Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacraments in General · Book II: On the Effect, Number, and Ceremonies of the Sacraments
Chapter 14: It is proved that no Sacrament of the law of nature or of the written law justified ex opere operato
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 the truth is to be proved. We shall prove that no Sacrament of the law of nature, or of the written law, justified ex opere operato, or in the manner in which a Sacrament of the new law justifies, against all the heretics of this time, and in some way also against those who attribute to Circumcision justification ex opere operato. And the first argument is taken from the divine letters; for both the Prophets and the Apostles teach with wonderful consent that the old Sacraments did not justify, whereas of ours they assert the contrary.
The first place from the Prophets, Psalm 39: Sacrifice and oblation thou didst not desire; but ears thou hast perfected for me. Burnt offering and sin offering thou didst not require. Where Scripture does not deny that God wills sacrifices, since he himself bade them be made, but denies that he wills them to expiate sin. The second place, Psalm 50: For if thou hadst desired sacrifice (namely to expiate sin), I would indeed have given it; with burnt offerings thou wilt not be delighted. A sacrifice to God is an afflicted spirit, etc. Where Scripture opposes sacrifice to contrition, and denies of one what it affirms of the other; which it would not do if each concurred to justification; for it would not now be rightly said, God wills not Baptism, but contrition. The third place, Isaias 1: To what purpose do you offer me the multitude of your victims? Who required these things at your hands? The fourth place, Jeremias 11: Shall the holy flesh take away from thee thy crimes, in which thou hast gloried? where he speaks of the sacrifice for sin. And certainly of Baptism he would not say, Shall Baptism take away from thee thy crimes? The fifth place, Amos 5: But if you offer me holocausts and your gifts, I will not receive them; and I will not regard the vows of your fat beasts. Now if the Sacrifices did not justify, much less did the other ceremonies justify; for no ceremonies have clearer promises of the remission of sins than the sacrifices.
Now from the words of the Apostles the same can be proved. The first place is Romans 3: What advantage then hath the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision? Much every way. First indeed, because the words of God were committed to them. Where that word, First (even Calvin and Peter Martyr being witnesses in their commentaries), is not a note of order, as though Paul wished to bring forward many profits of Circumcision, but signifies the chief or principal; for he brings forward no other profits. Only this, then, on Paul's authority, did the circumcised Jews excel the uncircumcised Gentiles, that they had the law and oracles of God; not, therefore, did Circumcision justify. For otherwise the Jews would have excelled the Gentiles also in justice, which Paul chiefly intends to refute; whence a little later he subjoins: What then? do we excel them? No, not so. For we have charged (that is, we have brought and shown the cause) both Jews and Greeks, that they are all under sin. Where Paul, although he had said that the Jews excel the Gentiles on account of Circumcision, because the oracles of God were committed to them, yet now denies that the Jews excel the Gentiles, because they do not excel as to justification, of which the discourse was; for all, both circumcised and uncircumcised, are sinners. By which words he most clearly teaches that Circumcision did not justify. For he does not mean to say that no one was just before the coming of Christ, since it is established that the Patriarchs and Prophets and many Gentiles were just, as Melchisedech, Job, and others. But he means that they were not just from this, that they were circumcised or uncircumcised, but from this, that they believed in Christ to come. In the same place the Apostle adds: By the works of the law no flesh shall be justified before him. But who would deny that Circumcision was a work of the law? In the same place: Is he the God of the Jews only? he says; is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also. For it is one God, that justifieth circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith. As if he said: God is the God of all; how, then, is it credible that he gave a remedy against sin to the Jews alone? We can also argue hence in another way: Is he the God of males only? Is he not also of females? Who, then, would believe that God gave a remedy which should profit males alone?
