Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacraments in General · Book II: On the Effect, Number, and Ceremonies of the Sacraments
Chapter 27: The objections 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).
It remains that we dissolve the objections of the adversaries, which are partly from Scripture, partly from the Fathers, partly from reason. First, then, from Scripture they bring forward three arguments. The first negative, because the Scriptures nowhere hand down that there are seven Sacraments. The second affirmative, because the Scriptures teach that there are only two Sacraments. For John 19 from the side of Christ flowed blood and water — that is (as Chrysostom, Cyril, and Theophylact expound that place, and Damascene book 4 On the faith chapter 10, and Augustine book 2 On the Creed chapter 6 and tract 9 on John, and others) the Eucharist and Baptism. The third, because the Scriptures not only do not set down seven, and set down only two, but also deny that there are seven. For Apocalypse 17 the Angel calls a Sacrament the beast which had seven heads; from which the sevenfold number of the Sacraments seems to be signified as pertaining to Antichrist, who is designated by that beast. These are the arguments of Kemnitz from Scripture, which he has in the second part of the Examen pages 18 and 50. But these are light. To the first we answered above, that Scripture nowhere expressly numbers either seven, or two, or three. To the second, that place of John can not ill be so expounded that by the blood and water are signified the Eucharist and Baptism, as almost all the Greeks expound; but not for that reason are the other Sacraments excluded. For only two are set down, because those are more common and more principal, and from them the same judgment could be made of the rest. As also Hebrews 6 Paul sets down only two Sacraments, Baptism and the imposition of hands, that is, Confirmation: Not laying again the foundation of penance from dead works, and of faith toward God, of the doctrine of Baptisms, and imposition of hands. Where by the imposition of hands Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Oecumenius, and others understand Confirmation, which was given after Baptism; and he does not mention the Eucharist, which was given at the same time (as it is even now given when adults are baptized) with Baptism and Confirmation.
Yet I say, secondly, that it is not necessary to follow that exposition of the Greeks concerning the blood and water. For other equally great expositors expound otherwise. Cyril, catechesis 3, and Jerome in epistle 83 to Oceanus understand by the blood and water two Baptisms signified: one in blood, that is, Martyrdom; the other in water. Ambrose book 10 on Luke chapter 103, and Leo epistle 4, and Augustine and Bede on chapter 19 of John, understand by the blood the price of redemption, by the water Baptism. And this seems the most literal exposition, namely that we understand that from the side of Christ flowed Baptism, which has all its force from the blood of Christ. For therefore he did not say, There came out water and blood, as the order would demand if it were a question of Baptism and the Eucharist, since Baptism precedes the Eucharist; but he said, There came out blood and water — that is, the price, and the application of that price. Which is also confirmed from that of 1 John 5: This is he that came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. Where John himself seems to explain the mystery which he had set down, John 19, and at the same time to show the difference between the Baptism of Christ and of John, that John came in water only — that is, brought a Baptism not efficacious — but Christ brought a most efficacious Baptism, since he gave water mingled with blood. To the third I answer that Kemnitz is blasphemous when he says that the Sacraments of Christ are the heads of the beast. For he is compelled, will he or nill he, to number among the heads of the beast even those Sacraments which he himself holds for true Sacraments, namely Baptism and the Eucharist; for these are of the number of those seven. Add that John does not say that those seven heads are seven Sacraments, but one Sacrament; and accordingly (if it be lawful to trifle) this would rather square with Luther, who said there is one Sacrament and several sacramental signs. Finally John himself interprets those seven heads as seven kings. From which the whole edifice of Kemnitz's blasphemy falls.
Now from the Fathers. First, Calvin book 4 of the Institutes chapter 19 section 3 says that the ancients, when they speak properly of the Sacraments, were content with two, Baptism and the Eucharist. This he proves from Augustine book 3 On Christian doctrine chapter 9 and epistle 118. Calvin adds a proof: for Augustine is wont, for the most part, to seek mysteries in numbers: “Nay,” says Calvin, “he is wont to be more curious in observing numbers than would be necessary; and yet of that sevenfold number of the Sacraments he never wrote anything.” Kemnitz in the second part of the Examen page 25 and following asserts three things from the Fathers. First, that if we speak properly of the Sacraments, the most ancient Fathers acknowledged only two, Baptism and the Eucharist. This he proves from Justin, Apology 2; from Irenaeus; from Tertullian books 1 and 4 against Marcion, and On the soldier's crown; likewise from Cyril in the Catecheses; from Ambrose in the books On the Sacraments and On those who are initiated into the mysteries — which two authors professedly treat of the Sacraments, and yet set down only two. Second, he affirms that the more recent Fathers set down more Sacraments than two, but fewer than seven, properly speaking of the Sacraments. This he proves from Dionysius, whom he says we feign to be the Areopagite, who in the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy sets forth only four Sacraments, Baptism, the Eucharist, Confirmation, and Order. Likewise from Gregory, canon Multi saecularium cause 1 question 1 in Gratian, who sets down three, Baptism, Chrism, the Eucharist. Likewise from Rabanus and Paschasius, On the Lord's supper. Finally from an uncertain author who, under the name of Cyprian, wrote On the Cardinal works of Christ; for he in the sermons On the Lord's supper, On the washing of feet, and On Chrism, sets down fewer than seven. Third, he affirms that the Fathers, when they speak of the Sacraments in a broad manner, number more than seven; and he proves it from various places of Augustine. From all which he gathers that neither properly nor improperly speaking are the Sacraments seven among the ancients, but either fewer or more.
