Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacraments in General · Book II: On the Effect, Number, and Ceremonies of the Sacraments
Chapter 9: The objections drawn from the Scriptures are solved
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).
The arguments of Luther, Philip, Calvin, Kemnitz, and others are to be solved, which indeed are taken partly from the Scriptures, partly from the Fathers, partly from reason. That we may begin, then, from the first class of arguments: The first argument is taken from Habacuc 2, Romans 1, and Hebrews 10: The just man liveth by faith, says the Scripture; but it does not say, The just man liveth by the Sacraments; therefore the Sacraments do not justify except by exciting faith. It is confirmed from like places, as Romans 4: Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him unto justice. And Romans 10: With the heart we believe unto justice. And Paul did not add, And with the body the Sacrament is received unto justice. So Luther in the Babylon, chapter On Baptism, and in the assertion of the first article. I answer, first: the Scripture does not say, The just man liveth by faith alone; and accordingly its place is left to the Sacraments. Otherwise not only the Sacraments, but also God, and the merit of Christ, and other things would be excluded, which the Lutherans themselves do not will excluded; for the Scripture does not say, The just man liveth by God, or liveth by the merit of Christ. Second, although in these words the Scripture does not say that the just man lives by the Sacraments, yet it says the same in other words. For when it says that a man is regenerated through Baptism, John 3 and Titus 3, what else does it say, but that Baptism gives life? Third, those prophetic words, The just man liveth by faith, do not signify to the letter that a man is made or reputed just by faith, as the Lutherans will have it, but signify that the just man, by the faith which he has, constantly awaits what God has promised, and is not broken or does not fail, even though the promises seem delayed. That this is the true sense he will not doubt who weighs the place of Habacuc and of Paul to the Hebrews; for each treats of patience and long-suffering: If it make any delay, says the Prophet, and from him the Apostle, wait for it; for it shall surely come, and shall not be slack. Behold, he that is incredulous, his soul shall not be right in himself; but the just shall live by his faith. To the Confirmation I answer in the same manner. For Paul attributes justification to faith, but not to faith alone. And besides, the Scripture attributes the same in other places to the Sacrament, as Acts 2: Be baptized every one of you unto the remission of sins. And Acts 22: Be baptized, and wash away thy sins, invoking his name.
The second argument, from Mark last: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be condemned. Luther, in the places cited in the first argument, argues in two ways from this testimony. First thus: He who believes and is baptized is saved; he who does not believe is damned, even though he be baptized; therefore not Baptism, but faith saves. Second thus: The Lord says, He that believeth not shall be condemned, and does not say, He that is not baptized shall be condemned; therefore faith alone saves, not Baptism. To the first I answer that the consequence is bad. For only this can be gathered from that antecedent: Therefore not Baptism alone saves; but not, Therefore Baptism does not save. Otherwise, from this, that Paul says 1 Corinthians 13 that faith profits nothing without charity, we could gather: Therefore faith profits nothing. To the second I say that the Lord did not say, He that is not baptized shall be condemned, not because this is not most true — since the same Lord said, John 3: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God — but because there was no need to say this, since it was understood of itself from what had been said, He that believeth not shall be condemned. For he who does not believe consequently does not will to be baptized, and even if he willed it, it would profit him nothing. But in the affirmation it was needful to add Baptism to faith, because not everyone who believes is baptized. Similar are the arguments from genus to species. For negatively it is valid: It is not an animal, therefore neither a man; affirmatively it is not valid: It is an animal, therefore it is a man.
The third argument is taken from Paul, Romans 4; for thus Philip says in the Apology article 13: “Paul cries out” (namely against the Scholastics, teaching that the Sacraments justify ex opere operato) “and denies that Abraham was justified by Circumcision, but says that Circumcision is a sign set forth to exercise our faith.” Therefore in the same manner the Christian Sacraments do not justify except by exciting faith. I answer, first: Paul does not say that Circumcision was a sign set forth to exercise faith, but that it was given to Abraham as a seal of the justice of faith — that is, that this privilege was made to Abraham, that he first should have the Sacrament of Circumcision, because his obedience and faith had merited it. For it was a testimony of the justice of his faith, as we noted above, chapter 17. And so this place makes nothing to the point. For Circumcision was to Abraham alone a seal, not exciting faith, but a testimony of faith already before had. Second, the reason of Circumcision and of Baptism is not the same. For of Circumcision Paul says, Circumcision is nothing, 1 Corinthians 7; but of Baptism, to Titus 3: He saved us by the laver of regeneration. But of this afterward.
