Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacraments in General · Book II: On the Effect, Number, and Ceremonies of the Sacraments
Chapter 12: The controversy on the difference between the Sacraments of the new and old law is explained
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).
There follows the other question on the effect of the Sacrament: namely, whether to justify ex opere operato is proper to the Sacraments of the new law, or common with the Sacraments of the old law. There will be four parts of this question. For first we shall set forth the opinion of the heretics; second, the opinion of the Catholics; third, we shall prove the truth; fourth, we shall solve the objections.
As to the first, it is agreed among all Catholics and heretics that there are at least six differences between the Sacraments of the new and of the old law. The first, that now there are other external rites than there were then, as is well known. The second, that now there are fewer Sacraments than there were then. The third, that ours are easier, as is plain of Circumcision and Baptism, and others. The fourth, that ours are nobler, at least by reason of their author, because ours were instituted and promulgated immediately by Christ himself, but the Mosaic ones, if not instituted, were at least promulgated by Moses. The fifth, that those were figures of ours. The sixth, that those were given for a time — that is, until the coming of the Messiah — but ours are to last as long as the world lasts. All these are gathered from Augustine in epistle 118 to Januarius, book 3 On Christian doctrine chapter 9, and book 19 against Faustus chapter 13, on Psalm 73.
But the question is whether, besides these differences, there is a difference in the principal effect, which is to justify from sin. The heretics of this time set down almost no difference, although they do not sufficiently agree among themselves. And first the Anabaptists, Karlstadians, and Zwinglians, who (as we showed above) attribute nothing to our Sacraments except that they distinguish the faithful from the unfaithful, or are, as it were, a profession of fidelity, or admonish of good works, are compelled to attribute more to the old Sacraments than to ours. For Circumcision, which always remains and can be seen, better distinguishes a Jew from a non-Jew than Baptism, which is exhibited once and passes. And by the same reasoning Circumcision better admonishes of fidelity and good works than Baptism, since it is permanent, grosser, and more sensible, etc. But Luther, who will have our Sacraments excite faith, attributes the same to the old Sacraments. Whence he thus says in the book On the Babylonian captivity, chapter On Baptism: “It is an error that the Sacraments of the new law differ from the Sacraments of the old law in the efficacy of signification — that is, that ours efficaciously signify by doing what they figure, not those.” And the same he repeats in the assertion of the first article.
But it is to be noted that Luther distinguishes two kinds of old signs in the book On the Babylonian captivity, chapter On Baptism. For some, he says, were such as had annexed a word of promise, and accordingly exacted faith, as the sign of the rainbow given to Noe, the sign of the dew in the fleece of Gedeon, the sign in the going back of the sun given by Isaias to King Ezechias, and others. And these he says were true Sacraments, and equal to ours as to efficacy. But others, he says, were such as had not an annexed promise, as all those legal ceremonies by which men, garments, houses, etc., were expiated; and these he says were not properly Sacraments, and are far inferior to our Sacraments. Whence in the first homily On Baptism, not far from the beginning of the second part, he gravely inveighs against the Anabaptists, who would attribute no more to our Baptism than to the Jewish washings; as though he himself attributed much to Baptism, who does not fear to equate the rainbow with it. Now from this distinction of Luther is gathered another error, or rather a paradox of his, who will not have those to be Sacraments which by all the ancients are called Sacraments, as the Jewish washings, the Paschal Lamb, the sacrifices, and the like; and on the contrary, will have those to be Sacraments which by no one, not even in a dream, were called Sacraments, as the rainbow, the fleece of Gedeon, the shadow of the dial of Achaz, and the like.
