Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book V: On the Sacrifice of the Mass (First)
Chapter 25: The Arguments of John Calvin Are Resolved
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. IV, De Sacramento Eucharistiae, Book V: On the Sacrifice of the Mass (First Book). 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).
John Calvin, Book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 18, § 1, proposes five arguments, when he says that he will most clearly demonstrate by the word of God that the sacrifice of the Mass affects Christ with signal contumely; buries and oppresses His cross; delivers His death to oblivion; takes away the fruit which came to us from it; enervates and dissipates the Sacrament in which the memory of His death was left: all which arguments he pursues in the following sections.
The first argument is this. Christ is a priest forever: therefore no successors or vicars ought to be substituted for Christ. Therefore there are now no priests on earth, and accordingly no sacrifices: for in the old law priests were multiplied for this reason, that they were hindered by death from continuing, as the Apostle says to the Hebrews, chapter 7. Nor can it be answered that those who are now ordained priests do not succeed Christ, but are His suffragans. For the Apostle in the cited place does not grant any multiplication of priests except on account of the death of those preceding; but Christ always lives and remains a priest; therefore He alone performs the priesthood: or if there are many priests on earth, the priesthood of Christ is abrogated.
I answer: No Catholic affirms that the priests who are in the Church succeed Christ: wherefore there was no need for Calvin to refute this, for that which Luther and Illyricus falsely say is had in the decretal letters was refuted a little before.
But as to the vicars and suffragans, or rather ministers of Christ in the priesthood according to the order of Melchisedech, it is false that their multiplication is repugnant to the unity and eternity of the priesthood of Christ. For Christ is not only a priest, but is also our sole and eternal Master, as He Himself says, Matthew 23. Nay, to teach also pertains to the priesthood, as the same Calvin confesses in the same Book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 1, § 5; and yet, because Christ does not now teach through Himself in a human manner and visibly, as the nature of men requires, it is not repugnant to the unity and eternity of His mastership that there be many men who are called Doctors and Masters, and in this matter vicars, suffragans, and ministers of Christ, as is clear from Paul, who, 1 Timothy 2 and 2 Timothy 1, calls himself a Doctor and Master, and 1 Corinthians 3 calls himself and some others coadjutors and ministers of God, and 2 Corinthians 5 says: For Christ we perform an embassy, as though God did exhort by us. And so we beseech you for Christ, be reconciled to God: by which words he makes himself both a legate and vicar of Christ. The same can be said of the office of feeding and of ministering the Sacraments. For Christ is the shepherd of all the sheep, and it is He who baptizes and confers the other Sacraments, by the consent of all; and yet who ever denied that there ought to be in the Church many shepherds and ministers of the Sacraments, who in the place of Christ, and as ministers of Christ, do these things visibly? Do not the very adversaries too wish to be called shepherds, doctors, and ministers, and daily teach and baptize, and yet do not think they derogate from the unity of the mastership and shepherdhood of Christ? In the same way, therefore, because Christ does not now sacrifice through Himself visibly and in a human manner on earth, it is not repugnant to the unity and eternity of His priesthood that He have on earth priests as ministers and vicars, through whom He does this. Nay, as we demonstrated above, Christ cannot by any other reason be truly called a priest forever, unless He sacrifice through ministers, since it is certain that through Himself He does not properly sacrifice.
But to the passage of the Apostle, which seems absolutely to exclude a multiplication of priests in the New Testament, the answer is at hand. For the Apostle absolutely excludes a multiplication of priests in the same dignity and power; but not of inferior priests, and such as are and are called ministers in respect of Christ. For in the old law, on account of the death of Aaron, Eleazar succeeded him in the same dignity and power, Phinees Eleazar, and so of the others, and if Aaron had never died, none would have succeeded him; yet even while Aaron lived there were many other inferior priests. So therefore no one succeeds Christ in the same dignity and power, because He never dies: yet while He lives many inferiors are ordained, who are His vicars and administrators. Which we see also in a temporal kingdom, where the king, as long as he lives, is never succeeded, though he is wont to have many viceroys or ministers, through whom he pronounces judgment in the various provinces.
The second argument of Calvin is this. An altar cannot be erected without the cross of Christ being overthrown, nor can the sacrifice of the Mass be offered without injury to the sacrifice of the cross. For the sacrifice of the cross has an infinite and eternal power: therefore we need no other sacrifice; therefore to multiply so many sacrifices of the Mass is nothing else than to deny the power and sufficiency of the sacrifice of the cross. Nor is the escape valid of those who say that the sacrifice of the Mass is the same as the sacrifice of the cross. For if the sacrifice of the cross truly has infinite and eternal power, we not only need no other sacrifice, but not even another repetition of the same sacrifice. Nor is that escape of others valid, who say that the repetition of this sacrifice is necessary for this, that the power of the first oblation of the sacrifice of the cross be applied to individuals. For for this application the means instituted by Christ can suffice, namely the preaching of the Word and the administration of the sacred Supper. And all these things are confirmed from the Apostle, Hebrews 9 and 10, where we read that Christ once appeared through His immolation: likewise that by the will of God we are sanctified by the oblation of the body of Jesus Christ once: likewise that Christ by one oblation perfected forever those that are sanctified: finally, that, the remission of sins being once acquired, there remains no more any oblation. There is added lastly the voice of Christ, John 19: It is consummated; by which words the Lord testifies that by His one sacrifice was perfected and completed whatever was for our salvation.
