Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacraments in General · Book II: On the Effect, Number, and Ceremonies of the Sacraments
Chapter 31: The truth is explained and defended
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).
Now, that the truth may be explained and proved, we shall bring forward some propositions. The first: “Christ or the Apostles instituted some ceremonies which we have from no Scripture, but from tradition alone.” This is to be proved more fully when we treat of the several ones; now it is briefly proved from this, that the Sacrament of Chrism is most holy, as the Sacrament of Baptism, as Augustine affirms book 2 chapter 104 against the letters of Petilian; but Sacraments God alone can institute; therefore Christ instituted the Sacrament of Chrism; and yet we nowhere have in Scripture mention of Chrism. Likewise 1 Corinthians 11 the Apostle says: The rest I will set in order when I come. And yet he wrote nothing afterward of the rite of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, of which he there treated; nor is it credible that he did not perform what he had promised, or that his laws afterward perished. Wherefore blessed Augustine affirms epistle 118 that among the other laws of the Apostles one was that we should receive the Eucharist fasting; and that this, with other rites which the Church keeps, the Apostle promised when he said, The rest I will set in order when I come. Basil in the book On the Holy Spirit chapter 27 enumerates many things, and in the first place the sign of the cross, which, instituted by the Apostles, have come to us by tradition alone, unwritten. In like manner Cyprian book 2 epistle 3, and from him Augustine book 3 On Christian doctrine chapter 21, assert that Christ himself instituted that water be mingled with wine in the Eucharist; and yet this is not had expressly in any Scripture. But of these elsewhere.
The second proposition: “Some ceremonies have spiritual force.” Of this too we must speak elsewhere; meanwhile it is proved of the sign of the cross. For all the Fathers everywhere affirm that the forehead is to be armed and fortified against all the ambushes of the demons, and that its virtue is wonderful. See Tertullian at the beginning of the Scorpiace, Origen homily 6 on chapter 15 of Exodus, Cyprian book 4 epistle 6, Lactantius book 4 chapters 26 and 27, Nazianzen oration 1 against Julian, Nyssa in the life of Gregory Thaumaturgus, Epiphanius heresy 30, Chrysostom in the homily That Christ is God, Ephrem in the book On spiritual armor, Palladius in the Lausiac history chapters 2 and 54, Jerome in the life of Hilarion, Sulpitius in the life of St. Martin, Augustine book 22 of the City of God chapter 8, Prudentius in the hymn before sleep, Paulinus Natale 8. But in the name of the others let us hear Athanasius in the first book On the Incarnation and salutary coming of the Lord: “By the sign of the cross,” he says, “all magic is restrained, and poisonings are made ineffectual.” And below: “Let him come who wishes to take experiment of these sayings, and in the very juggleries of demons, and impostures of divinations, and in the miracles of magic, let him use the sign of the cross derided by them, and invoke the name of Christ, and he will see how for fear of that thing the demons flee, the divinations are quieted, the magic and poisonings lie prostrate.”
But it is to be observed that in three ways the sign of the cross works in terrifying the demons. First, from the apprehension of the demons themselves. Second, from the devotion of the man. Third, and this chiefly, from the ordinance of God, and so ex opere operato. And, first, it cannot be doubted that the demon, when he sees the sign of the cross made, remembers that he was overcome by the cross of Christ, and accordingly dreads that sign of his calamity, and flees, as dogs flee when they see sticks or stones. Then this sign has force from the devotion of the man signing himself, in the manner in which vocal prayer has force. For the sign of the cross is a certain invocation of the merits of Christ crucified, expressed by a sign; for we speak by the heart, by the mouth, and by nods. And so to oppose to the Devil, and to any evil, the sign of the cross is to oppose the Passion of Christ — that is, to invoke God through the merits of Christ. Wherefore then the effect proceeds more from the internal faith and devotion than from the very figure of the cross; as when we pray with the voice and obtain, the obtaining is attributed not to the sound of the voice, but to faith and devotion. Besides these two ways there is also a third, from the institution of God, and ex opere operato. For often men, Jews or heathen, without true faith or devotion, have been helped by the sign of the cross, as is plain of Julian the apostate in Nazianzen oration 1 against Julian, and of Joseph the Hebrew in Epiphanius heresy 30, and of another Hebrew in Gregory book 3 of the Dialogues chapter 3. Wherefore St. Augustine, book of 83 Questions, question 79: “Nor is it a marvel,” he says, “that these signs avail when applied by good Christians, since even when they are used by strangers, who have not at all given their name to this warfare, yet for the honor of the most excellent Emperor they avail. But when powers of this kind do not yield to these signs, God himself forbids it by hidden means, when he judges it just and useful. For in no way do any spirits dare to despise these signs; they tremble wherever they behold them.” So he.
The third proposition: “The Church can institute new ceremonies, not indeed to justify the impious, but for other spiritual effects.” Note, for explanation, that ceremonies instituted by the Church can be useful in three ways. First, to adorn and represent some mystery of religion, and in that manner to help the ruder; and of this there can be no doubt among Catholics. Second, to cure diseases, and drive off demons, and purge venial sins, and other things of that kind, and that by way of impetration, as when the Church blesses candles, palms, fields, etc. For these avail for those effects, to which they are instituted, by the force of the prayers of the Church, which without doubt are heard; and of this too there is no question among Catholics. In the third way it is probable that the Church can institute ceremonies of this kind for the same effects by the application of the merits of Christ, so that ex opere operato they produce those effects, in the way that the Sacraments ex opere operato justify. For Christ without doubt merited for his Church not only grace and glory, but also all other benefits which can be useful to it. And indeed to obtain grace and the justification of the impious he himself instituted the Sacraments, by which his merits are applied; nor is it now lawful to institute other signs for that principal effect; but for other lesser benefits he left the Church the power to institute signs by which his merits are applied. So some dispute; but this is not so very certain, especially since we see that these signs have not an infallible effect. Although it could be said that they have an infallible effect if it be useful to men, but not absolutely, because often it is not expedient for us to obtain those benefits; in the way that we are wont to say of Extreme Unction, as to the effect of corporeal health.
But whatever be of this, our proposition only asserts, against the heretics, that it is lawful for the Church to institute new ceremonies, not to justify from mortal sins, but for other ends. It is proved, first, by the examples of the Synagogue, or of private men, in the Old Testament. For there is no reason why the Church of Christ cannot do what, without an express command of God, though not without the inspiration of God, some private men or the Synagogue could do. Genesis 28, Jacob, when he was not yet a Patriarch but a private man, God indeed, as it seems, impelling him though not expressly commanding, devised a new ceremony. For he set up a stone for a title, pouring oil upon it, and called the name of that place Bethel, in memory of the vision which he had had in that place. Likewise the Synagogue of the Jews, on the authority of Mardochai, added a new solemn feast day to be celebrated by all, which God had not instituted in the law, as we have Esther 9. The same was done in the time of Judith, in the addition of another feast; for thus we read in the last chapter: “But the day of this victory is received by the Hebrews in the number of holy days, and is kept by the Jews from that time until the present day.” Nor does it stand in the way that the heretics do not receive this book; for it is enough for us if they give it the credence which they give to Livy or Sallust; for here is treated not some abstruse dogma, but the history of a deed. A like thing we have in the Machabees, first book chapter 4, where a new feast of the dedication of the altar is instituted; to celebrate which feast the Lord himself too went up to Jerusalem, John 10.