Now Calvin agrees with Luther that the Sacraments of the old law justified in the same manner as ours, namely by nourishing faith. For book 4 of the Institutes chapter 14 section 23: “This Scholastic dogma,” he says, “by which so long a difference between the Sacraments of the old and new law is noted — as if those adumbrated nothing but the grace of God, but these confer it present — is utterly to be exploded”; and he has like things in the Antidote to the Council of Trent, session 7 canon 2. Yet Calvin dissents from Luther in two things. First, that he thinks the Sacraments of the new law give a more abundant grace than the old, because, namely, they more clearly excite faith, and accordingly a greater faith justifies more. “Nor yet do we deny,” he says in the Antidote, in the place cited, “that a more abundant grace is received under the kingdom of Christ.” But Luther altogether equates those Sacraments with ours. Second, Luther (as we showed) will have, not all the Jewish ceremonies, but only those which have annexed promises, to be Sacraments and equal to ours. But Calvin holds all those ceremonies for Sacraments, which gave grace, though not so copious as ours. For book 4 of the Institutes chapter 14 section 21 he numbers the purifications of the Jews among the Sacraments; and section 26 he teaches the same more at length. And although each errs, Calvin teaches less absurdly than Luther. Kemnitz in the Examen of the Council partly follows Luther, partly Calvin. For on pages 69 and 70 he admits Luther's distinction of the twofold kind of old signs; but on page 74 he admits with Calvin that a more abundant grace is given in the new Sacraments than in the old; but with each he agrees in condemning the doctrine of the Church. And this concerning the opinion of the heretics.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XII. Explicatur controversia de differentia Sacra¬ mentorum legis novae et veteris. Sequitur altera quaestio de effectu Sacra¬ menti; utrum videlicet justificare ex opere operato sit proprium Sacramentis nova; le¬ gis, an commune cum Sacramentis legis ve¬ teris. Quatuor erunt partes hujus qua;stio- nis. Exponemus enim primo sententiam hae¬ reticorum. Secundo sententiam Catholico¬ rum. Tertio probabimus veritatem. Quarto solvemus objectiones. Quantum ad primum, convenit inter om¬ nes Catholicos et haereticos, sex ut minimum esse differentias inter Sacramenta legis no¬ vae et veteris. Prima, quod nunc sint alii ri¬ tus externi, quam tunc erant, ut notum est. Secunda, quod nunc sint pauciora Sacra¬ menta, quam tunc erant. Tertia, quod sint nostra faciliora, ut patet de Circumcisione et Baptismo, et aliis. Quarta, quod nostra sint nobiliora saltem ratione auctoris, quia nostra ab ipso Christo immediate instituta et promulgata, Mosaica vero a Mose, si non instituta, certe promulgata sunt. Quinta, quod illa fuerint figurae nostrorum. Sexta, quod illa essent data ad tempus, id est, us¬ que ad adventum Messiae : nostra duratura sint, quamdiu mundus durabit. Colliguntur haec omnia ex Augustino in epist. 118. ad Januarium, lib. III de doctr. Christiana, c. 9. et lib. XIX contra Faustum, cap. 13. in Psalm. LXXIII. Qusestio autem est, utrum praeter has dif¬ ferentias, discrimen sit in effectu principali, qui est justificare a peccato. Haeretici hujus temporis nullum fere ponunt discrimen, quamquam inter se non satis conveniunt. Ac primum Anabaptistae, Carolstadiani et Zwingliani, qui (ut supra ostendimus) nihil tribuunt Sacramentis nostris, nisi ut discer¬ nant fideles ab infidelibus, vel sint quasi pro¬ fessio fidelitatis, vel admoneant bonorum operum, coguntur plus tribuere Sacramentis veteribus, quam