I answer: What the Apostle says, Romans 3, of the law and faith: Do we destroy the law through faith? God forbid; but we establish the law; the same we can say of the cross and the Mass: Do we overthrow the cross through the Mass? God forbid; but we establish the cross. For how would the Mass overthrow the cross, which is almost nothing else than a continual commemoration of the cross? But to the argument. We confess that the sacrifice of the cross has infinite and everlasting power to sanctify, and we grant that it thence follows that there is no need of another sacrifice of the cross, or of a repetition of the same sacrifice of the cross; that is, there is no need that another Christ die for us, or that the same Christ die more often. But we deny that it thence follows that sacrifices representing the sacrifice of the cross, and applying its fruit to us, cannot be multiplied without injury to the cross of Christ. For if it were so, not only would Masses be taken out of the way, but we would also make all the sacrifices of the Old Testament to have been performed in injury to the cross of Christ. For the sacrifice of the cross had power not only to sanctify future men, but also past: for thence it is said, the Lamb slain from the origin of the world, Apocalypse 13. That consequence of Calvin, therefore: The sacrifice of the cross is most perfect; therefore an altar cannot be erected without the cross of Christ being overthrown: if it has any force against the altar of the Church, it will have force also against the altar of the Synagogue: let us therefore deny, with the Manichees, that we may obey Calvin, the Old Testament, which erected so many altars in contumely of the cross.
But what Calvin added, that the fruit of the cross is sufficiently applied through the preaching of the Word and the administration of the Lord's Supper, and accordingly there is no need of the sacrifice of the Mass, concludes nothing. For first, by the same argument I would prove that the Lord's Supper is superfluous, because the fruit of the cross is sufficiently applied through Baptism; nay, that Baptism too is superfluous, because by the preaching of the word alone faith can be excited, through which the fruit of the cross is applied. It pleased God, therefore, to furnish various means, by which we might more easily, more sweetly, more fully attain the fruit of the cross, and we contend that one of these is the sacrifice of the Mass: nor have the adversaries yet been able to show the contrary. Then even if the sacrifice of the Mass were not necessary or useful for applying the fruit of the cross, it would not yet follow that it is in injury to the cross, which was what Calvin had to prove; nay neither would it follow that it is not necessary. For it would still be necessary for constituting religion, which cannot be without an external sacrifice; for honoring God with the supreme worship due to Him alone; for commemorating the sacrifice of the cross; and for other ends of which we spoke above.
To the passages brought from Paul the answer is most easy. For those words of chapter 9, Nor that he should offer himself often, etc., are, by the consent of all expositors, most openly to be taken of the bloody oblation; for the same Paul presently subjoins: Otherwise he ought to have suffered often from the beginning of the world. The sense therefore is: Christ did not enter into heaven by His first oblation, that is, by His death, in order that He should then go out, and by offering Himself and dying enter again, and repeat this often, as the Levitical High Priest by a victim entered the sanctuary and went out, and again entered by another victim and went out: otherwise Christ would have had to offer Himself and suffer death from the beginning of the world for each generation: but by one oblation, that is, by one death, He purged the sins of the whole world, and opened the entrance of heaven to all men. We see, therefore, that the Apostle does not exclude any repetition whatever of the oblation of Christ, but that alone which requires His death.
Those words too of chapter 10: We are sanctified by the oblation of the body of Christ once. And those: By one oblation he perfected forever them that are sanctified: are likewise to be understood of the bloody oblation. For the sense is: By the one death of Christ we are sanctified, nay even perfected, having obtained not only the remission of sins, but also the ornaments of justice, and beatitude itself; and this forever, that is, for every age and generation, so that we now need no other Christ to redeem us by His death, or that the same Christ die more often for us or for others.
But that of the same chapter: Where there is remission of sins, there is now no oblation for sin, which the adversaries most press, if it proved anything, would only prove that there is no place after the sacrifice of the cross for any propitiatory sacrifice, but not for any sacrifice absolutely: for there are many sacrifices truly and properly so called which are not propitiatory. Wherefore Calvin cited from Paul with little fidelity, that there remains no more any oblation, whereas Paul in express words said that there is no oblation for sin.
But neither do we admit that from this passage it can be gathered that the Mass is not a propitiatory sacrifice, or an oblation for sin. For two things are required for the remission of sins: one, that there be found a price of liberation, or a just and due satisfaction to the divine justice; the other, that the price be applied to men in particular. As to the first, the sacrifice of the cross remitted all sins, past, present, and future; since it acquired a most sufficient price for the sins of the whole world: and therefore, that sacrifice being performed and sins remitted, there remains no like oblation for sin, that is, for acquiring a price for the remission of sins. And this alone is what the Apostle writes in that place. As to the second, the remission of all sins is not yet made: for there are still, and will be until the consummation of the world, those to whom the price of liberation is to be applied, and their sins remitted; and therefore there remains a host for sin, namely the sacrifice of the Mass.
You will say: The Apostle, when he says, Now there is no oblation for sin, seems to look to the Jewish sacrifices, which were called for sin; and to teach that those sacrifices are all abrogated, since the remission of sins is now accomplished: therefore Paul excludes not only a new oblation, by which a price would be acquired, but all other oblations for sin, even if they are only representative and applicative of the sacrifice of the cross.
I answer: We are not compelled to say that the Apostle looked to the Jewish sacrifices: for his sentence only requires this, that, the price of the remission of sins being acquired, no oblation acquisitive of that price is required. Yet it can be granted that Paul looked to those sacrifices of the old law, not as they were representative and in some way applicative of the sacrifice of the cross, but as they were figures and promises of a future sacrifice: for the sacrifice of the cross being performed and the price acquired, in vain would figures be employed promising that which we already have. But that Paul does not exclude sacrifices representing and applying the sacrifice of the cross, is most manifestly clear from this, that otherwise he would have excluded also Baptism and the Lord's Supper, which are also Sacraments representing and applying the fruit of the cross; nay also the word, and faith, and prayer, and all the means or instruments by which the fruit of the cross is applied. For thus we could argue: By the cross all sins are remitted; therefore all the instruments of justification are in vain.