I answer, first, to all these, that none of the Fathers ever wrote that the Sacraments are not seven, or are only two or three, but only, to his own purpose, made mention of some Sacraments, and said nothing of the others. But those do not fight with the Theologians who assert seven Sacraments, who neither deny that there are seven, nor say that there are only two or three. Add that the same Fathers in many places make mention of only one Sacrament; in other places of none. Wherefore, according to Kemnitz's Dialectic, we should have to gather that there is one Sacrament, or even none. It ought, then, to be enough that the Fathers in various places, or at least various Fathers of the same age, somewhere mentioned all seven Sacraments, as we showed above. This solution premised, I answer also to the several Fathers. And first to the testimonies of Augustine cited by Calvin, I say that Augustine in those two places does not say that there are only two, but sets down two by way of example. Which is plain from those same places. For book 3 On Christian doctrine chapter 9 Augustine thus has: “Few things for many, and the same most easy to do, most august to understand, most chaste to observe, the Lord himself and the Apostolic discipline handed down, such as is the Sacrament of Baptism, and the celebration of the body and blood of the Lord.” Where you see the particle (such as) plainly indicate that these are examples. So also in epistle 118, where Augustine, having said that we have Sacraments fewest in number, most excellent in signification, easiest in observance, subjoins: “Such as is Baptism, and the communion of the body of the Lord, and if anything else is commended in the divine letters.” Where too you see that they are examples, and indicate that there are more than two; which he more clearly repeats on Psalm 103, sermon 1, on those words, Who covereth the higher rooms thereof with waters: “Look,” he says, “to the gifts of the Church herself, the gift of the Sacraments in Baptism, in the Eucharist, in the other holy Sacraments.” And in epistle 119 to the same Januarius chapter 7: “For the celebration of the Sacraments,” he says, “we use sensible things — water, corn, wine, and oil.” Where you see numbered the matters of all the Sacraments, except Penance and Matrimony, which two have no consecrated matter. Add that Augustine, although in certain places he mentions only two, yet elsewhere expressly sets down more; and especially of Confirmation and of Order he affirms that they are Sacraments, as Baptism is, book 2 against the letters of Petilian chapter 104, and book 2 against the epistle of Parmenian chapter 13. Calvin, then, lies impudently when he says that Augustine was content with only two Sacraments. To the Confirmation I turn the argument back on its author. For if St. Augustine believed that there were only two Sacraments, and was more curious than was fitting in the mysteries of numbers, why did he not indicate what mysteries lie hidden in the twofold number of the Sacraments? Besides, it is not true that St. Augustine was so curious, as Calvin says, in the mysteries of numbers. For he was not ignorant that there are twelve articles of faith, three Theological virtues, ten precepts of the Decalogue, and many other things of that kind, of the mysteries of whose numbers, however, Augustine wrote nothing. So, then, neither did he write of the mysteries of the sevenfold number of the Sacraments, lest Calvin should call him too curious in these things.
