Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacraments in General · Book II: On the Effect, Number, and Ceremonies of the Sacraments
Chapter 13: The opinions of the Catholics are 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).
As to the second, all Catholics agree that the Sacraments of the old law, which are properly called Mosaic, did not confer grace ex opere operato. For this all the Theologians teach in book 4 distinction 1, and the same the Council of Florence defined in the instruction of the Armenians, and the Council of Trent, though more briefly and obscurely, because it was not necessary, since the matter was already defined, session 7 canon 2. But it is here to be noted that these councils did not define (as Kemnitz calumniates and lies, in the second part of the Examen pages 58 and 59) that the old Fathers had not the grace of God from the merit of Christ, or that they had it without any organ or means applying the merits of Christ. For the councils say none of these things, but only bring forward that this is the difference between the Sacraments of the old law and the new, that ours confer grace, those only signified it. But it does not follow that the old Fathers had not grace, or had it without an organ applying the merits of Christ. For although they had it not through Sacraments, yet they had it through faith; as even now adults are justified through faith and true contrition before they in fact approach the Sacrament.
But although the Catholics agree among themselves in this principle, and differ from the heretics of this time, yet there are also among them two questions, about which I shall briefly say what the opinions are, since it is necessary partly to explain the proposed controversy, partly to refute the calumnies of the heretics. One question, then, is concerning the old Sacraments (Circumcision excepted), whether they at least justified ex opere operantis. And there are two opinions. The first is the Master's, in book 4 distinction 1, who denies it; for he says that those Sacraments did not justify, even though they were received in faith and charity, because they were given to be a burden, not to justify. The second is the common opinion of the Theologians, that all those Sacraments justified ex opere operantis — that is, from the faith and devotion of the receiver; and this opinion is most true. For the opinion of the Apostle to the Romans 2 is generally true: The doers of the law shall be justified. Although this justification is not properly sacramental, but is common to all good works which are done in charity; nor is it the first justification, but the second. But that Kemnitz in the second part of the Examen page 58 cries out that this opinion directly and, as it were, front to front fights with Paul, who Romans 4 professedly teaches that Abraham was not justified by works, is born of mere unskillfulness. For Paul speaks of works which are done from the mere powers of free will, by which works we too confess that no one is justified. But the Theologians, when they say that the old Sacraments justified ex opere operantis, speak of the work which arises from the grace of God. For they call the opus operantis faith, charity, obedience, which are all gifts of God, since without a special help of God they are not had; of which works Paul Romans 2: The doers of the law shall be justified. And James chapter 2: Was not Abraham our father justified by works?