Finally that, It is consummated, is wrongly brought forward by Calvin. For it does not signify, as he dreams, that by the one oblation of the cross all things which were for our salvation were consummated and completed; as if the rest were superfluous, the doctrine, the Sacraments, the examples, and all the labors undergone before the cross: but it signifies, as Chrysostom, Augustine, Cyril, Theophylact, and others expound, that the pains and afflictions which He was to suffer in the flesh were consummated, or, what comes to the same, that the oracles of the prophets, which had foretold His passion, were consummated.
The third argument of Calvin is taken from this, that the sacrifice of the Mass obliterates the one death of Christ and shakes it out of the memory of men. For the confirmation of a testament depends on the death of the testator: therefore the confirmation of the Testament of Christ also depends on the death of Christ. But the Mass is a new Testament; nay, as many as are the Masses, so many are the Testaments: therefore, that they be ratified, Christ must die as often as the Mass is said: therefore that one death of Christ is either not believed, or is held for nothing. Moreover the host which is offered must necessarily be slain and killed: therefore if Christ is sacrificed in each Mass, He must at each moment be cruelly slain in a thousand places. Nor is it valid if they answer that the sacrifice of the Mass is [unbloody]: for it does not depend on the will of men to change the nature of a sacrifice; and the Apostle says: Without the shedding of blood there is no remission.
I answer: If the Catholics said that in the sacrifice of the Mass Christ truly dies, Calvin's argument would seem to have some strength: but since all say that Christ does not die except in the Sacrament, or the sign representing that one death which He once underwent; so far is it that the Mass obliterates the death of Christ, that it rather effects that it may never be obliterated. But, says Calvin, “Although the Papists say that they neither wish nor are able to slay Christ, yet that this follows from their dogma, our arguments prove.” Let us see, therefore, whether it be so.
The first argument, from the name of Testament, proves nothing. For the Mass is not a new institution of the Testament of Christ, but is a repetition of that same which Christ once made and confirmed by His death. Just as among men, when a testament confirmed by death is often exhibited and recited in court, or even copied, to apply the inheritance to this or that person, there is no need that the testator die again: but it is enough if it be established that the testator is dead, and did not before death revoke or change his testament.
But Calvin strives to prove on the contrary that the several Masses are new Testaments, that is, diverse from that Testament which Christ made at the beginning and confirmed by His death: “The several Masses,” he says, “promise a new remission of sins, a new acquisition of justice; therefore there are as many new and diverse Testaments as there are Masses.”
I answer: The remission of sins and the acquisition of justice which the Mass promises can be called new in respect of him to whom it is promised, since he did not have it before: but in respect of the sacrifice of the cross, of which Calvin ought to speak, it is not new, but is that very thing which was procured by the sacrifice of the cross; for, as we have often said, the sacrifice of the Mass applies the fruit of the sacrifice of the cross. And in this is the whole error of the adversaries, that they have falsely persuaded themselves that we attribute to the Mass a power of remitting sins without any order to the sacrifice of the cross.
To the other argument, from the slaying of the host which is offered, I answer that the sacrifice of the Mass is a most true sacrifice, and yet does not exact a true slaying of the host. For slaying is required only in the oblation of a living thing, and one which is offered in the form of a living thing, as when lambs, calves, birds, and the like are offered, whose destruction consists in death. But when the form of the sacrifice is of an inanimate thing, as of bread, wine, frankincense, and the like, slaying cannot be required, but only a consumption befitting that thing. In the Mass, therefore, Christ is indeed offered, who is a living thing, and is offered in the form of a living thing, as to the representation, where only the death represented is required, not the death in fact: but as it is a real sacrifice, and properly so called, it is offered in the form of bread and wine, according to the order of Melchisedech, and accordingly in the form of an inanimate thing. Whence in the Canon, where the words of the chief oblation are had after the consecration, we say: We offer the bread of eternal life, and the chalice of perpetual salvation. Wherefore the consumption of this sacrifice ought not to be a slaying, but an eating.
To that, Without the shedding of blood there is no remission, I answer: The Apostle speaks of the sacrifices of the old law, in which there was no sacrifice for sin without the shedding of blood. For thus he says, Hebrews 9: Almost all things, according to the law, are cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no remission.
Moreover Paul's sentence can also be taken absolutely and generally, not that whenever remission is made, then blood must be shed, but that remission is never made except in the power of the shedding of blood, whether that be now made, or made, or future.
Finally, in the sacrifice of the Mass it can most rightly be said that the blood of Christ is shed, as the Lord Himself speaks when He says: This is my blood, which is shed for many; whether we consider the mystic effusion of blood, or the real effusion, that is, the libation or oblation of the blood of the Lord. For as, usually according to the Scriptures, bread is said to be broken when it is distributed, even if whole loaves are given, so also wine can be said to be poured out when it is distributed, though full jars be given; and in the same way the body is broken under the species of bread, and the blood is shed under the species of wine, while it is offered and given to God in sacrifice.
The fourth argument of Calvin is drawn from the fruit of the death of Christ, which the Mass snatches away from us, while it makes us not acknowledge and think of it. For who would think that he was redeemed by the death of Christ, where he sees a new redemption in the Mass? Who would trust that his sins are remitted, where he sees a new remission?
I answer: The argument is not unlike the former: for it rests on that false foundation, that the Mass, in the opinion of the Catholics, has power to expiate sins without the sacrifice of the cross. For if we said this, Calvin would most rightly gather that the Mass snatches from us the fruit of the death of Christ: but because no Catholic teaches this, Calvin beats the air.