I come to the places cited by Kemnitz. To the place of Justin I answer that Justin in that Apology mentioned only two Sacraments, because the argument of that work required it; for he answers the things which were objected by the Gentiles. And the Gentiles objected two things. First, that Christians were atheists, because they did not worship the gods. Second, that in their little assemblies they did many base and wicked things, and chiefly that they devoured human flesh, and therefore admitted none to their Synaxis but their own. Of which calumnies see also Tertullian in the Apologeticum, Athenagoras in the Apology, and Minucius in the Octavius. Justin, then, answers those two things, and therefore in the greatest part of the Apology treats of faith, and teaches that Christians are not atheists, since they worship three divine persons, and besides venerate the Angels, etc. Then in the other part he treats of the Synaxis, and mentions Baptism in passing, to teach that only the baptized may be present at the Synaxis; and briefly sets forth what Christians do on the several Lord's days in their Synaxis, where he necessarily had to treat of the Eucharist, because this mystery is the chief in the Synaxis, and of this chiefly the Christians were ill spoken of; for they were thought to feed on the flesh of some little boy. Of the other Sacraments there was no need that he say anything, because those were partly unknown to the Gentiles, partly practiced without calumny. To Irenaeus I answer that Irenaeus never instituted a disputation on the Sacraments, but, according to the opportunity of the places, now mentioned one, now another. For book 1 chapter 9 he treats of the Eucharist, refuting the ravings of a certain Marcus about the Eucharist; chapter 18 he treats of Baptism, refuting the ravings of other heretics of his time about Baptism. Again book 4 chapters 32, 33, and 34 he treats of the sacrifices of the old and new law, and therefore at the same time treats also of the Eucharist. Likewise book 1 chapter 2 he treats of penance, and book 3 chapter 4 he mentions Confession. Nor does it stand in the way that he does not call Penance a Sacrament; for neither does he call Baptism or the Eucharist Sacraments.
To Tertullian the same could be said; for he nowhere instituted a disputation on the Sacraments; but besides, he plainly distinguishes in the book On the resurrection of the flesh four diverse things: Baptism, Chrism, the Eucharist, Ordination. Nor is the gloss of Kemnitz valid, that Tertullian does not make Chrism and the imposition of hands new Sacraments, but will have them to be ceremonies annexed to Baptism. For Tertullian distinguishes those four, and attributes to each its proper effects. And besides, if he treated of the ceremonies of Baptism, he would not put the imposition of hands after the Eucharist. But let us see the places adduced by Kemnitz. First, he brings the first book against Marcion. But that place is for us; for he does not there anywhere say that there are two Sacraments, but says that in the Sacraments God willed to use water, bread, and oil, which are the matters consecrated in five Sacraments. Nor does Tertullian mention the other two, because he only wished to show that our God is the true Creator of the elements and of the other sensible things, against the error of Marcion, who denied this. And this he proves excellently; because if another God had created those things, our God would not use them in his Sacraments. Second, he adduces the fourth book against Marcion, where in the margin at number 51 is a note of Beatus Rhenanus: “Baptism and the Eucharist, the two Sacraments of the primitive Church.” Which note deceives Kemnitz; for in that place Tertullian does not say that there are only these two Sacraments, but reprehends Marcion for not admitting to these Sacraments any but those who condemned marriage. Third, he adduces the book On the soldier's crown, where too only Baptism and the Eucharist are named. But Kemnitz does not observe that in that book he treats not of the Sacraments, but of the ceremonies of the Church, which are had not from Scripture but from tradition. Whence there he enumerates various traditions about these Sacraments; and lest we should think there are no other Sacraments, or other ceremonies, he adds: “Of these and other such disciplines, if thou demand a law of the Scriptures, thou wilt find none; tradition is set before thee as author, custom as confirmer, and faith as observer.”
