impro¬ prie dicta sunt verae causae gratiae, quanto magis Sacramenta proprie dicta? Porro in his locis apertissime impositio manuum as¬ seritur causa gratiae , ut patet ex illa parti¬ cula, Per. Nec potest dici, manuum imposi¬ tionem esse causam gratiae , excitando fi¬ dem ; Nam omnes isti, qui per impositionem manuum acceperunt gratiam Spiritus sancti, jam crediderant et baptizati erant. Sextum testimonium, I. Corinth. X : Unum corpus multi sumus, omnes, qui de uno pane 431 participamus (2). Ubi participare de uno pane ponitur pro causa unius corporis. Quod in Graeco est clarius : oi qxp 7rxvT£; ex rou £voj iprov gsT6£of«v. Omnes enim ex uno pane par¬ ticipamus. Quomodo autem sumus unum corpus, quia de uno pane participamus, nisi quia panis ille alit, et auget vitam hujus corporis? Nam in rebus corporali¬ bus, quia idem cibus alit omnia membra ejusdem corporis, ideo rectissime probamus, aliqua membra esse membra ejusdem cor¬ poris, si ab eodem cibo alantur. Quare si tollas a Sacramento altaris veram causalita- tem gratiae, non poterit probari, quod simus unum corpus, quia eamdem Eucharistiam participamus. Similis est huic loco ille, I. Corinth. XII : Etenim omnes nos in uno Spi¬ ritu in unum corpus baptizati sumus (3). Ubi Paulus probat, nos esse unum corpus , quia per Baptismum accepimus unum Spiritum. Quod argumcntam nihil efficit, si Baptismus non confert Spiritum. Septimum testimonium Ephes. V : Chris¬ tus dilexit Ecclesiam , et tradidit semetipsum pro ea, mundans eam lavacro aquce in verbo vitee. Cui similis est locus ille Tit. III : Sal¬ vos nos fecit per lavacrum regenerationis (4). Ubi apertissime dicimur mundari, et salvari lavacro aquas, et per lavacrum : utrum¬ que autem causam instrumentalem signifi¬ cat. Respondet Calvinus in commentario ho¬ rum locorum, Baptismum proprie dici lava¬ crum animas, et esse symbolum efficax : quia Deus, dum hoc signum ostendit, si¬ mul etiam operatur, quod per illud signifi¬ cat. At per accidens hoc modo conjungitur justificatio, quam solus Deus facit cum Bap¬ tismo : proinde non magis proprie dicimur mundari, et salvari per Baptismum , quam per quamlibet aliam actionem, quas tunc si¬ mul fiat. Nec potest vere dici Baptismus la¬ vacrum regenerationis, si per illum Deus non lavat nos, licet eodem tempore lavet nos, Si dicat, Deum nos mundare per Baptis¬ mum, quia ostendens illud symbolum, pro¬ vocat fidem , quae mundat : etiam dicere posset, homines inebriari per hederam, quae pendet in hospitiis ; quia illa hedera provo¬ cat ad emendum vinum, quod vinum postea inebriat. (1) Act. VIII, 18; II. Tirn. I, 6. — (2) I. Cor. X, 17. — (3) I. Cor. XII, 13. - (4) Epk. V, 25 et 2G ; Tit. III, 5. 432 LIBER H. Octavum testimonium est, 1. Petr. III : Quod nos similis fornice salvos facit Baptisma, non camis depositio sordium , sed conscicnlice bonce interrogatio in Deum (I). Ilie habemus primum, Baptismo nos salvos fieri. Deinde, salvos fieri simili quodammodo, quo olim tempore Noe pauci quidam salvi facti sunt per aquam. Atqui aqua illa vere et efficien¬ ter salvavit cos, qui erant in arca, videlicet arcam in sublime attollens. Denique, habemus discrimen inter Baptis¬ mata Judaeorum, et nostrum : quod illa tol¬ lerent sordes carnis, nostrum purificet con¬ scientiam. Sicut igitur Baptismata Judaeo¬ rum vere tollebant sordes carnis, non tan¬ tum significando , sed etiam efficiendo ; ita et nostrum Baptisma vere lavat conscien¬ tiam, non tantum significando, sed etiam efficiendo.