But he presses on the contrary: “Nor will he escape,” he says, “who shall say that we obtain the remission of sins in the Mass for no other cause than because it was already acquired by the death of Christ. For he brings nothing else than if he should boast that we were redeemed by Christ on this condition, that we should redeem ourselves: so that nothing now is left to the passion of Christ, except that it be an example of redemption, by which we may learn to be our own redeemers.”
I answer: Wonderful is the blindness, or the malice, of this man, who could not yet, or certainly would not, understand the opinion of the Catholics. For first, the Mass is not our work, but Christ's: for He Himself is the true priest, who through His ministers offers the sacrifice, and through it purges and remits sins. Wherefore even if the Mass had power of itself without the sacrifice of the cross, not therefore would we ourselves redeem, but Christ would redeem us. Then we do not compare, as Calvin wrongly does, the passion of Christ with the sacrifice of the Mass, so as to say that from the passion of Christ only an example of redemption is taken. For we say that by the passion of Christ the whole price of redemption was acquired, and therefore that we are all redeemed by that death, as to the sufficiency of the price paid for all: but that by the sacrifice of the Mass that price is applied, as it is also applied through the Sacraments, though in one manner and another, as we shall say below in its place. As therefore he who baptizes is not said to take only an example of redemption from the passion of Christ, nor properly to redeem, but only to apply the price acquired by the passion: so also must it be thought of the sacrifice of the Mass.
The fifth argument is already resolved: for it brings nothing except what Luther said, that the same thing cannot be received and given. These are the arguments from the book of the Institutes. Two others he adds in the Antidote to article 6 of Paris, which can be resolved most briefly.
The first is this: The institution of Christ is thus: Take and eat: but not, Offer; therefore the sacrifice is not from the institution of Christ, but openly fights with it. I answer: We nowhere read that Christ said: Do not offer; but if we read it, then the sacrifice of the Mass would truly fight with the institution of Christ. But if Calvin presses that Christ did not say: Offer, it has already been answered above, both that nothing is gathered from a pure negation, and that Christ sufficiently openly commanded it to be offered, when He said: Do this.
The other argument is: No one ought to usurp the honor of the priesthood, unless called by God, the Apostle being witness. But no one except Christ is read to have been called. I answer: Since Christ called the Apostles to the honor of the priesthood in those words, Do this, no one can say that they were not called by God, except one who denies Christ to be God. But those who succeed the Apostles by lawful ordination are to be esteemed no less called by God than of old those were judged to be called by God who were substituted for Aaron by carnal propagation.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XXV. Solvuntur argumenta Joannis Calvini. Joannes Calvinus lib. iv. Instit. cap. 18. § 1. quinque argumenta proponit, cum dicit se verbo Dei clarissime demonstraturum sa¬ crificium Missae insigni contumelia Christum afficere ; crucem ejus sepelire, et opprimere ; mortem ejus in oblivionem tradere ; fructum, qui ex ea nobis proveniebat, tollere ; Sacra¬ mentum, quo mortis memoria relicta erat, enervare, et dissipare : quae omnia argu¬ menta exequitur in sequentibus sectionibus. Primum igitur tale est argumentum. Chri¬ stus est sacerdos in aeternum : ergo nulli sub¬ stitui debent Christo successores, aut vicarii. Ergo nulli sunt modo sacerdotes in terris, proinde nec sacrificia : nam in veteri lege ideo multiplicabantur sacerdotes, quia morte prohibebantur permanere, ut Apostolus dicit ad Hebr. cap. vn. Neque responderi potest, eos qui nunc ordinantur sacerdotes, non suc¬ cedere Christo, sed eos suffraganeos esse. Nam apostolus loco citato non concedit ullo¬ rum sacerdotum multiplicationem, nisi pro¬ pter mortem praecedentium, Christus autem (i)Paral, XXIX. 14. CAPUT XXY, scmpcr vivit, et sacerdos manet; ergo solus fungitur sacerdotio : vel si multi sunt iu ter¬ ris sacerdotes, Christi sacerdotium abro¬ gatur. Respondeo : Nullus Catholicorum affirmat, sacerdotes, qui sunt in Ecclesia, Christo suc¬ cedere : quare non erat opus, ut id Calvinus refelleret, nam quod Luthcrus, et Illyricus mentiuntur, id haberi in epistolis decreta¬ libus paulo ante refutatum est. Quod autem attinet ad vicarios, et suffra- gancos, vel potius ministros Christi in sa¬ cerdotio secundum ordinem Melchiscdech, falsum est horum multiplicationem repu¬ gnare unitati, et aeternitati sacerdotii Chri¬ sti. Nam Christus non solum est sacerdos, sed etiam est unicus, et aeternus Magister noster , ut ipso dicit Matth. xxm. Innno etiam ad sacerdotium pertinet docere , ut idem Calvinus fatetur eodem lib. iv. Insti- tut. cap. i. § 5. et tamen quia Christus non docet nunc per se humano more, et visibi¬ liter, ut hominum natura requirit, non re¬ pugnat unitati, et aeternitati magisterii ipsius ut sint multi homines, qui dicantur Docto- res, et Magistri, et in hac re vicarii, suffra- ganei, et ministri Christi, ut patet ex Paulo, qui I Thimoth. 