To Cyril and Ambrose I say two things. First, that it is false that they acknowledge only two Sacraments; for each, in the books cited by Kemnitz, mentions Chrism as a Sacrament distinct from Baptism and the Eucharist, as is plain from Cyril catechesis 3, and from Ambrose book 3 On the Sacraments chapter 2 and On those who are initiated into the mysteries chapter 7. Second, I say it is no marvel if these authors in these books treat of only three Sacraments; for they write professedly to Catechumens, and instruct them about those things which are done at the time of Baptism. Now when adults are baptized, three Sacraments are ministered to them on the same day, Baptism, Confirmation, and the Eucharist; which is certain both from the practice which is today in the Church, and from the cited books of Ambrose, where he describes the whole order of Baptism and of the things following. Whence Amphilochius in the life of St. Basil thus writes of his Baptism: “Bishop Maximinus,” he says, “baptized Basil and Eubulus, and, anointing them with holy Chrism, delivered to them the life-giving communion.” To Dionysius the Areopagite I say that he treats in that book only of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, as the very name indicates, and of the solemn actions of the Hierarch, that is, of the Bishop. And so he treats of Baptism and the Eucharist, which the Bishop is wont to administer with a solemn rite. Likewise of the Consecration of oil, of the Ordination of clerics, which can be done by Bishops alone; the other three he omitted. For Extreme Unction is conferred privately by a presbyter; Matrimony does not need, as to its essence, the ministry of priests, although the presence of the parish priest, by the decree of the Council of Trent, is altogether required; and the blessing which the Church is wont to give to the newly married is celebrated privately by a presbyter. Finally Penance the Bishops of old imposed solemnly, and then in the holy week absolved the penitents; but this seems to have begun after the death of the Apostles, when sins had begun to be multiplied. Wherefore this is rather an argument of the antiquity of these books. Nor yet was Dionysius ignorant of the Sacrament of Penance, since he mentions it in the epistle to Demophilus. To Gregory I say that the words of that Canon do not seem to be Gregory's, for they are not found in his works; but they exist in Isidore, book 6 of the Etymologies chapter 19; but whosever they be, that author sets down only certain examples. Rabanus in the books On the instruction of Clerics treats of all the Sacraments which agree with Clerics: book 1 chapter 6 of Order; in the same place chapter 24 of Baptism, Confirmation, and the Eucharist; book 2 chapter 29 of Penance; in the same place chapter 11 of Extreme Unction. Matrimony alone he omitted, because it does not pertain to Clerics. Paschasius in the book On the Lord's supper — what marvel if he treat only of the Eucharist, since the argument of that book requires only this? Finally Cyprian, or whoever is the author of the sermons On the Cardinal works of Christ, does not mention all the Sacraments, because he only explains the mysteries which the Church recalls or celebrates on the day of the Lord's Supper, which are the Eucharist, the washing of feet, the reconciliation of penitents, and the confection of Chrism. See the sermons On the Lord's supper, On the washing of feet, and On Chrism. To the other places of Kemnitz there is no need to answer; for we confess that the Sacraments, taken in a broad manner, are more than seven.