The second place is Romans 4, where the Apostle professedly proves that Abraham was justified not in Circumcision, but in uncircumcision, that thence he may admonish that Circumcision was not given to justify. For if he to whom it was first given was not justified by it, how much less shall others be justified by it? The third place, 1 Corinthians 7: Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing; where Paul so despises Circumcision as uncircumcision, when justification is treated. The fourth place is Galatians 4: How turn you again to the weak and needy elements, which you desire to serve again? By the name of which elements he understands Circumcision, of which he chiefly speaks in that epistle, and at the same time the other legal ceremonies; and certainly they would not be called weak and needy if they justified. In the same place he says that the Jews, like little ones, were serving under the elements of this world, but that we are perfect men; which difference certainly would not be true if our Sacraments had no other force than those of the Jews. The fifth place, Galatians 6: Neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. Where we see the new creature opposed both to Circumcision and to uncircumcision; which would be inept if Circumcision effected the new creature. The sixth place, Philippians 3, where Paul says that he counts as loss the justice which is of the law, and this he repeats several times; which certainly he would not say if he had been justified by any legal ceremony. Whence in the same place he calls Circumcision, by contempt, concision: “Beware,” he says, “of the concision.” For (as Chrysostom expounds) that is circumcised which is openly trimmed, the superfluous being cut away; that is cut to pieces (concided) which is rashly and without art cut into fragments. In the same place the Apostle says that he has no confidence in the flesh; and by confidence in the flesh he himself expounds confidence in Circumcision, and other things of that kind. The seventh place, Colossians 2, where all the old Sacraments are called the shadow of things to come, but the body Christ's. But if ours had the same force, we should still be in the shadow. In the same place: You are circumcised, he says, with circumcision not made by hand, in the despoiling of the body of the flesh, but in the circumcision of Christ, buried with him in baptism. Where Paul calls Circumcision made by hand, and accordingly Baptism not made by hand, because the principal baptizer is God. Likewise he attributes to Circumcision nothing but to despoil the flesh, and opposes it to Baptism. But it is to be noted that in the Greek text it is had: In the despoiling of the body of the sins of the flesh; and accordingly this part (In the despoiling, etc.) is to be joined with that (you are circumcised), not with that (with circumcision made by hand), so that the sense is: You are circumcised in the despoiling of the body of sins, not with circumcision made by hand, but with the spiritual circumcision of Christ, buried with him in baptism. From which text the same argument is taken, but in another way. For (as the Greeks expound — Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact) Paul teaches that the Jewish Circumcision was the denuding of one little skin, but our Circumcision is the despoiling of the whole body of sins. The eighth is Hebrews 7: There is, says the Apostle, a setting aside of the former commandment because of the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. And he speaks of the ceremonial commandments, of which the chief was that of Circumcision. The ninth place, Hebrews 9, where he says that the old ceremonies were justices of the flesh, and sanctified indeed the defiled, but only to the cleansing of the flesh. The tenth place, Hebrews 10, where he says that the law had a shadow, not the very image of things, and could not make perfect those that come, nor take away sins and cleanse the conscience; and that God would not have victims and oblations, nor did they please him; which must be understood in order to justification ex opere operato, for otherwise it cannot be denied that they pleased him from the obedience and devotion of the offerer; for they are called a most sweet odor to the Lord, Leviticus 1.