Second, it is proved by the example of the Apostles. For the Apostles, Acts 15, gathered in Council, instituted a new ceremony, namely that the Gentiles abstain from blood and from what is strangled; which certainly God had nowhere commanded but to the Jews, and besides that Jewish law was already made void and abrogated by the death of Christ. Whence that ceremony instituted by the Apostles was truly new, instituted for another end than the Jewish of old; whence it is called the decree of the Apostles, Acts 16. And besides, we have already proved above that the Apostles instituted many other things which are not had in the Scriptures. But there is no reason why the Church cannot now do what it then could. For the Apostles did not do it from some new revelation granted them, but from the ordinary power of governing the Church; as is plain from this, that they gathered a Council, and, the opinions being collated, established what they judged useful. Third: If the Church could not do this, there would be repugnance either on the part of the Church, or on the part of the ceremonies, or on the part of the novelty; that is, either it could not, because it has not authority to establish anything, or because ceremonies (as Brentius says) are proper to the Old Testament, and accordingly do not agree with the New, or because it is not lawful to add anything to the ceremonies instituted by Christ. But none of these can be said. For that the Church can establish something is manifestly plain, if only from this, that from the beginning of the faith, in every age, Councils were celebrated, which always published canons; but to condemn all Councils would be manifest madness — to omit meanwhile the very many arguments by which we demonstrated this same thing elsewhere. And that ceremonies do not repugn the new law is plain from the Sacraments instituted by Christ, which are most true ceremonies, as even the adversaries concede. Finally that the novelty itself does not repugn is plain, because the Lord nowhere forbade us to add ceremonies for administering his Sacraments more commodiously and usefully. Nay, since the Lord instituted fewest ceremonies, and did not hand down the manner in which they ought to be ministered, he without doubt left this to the providence of the pastors of his Church, as Augustine rightly teaches epistle 118 chapter 6.
The fourth proposition: “The ceremonies instituted by the Church cannot be omitted without sin, even apart from scandal.” This depends on another question, whether Ecclesiastical laws bind in conscience, which we disputed book 4 On the Pontiff chapter 15 and following. The chief reason is from Paul Romans 13: There is no power but from God; and those that are, are ordained of God. Therefore he that resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God; and they that resist purchase to themselves damnation. And below: Wherefore be subject of necessity, not only for wrath, but also for conscience' sake. Which sentence, although it be applied by the Apostle in particular to temporal Princes, when he subjoins, If thou do evil, fear; for he beareth not the sword in vain, yet the sentence is general of all who have power, as Calvin concedes book 4 of the Institutes chapter 10 section 5, and is plain from those words, There is no power but from God. For this proposition is equivalent to this: All power is from God. And that there is in the Church a certain power of the Prelates over the rest cannot be denied, since Scripture everywhere teaches it, as Romans 12: He that ruleth, with carefulness. 2 Corinthians 13: These things I write being absent, that being present I may not deal more severely, according to the power which the Lord hath given me. Hebrews 13: Obey your prelates. It follows, then, that those who do not keep the laws of the Church sin in conscience. For that is signified by all those: They resist the ordinance of God; and, they purchase to themselves damnation; and, be subject of necessity; and, not only for wrath, but also for conscience' sake. See more in the place cited. But in particular, that not all ceremonies are of free observance is proved from this, that on account of ceremonies most grave dissensions arose in the Church, and under most grave penalties laws about ceremonies were imposed, and at last those were held heretics who did not obey. All which are manifest arguments that this matter is not free; for about free things dissensions do not arise.
The first dissension in the Church was about the legal ceremonies, which dissension was quieted by the Apostles, Acts 15. Where when they say: It hath seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay no further burden upon you than these necessary things, that you abstain from blood, etc., they would not call the ceremonial law a burden, nor a necessary thing, unless it bound in conscience. The second dissension was about the day of Easter, that is, about another ceremony. And the Church made so much of this ceremony that Pope Victor I wished to separate all Asia from the unity of the faithful, because the Asiatics would not obey in that matter. Witness is Eusebius book 5 of the History chapter 25. Then the Council of Nicaea assembled chiefly on account of this question, as Epiphanius heresy 70 writes, and Constantine in his epistle in Eusebius book 3 of the Life of Constantine, and Athanasius in the epistle On the synods of Ariminum and Seleucia; where he also adds that the Council of Nicaea in express words commanded that all obey. And the Council of Antioch, celebrated a little later, excommunicates, canon 1, those who do not keep the law of the Council of Nicaea about Easter. Finally those were held heretics by the Fathers who wished to keep that ceremony in a diverse manner, as is plain from Epiphanius heresy 50, Augustine heresy 29, and Theodoret book 3 On the fables of the heretics. The third dissension was about the rite of Baptism, whether heretics truly baptized. Which dissension too greatly exercised the Church, and many Councils were thence held, and at last the Donatists were held heretics because they did not obey the definition of a general Council. See Eusebius book 6 of the History chapter 3, and Augustine in a great part of the seventh tome. There were afterward other dissensions about the choice of foods, about the times of fasts, about feast days, pilgrimages, vigils, candles, and other ceremonies, on account of which the Encratites were numbered among heretics, in Epiphanius heresy 46 and Augustine heresy 23; then the Manichees, who rejected very many ceremonies of the Church, in Augustine book 20 against Faustus chapters 3 and 4; then the Eustathians in Socrates book 2 chapter 33; then the Aerians in Epiphanius heresy 75 and Augustine heresy 53; then Vigilantius in Jerome in the book against Vigilantius. Thence Claudius of Turin in Jonas in the three books On sacred images. Thence the Petrobrusians in Bernard epistle 240. Thence the Waldenses in Guido in the Summa on heretics; and the Thaborites in Aeneas Sylvius in the book On the origin of the Bohemians chapter 35. Finally John Wycliffe in Thomas Waldensis tome 3 On the Sacramentals. Lastly this proposition is proved, because if the observance of ceremonies were free, in no way could it be that any order and uniformity be kept in the Church. For if now uniformity is scarcely kept in certain chief things, when it is so severely enjoined, what would happen if the matter were free? And yet the Apostle bids, 1 Corinthians 14, that all things be done honestly and according to order. Which reason moved Calvin to will that his ceremonies be sanctioned by law. For book 4 of the Institutes chapter 10 section 27 he says that the Church is dissolved of its sinews, and deformed and dissipated, if it be lawful for anyone to change the ceremonies; and section 31 he says that the ceremonies must be kept indeed with a free conscience, yet so that they be not held in contempt, nor passed over with supine negligence; and below he says that it is not a crime if through imprudence or forgetfulness something be omitted; where he indicates that it is a crime if they be omitted through contempt or gross negligence. But the Church teaches nothing else of its ceremonies.
The fifth proposition: “Ceremonies are not indifferent things, but are useful, meritorious things, and a certain part of the divine worship.” All these are to be proved by parts. And first, that ceremonies are useful is proved by these reasons. First: Ceremonies, as they arise from an internal pious affection and devotion, so also they preserve, nourish, and increase it, as Augustine teaches in the book On care for the dead chapter 5, and epistle 119 chapter 11, and book 9 of the Confessions chapters 6 and 7. And we ourselves experience this, when we enter Basilicas adorned and clean, and furnished with crosses and sacred images and altars, and with lighted lamps, we most easily conceive devotion; but on the contrary when we enter the temples of heretics, where there is nothing but a seat for preaching and a wooden table for making the supper, we seem to enter a profane hall, not the house of God. The second utility is that ceremonies help not only the affection, but also the understanding, as Augustine teaches in the same epistle 119 chapter 7; and especially to the rude ceremonies are in place of Scripture or a picture. Add that sometimes from ancient ceremonies some dogmas are better persuaded than by many testimonies. Certainly St. Augustine, book 1 On the merits and remission of sins chapter 34, and book 4 against Julian chapter 2, thought he most plainly proved that original sin is in little ones before Baptism, because according to the use of the Church they are exorcized and insufflated, and bidden through the mouth of those carrying them to renounce the Devil and his works. The third utility is that they help the memory. For unless we yearly represented by various ceremonies the Lord's birth, appearing, passion, and other mysteries of redemption, so notable benefits would easily be committed to oblivion. The fourth is the exercise of faith. For we greatly exercise faith when against the Devil we arm ourselves with the sign of the cross, or blessed water, or like things. For by that ceremony we protest that we certainly believe that so great is the power of the crucified that at his mere image the demons flee. The fifth is the preservation of religion. For this ceremonies effect, that religion be not cheapened and despised, and so little by little perish. For the chief excellence of our religion, because it is spiritual, is not easily perceived by us who are corporeal. Therefore the mysteries are not proposed bare, but are clothed and adorned, that they may set a certain external majesty before the senses, and through it be perceived with greater reverence by the mind itself. And so ceremonies are to religion what salt is to flesh, and the bark to the pith. Wherefore Augustine rightly, book 19 against Faustus chapter 11, affirms that no religion, neither true nor false, can stand without ceremonies. And hence among the ancients to be a Theologian was nothing else than to know what deities were worshipped with what ceremonies, as can be understood from Plato in the Dialogue On the kingdom. And that among the Jews it was a very high thing to know the ceremonies is plain from chapter 18 of Exodus, where Jethro admonishes Moses to commit the civil judgments to others, but himself to teach the people the ceremonies and the rite of worshipping. That among Christians too the knowledge of ceremonies was in great price, the one question about Easter abundantly demonstrates. Which same is gathered from Basil epistle 63, Leo epistle 4, Innocent epistle 1 to Decentius, who reprehend Bishops who are ignorant of the ceremonies. The sixth is the distinction of Catholics from heretics. For the Sacraments are indeed certain symbols by which we are distinguished from unbelievers; yet from heretics we can scarcely be distinguished by the Sacraments, but by the ceremonies we are best distinguished. For in this time the sign of the cross, abstinence from flesh on Friday, and the like, are the best signs distinguishing Catholics from heretics. For which cause, at the beginning of the Church, the Apostles changed the Sabbath into the Lord's day, lest we should seem to judaize; and Epiphanius at the end of the books against all heresies recounted the ceremonies of the Church, to indicate certain marks, as it were, by which the Church is distinguished from all sects. Hence also holy men always preferred to die rather than be forced to give up any ceremony, since they understood that none cast away the sign of the warfare but deserters of the warfare. Witness is St. Eleazar, 2 Machabees chapter 6, who preferred to be slain rather than to simulate that he had eaten swine's flesh, even in that manner, lest he should seem to have deserted his religion; whom the seven brothers Machabees afterward followed, in the second book chapter 7. Witness too is he who, Tertullian being author in the book On the soldier's crown, preferred to die rather than be crowned with laurel with the other soldiers, since among Christians it was then a ceremony not to do this.