The other question is concerning Circumcision, which is not properly a Mosaic Sacrament, but of the law of nature; whence John 7: Circumcision is not of Moses, but of the fathers. Now of Circumcision there are two opinions. The first opinion is that of Alexander part 4 question 7 member 7 article 4, of Bonaventure, Scotus, and Gabriel, in book 4 distinction 1, who admit that Circumcision conferred justification ex opere operato. But many arguments fight with this opinion. First, the Scriptures, which, when they say that the old Sacraments were weak elements, do not exclude Circumcision; nay, they speak chiefly of it, as we shall see afterward. Second, the Councils, the Florentine and the Tridentine, which attribute the power of justifying to our Sacraments alone. Nor is it valid, what some say, that those Councils, when they deny that the Sacraments of the old law justified, speak only of the Mosaic Sacraments — that is, of those promulgated by Moses — but not of Circumcision, which was a Sacrament of the law of nature given to Abraham, not to Moses; this, I say, is not valid. For the Councils intend to explain the excellence of the Sacraments of the new law; which excellence is no less obscured if the Sacraments of the law of nature be equal to ours than if this be attributed to the Sacraments of the written law. Besides, since God in the law proceeded by degrees, and gave a more imperfect law in the state of nature than in the state of the written law, and in this state more imperfect than in the state of the Gospel, without doubt he did the same in the Sacraments; and accordingly if the Mosaic Sacraments did not justify, much less the Sacraments of the law of nature. Yet here it is to be noted that this first opinion does not favor the heretics of this time, though it equates some ancient Sacrament with ours. For the heretics, when they make the old Sacraments equal to ours, do not extol the old, but depress and cast down ours; but this first opinion does not cast down ours, but extols the old. The second opinion is that of St. Thomas part 3 question 70 article 4, and of the disciples of St. Thomas, Capreolus, Soto, Ledesma, and others, in book 4 distinction 1 or 2, who teach that Circumcision did not justify by its own force, but justified inasmuch as it was a protestation of faith, and applied faith. And so these authors will have it that the ancients were justified by the merit of the Passion of Christ, as we are justified, but that this merit was applied to us through the Sacraments, but to the Hebrews through faith alone; which faith, however, required as a condition, without which it did not work, the Sacrament of Circumcision. This opinion without doubt is more probable; but because we have proposed nothing to ourselves but to defend the faith against the heretics, these things omitted, let us pass to the third head.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XIII. Explicantur sententice Catholicorum. ♦ Quantum ad secundum, Catholici omnes conveniunt, Sacramenta veteris legis, qu® proprie Mosaica dicuntur, non contulisse gratiam ex opere operato. Id enim docent omnes Theologi in IV. dist. 1. et idem defi¬ nivit Concilium Florentinum in instruet. Ar- menorum; et Concilium Tridentinum, quam¬ vis brevius et obscurius, quia non erat ne- cesse, cum jam res esset definita, sess. VII, can. 2. Est autem hic notandum, ista concilia non definivisse (ut calumniatur et mentitur Kem¬ nitius in 2. parte Examinis, pag. 58 et 59.) veteres Patres non habuisse gratiam Dei ex merito Christi, aut eam habuisse sine ullo organo, seu medio applicante Christi meri¬ ta. Concilia enim nihil horum dicunt, sed tan¬ tum afferunt, hoc esse discrimen inter Sa¬ cramenta legis veteris, et nov®, quod nos¬ tra conferunt gratiam, illa solum eam signi¬ ficabant. Non est autem consequens, veteres Patres non habuisse gratiam, aut habuisse sine organo applicante Christi merita. Nam etiamsi non habuerunt eam per Sacramen¬ ta, tamen habuerunt per fidem, ut etiam nunc adulti per fidem et contritionem ve¬ ram jusfiticantur, antequam reipsa ad Sa¬ cramentum accedant. Etsi autem Catholici in hoc principio con¬ veniant inter se, et discrepent ab haereticis hujus temporis ; tamen sunt etiam apud eos du® qu®stiones, de quibus breviter dicam, qu® sint opiniones, cum id sit necessarium, partim ad controversiam propositam expli¬ candam, partim ad refellendas haretico- rum calumnias. Una igitur qu®stio est de Sacramentis ve¬ teribus Circumcisione excepta, an saltem justificarent ex opere operantis. Du® sunt autem opiniones. Prima Magistri in 