The fourth argument is Zwingli's, in the book On true and false religion, who brings that of Luke 5: Who can forgive sins, but God only? “The Pharisees,” says Zwingli, “understood that God only, not the Sacraments, can justify”; according to that of Isaias 43: I am he that blot out iniquities. I answer: it is a marvelous blindness of the heretics, who prefer to believe the Pharisees rather than Christ. For if the Pharisees said, Who can forgive sins, but God only?, Christ there healed the paralytic, to show that even as man he can forgive sins: But that you may know, he says, that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins; then he said to the paralytic, Take up thy bed, etc. And besides, did not Christ say to men, John 20: Whose sins you shall forgive, they shall be forgiven them? Nor yet for that reason will the words of Isaias be false. For he speaks of him who forgives sins by his own authority, who without doubt is God alone.
The fifth argument is Kemnitz's, from chapter 5 to the Ephesians, where the Apostle says: Cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life; where Paul attributes the whole force of Baptism to the word. But the word works by exciting faith; for Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ, Romans 10. Kemnitz also adds that of 1 Peter 3: Baptism saveth you, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the examination of a good conscience toward God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ; where Baptism is said to save through the resurrection — that is, through faith in the resurrection. I answer: to the Ephesians 5, by “the word of life” is not understood a sermon, whose effect is faith, but the form of the Sacrament — that is, the consecratory and practical word, not the sermon-word; for so all the interpreters expound, as we showed above in the question on the form of the Sacrament. Now St. Peter does not say that Baptism saves through faith in the resurrection, but through the resurrection — that is, as Bede on this place expounds, because when we are baptized we represent the resurrection of Christ by emerging from the waters; and because Baptism effects, by justifying us, that we walk in newness of life, in the way that Christ through his resurrection began to live a new life, as Paul also says Romans 6. A like phrase is Romans 4, where Paul says: Christ was delivered up for our sins, and rose again for our justification; which is the same as if he said, through the Passion of Christ we die to sin, through the resurrection of Christ we begin to live the life of justice; where without doubt the preposition for does not signify a meritorious cause, but an exemplary cause. For Christ did not merit by rising, since he was beyond the way and state of meriting.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT IX. Solvuntur objectiones ex scripturis de¬ prompta;. Solvenda sunt argumenta Luthei'i, Philip¬ pi, Calvini, Kemnitii, et aliorum : quae qui¬ dem partim sumuntur a Scripturis, partim a Patribus, partim a ratione. (1) Act. VIII, 36 et 37 , 442 LIRER II. Ut igitur a prima classe argumentorum incipiamus. Primum argumentum sumitur ex Habacuch II et Roman. I, et Hebr. X : Justus ex fide vivit, inquit Scriptura, non autem dicit, Justus ex Sacramentis vivit ; igitur Sacramenta non justificant, nisi exci¬ tando fidem. Confirmatur ex similibus locis, ut Roman. IV : Credidit Abraham Deo, et re¬ putatum est illi ad justitiam. Et Roman. X : Corde creditur ad justitiam (I). Et non addi¬ dit Paulus : Et corpore suscipitur Sacramen¬ tum ad justitiam. Ita Lutherus in Babylone, cap. de Baptismo, et in assert. primi artic. Respondeo : Primo non dicit Scriptura : Justus ex sola fide vivit, proinde relinquitur suus locus Sacramentis. Alioqui non solum Sacramenta, sed etiam Deus, et Christi me¬ ritum, et alia excluderentur, quae neque ipsi Lutherani excludi volunt ; non enim ait Scriptura : Justus ex Deo vivit, aut ex Christi merito vivit. Secundo, etsi bis verbis Scriptura non dicit, justum ex Sacramentis vivere : tamen idem dicit aliis verbis. Nam cum ait, homi¬ nem per Baptismum regenerari, Joan. III. et Tit. III. quid aliud dicit, nisi Baptis¬ mum dare vitam ? Tertio, verba illa Prophetica : Justus ex fide vivit , non significant ad litteram, Jus¬ tum hominem fieri, aut reputari ex fide, ut Lutherani volunt : sed significant, justum ex fide quam habet, constanter expectare, quae Deus promisit, et non frangi, aut deficere, etiamsi promissiones tardari videantur. Hunc esse verum sensum non dubitabit, qui expendet locum Habacuc, et Pauli ad Hebr. uterque enim tractat de patientia, et longa¬ nimitate : Si moram fecerit , inquit Propheta et ex eo Apostolus, expectaeum, quia veniens veniet , et non tardabit. Ecce qui incredulus est, non erit recta anima ejus in semetipso : Justus autem ex fide vivit (2). Ad Confirmationem res¬ pondeo eodem modo. Nam Paulus tribuit justificationem fidei, sed non soli. Et praete¬ rea idem tribuit Scriptura in aliis locis Sa¬ cramento, ut Actor. II : Baptizetur unusquis¬ que vestrum in remissionem peccatorum. Et Actor. XXII : Baptizare, et ablue peccata tua invocato nomine ipsius (3). Secundum argumentum ex Mare, ult : Qui crediderit, et baptizatus fuerit , salvus erit : qui vero non crediderit , condemnabitur (4) Lutherus locis citatis in primo argumento dupliciter ex hoc testimonio argumentatur. Prima sic : Qui credit et baptizatur, salvus est, qui non credit, damnatur, etiamsi bap¬ tizaretur : Igitur non Baptismus, sed fides salvat. Secundo, sic : Dominus ait : Qui non crediderit, condemnabitur-, et non ait : Qui non fuerit baptizatus, condemnabitur; igitur fides sola salvat, non baptismus. Ad Primum respondeo, malam esse con¬ sequentiam. Solum enim ex illo antecedente colligi potest: Ergo non solus Baptismus sal¬ vat; non autem, Ergo Baptismus non salvat. Alioqui ex eo, quod Paulus dicit, I. Corint. XIII, Fidem nihil prodesse sine charitate, possemus colligere : Ergo fides nihil prodest. Ad secundum dico, Dominum non dixisse : Qui non fuerit baptizatus, condemnabitur ; non quia hoc non sit verissimum, cum idem Dominus dixerit, Joan. III : Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua, et Spiritu sancto, non potest intrare in regnum Dei, (5) sed quia non erat opus hoc dicere, cum per se intelligeretur exeo, quod dictum erat : Qui non crediderit condemnabitur. Qui enim non credit, conse¬ quenter non vult baptizari, et etiamsi vellet, nihil ei prodesset. At in affirmatione opor¬ tuit addere Baptismum fidei, quia non om¬ nis qui credit, baptizatur. Similia sunt ar¬ gumenta a genere ad speciem. Negative enim valet : non est animal, igitur nec ho¬ mo ; affirmative non valet : est animal, igi¬ tur est homo. Tertium argumentum sumitur ex Paulo, Rom. IV, sic enim ait Philippus in Apologia, art. 13 : Paulus reclamat » (nimirum contra Scholasticos, docentes Sacramenta ex ope¬ re operato justificare) et negat Abrahamum justificatum ex Circumcisione, sed Circum¬ cisionem dicit esse signum propositum ad exercendam fidem nostram. Igitur eodem modo Sacramenta Christiana non justificant, nisi excitando fidem. Respondeo Primo, non dicit Paulus, Cir¬ cumcisionem fuisse signum propositum ad exercendam fidem, sed fuisse datam Abra- hamo ut signaculum justitiae fidei, id est, factum hoc privilegium Abrahamo, ut ipse primus haberet Sacramentum Circumcisio¬ nis; quia id meruerat ejus obedientia , et Jides. Fuit enim hoc testimonium justitiae fi¬ dei ipsius, ut supra monuimus, cap. 17. Ita¬ li) Habac. II, 4; Rom. I, 7; Hebr. X, 38; Rom. IV, 3 ; X, 10.