Now that they are meritorious and please God is proved, because all works of the virtues please God and merit a reward with God, if they be done as they ought, that is, with faith and charity. But ceremonies are works of the virtues. For at the least they are acts of religion; often too they are at once acts of religion and of some other virtue; and finally, when they are commanded, they are also acts of obedience. Second, the exterior profession of faith pleases God, as is plain Matthew 10: He that shall confess me, etc., and Romans 10: With the mouth confession is made unto salvation. But by ceremonies we profess the faith, as is plain; because a Turk will no less know me to be a Christian if he see me venerate the cross than if I say that I am a Christian. Whence even the adversaries confess that through the Sacraments we protest the faith. Third, faith, hope, charity, devotion, and every interior good act please God; therefore exterior acts too will please, which are partly the effects of the interior, partly (as we said) increase and preserve them. Whence Exodus 17, when Moses prayed with hands lifted up, the people of God conquered; when he let down his hands, they were overcome. And that they can be called a part of the divine worship is proved: for natural reason itself teaches that a man, who consists of soul and body, ought to honor and worship God, both in soul by interior acts and in body by exterior. Whence Cyprian in the sermon On the Lord's Prayer: “Let us think,” he says, “that we stand in the sight of God; we must please the divine eyes both by the habit of the body and by the manner of the voice.” Second, all the other virtues, though they consist principally in the soul, yet are consummated by exterior acts, as is plain of temperance, fortitude, and the rest; why, then, should we not say the same of religion? And it is confirmed, because if vocal prayer, by the consent of all, is a worship of God, why not also corporeal adoration? For as vocal prayer is worship because it is a sign of mental, so adoration will be worship because it is a sign of internal adoration. Third, nature teaches that God is to be worshipped in the highest manner, since he is the highest being. But he worships more who worships with body and soul than he who with soul only; therefore God can be worshipped with corporeal ceremonies. Fourth, God is truly offended and dishonored not only by an interior act, but also by an exterior; therefore he is to be honored not only by an interior act, but also by an exterior.
But to all these the adversaries would answer that they do not deny that God can and ought to be worshipped by some ceremonies, but deny this of ceremonies invented by men. For no worship pleases God which he himself did not institute, or at least to which he has not given testimony by his word. But on the contrary: for either it is required that in particular and expressly God have approved the worship, or it suffices if in general and virtually he have approved it. The first cannot be said, namely that a worship does not please God which he himself has not in particular expressly approved. For without doubt the worship of Abel pleased him, who offered of the fat of his flock, Genesis 4 and Hebrews 11, and yet God had not commanded this; and likewise the worship of Jacob pleased him, who set up a stone for a title, Genesis 28, and the worship of the blessed Virgin, who vowed perpetual virginity, which God had nowhere commanded; therefore it will be enough if in general God have commended something. And this Calvin confesses. For book 4 of the Institutes chapter 10 section 30, wishing to prove that kneeling in prayer is good, nay even divine, he brings that testimony of the Apostle, 1 Corinthians 14: Let all things be done decently and according to order among you, and says that kneeling is good and divine, because in general it is indicated by Paul in that decorum which he prescribes in prayer. But in this manner all our ceremonies are good and divine; for they are indicated in general by God, and are approved in many ways. First, in this very testimony of Paul kneeling is no more included than the lighting of candles and the sacred vestments and other things of that kind. Second, when God bids the prelates be obeyed, he bids in general that all Ecclesiastical laws be kept, of which not a few are about ceremonies. Finally, God is the author of all the virtues; for Wisdom 8 it is said of the divine Wisdom: She teacheth temperance and prudence, and justice and fortitude, than which nothing is more profitable in life to men; where are enumerated the four Cardinal virtues, to which all the others are reduced. God, then, teaches and commends religion, which is a part of justice, and accordingly the external worship, which is a certain part of religion.
The sixth proposition: “It is most wisely instituted that in the Latin Church the Sacraments be administered in Latin.” Note, first, that when it is treated of the tongue in which the Sacraments ought to be ministered, Matrimony must be excepted. For since Matrimony consists in mutual consent, words or nods are necessarily required which are understood by each party. And likewise the confession of sins ought to be made in a tongue known to each; although Confession is not so much a Sacrament as the matter of a Sacrament. Note, second, that it is not of divine law in what tongue the Sacraments be ministered, nor does this pertain to the essence of the Sacraments; for Baptism will avail as much if ministered in Latin as if in Italian or another tongue; yet for many, and those most grave, causes, it seemed good to the Church, and to the Holy Spirit himself who rules it, that the Sacraments be not ministered in the vulgar tongue, except perhaps in the case of necessity. Note, third, that we speak of the Latin Church; for in the Greek Church they do rightly when they use the Greek tongue, and in the Churches of Syria when they use the Chaldee tongue. For there is required for the ministry of the Sacraments a tongue not vulgar, but which yet be not altogether unknown, at least to the learned; otherwise pastors and necessary ministers would not be found. And such are the Greek, Chaldee, and Latin tongues; for none is vulgar, and yet each is common and known to the skilled in their regions. The same can almost be said of Arabic, which is now common to many eastern Provinces, and in it the divine offices are celebrated; but one is vulgar Arabic, another the Arabic which they use in sacred things.