4. dist.l. qui id negat : ait enim Sacramenta illa non justificasse, etiamsi in fide et charitate sus¬ ciperentur, quia data erant, ut essent one¬ ri, non ut justificarent. Secunda est com¬ munis Theologorum, justificasse omnia illa Sacramenta ex opere operantis, id est, ex fide, et devotione suscipientis : et h®c sen¬ tentia est verissima. Nam est generaliter vera sententia Apostoli ad Rom. II : Facto¬ res legis justificabuntur. Quamquam ista jus¬ tificatio non est proprie Sacramentalis, sed est communis omnibus bonis operibus, qu® in charitate fiunt; nec est justificatio prima, sed secunda. Quod autem Kemnitius in 2. par. Examinis, pag. 58. vociferatur, hanc sententiam directe, et quasi adversa fronte pugnare cum Paulo, qui Rom. IV. ex profes¬ so docet, Abrahamum non esse justifica¬ tum ex operibus, ex mera imperitia nasci¬ tur. Nam Paulus loquitur de operibus, qu® fiunt ex solis viribus liberi arbitrii, quibus operibus et nos fatemur, neminem justifi¬ cari. Theologi autem cum dicunt, Sacra¬ menta vetera justificasse ex opere operan¬ tis ; loquuntur de opere, quod oritur ex gratia Dei. Vocant enim opus operantis fi¬ dem, charitatem, obedientiam, qu® sunt omnia Dei dona, cum sine speciali Dei auxi¬ lio non habeantur : de qualibus operibus Paulus Rom. II : Factores legis justificabuntur. 454 LIBER II. Et Jaeobus cap. II: Abraham nonne ex ope - ribus justificatus est? (I) Altera qucestio est de Circumcisione, quae non est proprie Sacramentum Mosaicum, sed legis naturae : unde Joan. VI : Circumci¬ sio non est ex Mose , sed ex Patribus. (: 2 ) Por¬ ro de Circumcisione duae sunt opiniones. Prima opinio est Alexandri par. 4. quaest. VII. memb. 7. art. 4. Bonaventurae, Scoti, et G.ibrielis, in IV. distinet. 1. qui admit¬ tunt Circumcisionem ex opere operato con¬ tulisse justificationem : Pugnant autem cum hac sententia multa argumenta. Primo Scripturae, quae cum dicunt , Sacramenta vetera fuisse egena elementa, non exclu¬ dunt Circumcisionem, imo de illa maxime loquuntur, ut postea videbimus. Secundo Concilia, Florentinum, et Tridentinum, quae solis Sacramentis nostris tribuunt vim jus¬ tificandi. Neque valet, quod quidam dicunt, Concilia ista cum negant, Sacramenta vete¬ ris legis justificasse, loqui tantum de Sacra¬ mentis Mosaicis, id est, a Mose promulga¬ tis, non autem de Circumcisione, quae erat Sacramentum legis naturae datum Abrahae, nou Mosi, hoc, inquam, non valet. Nam Concilia intendunt explicare excellentiam Sacramentorum novae legis ; quae quidem excellentia non minus obscuratur, si Sacra¬ menta legis naturae sint nostris aequalia, quam si id tribuatur Sacramentis legis scrip¬ tae. Praeterea cum Deus in lege gradatim processerit, et legem imperfectiorem dede¬ rit in statu naturae, quam in statu legi scrip¬ tae; et in hoc statu imperfectiorem, quam in statu Evangelii : idem sine dubio fecit in Sacramentis : proinde si Sacramenta Mosai- ca non justificabant, multo minus Sacra¬ menta legis naturae. Hic tamen est hoc Annotandum, hanc sententiam primam non favere haereticis hujus temporis, licet aliquod Sacramentum antiquum cum nostris aequaverit. Nam haere¬ tici cum paria laciunt Sacramenta vetera nostris, non vetera extollunt, sed nostra de¬ primunt, ac dejiciunt; btec autem prima sententia non dejicit nostra, sed extollit an¬ tiqua. Secunda sententia est S. Thomae 3. par. quaest. LXX. art. 4. et discipulorum S. The¬ ma?, Capreoli, Soti, Ledesmii, et aliorum, in IV. dist. I. vel 2. qui docent, Circumci¬ sionem vi sua non justificasse, sed justifi¬ casse tamen, qhatenus fidei protestatio erat, et fidem applicabat. Itaque volunt ii aucto¬ res, justificatos fuisse veteres ex merito pas¬ sionis Christi, ut nos justificamur, sed hoc meritum nobis applicari per Sacramenta, Hebraeis autem per solam fidem ; quae ta¬ men fides requirebat ut conditionem, sine qua non operabatur, Sacramentum Circum¬ cisionis. Haec sententia sine dubio probabi¬ lior est : sed quia non est nobis propositum, nisi fidem adversus haereticos propugnare, his omissis, ad tertium caput transeamus.