— (2) Habac. II, 3 et 4. — (3) Act. II, 38 ; XXII, 16. — (4) Mare. XVI, 16. — (5) Joan. III, 3. que hic locus nihil facit ad rem. Nam Cir¬ cumcisio soli Abrahse fuit signaculum exci¬ tans fidem , sed testimonium fidei jam ante habitae. Secundo, non est eadem ratio Circumci¬ sionis, et Baptismi. Nam de Circumcisione Paulus dicit : Circumcisio nihil est , I. Corint. VII, de Baptismo autem ad Tit. III : Salvos nos fecit per lavacrum regenerationis. Sed de hoc postea (1). Quartum argumentum est Zwinglii, in libro de vera et falsa religione , qui adfert illud Luc. V : Quis potest dimittere peccata, nisi so¬ lus Deus? « Pharisaei, inquit Zwinglius, in¬ tellexerunt, solum Deum, non autem sacra¬ menta, posse justificare; » juxta illud Isa‘. XLIII : Ego sum, qui deleo iniquitates. Respondeo : miram esse haereticorum cae¬ citatem, qui malunt Pharisaeis credere, quam Christo. Nam si Pharisaei dixerunt: Quis po¬ test dimittere peccata, nisi solus Deus ? Chris¬ tus ibidem paralyticum sanavit, ut ostende¬ ret, se etiam ut hominem posse peccata di¬ mittere : ut autem sciatis , inquit, qnia Filius hominis habet potestatem in terra dimittendi peccata ; tunc ait paralytico : Tolle lectum tuum etc. (2) Et praeterea nonne Christus homini¬ bus dixit, Joan. XX : Quorum remiseritis peccata, remittentur eis ? (3) Nec tamen ob id falsa erunt verba Isaiae. Ipse enim loquitur de eo, qui propria auctoritate peccata dimit¬ tit, qui sine dubio solus Deus est. Quintum argumentum est Kemnitii, ex c. V. ad Ephes. ubi Apostolus ait : Mundans eam lavacro aquee in verbo vitee ; ubi totam vim Baptismi tribuit Paulus verbo. Verbum autem operatur excitando fidem; nam, Fi¬ des ex auditu, auditus autem per verbum Chri¬ sti, Rom. X. Addit etiam Kemnitius illud, I. Pet. III : Vos salvos facit Baptisma , non car¬ nis depositio sordium , sed conscientiae bonce interrogatio in Deum per resurrectionem Jesu Christi (4); ubi Baptisma dicitur salvare per resurrectionem, id est, per fidem resurrec¬ tionis. Respondeo, ad Ephes. V, per verbum vi¬ tae, non intelligi concionem , cujus effectus est fides , sed formam Sacramenti , id est, verbum consecratorium, et praticum , non concionale : Ita enim exponunt omnes inter¬ pretes, ut supra ostendimus in quaestione de forma Sacramenti. Porro, S. Petrus non di¬ cit, Baptisma salvare per fidem resurrectio¬ nis, sed per resurrectionem, id est, ut Beda in hunc locum exponit, quia cum baptiza¬ mur, repraesentamus Christi resurrectionem, emergendo ex aquis; et quia Baptismus fa¬ cit justificando nos , ut in novitate vitae am¬ bulemus , quomodo Christus per resurrec¬ tionem novam vitam vivere coepit, sicut etiam Paulus dicit, Roman. VI. Similis phrasis est Roman. IV, ubi Paulus dicit : Christus traditus est propter delicta nostra, etresurrexit propter justificationem nostram (3); > quod idem est, ac si diceret, per Christi pas¬ sionem morimur peccato, per Christi resur¬ rectionem justitiae vita vivere incipimus : ubi sine dubio pra:positio, Per, non significat causam meritoriam, sed causam exempla¬ rem. Non enim Christus .meruit resurgendo, cum fuerit extra viam et statum merendi.