This proposition is proved, first, from the ancient custom of the Church. The Latin Church always ministered the Sacraments in Latin, although long since the Latin tongue has ceased to be vulgar. This is plain from Isidore, Alcuin, Amalarius, Rabanus, Strabo, Micrologus, Rupert, Thomas Waldensis, who wrote of the divine offices in Spain, France, Germany, Italy, England, at which time the Latin tongue was nowhere vulgar, and most plainly teach that the Sacraments were wont to be ministered in the Latin tongue. For they describe in Latin the whole rite, and the formal words which must be used. Besides, in ministering the Sacraments some parts of the divine Scripture are always read, and most of all among the adversaries; but the Scriptures then existed only in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, as is plain from Bede book 1 of the History of his own nation chapter 1, where he says that in England in his age there were four vulgar tongues, but that the Latin was common to all by reason of the Scriptures. Rabanus too, book 3 On the instruction of Clerics chapter 8, says that in his age the divine letters existed only in these three tongues. Finally the adversaries would not bring forward a German, or French, or even Spanish or Italian edition of the Scriptures, unless made a few years ago. They could object the Gothic edition, which Ulphilas, Bishop of the Goths, is said to have made, in the Tripartite History book 8 chapter 13, and in Socrates book 4 chapter 27. But that Bishop did not do this before he had begun to be an Arian with all his people. Add, lastly, two examples which plainly indicate that formerly the use of the vulgar tongue was not in the celebration of the Sacraments. One is of the Moravians, who, as is in Aeneas Sylvius On the origin of the Bohemians chapter 13, obtained from the Roman Pontiff that they might celebrate the divine offices in the Slavonic tongue. The other of the Bohemians, to whom asking the same, Gregory VII denied it, as is in book 7 of his epistles. But if the use of the vulgar tongue had then been common, they would not have asked this license. Second, it is proved by reason. For there is no necessity compelling the Sacraments to be ministered in the vulgar tongue, and on the contrary there are many inconveniences if this be done. That there is no necessity is proved. For if there were any necessity, it would chiefly be that those who receive the Sacraments should understand what is said; but this is not a true necessity. For the words of the Sacraments are either directed to the elements, as the consecration of the Eucharist, the blessing of water and oil, and the elements understand no tongue; or they are directed to God, as the deprecatory forms of words, such as is in Extreme Unction, and God understands all tongues; or they are directed to persons, but to be consecrated or absolved, not to be instructed and taught, as in Baptism and Absolution, and accordingly it is by accident if the person understand. The sign of which is that they are most truly and most efficaciously baptized and reconciled even who do not use reason, as is plain in the Baptism of infants, and in the Reconciliation of the sick who are alienated from their senses; whom to be able to be reconciled, as also to be baptized, if they lack Baptism, Augustine teaches book 1 On adulterous marriages chapters 26 and 28, and the fourth Council of Carthage canon 76, and Leo I epistle 91 to Theodore. Add that there are almost none in the Latin Church so rude adults who do not understand the words of the Sacraments, though Latin, or at least do not understand in general that by those words such or such a Sacrament is ministered to them. And that it is an inconvenience if we use the vulgar tongue is plain, first, because the intercourse of the Churches is impeded; for Italians, French, Spaniards could not join in the assemblies of the Germans, English, Poles, nor the contrary. Which much harms the unity and communication which ought to be among the members of one body. And besides, Christians outside their own regions would be compelled to lack the divine offices. Second, the Sacraments require a certain majesty and reverence, which certainly is better preserved if we use a tongue not vulgar and common. For as it is fitting that in ministering the Sacraments we use another house, other garments, other instruments than the ordinary and daily, so it seems fitting that we use another tongue. Nor yet do we dream, as Kemnitz thinks, that the Latin tongue is more sacred than the rest; but by this very thing we say that it has more veneration, that it is not vulgar. Third, it is expedient that the words of the Sacraments be uttered in set words and in the same manner by all, that the danger of change or depravation may be avoided. And this will be most easily kept if all use the same tongue; most difficultly, if diverse ones. Fourth, if the Sacraments be ministered in the vulgar tongue, a very wide door will be opened to ignorance; for the ministers will be content if they know how to read. And so little by little they will forget the Latin tongue, and thus will not read the Fathers, and accordingly will not understand the Scriptures.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XXXI. Explicatur , et defenditur veritas. Nunc ut veritas explicetur, et probetur, adferemus aliquot propositiones. Prima : «Caeremonias aliquas Christus, vel Apostoli instituerunt, quas ex nulla Scriptura, sed ex sola traditione habemus. » Haec probanda est fusius, cum de singulis agetur ; nunc bre¬ viter probatur ex eo, quod Sacramentum CAPUT XXXI. 497 Chrismatis sacrosanctam est, sicut Baptismi Sacramentum, ut Augustinus affirmat lib. II, cap. 104. contra litteras Petiliani : at Sacra¬ menta solus Deus instituere potest ; igitur Sacramentum Chrismatis Christus instituit : et tamen nusquam habemus -in Scriptura mentionem Chrismatis. Item I. Corinth. XI Apostolus ait : Ccetera cum venero , dispo¬ nam (1). Et tamen nihil postea scripsit de ritu Sacramenti Eucharistiae, de quo ibi age¬ bat : neque credibile est eum non prajsti- tisse, quod promiserat , aut ejus leges pos¬ tea interiisse. Quare B. Augustinus affirmat epist. 118. inter alias Apostolorum leges unam fuisse, ut Eucharistiam jejuni susci¬ peremus ; idque cum aliis ritibus , quos Ec¬ clesia servat Apostolum promisisse, cum ait : Ccetera cum venero, disponam. Basilius libro de Spiritu sancto, cap. 27. multa enu¬ merat, ac primo loco signum crucis, quae ab Apostolis instituta ad nos sola traditione non scripta venerunt. Pari ratione aquam vino miscendam in Eucharistia Christum ipsum instituisse asserit Cyprianus lib. II, epist. 3. et ex eo Augustinus lib. III. doctr. Christian. cap. 21. et tamen non habetur hoc expresse in ulla Scriptura. Sed de his alias. Secunda propositio : «Aliquae caeremoniae vim habent spiritualem. » De hac etiam ali¬ bi dicendum est; interim probatur de signo crucis. Nam omnes Patres passim affirmant frontem armandam , et muniendam contra omnes insidias daemonum ; et miram ejus esse virtutem. Vide Tertullianum initio Scor¬ piaci. Origenem homil. 6. in caput. XY. " Exod. Cyprianum lib. IV, epist. 6. Lactan¬ tium lib. IV, cap. 26. et 27. Nazianzenum orat. I. in Julianum. Nyssenum in vita Gre- gorii Thaumaturgi. Epiplianium haeres. 