nostris. Melius enim discer¬ nit Judaeum a non Judaeo Circumcisio, quae semper manet, et cerni potest, quam Bap¬ tismus, qui semel exhibetur, et transit. Et eadem ratione melius admonet fidelitatis et bonorum operum Circumcisio, quam Baptis¬ mus, cum illa sit permanens, crassior et sen¬ sibilior etc. Lulherus autem, qui vult Sacramenta nos¬ tra excitare fidem, idem tribuit Sacramentis veteribus. Unde sic ait in lib. de Babylonica captivitate, cap. de Baptismo : « Error est Sacramenta novae legis differre a Sacramen¬ tis veteris legis, penes efficaciam significa¬ tionis, id est, quod nostra efficaciter signifi¬ cent faciendo, quod figurant, non illa. » Et idem repetit in assert. 1. articuli. Est autem notandum, Lutherum distin¬ guere duo genera signorum veterum in libro de Babyl. Captivit. cap de Baptismo ; Quae- dam enim fuisse dicit, quae haberent anne¬ xum verbum promissionis, ac proinde exi¬ gerent fidem, ut signum iridis datum Xoe, signum roris in vellere Gedeonis, signum in reversione solis datum ab Isaia Regi Eze- chiae, et alia. Atque haec dicit fuisse vera Sacramenta, et aequalia nostris, quoad effi¬ caciam. Alia vero fuisse dicit, qua; non ha¬ berent annexam promissionem, ut omnes il¬ las caeremonias legales, quibus expiabantur homines, vestes, aedes etc. atque has dicit non fuisse proprie Sacramenta, et esse longe inferiora nostris Sacramentis. Unde inliom. 1. de Baptismo non procul ab initio 2. par¬ tis graviter invehitur in Anabaptistas, qui non plus tribuerent nostro Baptismo, quam lotionibus Judaicis ; quasi ipse multum tri¬ buat Baptismo, qui iridem illi aequare non veretur. Porro ex hac distinctione Lutheri colligitur alius error; vel potius paradoxum ipsius, qui non vult esse Sacramenta ea, qua; ab omnibus veteribus dicuntur Sacramenta, ut lotiones Judaicas, agnum Paschalem, sa¬ crificia, et similia, et contra, ea vult esse Sacramenta, quae a nullo, ne per somnium quidem, vocata sunt Sacramenta, ut iridem, vellus Gedeonis, umbram horologii Achaz, et similia. Jam Calvinus convenit cum Luthero, quod Sacramenta veteris legis eodem modo justi¬ ficarent, quo nostra, nimirum alendo fidem. Nam lib. IV lnstitut. cap. 14. §. 23 : « Hoc dogma, inquit, Scholasticum, quo tam lon¬ gum discrimen inter veteris ac novae legis Sacramenta notatur, perinde ac si illa non aliud, quam Dei gratiam adumbraverint, haec vero praesentem conferant, penitus ex¬ plodendum est, » et similia habet in Anti¬ doto Concilii Tridentini, sess. VII, can. 2. Dissentit tamen a Luthero Calvinus in duo- bus. Primo, quod existimat Sacramenta no¬ va legis uberiorem gratiam dare quam ve¬ tera, quia nimirum clarius excitant fidem, et proinde major fides magis justificat. «Ne¬ que tamen negamus, inquit in Antidoto, loco citato, quin uberior sub Christi regno perci¬ piatur gratia. » Lutherus autem omnino ®- quat Sacramenta illa nostris. Secundo, Lu¬ therus (ut ostendimus) non omnes caeremo¬ nias Judaicas, sed tantum eas, qu® habent annexas promissiones, vult esse Sacramenta et nostris aequalia. At Calvinus omnes illas caeremonias habet pro Sacramentis, quae darent gratiam, licet non ita copiosam, ut nostra. Nam lib. IV Instit. cap. 14. §. 21. purificationes Judaeorum numerat inter Sa¬ cramenta; et§. 26. idem prolixius docet. Et licet uterque erret, minus absurde Calvinus docet, quam Lutherus. Kemnitius in Examine Concilii partim Lu- tberum , partim Calvinum sequitur. Nam pag. 60 et 70.admittit Lutheri distinctionem de duplici genere signorum veterum : pag. autem 74. admittit cum Calvino uberiorem gratiam dari in Sacramentis novis, quam in veteribus : cum utroque autem convenit in damnanda Ecclesia; doctrina. Atque h®c de sententia haereticorum.