Lastly Kemnitz argues from reason, and proves that there are only two Sacraments, because the definition of a Sacrament agrees with only two. But that he may be able to effect this, he feigns to himself a new definition, and that a very long one; for he put in it as many particles as seemed to suffice to exclude five Sacraments. But this definition we above diligently refuted in the disputation on the definition of a Sacrament.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XXVII. Solvuntur objectiones. \ Restat utobjectiones adversariorum dilua¬ mus, quae sunt partiin ex Scriptura, partim ex Patribus, partim ex ratione. Primum igi¬ tur ex Scriptura tria proferunt argumenta. Primum negativum, quia Scripturae nus¬ quam tradunt septem esse Sacramenta. Se¬ cundum affirmativum, quia Scripturae duo tantum Sacramenta esse docent. Nam Joan. XIX. ex latere Christi fluxerunt sanguis et aqua, id est, (ut exponunt Chrysostomus, Cyrillus, et Theophylactus eum locum, et Damascenus lib. IV. de fide cap. 10. et Au¬ gustinus lib. II. de symbolo cap. 6. ettract, 9. in Joannem, et alii.) Eucharistia et Bap¬ tismus. Tertium, quia Scripturae non solum non ponunt septem, et ponunt tantum duo, sed etiam negant esse septem. Nam Apocal. XVII, Angelus vocat Sacramentum bestiam, quae septem capita habebat ; ex quo signifi¬ cari videtur septenarium numerum Sacra¬ mentorum ad Antichristum pertinere, qui per eam bestiam designatur. Haec sunt ar¬ gumenta Kemnitii ex Scriptura, quae ipse habet in 2. par. Exam. pag. 18. et 50. Sed haec levia sunt. Ad Primum supra respondimus, Scriptu¬ ram neque septem, neque duo, neque tria, usquam expresse numerare. Ad Secundum, locus ille Joannis non ma¬ le ita exponi potest, ut significentur per san¬ guinem, et aquam, Eucharistia, et Baptis¬ mus, ut exponunt fere Graeci omnes, sed non propterea excluduntur caetera Sacra¬ menta. Solum enim duo posita sunt, quia sunt illa magis communia, et magis princi¬ palia, et ex illis poterat idem judicium de caeteris fieri. Sicut etiam Hebr. VI, Paulus duo tantum ponit Sacramenta, Baptisma, et manuum impositionem, id est, Confirma¬ tionem : Non rursum jacientes fundamentum pcenitentice ab operibus mortuis, et fidei ad Deum , Baptismatum doctrinae , impositionis quo¬ que manuum (1). Ubi per manuum imposi¬ tionem intelligunt Chrysostomus, Theodo- retus, Theophylactus, OEcumenius, et alii Confirmationem, quae dabatur post Baptis¬ mum, nec meminit Eucharistiae, quae simul dabatur (ut etiam modo datur cum bapti¬ zantur adulti) cum Baptismo, et Confirma¬ tione. Dico tamen Secundo, non esse necessa¬ rium sequi illam expositionem Gra*corum de sanguine, et aqua. Alii enim aujue magni expositores aliter exponunt. Cyrillus, Cate¬ chesi 3 et Hieronymus in epist. 83. ad Oceanum, intelligunt per sanguinem , et aquam, significata esse duo Baptismata, unum in sanguine, id est, Martyrium, aliud in aqua. Ambrosius lib. X. in Lucam cap. 103. et Leo episl. 4. et Augustinus, ac Bcda in cap. XIX Joannis, intelligunt per sangui¬ nem, redemptionis pretium , per aquam, Baptismum. Et heec videtur maxime littera¬ lis expositio, ut nimirum intelligamus ex Christi latere fluxisse, Baptismum, qui om¬ nem suam vim habet ex Christi sanguine. Nam ideo non dixit : Exivit aqua, et san¬ guis, ut ordo postulabat, si ageretur de Bap¬ tismo, et Eucharistia, cum baptismus prte- cedat Eucharistiam ; sed dixit : Exivit san¬ guis, et aqua, id est, pretium, et applicatio illius pretii. Quod etiam confirmatur ex illo I Joan. V : Hic est, qui venit per aquam, et sanguinem, Jesus Christus, non in aqua solum, sed in aqua, et sanguine (2). Ubi videtur ip- semet Joannes explicare mysterium, quod posuerat, Joan. XIX. et simul ostendere dif¬ ferentiam inter Baptismum Christi, et Joan¬ nis, quod Joannes venerit in aqua solum, id est, Baptismum attulerit non efficacem. At Christus attulerit Baptismum efficacissi- mum, cum aquam dederit sanguini admis¬ tam. Ad Tertium respondeo, blasphemum esse Kemnitium, cum Sacramenta Christi capita bestiae esse dicit. Nam cogitur, velit nolit, ea etiam Sacramenta numerare inter capita bestiae, quae ipse habet pro veris Sacramen¬ tis, nimirum baptismum, et Eucharistiam : haec enim sunt ex numero iliorum septem. Adde, quod Joannes non dicit septem illa capita esse septem Sacramenta, sed unum Sacramentum : proinde, (si licet nugari) id magis quadraret in Lutherum, qui unum Sacramentum esse dixit, et plura signa Sa- cramentalia. Denique ipsemet Joannes sep¬ tem illa capita septem reges interpretatur. Ex quo ruit totum aedificium blasphemiae Kemnitianae. (1) Hebr. VI, 1 et 2. — (2) Joan. XIX, 34; I. Joan. V, 6. CAPUT XXVII. 489 Jam ex Patribus. Primo, Calvinus lib. IV. Instit. cap. 19. §. 3. dicit, veteres cum lo¬ quuntur proprie de Sacramentis, duobus contentos esse, Baptismo, et Eucharistia. Id probat ex Augustino lib. III. doctriri. Christianae cap. 9. et epist. 