30. Chrysostomum hom. quod Christus sit Deus. Ephrem in lib. de armatura spirituali. Pal¬ ladium in hist. Lausiaca, cap. 2. et 54. Hie¬ ronymum in vita Ililarionis. Sulpitium in vita S. Martini. Augustinum lib. XXII de civit. Dei , cap. 8. Prudentium in hymno ante somnum. Paulinum Natali 8. Sed no¬ mine aliorum audiamus Athanasium in 1. de Incarn. et salutari adventu Domini : « Signo crucis, inquit, omnia magica compescuntur, et veneficia inefficacia fiunt. » Et infra : « Veniat, qui istorum dictorum experimen¬ tum capere velit, et in ipsis praestigiis da;- monum, et imposturis vaticiniorum, et in miraculis magiae utatur signo crucis ab ipsis deriso, nomenque Christi invocet, et videbit, quomodo ejus rei metu daemones fugiant, vaticinia conquiescant , magiae et veneficia jaceant. » Est autem Observandum, tribus modis operari signum crucis in daemonibus terren¬ dis. Primo ex apprehensione ipsorum dae¬ monum. Secundo, ex devotione hominis. Tertio, idque potissimum ex instituto Dei, atque adeo ex opere operato. Ac primum dubium esse non potest , quin daemon, cum signum crucis fieri videt, recorde¬ tur se Christi cruce devictum, ac proinde horreat illud signum suae calamitatis, et fugiat, quomodo canes fugiunt, cum ba¬ culos aut lapides vident. Deinde vim ha¬ bet hoc signum ex devotione hominis se signantis, eo modo , quo vim habet oratio vocalis. Est enim signum crucis quaedam invocatio meritorum Christi crucifixi signo expressa; loquimur enim corde, ore, et nutibus. Itaque opponere Diabolo, et cui¬ vis malo signum ''crucis , est opponere Christi passionem , id est , invocare Deum per Christi merita. Quocirca tunc effectus magis procedit ex interna fide et devo¬ tione , quam ex ipsa figura crucis , sicut cum oramus voce, et impetramus, impe¬ tratio non tribuitur sono vocis , sed fidei, et devotioni. Praeter hos duos modos est etiam tertius ex Dei institutione , et ex opere operato. Nam saepe homines Judaei, vel Ethnici , sine vera fide, aut devotione signo crucis adjuti sunt, ut patet de Ju¬ liano apostata apud Nazianzenum orat. I. in Julianum; et de Josepho Hebraeo apud Epiphanium haeres. 30. et de alio Hebrajo apud Gregorium libro tertio Dialogorum capite tertio. Quare sanctus Augustinus libro LXXXI1I quaestionibus 79 : « Nec mirum , inquit , quod haec signa valent , cum a bonis Christianis adhibentur, quan¬ do etiam cum usurpantur ab extraneis, qui omnino suum nomen ad istam mili¬ tiam non dederunt, propter honorem ta¬ men excellentissimi Imperatoris valent. Cum autem non cedunt his signis hujus¬ modi potestates , Deus ipse prohibet oc¬ cultis modis, cum id justum, atque utile \ (1) I. Cor. XI, 34. Tom. III. 32 498 LIBER II. judicat. Nam nullo modo ulli spiritus au¬ dent haec signa contemnere, contremiscunt haec ubicumque illa prospexerint. » Ilaec ille. Tertia propositio : « Potest Ecclesia insti¬ tuere novas caeremonias, non quidem ad jus¬ tificandum impium, sed ad alios effectus spi¬ rituales. » Nota pro explicatione , caeremo¬ nias ab Ecclesia institutas tribus modis posse esse utiles. Primo, ad ornandum , et reprae¬ sentandum aliquod mysterium religionis, et eo modo juvandos rudiores ; et de hoc inter Catholicos nulla potest esse dubitatio. Se¬ cundo, ad morbos curandos , et daemones pellendos , et peccata venialia purganda, et alia id genus, idque per modum impetra¬ tionis, et cum Ecclesia benedicit candelas, palmas, agros etc. Ista enim valent ad effec¬ tus illos, ad quos instituuntur ex vi oratio¬ num Ecclesiae, quae sine dubio exaudiuntur; et de hoc etiam non est quaestio apud Catho¬ licos. Tertio modo probabile est, posse Ec¬ clesiam instituere ejusmodi caeremonias ad eosdem effectus per applicationem Christi meritorum ; ita ut ex opere operato illos ef¬ fectus producant, quomodo Sacramenta ex opere operato justificant. Christus enim sine dubio meruit Ecclesiae suae non solum gra¬ tiam et gloriam, sed etiam omnia alia bene¬ ficia, quae illi utilia esse possunt. Et quidem ad gratiam, et justificationem impii conse¬ quendam instituit ipse Sacramenta, quibus applicentur ipsius merita ; nec licet jam alia signa instituere ad effectum illum principa¬ lem : ad alia beneficia minora reliquit Ec¬ clesiae potestatem, ut instituat signa, quibus applicentur ipsius merita. Ita quidam dispu¬ tant, sed non est hoc usque adeo certum, praesertim cum videamus non habere signa ista infallibilem effectum. Quamquam posset dici habere effectum infallibilem , si id sit utile hominibus, non autem absolute , quia saepe non expedit nobis ea beneficia conse¬ qui : quomodo de extrema unctione dicere solemus, quoad effectum sanitatis corpo¬ ralis. Sed quidquid de hoc sit ; nostra proposi¬ tio solum asserit contra haereticos, licere Ecclesiae instituere novas caeremonias , non ad justificandum peccatis mortalibus, sed ad alios fines. Probatur primo, exemplis Sy¬ nagogae, vel hominum privatorum in Testa¬ mento veteri. Non est enim ulla ratio, cur non possit Ecclesia Christi id, quod sine Dei mandato expresso, quamquam non sine Dei inspiratione, aliqui privati homines vel Sy¬ nagoga poterat. Genes. XXVIII , Jacob cum nondum Patriarcha esset , sed privatus ho¬ mo, Deo quidem, ut videtur, impellente non tamen expresse mandante, novam caeremo¬ niam excogitavit. Erexit enim lapidem in titulum, fundens oleum desuper, et vocavit nomen loci illius Bethel in memoriam visio¬ nis, quam in eo loco habuerat. Item Syna¬ goga Judaeorum auctore Mardochaeo addidit novum festum diem solemnem omnibus ce¬ lebrandum , quem Deus non instituerat in lege, ut habemus Esther IX. Idem factum est tempore Judith in additione alterius festi; sic enim legimus c. ult. « Dies autem victo¬ riae hujus festivitatis ab Hebraeis in numero sanctorum dierum accipitur, et colitur a Ju- dafis ex illo tempore , usque in praesentem diem. » Neque obstat, quod hunc librum haeretici non recipiunt : satis enim est no¬ bis, si fidem illi habeant , quam habent Li¬ vio, aut Sallustio ; non enim hic agitur de aliquo abstruso dogmate, sed de historia rei gestae. Simile' habemus in Machabaeis libro primo, capite quarto, ubi instituitur novum festum dedicationis altaris, ad quod festum celebrandum , etiam Domi¬ nus ipse in Hierusalem ascendit, Joannis decimo. Secundo probatur ex Apostolorum exem¬ plo. Apostoli enim Actor. XV. congregati in Concilio, novam caeremoniam instituerunt, nimirum ut Gentiles abstinerent a sanguine, et suffocato : quod certe nusquam Deus jus- serat, nisi Judaeis, etpraetei'ea jam erat eva¬ cuata, et abrogata lex illa Judaica per Christi mortem. Unde fuit vere nova caere¬ monia illa Apostolorum instituta ad alium finem, quam olim Judaica; unde vocatur dogma Apostolorum Actor. XVI. Et praete¬ rea jam supra probavimus multa alia Apos¬ tolos instituisse , licet in Scripturis non ha¬ beantur. Nulla autem est ratio , cur non possit modo Ecclesia, quod tunc poterat. Non enim Apostoli id fecerunt ex aliqua nova revelatione sibi concessa, sed cx potes¬ tate ordinaria gubernandi Ecclesiam ; ut pa¬ tet ex eo, quod Concilium coegerunt, et col- latis sententiis statuerunt , quod utile esse judicarunt. Tertio; Si Ecclesia non posset id facere, vel repugnantia esset ex parte Ecclesiae, vel ex parte caeremoniarum , vel ex parte novi¬ tatis, id est, vel non posset , quia non habet auctoritatem aliquid statuendi, vel quia caere- CAPUT XXXI. 499 monise (ut dicit Brentius) sunt propriae Tes¬ tamenti veteris, proinde non conveniunt Testamento novo, vel