2. et II Thimoth. 1. vocat se Doctorem, et Magistrum, et I Corinth. 3. vocat se et alios nonnullos Dei coadjutores, et ministros, et II Corinth. 5. dicit : Pro Christo legatione fungimur tamquam Deo exhor tante per nos. Itaque obsecramus pro Christo , reconciliamini Deo (1) : quibus ver¬ bis ?e, et legatum, et vicarium Christi facit. Idem dici potest de officio pascendi, et Sa¬ cramenta ministrandi. Christus enim est pa¬ stor omnium ovium, et ipse est, qui bapti¬ zat, et Sacramenta caetera confert, omnium consensu ; et tamen quis unquam negavit, de¬ bere esse in Ecclesia multos pastores ; et Sa¬ cramentorum ministros, qui loco Christi, et ut ministri Christi visibiliter ista faciant? Nonne ipsi etiam adversarii pastores, et do- ctores, et ministri dici volunt, et quotidie docent, ct baptizant, et tamen non putant se derogare unitati Magisterii, et pastoratus Christi ? Eodem igitur modo, quia Christus non sacrificat nunc per se visibiliter, et hu¬ mano more in terris : non repugnat unitati, et aeternitati sacerdotii ejus, ut habeat in terris sacerdotes ministros, et vicarios, per quos id faciat. Imo ut supra demonstravi¬ 359 mus, non potest Christus alia ratione vere dici sacerdos in aeternum, nisi per ministros sacrificet, quandoquidem certum est, eum per se proprie non sacrificare. Ad locum autem Apostoli, qui videtur ab¬ solute excludere multiplicationem sacerdo¬ tum in testamento novo, in promptu est re¬ sponsio. Apostolus enim excludit absolute multiplicationem sacerdotum in eadem di¬ gnitate , et potestate ; non autem sacerdo¬ tum inferiorum, et qui respectu Christi mi¬ nistri sint, et dicantur. Nam in lege veteri ob mortem Aaronis, successit illi in eadem di¬ gnitate, et potestate Eleazarus, Eloazaro Phi¬ neos, et sic de aliis, et si nunquam Aarou mortuus esset, nullus ei successisset ; tamen vivente etiam Aarone multi alii erant infe¬ riores sacerdotes. Sic igitur Christo nemo succedit in eadem dignitate, ct potestate, quia nunquam moritur : tamen ipso vivente multi inferiores ordinantur, qui sint ejus vi¬ carii, et administri. Quod etiam videmus in regno temporali, ubi regi, quamdiu vivit, nunquam succeditur, licet is multos habere soleat vel proreges, vel ministros, per quos in variis provinciis jus dicat. Secundum Calvini argumentum tale est. Non potest erigi altare, quin evertatur crux Christi, nec potest offerri sacrificium Missae, sine injuria sacrificii crucis. Nam sacrifi¬ cium crucis habet vim infinitam , et aeter¬ nam : ergo non egemus alio sacrificio ; ergo multiplicare tot sacrificia Missae , nihil est aliud, quam negare virtutem, et sufficien¬ tiam sacrificii crucis. Neque valet effugium eorum, qui dicunt Missae sacrificium idem esse cum sacrificio crucis. Nam si sacrifi¬ cium crucis vere habet infinitam, et aeternam vim, non solum non egemus alio sacrificio, sed neque alia repetitione ejusdem sacrificii. Neque illud aliorum effugium valet, qui di¬ cunt, repetitionem hujus sacrificii ad id ne¬ cessariam esse, ut applicetur singulis vis primae oblationis sacrificii crucis. Nam ad hanc applicationem satis esse possunt media a Christo instituta, praedicatio scilicet Verbi, et sacrae Coenae administratio. Et confirman¬ tur haec omnia ex Apostolo Hebr. 9. et 10. ubi legimus Christum semel apparuisse per immolationem suam : item voluntate Dei nos sanctificatos esse per oblationem corpo¬ ris Jesu Christi semel : item Christum una oblatione- consummasse in perpetuum san- (1) II Corinth. V, 20. LIBER V. :h;o clificatos : denique acquisita semel remis¬ sione peccatorum, nullam amplius restare oblationem . Accedit ultimo Christi vox , Joan. xix : Consummatum est (2) ; quibus ver¬ bis testatur Dominus uno suo sacrificio per¬ fectum esse, et completum, quidquid in sa¬ lutem nostram erat. Respondeo : Quod Apostolus ait Roman. m. de lege et fide: Numquid legem destrui¬ mus per fidem ? absit , sed legem statuimus (3) ; idem nos de cruce, et Missa dicere possu¬ mus : Numquid crucem evertimus per Mis¬ sam ? absit, sed crucem statuimus. Quomo¬ do enim Missa crucem everteret, quae nihil ferme est aliud, nisi continua commemora¬ tio crucis? Sed ad argumentum. Fatemur sacrificium crucis, vim infinitam, et sempi¬ ternam habere ad sanctificandum, atque in¬ de sequi concedimus, non esse opus alio sa¬ crificio crucis, aut ejusdem sacrificii crucis repetitione ; id est, non esse opus, ut alius Christus moriatur pro nobis , aut ut idem Christus saepius moriatur. Negamus autem inde sequi, non posse sine crucis Christi in¬ juria multiplicari sacrificia repraesentantia sacrificium crucis, et ejus fructum nobis ap¬ plicantia. Nam si ita esset, non solum tol¬ lerentur Missae de medio, sed etiam effice¬ remus omnia sacrificia Testamenti veteris fuisse peracta in injuriam crucis Christi. Nam sacrificium crucis non solum vim ha¬ buit sanctificandi futuros homines, sed etiam praeteritos : inde enim dicitur, agnus occi¬ sus ab origine mundi, Apocalyp. 