118. Addit Cal¬ vinus probationem. Nam Augustinus solet, ut plurimum quaerere mysteria in numeris : « Imo, inquit Calvinus, in observandis nu¬ meris curiosior esse solet, quam necesse fo¬ ret : et tamen de isto numero septenario Sa¬ cramentorum nihil unquam scripsit. » Kemnitius in 2. par. Exam. pag. 25. et sequentibus, tria asserit ex Patribus. Primo, si proprie loquamur de Sacramentis, vetus¬ tissimos Patres non agnovisse nisi duo, Bap¬ tismum, et Eucharistiam. Id probat ex Jus¬ tino, Apologia 2. ex Irenaeo, ex Tertulliano lib. I. et 4. inMarcionem, et de corona mi¬ litis, item ex Cyrillo in Catechesibus, ex Ambrosio, in lib. de Sacramentis, et de iis, qui initiantur mysteriis ; qui duo auctores ex professo tractant de Sacramentis, et ta¬ men non ponunt nisi duo. Secundo, affirmat Patres recentiores po¬ nere plura Sacramenta, quam duo, sed pau¬ ciora, quam septem, proprie loquendo de Sacramentis^Id probat ex Dionysio, quem dicit a nobis fingi esse Areopagitam, qui in Ecclesiastica hierarchia, quatuor tantum Sacramenta exponit, Baptismum, Eucharis¬ tiam, Confirmationem, et Ordinem. Item ex Gregorio can. multi saecularium 1. q. 1. apud Gratianum, qui tria ponit, Baptismum, Chrisma, Eucharistiam. Jtem ex Rabano, et Paschasio de coena Domini. Denique ex in¬ certo Auctore, qui sub nomine Cypriani, scripsit de operibus Cardinalibus Christi. Is enim in sermonibus de coena Domini, de ablutione pedum, et de Chrismate, pauciora ponit, quam septem. Tertio affirmat, Patres, cum largo modo de Sacramentis loquuntur, plura numerare, quam septem ; et probat ex variis locis Au¬ gustini. Ex quibus omnibus colligitur, neque proprie, neque improprie loquendo Sacra¬ menta esse septem apud veteres, sed vel pauciora, vel plura. Respondeo primum ad haec omnia, nul¬ lum ex Patribus scripsisse unquam Sacra¬ menta non esse septem; aut esse tantum duo, vel fria, sed solum ad suum propositum mentionem fecisse aliquorum Sacramento¬ rum, de aliis nihil dixisse. Non autem pug¬ nant cum Theologis , qui septem asserunt Sacramenta, ii qui neque septem esse ne¬ gant, neque dicunt tantum esse duo, vel tria. Adde quod iidem Patres in multis locis unius tantum Sacramenti mentionem fa¬ ciunt : in aliis locis nullius. Quare secundum Kemnitii Dialecticam , oporteret colligere unum esse Sacramentum, aut etiam nullum. Satis igitur esse debet, quod Patres in va¬ riis locis, aut certe varii Patres ejusdem re¬ tatis omnium septem Sacramentorum alicubi meminerint, ut nos supi’a ostendimus. Hac solutione praemissa respondeo etiam ad sin¬ gulos Putres. Ac primum ad Augustini testimonia a Cal¬ vino citata, dico, Augustinum in illis duobus locis non dicere esse tantum duo , sed po¬ nere duo, loco exempli. Id quod patet ex iisdem locis. Nam lib. III doctrinae Christia¬ nae , c. 9. sic habet Augustinus : « Pauca pro multis, eademque factu facillima, et in¬ tellectu augustissima, et observatione castis¬ sima ipse Dominus, et Apostolica tradidit disciplina, sicuti est Baptismi Sacramentum, et celebratio corporis et sanguinis Domini. » Ubi vides particulum (sicuti) aperte indicare ista esse exempla. Sic etiam in epist. 118. ubi Augustinus dixit, nos habere Sacra¬ menta numero paucissima , significatione praestantissima, observatione facillima, sub¬ jungit : « Sicuti est Baptismus , et commu¬ nicatio corporis Domini , etsi quid aliud in divinis litteris commendatur. » Ubi etiam vides exempla esse , et indicare etiam plura esse, quam duo ; quod clarius repetit in Psalm. C1II, concione 1. in illa verba : Qui tegit aquis superiora ejus (1). « Respice, in¬ quit, ad munera ipsius Ecclesiae, munus Sa¬ cramentorum in Baptismo, in Eucharistia, in caederis sanctis Sacramentis. » Et in epist. 119. ad eumdem Januarium, c. 7 ; « Ad ce¬ lebrationem , inquit, Sacramentorum uti¬ mur de sensibilibus rebus , aqua, frumento, vino, et oleo. » Ubi vides numerari materias omnium Sacramentorum, excepta Poeniten¬ tia, et Matrimonio, quae duo non habent ul¬ lam materiam consecratam. Adde quod Augustinus etsi in quibusdam locis non meminerit, nisi duorum, tamen alibi expresse ponit plura ; et praesertim de Confirmatione, et de Ordine affirmat illa esse Sacramenta, sicut est Baptismus, lib. II * (1) Psal. CIII. 3. 