quia non licet aliquid addere caeremoniis a Christo institutis : At nihil horum dici potest : nam Ecclesiam posse aliquid statuere , manifeste patet, vel ex eo, quod ab initio fidei singulis aetatibus, Concilia celebrata sunt, quae semper cano¬ nes ediderunt : damnare autem omnia Con¬ cilia, manifesta insania esset; ut interim omittam argumenta plurima, quibus hoc ip¬ sum alibi demonstravimus. Non repugnare autem caeremonias novae legi , patet ex Sa¬ cramentis a Christo institutis , quae sunt ve¬ rissimae caeremoniae , ut etiam adversarii concedunt. Denique non repugnare ipsam novitatem, patet, quia nusquam Dominus prohibuit, ne adderemus caeremonias ad Sa¬ cramenta ipsius commodius et utilius admi¬ nistranda. Imo cum Dominus paucissimas caeremonias instituerit, nec tradiderit mo¬ dum, quo ministrari deberent, id reliquit sine dubio providentiae pastorum ipsius Ec¬ clesiae, ut recte docet Augustinus ep. 118, c. 6. Quarta propositio : « Caeremoniae ab Ec¬ clesia institutae non possunt omitti sine pec¬ cato, etiam citra scandalum. » Haec pendet ab alia quaestione, An leges Ecclesiasticae obligent in conscientia : quam disputavimus lib. IV de Pontifice, c. 15. et sequentibus. Batio praecipua est ex Paulo Iloman. XIII : Non est potestas nisi a Deo : quee autem a Deo sunt, ordinatee sunt, itaque qui resistit potes¬ tati, Dei ordinationi resistit : qui autem resis¬ tunt, ipsi sibi damnationem acquirunt. Et in¬ fra : Ideoque necessitate subditi estote , non so¬ lum propter iram , sed etiam propter conscien¬ tiam (i). Quae sententia etiamsi ab Apostolo applicetur in particulari temporalibus Prin¬ cipibus, cum subjungit : Si male egeris, ti¬ me ; non enim sine causa gladium portat : ta¬ men sententia est generalis do omnibus habentibus potestatem, ut Calvinus concedit lib. IV Instit. c. 10, § 5. et patet ex illis ver¬ bis : Non est potestas, nisi a Deo. Ista enim propositio aequivalet huic ; Omnis potestas a Deo est. Esse autem in Ecclesia potestatem quamdam Praepositorum supra caeteros, ne¬ gari non potest, cum id Scriptura passim doceat, ut Rom. XII : Qui preeest, in sollicitu¬ dine. II. Corinth.XIII : Hcec absens scripsi, ut (1) Rora. XIII, 1, 2, 5 et 4. — et 5. — (3) Act. XV, 28 et 29. non preesens durius agam secundum potestatem , quam dedit mihi Dominus. Hebr. XIII : Obe¬ dite Praepositis vestris. Efficitur igitur, ut qui leges Ecclesiae non servant, peccent in con¬ scientia. Id enim significant illa omnia : Dei ordinationi resistunt : et, ipsi sibi damna¬ tionem acquirunt : et , necessitate subditi estote : et , non solum propter iram , sed et¬ iam propter conscientiam (2). Vide plura loco citato. Sed in particulari, quod caeremoniae non sint omnes liberae observationis, probatur ex eo, quod propter caeremonias natae sunt in Ecclesia gravissimae dissensiones, et sub poenis gravissimis impositae sunt leges de caeremoniis, et tandem haeretici habiti sunt, qui non obediebant. Quae omnia sunt ar¬ gumenta manifesta, rem istam non esse li¬ beram : non enim de rebus liberis nascuntur dissensiones. Prima dissensio in Ecclesia fuit ob caere¬ monias legales, quae dissensio sopita est ab Apostolis Act. XV, Ubi cum dicunt : Visum est Spiritui sancto, et nobis, nihil ultra impo¬ nere vobis oneris, praeter hcec necessaria, ut abstineatis vos a sanguine, etc. (3), non vo¬ carent onus legem caeremonialem ; neque rem necessariam, nisi obligaret in conscien¬ tia. Secunda dissensio fuit de die Paschatis, hoc est, de alia caeremonia. Et tanti fecit Ecclesia hanc caeremoniam, ut Victor Papa I, totam Asiam separare voluerit ab unitate fidelium, quod nollent Asiatici in ea re pa¬ rere. Testis est Eusebius lib. V histor. cap. 25. Deinde vero Concilium Nicaenum prop¬ ter istam quaestionem potissimum convenit, ut scribunt Epiphanius haeres. 70. et Con¬ stantinus in epist. sua apud Eusebium lib. III de vita Constantini : et Athanasius in epist. de synodis Arimini, et Seleuciae : ubi etiam addit Concilium Nicaenum disertis verbis imperasse, ut omnes obedirent. Et Concilium Antiochenum paulo post celebra¬ tum, excommunicat can. 1. eos, qui legem Concilii Nicaeni de Paschate non servant. Denique a Patribus habiti sunt haeretici, qui eam caeremoniam diverso modo servare vo¬ lebant, ut patet ex Epiphanio haeres. 50. Augustino haeres. 29. et Theodoreto lib. III de fabulis haereticorum. Tertia dissensio fuit de ritu Baptismi , an (2) Rom. XII, 8; II. Cor. XIII, 10; Hebr. XIII, 17; Rom. XIII, 2 500 LIBER II. haeretici vere baptizarent. Quae etiam dis¬ sensio multum exercuit Ecclesiam, et mul¬ ta inde Concilia facta sunt, et tandem habiti sunt haeretici Donatistae, quod non obtem¬ perarent definitioni Concilii generalis. Vide Eusebium libro sexto histor. capite tertio et Augustinum in magna parte tomi sep¬ timi. Aliae fuerunt postea dissensiones de de¬ lectu ciborum, de temporibus jejuniorum, de diebus festis, peregrinationibus, vigiliis, cereis, aliisque caeremoniis, ob quas nume¬ rati sunt inter haereticos Encratitae apud Epiphanium haeres. 46. et Augustinum hae¬ res. 23. Deinde Manichaei, qui plurimas cae¬ remonias Ecclesiae rejiciebant apud Augus¬ tinum lib. XX contra Faustum, cap. 3. et 4. Deinde Eustatiani apud Socratem lib. II. cap. 33. tum Aeriani apud Epiphanium hae¬ res. 75. et Augustinum haeres. 53. tum Vi¬ gilantius apud Hieronymum in lib. contra Vigilantium. Inde Claudius Taurinensis apud Jonam in libris tribus de sacris imaginibus. Inde Petrobrusiani apudBernardum in epist. 240. Inde Waldenses apud Guidonem in summa de haereticis : et Thaboritee apud .Eneam Sylvium lib. de origine Bohemo- rum, cap. 35. Denique Joannes Wiclefus apud Thomam Waldensem, tom. III de Sa- cramentalibus. Ultimo probatur haec propositio : quia si libera esset caeremoniarum observatio, nullo modo fieri posset, ut aliquis ordo, et uni¬ formitas in Ecclesia servaretur. Si enim nunc vix servatur uniformitas in rebus qui¬ busdam praecipuis, cum tam severe id prae- piatur, quid fieret si esset res libera? Et ta¬ men jubet Apostolus I. Corinth. XIV, ut omnia honeste, et secundum ordinem liant. Quae ratio Calvinum movit, ut caeremonias suas voluerit lege sanciri. Nam lib. IV In- stit. cap. 10. §. 27. dicit, dissolvi suis ner¬ vis, et deformari, ac dissipari Ecclesiam, si unicuique liceat mutare caeremonias, et §. 31. dicit, libera quidem conscientia debere servari caeremonias, sic tamen, ut non con- temptim habeantur, nec supina negligentia praetereantur : et infra dicit non esse cri¬ men si per imprudentiam, aut oblivionem aliquid omittatur ; ubi indicat esse crimen si per contemptum, vel crassam negligen- tiam omittantur. At nihil aliud Ecclesia de suis caeremoniis docet. Quinta propositio : « Caeremoniae non sunt res indifferentes, sed sunt res utiles, merito¬ riae, et pars quaedam cultus divini. » Pro¬ banda sunt haec omnia per partes. Ac pri¬ mum, quod caeremoniae sint utiles, probatur his rationibus. Primo; Caeremoniae, ut oriun¬ tur ex interna pia affectione, et devotione, ita etiam illam conservant, nutriunt, augent, ut Augustinus docet lib. de cura pro mor¬ tuis, c. 5. et epist. 119. cap. 11. et lib. IX Confess. cap. 6. et 7. Et nos ipsi hoc expe¬ rimur, cum intramus Basilicas ornatas, et mundas, et crucibus, ac sacris imaginibus, et aris instructas, et accensis lampadibus, devotionem facillime concipimus : contra au¬ tem cum ingredimur templa haeretico¬ rum, ubi nihil est, nisi sedes ad condonan¬ dum ; et mensa lignea ad coenam facieudam, videmur ingredi profanam aulam, non do¬ mum Dei. Secunda utilitas est, quod non solum af¬ fectum, sed etiam intelligentiam juvant cae¬ remonia}, ut Augustinus docet eadem epist. 