13. Illa igitur Calvini consequentia : Sacrificium crucis est perfectissimum ; ergo non potest erigi altare, quin evertatur crux Christi : si quid valet contra altare Ecclesiae , valebit etiam , contra altare Synagogae : negemus igitur cum Manichaeis, ut Calvino pareamus, Testamentum vetus, quod tot altaria erexe¬ rit in contumeliam crucis. Illud autem, quod Calvinus addebat fru¬ ctum crucis satis applicari per praedicatio¬ nem Verbi, et administrationem Coenae Do¬ mini : proinde non esse opus sacrificio Mis¬ sae : nihil concludit. Nam in primis eodem argumento probarem supervacaneam esse Ccenam Domini , quia fructus crucis satis applicatur per Baptismum ; imo , et Ba¬ ptismum supervacaneum esse, quod sola praedicatione verbi possit excitari fides, per quam applicatur fructus crucis. Placuit igi¬ tur Deo varia media instruere, quibus faci¬ lius, suavius, plenius fructum crucis conse¬ queremur, atque unum ex his, nos sacrifi¬ cium Missae esse contendimus : neque adver¬ sarii contrarium adhuc ostendere potuerunt. Deinde etiamsi ad applicandum fructum crucis, non esset sacrificium Missae neces¬ sarium, nec utile, non tamen sequeretur esse in injuriam crucis, quod Calvino probandum erat ; imo nec sequeretur non esse necessa¬ rium. Nam adhuc necessarium esset ad re¬ ligionem constituendam, quae sine externo sacrificio esse non potest ; ad Deum cultu supremo, et illi soli debito honorandum, ad sacrificium crucis commemorandum ; et ad alios fines, de quibus supra diximus. Ad loca ex Paulo adducta facillime re¬ spondetur. Nam verba illa capitis 9 : Neque ut saepius se offerat eic. apertissime omnium expositorum consensu de cruenta oblatione accipienda sunt ; nam mox idem Paulus sub¬ jungit : Alioqui oportebat eum frequenter pati ab origine mundi. Sensus igitur est : Chri¬ stus non intravit in coelum per primam sui oblationem, id est , per mortem suam , ut deinde exeat, et se offerendo, et moriendo iterum intret ; et hoc saepius repetat quem¬ admodum Pontifex Leviticus per victimam intrabat sanctuarium, et exibat : et rursus iterum per aliam victimam intrabat, et exi¬ bat : alioqui oportuisset Christum ab ori¬ gine mundi pro singulis generationibus se offerre, ac mortem pati : sed unica oblatio¬ ne, id est, unica morte peccata totius mundi purgavit, et coeli aditum omnibus hominibus aperuit. Videmus igitur Apostolum non ex¬ cludere quamlibet iterationem oblationis Christi, sed eam solam, quae mortem ipsius requirit. Illa quoque verba capitis x : Sancti ficati sumus per oblationem corporis Christi semel. Et illa : Una oblatione consummavit in sempi¬ ternum sanctificatos : similiter de cruenta oblatione intelligenda sunt. Sensus enim est : Per unam Christi mortem sanctificati sumus, imo etiam consummati sumus, adepti vi¬ delicet non solum remissionem peccatorum, sed etiam ornamenta justitiae, et ipsam bea- titudinem ; et hoc in sempiternum, id est, pro omni aetate, et generatione, ut jam non egea¬ mus alio Christo, qui morte sua nos redimat : vel ut idem Christus pro nobis, vel pro aliis saepius moriatur. (1) Joan. XIX, 30. — (2) Rom. III, 3. CAPUT XXV. 361 Illud autem ex eodem capite: Ubi est re¬ missio peccatorum , jam non est remisssio pro peccato , quod adversarii maxime urgent, si quid probaret, tantum probaret, non esse locum post sacrificium crucis, ulli sacrificio propitiatorio, non autem ulli sacrificio abso¬ lute : nam multa sunt sacrificia vere, et pro¬ prie dicta, quae non sunt propitiatoria. Quare parum fideliter Calvinus ex Paulo citavit, nullam amplius restare oblationem , cum Paulus disertis verbis dixerit, nullam esse oblationem pro peccato. Sed neque admittimus ex hoc loco posse colligi, Missam non esse sacrificium propi- tiatorium, seu oblationem pro peccato. Nam duo requiruntur ad remissionem peccato¬ rum ; unum, ut inveniatur pretium liberatio¬ nis , seu satisfactio justa et debita divinae justitiae. Alterum, ut pretium in particulari applicetur hominibus. Quod attinet ad pri¬ mum, sacrificium crucis remisit omnia pec¬ cata, praeterita, praesentia, et futura ; siqui¬ dem pretium acquisivit sufficientissimum pro peccatis totius mundi : et ideo illo sacrificio peracto, et peccatis remissis, non restat ulla similis oblatio pro peccato, id est, pro acqui¬ rendo pretio ad remissionem peccatorum. Et hoc solum est, quod Apostolus eo loco scri¬ bit. Quantum ad secundum , nondum facta est remissio peccatorum omnium : nam ad¬ huc sunt, et erunt usque ad mundi consum¬ mationem, quibus applicandum sit pretium liberationis, et remittenda peccata, et ideo remanet hostia pro peccato, nimirum sacri¬ ficium Missae. Dices : Videtur Apostolus, cum ait : Jam non est oblatio pro peccato , respicere ad sa¬ crificia Judaica, quae pro peccato diceban¬ tur ; ac docere illa sacrificia esse omnia abro¬ gata, cum jam peracta sit remissio peccato¬ rum : non ergo solum excludit Paulus no¬ vam oblationem , qua acquiratur pretium, sed omnes alias oblationes pro peccato, etiamsi tantum