490 LIBER II. contra litteras Petiliani, c. 104. et lib. II contra epist. Parmeniani, c. 13. Mentitur igitur Calvinus impudenter, cum dicit, Au¬ gustinum duobus tantum Sacramentis esse contentum. Ad Confirmationem retorqueo argumen¬ tum in auctorem. Nam si S. Augustinus tan¬ tum duo Sacramenta esse credidit, et erat curiosior, quam oporteret in mysteriis nu¬ merorum ; cur non indicavit, quae mysteria lateant in binario numero Sacramentorum ? Praeterea non est verum, S. Augustinum tam curiosum fuisse, ut dicit Calvinus, in mysteriis numerorum. Non enim ignorabat esse duodecim articulos fidei , tres virtutes Theologicas, decem praecepta decalogi , et alia id genus multa , de quorum tamen nu¬ merorum mysteriis, nihil Augustinus scrip¬ sit. Sic igitur neque scripsit de mysteriis septenarii numeri Sacramentorum , ne Cal¬ vinus nimis eum curiosum in his rebus ap¬ pellaret. Yenio ad loca citata a Kemnitio. Ad lo¬ cum Justini Respondeo, Justinum in Apolo- gia illa tantum meminisse duorum Sacra¬ mentorum, quia id requirebat argumentum illius operis : respondet enim iis , quae obji¬ ciebantur a Gentilibus. Gentiles autem duo quaedam objiciebant. Primo, quod Christiani essent athei, quia non colebant Deos. Se¬ cundo, quod in suis conventiculis multa tur¬ pia, et scelerata agerent, ac praecipue, quod humanas carnes vorarent , et ideo ad suam Synaxiin non admitterent ullos praeter suos. De quibus calumniis vide etiam Tertullia¬ num in Apologetico , Athenagoram in Apo- logia, et Minutium in Octavio. Justinus igitur ad illa duo respondet, et ideo in maxima parte Apologiae tractat de fide, ac docet, Christia¬ nos non esse atheos, cum colant tres divinas personas, et praeterea venerentur Angelos etc. Deinde in altera parte tractat de Sy- naxi, et obiter meminit Baptismi , ut doceat solis baptizatis licere interesse Synaxi ; et breviter exponit quid Christiani agant sin¬ gulis Dominicis diebus in sua Synaxi , ubi necessario disserere debuit de Eucharistia, quia hoc mysterium praecipuum est in Sy¬ naxi , et de hoc potissimum male audiebant Christiani ; putabantur enim vesci carnibus alicujus pueruli. De aliis Sacramentis non fuit opus, ut quidquam diceret, quia illa par- tim erant ignota Gentilibus, partim sine ca¬ lumnia exercebantur. Ad Irenaeum Respondeo , Irenaeum num- quam instituisse disputationem de Sacra¬ mentis, sed pro locorum opportunitate modo meminisse unius, modo alterius. Nam lib. I, c. 9. tractat de Eucharistia, refellens delira¬ menta Marci cujusdam circa Eucharistiam, c. 18. tractat de Baptismo refellens delira¬ menta aliorum ejus temporis hmrcticorum circa Baptismum. Rursus lib. 1Y, c. 32, 33 et 34. tractat de sacrificiis legis veteris et nova?, et ideo simul agit etiam de Eucharis¬ tia. Item lib. I, c. 2. tractat de poenitentia, et lib. III, c. 4. meminit Confessionis. Neque obstat, quod rion vocet Poenitentiam Sacra¬ mentum : nam nec Baptismum, aut Eucha¬ ristiam vocat Sacramenta. Ad Tertullianum idem dici posset; non enim instituit usquam disputationem de Sa¬ cramentis : sed praeterea perspicue distin¬ guit in libro de resurrectione carnis quatuor diversa, Baptismum, Chrisma , Eucharis¬ tiam , Ordinationem. Neque valet glossa Kemnitii, quod Tertullianus Chrisma, et manus impositionem non faciat nova Sacra¬ menta , sed velit esse caeremonias Baptismo annexas. Nam Tertullianus distinguit illa quatuor, et tribuit singulis proprios effectus. Et praeterea, si de caeremoniis Baptismi age¬ ret, non poneret manus impq|jtionem post Eucharistiam. Sed videamus loca a Kemnitio adducta. Primo, adfert librum primum in Marcio- nem. Sed locus ille pro nobis est : non enim dicit in eo libro usquam duo esse Sacra¬ menta, sed dicit in Sacramentis Deum uti voluisse aqua, pane , et oleo ; quae sunt ma¬ teriae, quae consecrantur in quinque Sacra¬ mentis. Nec meminit Tertullianus aiiorura duorum, quia solum volebat ostendere, Deum nostrum esse verum Creatorem elementorum, et adiarum rerum sensibilium , contra Mar- cionis errorem, qui id negabat. Id autem probat egregie ; quia si res istas creasset alius Deus, non eis uteretur Deus noster in Sacramentis suis. Secundo, adducit librum quartum contra Marcion. ubi in margine ad num.51. estan- notatio B. Rhenani : « Baptismus, et Eucha¬ ristia, duo Sacramenta primitivae Ecclesiae. » Quae annotatio Komnitium decipit: non enim eo loco Tertullianus dicit tantum esse duo ista Sacramenta, sed reprehendit Marcio* nem , quod ad haec Sacramenta non ad¬ mitteret, nisi eos, qui damnabant conju¬ gium. Tertio, adducit librum de corona militis, CAPUT XXVII. 