119. c. 7. et praesertim rudibus sunt ceremo¬ nia} loco Swipturse, vel pictura}. Adde quod aliquando ex vetustis caeremoniis melius persuadentur aliqua dogmata, quam multis testimoniis. Certe sanctus Augustinus libro primo de peccatorum merit. et remissione capite 34. et libro quarto in Julianum, ca¬ pite secundo apertissime se probare putavit, peccatum originale esse in parvulis ante Baptismum, quia secundum usum Ecclesiae exorcizantur, et insufflantur, et jubentur per ora gestantium abrenuntiare Diabolo, et operibus ejus. Tertia utilitas est, quod juvant memo¬ riam. Nisi enim quotannis repraesentaremus variis ca}remoniis Domini ortum, apparitio¬ nem, passionem, aliaque mysteria redem¬ ptionis, facile mandarentur oblivioni tam insignia beneficia. Quarta est exercitium fidei. Valde enim fidem exercemus cum contra Diabolum ar¬ mamur signo crucis, vel aqua benedicta, vel similibus rebus. Protestamur enim ea caeremonia nos certo credere, tantam esse potentiam crucifixi, ut ad ejus solam imagi¬ nem da}mones fugiant. Quinta est conservatio religionis. Id enim caeremoniae praestant, ne religio vilescat, et contemnatur, et sic paulatim pereat. Nam excellentia religionis nostrae praecipua, quia spiritualis est, non facile perspicitur a nobis, qui corporei sumus. Ideo non proponuntur nuda mysteria, sed vestiuntur, et ornantur, ut externam quamdam majestatem sensibus CAPUT XXXI. 501 objiciant, et per eam majori cum reverentia ab ipsa mente percipiantur. Itaque id sunt caeremoniae religioni, quod sal carnibus, et cortex medullae. Quocirca recte Augustinus lib. XIX contra Faustum, c. 11. affirmat nullam religionem, neque veram, neque falsam sine caeremoniis posse consistere. At¬ que hinc apud veteres, Theologum esse, ni¬ hil erat aliud, nisi scire quae numina, quibus caeremoniis colerentur, ut ex Platone intel- ligi potest in Dialogo de regno. Et apud Ju- daeos summum quid fuisse, scire caTemo- nias, patet ex cap. XVIII Exod. ubi Jethro monet Mosem, ut judicia civilia committat aliis, ipse autem doceat populum ceremo¬ nias, et ritum colendi. Apud Christianos quoque fuisse etiam in magno pretio cogni¬ tionem caeremoniarum, vel una quaestio de Paschate, abunde demonstrat. Quod idem colligitur ex Basilio, epist., 63. Leone epist. 4. Innocentio epist. 1 ad Decentium, qui reprehendunt Episcopos, qui ceremonias ignorant. Sexta est distinctio Catholicorum ab he- reticis. Nam Sacramenta sunt quidem sym¬ bola, quadam, quibus discernimur ab infi¬ delibus, tamen ab hereticis vix per Sacra¬ menta distingui possumus, sed per ceremo¬ nias optime distinguimur. Hoc enim tempore signum crucis, abstinentia a carnibus feria sexta, et similia sunt optima signa distinguen¬ tia Catholicos ab hereticis.llac de causa ini¬ tio Ecclesia mutarunt Apostoli Sabbatum in Dominicam, ne videremur judaizare : et Epiphanius in fine librorum contra omnes haereses, recensuit ceremonias Ecclesia, ut indicaret quasdam veluti notas, quibus Ec¬ clesia ab omnibus sectis discernitur. Ilinc etiam sancti viri semper maluerunt mori, quam cogi ad aliquam ceremoniam dimit¬ tendam, cum intelligerent non abjicere si¬ gnum militia, nisi militia disertores. Testis est S. Eleazarus lib. II Machab. cap. VI, qui maluit occidi, quam simulare se come¬ disse carnem suillam, nec eo modo videre¬ tur religionem suam deseruisse : quem pos¬ tea secuti sunt septem fratres Machabai libro secundo, capite septimo. Testis est etiam ille, qui Tertulliano auctore in lib. de corona militis, mori maluit, quam cum cateris militibus laurea coronari : quoniam apud Christianos tum caremonia erat id non facere. Jam vero, quod sint meritoria, ac Deo placeant, Probatur, quia omnia opera vir¬ tutum Deo placent, et apud Deum pramium merentur, si fiant ut oportet, id est, cum fide et charitate Sunt autem caremonia opera virtutum. Nam ut minimum sunt actus religionis, .«ape etiam sunt actus simul religionis, etalicujus alterius virtutis, 'et de¬ nique cum sunt imperata, surit etiam actus obedientia. Secundo, professio fidei exterior Deo placet, ut patet Matt. X : Qui me confes¬ sus fuerit etc. et Roman. X : Ore confessio fit ad salutem (1). Sed caremoniis profite¬ mur fidem, ut patet; quia non minus co¬ gnoscet Turea me esse Christianum, si vi¬ deat me venerari crucem, quam si dicam me esse Christianum. Unde etiam adversarii fatentur, per Sacramenta nos protestari fi¬ dem. Tertio, Deo placet fides, spes, chari- tas, devotio, et omnis interior actus bonus : ergo etiam placebunt actus exteriores , qui partim sunt effectus interiorum, par- tim illos ipsos (ut diximus) augent et conservant. Unde Exod. XVII, cum Mo¬ ses oraret elevatis manibus, populus Dei vincebat, cum dimitteret manus, vinceba¬ tur. Quod autem dici possint pars cultus divini, probatur; Nam ipsa naturalis ratio elocet hominem, qui constat animo et corpore, debere Deum honorare et colere, et animo per actus interiores, et corpore per exte¬ riores. Unde Cyprianus in serin. de orat. Dominica : « Cogitemus, inquit, nos sub conspectu Dei stare : placendum est divinis oculis, et habitu corporis, et modo vocis. » Secundo, omnes aliae virtutes, licet in ani¬ mo consistant principaliter, tamen consum¬ mantur per actus exteriores, ut patet de temperantia, fortitudine, et caeteris; cur ergo non idem dicamus de religione? Et con¬ firmatur, quia si oratio vocalis omnium con¬ sensu est cultus Dei, cur non etiam adoratio corporalis? Ut enim oratio vocalis est cul¬ tus, quia est signum mentalis; ita adoratio erit cultus, quia est signum internae adora¬ tionis. Tertio natura docet, Deum esse co¬ lendum summo modo, cum sit summum esse. At magis colit qui corpore, et animo, quam qui animo tantum; igitui corporalibus caeremoniis Deus potest coli. Quarto, Deus vere offenditur, et ignominia afficitur non solum actu interno, sed etiam externo ; igi- (1) Matth. X. 32: Rom. X, 10. 502 LIBER II. tur honorandus est non solum actu interno, sed etiam externo. Sed ad haec omnia responderent adver¬ sarii, non negare se, quin aliquibus caere- remoniis Deus 'coli possit, et debeat, sed id negare de caeremoniis ab hominibus inven¬ tis. Deo enim non placet ullus cultus, quem ipse non instituit, aut certe, cui non dederit testimonium verbo suo. At contra : Nam aut requiritur, ut in par¬ ticulari, et expresse Deus approbaverit cul¬ tum, aut sufficit, si in genere, et in virtute probaverit. Non potest dici primum, Deo videlicet non placere cultum, quem ipse in particulari expresse non probaverit. Nam sine dubio placuit illi cultus Abel, qui obtu¬ lit de adipibus gregis sui, Gen. IV et Hebr. XI, et tamen hoc Deus non praeceperat : et similiter placuit cultus Jacob, qui erexit la¬ pidem in titulum Genes. XXVIII, et cultus B. Virginis, quae vovit perpetuam virginita¬ tem , quam Deus nusquam imperaverat : ergo satis erit, si in genere Deus aliquid commendaverit. Et hoc fatetur Calvinus. Nam lib. IV. Inst. cap. 10. §. dO. probare volens geniculationem in oratione esse bo¬ nam, imo et divinam, adfert illud testimo¬ nium Apostoli, I. Corinth. XIV : Omnia ho¬ neste, et secundum ordinem fiant in vobis (1), ac dicit, geniculationem esse bonam, et di¬ vinam, quia in genere indicatur a Paulo in