repraesentativae, et applica- tivse, sint sacrificii crucis. Respondeo : Non cogimur dicere, Apo¬ stolum respexisse ad sacrificia Judaica : sen¬ tentia enim ejus hoc tantum postulat, ut a- cquisito pretio remissionis peccatorum, non requiratur oblatio acquisitiva illius pretii. Potest tamen concedi Paulum respexisse ad illa sacrificia veteris legis, non ut erant re- prsesentativa, et aliquo modo applicativa sa¬ crificii crucis, sed ut erant figurae, et promis¬ siones futuri sacrificii : peracto enim sacri¬ ficio crucis, et pretio acquisito, frustra adhi¬ berentur figurae promittentes id, quod jam habemus. Quod autem non excludat Paulus sacrificia repraesentativa, et applicantia sa¬ crificium crucis, manifestissime patet ex eo quod alioqui exclusisset etiam Baptismum, et Ccenam Domini, quae sunt etiam Sacra¬ menta repraesentantia , et applicantia fru¬ ctum crucis ; imo et verbum, et fidem, et orationem, et omnia media, seu instrumenta, quibus applicatur fructus crucis. Nam sic ar¬ gumentari possemus : Per crucem sunt re¬ missa omnia peccata; ergo frustra sunt om¬ nia instrumenta justificationis. Denique illud, Consummatum est, perpe¬ ram a Calvino adducitur. Non enim signifi¬ cat, ut ipse somniat, unica oblatione crucis consummata, et completa omnia, quae in sa¬ lutem nostram erant ; quasi supervacanea fuerint csetera, doctrina, Sacramenta, exem¬ pla, et omnes labores ante crucem obiti : sed significat, ut Chrysostomus, Augustinus, Cyrillus, Theophylactus, et alii exponunt, consummatas fuisse pcenas, et afflictiones, quas in carne passurus erat, vel quod in idem recidit, consummata fuisse Propheta¬ rum oracula, quae passionem ejus praedixe¬ rant. Tertium argumentum Calvini sumitur ex eo, quod sacrificium Missae unam Christi mortem obliteret, et ex hominum memoria excutiat. Nam Testamenti confirmatio a morte testatoris pendet : ergo et Testamenti Christi confirmatio a morte Christi pendet. Sed Missa est novum Testamentum ; imo quot sunt missae , tot sunt Testamenta ergo ut rata sint oportet Christum toties mori, quoties dicitur Missa : ergo unica illa Christi mors, aut non creditur, aut pro nihilo duci¬ tur. Praeterea hostiam, quae offertur occidi et mactari necesse est : ergo si Christus singu¬ lis Missis sacrificatur, eum singulis momentis mille in locis crudeliter interfici oportet. Ne¬ que valet si respondeant, sacrificium Missae esse avaigaxTov : nam non pendet ex arbitrio hominum, ut sacrificii naturam mutent ; et Apostolus ait : Sine sanguinis effusione non fit remissio. Respondeo : Si Catholici dicerent, in sa¬ crificio Missae vere Christum mori, Calvini argumentum aliquid virium habere videre¬ tur : sed cum dicant omnes, Christum non mori nisi in Sacramento, seu signo reprae¬ sentante unicam illam mortem, quam ali¬ quando obiit ; tantum est, ut Missa obliteret 302 LIDER V. Christi mortem, ut potius efficiat, ne un¬ quam ohliteretur. Sed inquit Calvinus : «Etsi dicant Papista), se Christum nec velle, nec posse interficere, tamen id sequi ex eorum dogmate, argumenta nostra probant. » Vi ¬ deamus igitur an ita sit. Primum argumentum ex nomine Testa¬ menti, nihil probat. Nam Missa non est no¬ va Testamenti Christi institutio , sed est repetitio illius ejusdem, quod Christus ali¬ quando fecit, et sua morte confirmavit. Quemadmodum inter homines, cum testa¬ mentum morte confirmatum saepius in judicio exhibetur, et recitatur, aut etiam describitur ad applicandam huic, aut illi heereditatem, non est opus ut testator iterum moriatur : sed satis est, si constet testatorem esse mor¬ tuum, nec ante mortem revocasse, aut im- mutassse suum testamentum. Sed contra probare nititur Calvinus, sin¬ gulas Missas esse Testamenta nova, id est, diversa ab illo Testamento quod Christus initio fecit, et morte sua confirmavit : « Sin¬ gula! Missa!, inquit, novam peccatorum re¬ missionem, novam justitiae acquisitionem promittunt ; ergo tot sunt nova, ac diversa Testamenta, quot Missae. » Respondeo : Remissio peccatorum, et ju¬ stitiae acquisitio, quam Missa promittit, re¬ spectu ejus cui promittitur, nova dici potest, quippe qui eam antea non habebat : sed re¬ spectu sacrificii crucis, de quo Calvinus lo¬ qui debet, non est nova, sed est illa ipsa, quce per sacrificium crucis parta est ; nam, ut sa!pe diximus, sacrificium Missae applicat fructum sacrificii crucis. Atque in hoc est totus error adversariorum, quod sibi falso persuaserint, nos tribuere Missae vim remit¬ tendi peccata sine ullo ordine ad sacrificium crucis. Ad aliud argumentum ex occisione hostiae, quae offertur, respondeo Sacrificium Mis¬ sae esse verissimum sscrificium, et tamen non exigere veram hostiae occisionem. So¬ lum enim occisio requiritur in oblatione rei viventis, et quae in forma rei viventis offer¬ tur, ut cum offeruntur agni, vituli, aves, et similia, quorum destructio in morte consi¬ stit. At cum forma sacrificii est rei inanimae, ut panis, vini, thuris, et similium, non potest requiri occisio, sed solum consumptio rei illi conveniens. I11 Missa igitur offertur quidem Christus, qui est res vivens, et offertur in forma rei viventis, quantum ad repraesenta¬ tionem, ubi solum