49i ubi etiam non nominantur, nisi Baptismus, et Eucharistia. Sed non advertit Kemnitius in eo libro non agi de Sacramentis, sed de caeremoniis Ecclesiae, quae non habentur ex Scriptura, sed ex traditione. Unde ibi enu¬ merat varias traditiones circa haec Sacra¬ menta; et ne putaremus non esse alia Sacra¬ menta, vel alias caeremonias , addit : « Ha¬ rum, et aliarum ejusmodi disciplinarum, si legem postulas Scripturarum , nullam inve¬ nies ; traditio tibi obtenditur auctrix, con¬ suetudo confirmatrix, et fides observatrix. » Ad Cyrillum, et Ambrosium dico duo. Primo, falsum esse eos duo tantum Sacra¬ menta agnoscere : uterque enim in libris a Kemnitio citatis, meminit Chrismatis , tam¬ quam Sacramenti a Baptismo , et Eucharis¬ tia distincti ; ut patet ex Cyrillo Gateches. 3. et ex Ambrosio, lib. III. de Sacramentis, cap 2. et de iis qui mysteriis initiantur, cap. 7. Secundo, dico non esse mirum, si isti auctores in his libris de tribus tantum Sa¬ cramentis tractant : scribunt enim ex pro¬ fesso ad Catechumenos, et eos instruunt de his rebus, quae fiunt tempore Baptismi. Porro cum baptizantur adulti , tria Sacra¬ menta eodem die illis ministrantur, Baptis¬ mus, Confirmatio , et Eucharistia : id quod certum est, tum ex praxi, quae hodie est in Ecclesia, tum ex libris citatis Ambrosii , ubi totum ordinem Baptismi, et rerum conse¬ quentium describit. Unde Amphilochius in vita S. Basilii, ita de illius Baptismo scribit : « Baptizavit , inquit, Episcopus Maximinus Basilium, etEubulum, atque ungens eos san¬ cto Chrismate, tradidit eis vivificam commu¬ nionem. » Ad Dionysium Areopagitam dico , eum . tantum disserere in eo libro de Ilierarchia Ecclesiastica, ut ipsum nomen indicat, ac de solemnibus actionibus llierarchise, id est, Episcopi. Itaque tractat de Baptismo, et Eu¬ charistia, quae solemni ritu Episcopus admi¬ nistrare solet. Item de Consecratione olei, de Ordinatione clericorum, quae a solis Epis¬ copis fieri possunt : caetera tria omisit. Nam extrema unctio , privatim a presbytero con¬ fertur : Matrimonium non eget, quoad es¬ sentiam suam, ministerio Sacerdotum, tam¬ etsi praesentia Parochi ex decreto Concilii Tridentini omnino requiratur : et benedictio, quam novis nuptis dare solet Ecclesia, a presbytero privatim celebretur. Denique Poenitentiam solemniter quidem olim Epis¬ copi imponebant , et deinde in sancta heb¬ domada pcenitentes absolvebant: sed videtur id coepisse post Apostolorum mortem , cum peccata multiplicari coepta essent Quare hoc potius est argumentum antiquitatis ho¬ rum librorum. Nec tamen ignoravit Diony¬ sius Sacramentum Poenitentiae, cum ejus meminit in epist. ad Demophilum. Ad Gregorium dico , verba illius Canonis non videri Gregorii, nec enim in ejus operi¬ bus inveniuntur : exstant autem apud Isido- rum, lib. VI Etymologiarum, c. 19. sed cu- juscumque sint, non ponit ille auctor, nisi exempla quaedam. Rabanus in libris de institutione Clerico¬ rum, tractat de Sacramentis omnibus, quae conveniunt Clericis, lib. 1, c. 6. de Ordine, ibidem, c. 24. de Baptismo , Confirmatione, et Eucharistia, lib. II, c. 29. de Poenitentia, ibidem, c. II. de Extrema unctione. Matri¬ monium solum omisit, quia ad Clericos non pertinet. Paschasius in libro de coena Domini, quid mirum, si non tractet nisi de Eucharistia, cum hoc solum requirat argumentum illius libri? Denique Cyprianus, seu quicumque sit auctor sermonum de operibus Cardinali¬ bus Christi, non meminit omnium Sacra¬ mentorum; quia solum explicat mysteria, quae Ecclesia recolit vel celebrat in die Coe¬ na! Domini ; quae sunt Eucharistia, ablutio pedum, reconciliatio poenitenlium, et con¬ fectio Chrismatis. Vide sermones de coena Domini, de ablutione pedum , et de Chris¬ mate. Ad alia loca Kemnitii nihil opus est respondere : fatemur enim Sacramenta largo modo sumpta esse plura quam septem. Ultimodoco Kemnitius argumentatur ex ratione, ac probat duo tantum esse Sacra¬ menta, quia duobus tantum convenit defini¬ tio Sacramenti. Sed ut hoc possit efficere, fingit sibi novam definitionem, eamque lon¬ gissimam : tot enim particulas in ea posuit, quot sufficere videbantur ad excludenda quin¬ que Sacramenta. Sed hanc definitionem nos supra diligenter refutavimus in disputatione de definitione Sacramenti. 492 LIBER II.