illo decoro, quod praescribit in oratione. At hoc modo omnes nostrae caeremoniae sunt bonae, et divinae : nam indicantur in genere a Deo, et probantur multis modis. Primo, in hoc ipso testiiponio Pauli non magis in¬ cluditur geniculatio, quam cereorum accen- sio, et sacrae vestes, et alia id genus. Se¬ cundo, cum Deus jubet obediri pra-positis in genere jubet servari omnes leges Ecclesias¬ ticas, quarum non paucae sunt de caeremo¬ niis. Denique, Deus est auctor omnium vir¬ tutum; Nam Sap. VIII dicitur de divina Sapientia : Sobrietatem , et prudentiam docet , et justitiam, ct virtutem, quibus nihil est in vita utilius hominibus (2), ubi enumerantur qua- tuor virtutes Cardinales, ad quas omnes aliae reducuntur. Deus ergo docet, et com¬ mendat religionem, quae est pars justitiae et proinde cultum externum, qui est pars quae¬ dam religionis. Sexta propositio : « Sapientissime institu¬ tum est, ut in Ecclesia Latina, Latine Sacra¬ menta administrentur. » Nota Primo ; Cum de lingua, qua Sacramenta ministrari de¬ bent, agitur, debere excipi Matrimonium. Quia enim Matrimonium consistit in con¬ sensu mutuo, necessario requiruntur verba, vel nutus, qui ab utraque parte intelligan- tur. Et similiter confessio peccatorum de¬ bet fieri lingua utrique nota : licet Confessio non tam sit Sacramentum, quam Sacramenti materia. Nota Secundo : Non esse de jure divino, qua lingua Sacramenta ministrentur, neque id ad essentiam Sacramentorum pertinere ; tam enim valebit Baptismus, si ministretur Latine, quam si Italice, vel alia lingua : ta¬ men ob multas, easque gravissimas causas, visum est Ecclesiae, et ipsi Spiritui sancto, qui eam regit, ut sacramenta non minis¬ trentur lingua vulgari, nisi forte in casu necessitatis. Nota Tertio : Nos loqui de Ecclesia Lati¬ na : nam in Ecclesia Graeca recte faciunt, cum Graeca lingua utuntur et in Ecclesiis Sy¬ riae, cum utuntur lingua Chaldaica. Nam re¬ quiritur ad ministerium Sacramentorum lingua non vulgaris , sed quae tamen non sit omnino incognita, saltem doctis, alioqui non invenirentur pastores, et ministri ne¬ cessarii. Tales autem sunt lingua Graeca, Chaldaica, et Latina : nulla enim est vulga¬ ris , et tamen quaelibet est communis , et nota peritis in suis regionibus. Idem fere dici potest de Arabica, quae nunc est communis multis orientalibus Provinciis, et in ea celebrantur officia divina, sed alia est Arabica vulgaris, alia Arabica, qua utuntur in sacris. Probatur haec propositio Primo, ex Ec¬ clesiae antiqua consuetudine. Ecclesia La¬ tina semper Latine Sacramenta ministra¬ vit, licet jamdudum desierit lingua Latina esse vulgaris. Id patet ex Isidoro, Alcuino, Amalario. Rabano , Strabone, Micrologo, Ituperto, Thoma Waldensi , qui scripserunt de divinis officiis in Hispania, Gallia, Ger¬ mania, Italia, Anglia, quo tempore lingua Latina nusquam erat vulgaris, et apertis¬ sime docent, lingua Latina Sacramenta ministrari solita. Describunt enim Latine totum ritum, et formalia verba, quibus uti oportet. Praeterea in Sacramentis mi¬ nistrandis semper leguntur aliqua} partes divinae Scripturae , et maxime apud adver- (1) I. Cor. XIV, 40. — (2) Sap. VIII, 7. CAPUT XXXI. 503 sarios : at non exstabant tunc Scriptura), nisi Hebraice, Graece, et Latine, ut patet ex Beda libro primo histor. Gentis suae, capite primo ubi dicit , in Anglia sua aetate fuisse quatuor linguas vulgares , sed La¬ tinam fuisse communem omnibus ratione Scripturarum. Rabanus quoque libro tertio de Instit. Clericorum, capite octavo dicit, non exstitisse sua aetate, nisi in his tribus linguis divinas litteras. Denique non profer¬ rent adversarii editionem Germanicam, vel Gallicam, vel etiam Hispanicam, aut Ita¬ licam Scripturarum , nisi a paucis annis factam. Possent objicere editionem Gothi¬ cam, quam Ulphilas Episcopus Gothorum fecisse dicitur in Tripartita historia libro octavo, capite decimo-tertio, et apud So¬ cratem libro quarto, capite vigesimo-septi- mo. Sed Episcopus ille non prius id fecit, quam Arianus cum toto suo populo esse coe¬ pit. Adde ultimo duo exempla , quae aperte indicant olim non fuisse usum linguae vul¬ garis in Sacramentorum celebratione. Unum est Moravorum, qui ut est apud ^Eneam Syl- vium de origine Bohen^prum, c. 13. impetra¬ runt a Pontifice Romano , ut possent officia divina celebrare, lingua Sclavonica. Alterum Bohemorum, quibus idem petentibus, nega¬ vit Gregorius Septimus , ut est in VII libro . epistolarum ejus. At si fuisset usus commu¬ nis tunc linguae vulgaris, non petiissent hanc licentiam. Secundo probatur ratione. Nam nulla est necessitas, quae cogat lingua vulgari Sacra¬ menta ministrari , et contra multa sunt in¬ commoda , si id fiat. Non esse ullam neces¬ sitatem probatur. Nam si ulla esset necessi¬ tas, ea maxime, ut intelligant id quod dici¬ tur, qui Sacramenta percipiunt : at haec non est vera necessitas. Nam verba Sacramento¬ rum, aut diriguntur ad elementa, ut conse-' cratio Eucharistiae, benedictio aquae, et olei; elementa autem nullam linguam intelligunt: aut diriguntur ad Deum, ut formae verborum deprecatoriae qualis est in extrema unctione. Deus autem omnes linguas intelligit : aut di¬ riguntur ad personas ; sed consecrandas vel absolvendas , non autem instruendas et do¬ cendas, ut in Baptismo , et Absolutione , et proinde per accidens est, si persona intelli- gat. Cujus signum est, quia verissime, et ef¬ ficacissime baptizantur, et reconciliantur etiam ii, qui non utuntur ratione, ut patet in Baptismo infantium, et in Reconciliatione a?grotorum , qui sunt a sensibus alienati : quos posse reconciliari , ut etiam baptizari, 'si Baptismo careant, docet Augustinus lib. I de adulterinis conjugiis , cap. 26 et 28. et Concilium Quartum Carthaginiense can. 76. et Leo I , epist. 91. ad Theodorum. Adde, quod nulli fere sunt in Ecclesia Latina adulti tam rudes, qui non intelligant verba Sacra¬ mentorum, licet Latina, aut certe non intel¬ ligant in genere per ea verba sibi tale , aut tale Sacramentum ministrari. Esse autem incommodum, si utamur lin¬ gua vulgari patet Primo , quia impeditur commercium Ecclesiarum; non enim pote¬ runt convenire in Ecclesiis Germanorum, Anglorum, Polonorum, Itali, Galli, Hispani, neque contra. Quod multum nocet unitati, et communicationi , quae deberet esse inter membra unius corporis. Et praeterea coge¬ rentur Christiani extra suas regiones carere divinis officiis. Secundo, Saeramenta requirunt majesta¬ tem , et reverentiam quamdam , quae certe melius conservatur , si utamur lingua non vulgari, et communi. Quomodo enim aequum est ut in Sacramentis ministrandis utamur alia domo, aliis vestibus, aliis instrumentis, quam ordinariis, et quotidianis : ita par esse videtur , ut utamur alia lingua. Nec tamen somniamus , ut putat Kemnitius , linguam Latinam esse magis sacram , quam sint caeterse , sed hoc ipso dicimus eam ha¬ bere plus venerationis, quod non est vul¬ garis. Tertio expedit, ut verba Sacramentorum conceptis verbis , et eodem modo ab omni¬ bus proferantur, ut periculum caveatur mu¬ tationis, vel depravationis. Id autem facilli¬ me servabitur, si eadem lingaa omnes utan¬ tur; difficillime, si diversis. Quarto, si lingua vulgari Sacramenta mi¬ nistrentur , aperietur porta latissima igno¬ rantiae : contenti enim erunt ministri , si sciant legere. Itaque paulatim obliviscentur linguam Latinam , atque ita non legent Patres, et proinde non intelligent Scriptu¬ ras . 504 LIBER 11.