requiritur mors repraesen¬ tata, non autem mors reipsa : sed ut est sacrificium reale, et proprie dictum offertur in forma panis et vini, juxta ordinem Mel- chisedech, et proinde informa rei inanimae. Unde in Canone ubi habentur verba oblatio¬ nis potissimae post consecrationem, dicimus : Offerimus panem vitae aeternae, et calicem salutis perpetuae. Quare consumptio hujus sacrificii non debet esse occisio, sed mandu¬ catio. Ad illud : Sine sanguinis effusione non fit remissio , respondeo : Apostolum loqui de sacrificiis legis veteris, in qua nullum erat sacrificium pro peccato sine sanguinis effu¬ sione. Sic enim ait Hebr. ix : Omnia pene in sanguine mundantur , secundum legem , et sine sanguinis effusione non fit remissio. Praeterea potest etiam absolute, et genera- tim accipi Pauli sententia, non quod quoties¬ cumque fit remissio, tum sanguinem fundi oporteat, sed quod remissio nunquam fiat, nisi in virtute effusionis sanguinis, sive ea nunc flat, sive facta, sive futura sit. Denique in sacrificio Missa! rectissime potest dici sanguis Christi effundi, ut ipse Dominus loquitur cum ait : Hic est sangids meus, qui pro multis funditur ; sive conside¬ remus mysticam sanguinis effusionem, sive realem effusionem, id est, libationem, seu o- blationem sanguinis Domini. Ut enim usitate secundum scripturas, dicitur panis frangi cum distribuitur, etiamsi integri panes den¬ tur sic etiam vinum fundi dici potest cum di¬ stribuitur, licet plena! amphora! donentur, et eodem modo corpus sub specie panis frangitur, et sanguis sub specie vini fundi¬ tur, dum offertur et donatur Deo in sacri¬ ficium. Quartum Calvini argumentum ducitur a fructu mortis Christi ; quem Missa nobis praeripit, dum ne eum agnoscamus, et cogi¬ temus, facit. Quis enim cogitet, se morte Christi redemptum esse, ubi novam in Missa redemptionem viderit? Quis peccata sibi remissa confidat, ubi novam remissionem viderit ? Respondeo : Argumentum non est dissi¬ mile superioribus : nititur enim falso illo fun¬ damento, quod Missa Catholicorum senten¬ tia, vim habeat expiandi peccata sine crucis sacrificio. Si enim hoc diceremus, rectissi- (t)Heb. IN, 22. CAPUT XXVII. 363 me Calvinus colligeret, Missam nobis praeri- pere fructum mortis Christi : sed quia id nulli Catholici docent, aerem verberat Calvi¬ nus. Sed contra instat ille : « Neque evadet, in¬ quit, qui dixerit, non alia causa nos peccato¬ rum remissionem in Missa obtinere , nisi quia morte Christi jam acquisita est. Non enim aliud affert, quam si jactet, nos ea lege a Christo redemptos esse, ut nes ipsi redimeremus : ut nihil jam passioni Christi relinquatur, nisi, ut sit exemplum redem¬ ptionis, quo discamus nostri esse redempto¬ res. a Respondeo : Mira est hujus hominis caeci¬ tas, vel malitia, qui nondum potuit, aut cer¬ te noluit Catholicorum sententiam intelligere. Nam in primis Missa non est opus nostrum, sed Christi : ipse enim est verus sacerdos, qui per Ministros sacrificium offert, et per illud purgat, et remittit peccata. Quare et¬ iamsi Missa haberet vim per se absque sa¬ crificio crucis, non ideo tamen nos ipsi redi¬ meremus, sed Christus nos redimeret. Deinde non ita comparamus, ut perperam facit Cal¬ vinus, passionem Christi cum sacrificio Mis¬ sae, ut dicamus ex passione Christi sumi tantum exemplum redemptionis. Dicimus enim passione Christi totum pretium redem¬ ptionis acquisitum, et propterea nos omnes ea morte redemptos, quod attinet ad sufficien¬ tiam pretii pro omnibus persoluti : per sa¬ crificium autem Missa? applicari pretium illud, ut etiam applicatur per Sacramenta, quamvis alio, et alio modo, ut suo loco infra di¬ cemus. Sicut igitur, qui baptizat, non dicitur exemplum tantum sumere redemptionis a passione Christi, nec proprie redimere, sed applicare dun taxat pretium per passionem acquisitum : sic etiam de sacrificio Missa? cogitari debet. Quintum argumentum jam est solutum : nihil enim affert, praeter id, quod Lutherus dicebat, non posse idem accipi, et donari. Haec sunt argumenta ex libro Institutionum Alia duo addit in Antidoto artic. vi. Pari- siensis, qua? brevissime solvi possunt. Primum est hoc : Institutio Christi sic habet : Accipite et manducate: non autem, Offerte ; ergo sacrificium non ex instituto Christi est, sed palam cum eo pugnat. Re¬ spondeo : Nusquam legimus Christum dixis¬ se : Non offerte ; quod si legeremus, tum vere pugnaret cum instituto Christi sacrifi¬ cium Missa?. Quod si illud urgeat Calvi¬ nus, quod non dixerit Christus : Offerte, jam supra responsum est, tum nihil colligi ex pura negatione ; tum satis Christum aperte jussisse offerri, cum ait : Hoc facite. Alterum argumentum est : Nemo usurpare debet honorem sacerdotii., nisi a Deo vocatus , teste Apostolo. Nemo autem praeter Christum vocatus legitur. Respondeo : Cum Apostolos Christus ad honorem sacerdotii vocaverit illis verbis : Hoc facite , nemo potest dicere eos non esse a Deo vocatos, nisi qui Chri¬ stum neget esse Deum. Qui autem Apostolis legitima ordinatione succedunt, non minus a Deo vocari censendi sunt, quam olim a Deo judicarentur vocari, qui Aaroni per car¬ nalem propagationem substituebantur.