But let us see what the adversaries answer to these places. Luther and the Lutherans answer that the Scriptures, when they deny that the old Sacraments justify, must be understood of those which have not an annexed promise. But the places we have adduced speak expressly of Circumcision, which all concede had an annexed promise. Then no Jewish ceremonies had a more express promise than the sacrifices and washings. For Leviticus 4, 5, and 6 the remission of sins is promised to him offering sacrifice. And again Leviticus 20, 21, and 22 sanctification is promised to those who are washed with water, as the law prescribes; and yet the Apostle Hebrews 10 in express words says that it is impossible that by the Jewish sacrifices and washings sins be remitted. Kemnitz in the Examen second part page 63, after the solution of Luther, proposes another, which is also Calvin's, book 4 of the Institutes chapter 14 sections 23 and 25, and Martyr's on chapter 7 of 1 Corinthians: namely, that Scripture, when it reprehends the old Sacraments as useless, does not speak of them according to themselves, but as they were wrongly understood by the Jews — that is, of the bare ceremonies, the promise and faith in Christ removed. For it is most true that those Sacraments availed nothing to those receiving them without faith. But on the contrary: for, first, there is no question between us and the heretics whether those Sacraments profited from faith. For this we all confess, and this is what the Scholastics say, and they wrongly reprehend, that the old Sacraments were useful ex opere operantis. But the question is whether besides, from divine institution, they were useful as Sacraments. For that utility ex opere operantis is not properly of the Sacraments, but common to every good work. Second, that Sacraments without promise and faith profit nothing agrees not only with the old Sacraments, but also with the new, as the adversaries themselves teach; and yet Paul so distinguishes the new from the old that he says ours save, regenerate, cleanse, justify, Ephesians 5, Titus 3, 1 Corinthians 1, but the old are needy elements, avail nothing, and are nothing, 1 Corinthians 7, Galatians 5, Hebrews 10, and elsewhere. Third, the Apostle in these places says that those ceremonies were useless to justify, when he says that they were shadows and figures of our things, Colossians 2, 1 Corinthians 10, Hebrews 10. Therefore the Apostle will have those Sacraments to have been useless to justify, not only as they were falsely expounded by the Jews, but also according to themselves, and as they were Sacraments instituted by God. For not as they were wrongly expounded by the Jews could they be called figures, but only as they were Sacraments instituted by God. For to those who thought nothing of Christ, but only rested in that rite, they were not figures. Finally, if Paul only meant to say that the old Sacraments profited nothing without faith, he would not compare them with uncircumcision, nor say, Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, 1 Corinthians 7, and Galatians 6: Neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision. For uncircumcision not only without faith is nothing and avails nothing, but absolutely is nothing and avails nothing.
Calvin, besides this solution, applies three others. One is book 4 of the Institutes chapter 14 section 22, that Paul speaks of the old Sacraments not absolutely but comparatively; and especially Colossians 2, where those Sacraments are called shadows. For Calvin says that Paul did not mean to extenuate the efficacy of those Sacraments, but to magnify the efficacy of ours, which give a more abundant grace than they. But on the contrary: for if ours differed from the old only in that ours gave a greater grace, those a lesser, Paul would not rightly say that those are nothing and avail nothing; nor would he compare Circumcision with uncircumcision; nor would he distinguish those as a shadow from a body. For a shadow is not a lesser body, but no body; nor has it anything but the likeness of a body. Nay, Hebrews 10 he so extenuates those Sacraments that he says they were not images, but shadows. For an image has a positive and real likeness of a body; but a shadow has a privative likeness, and one that in truth is nothing. The other solution of Calvin is in the same place section 24, that Paul speaks of the Sacraments of the old law for that time in which they were already abrogated by Christ. But on the contrary. For Romans 2 Paul says: Circumcision profiteth indeed, if thou keep the law. Where he indicates that he speaks of what agreed with Circumcision while it still flourished. For after the abrogation it does not profit, but harms, as the same Paul says Galatians 5. Paul, then, means to say that Circumcision, when it flourished, was useful, not indeed because it justified, but because the circumcised had the law of God, and could more easily than others know the will of God, as the same Paul explains chapter 3: What is the profit of Circumcision? Much every way, etc. Likewise 1 Corinthians 7, where he says that Circumcision is nothing, he speaks for the time when it flourished; for a little before he had said: Is any man called, being circumcised? let him not procure uncircumcision. Is any man called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised. And the sense is that it is all one whether one come to the faith of Christ from Judaism or from Gentilism. And so he speaks of those who had been circumcised while the law flourished, and afterward came to the faith of Christ, and admonishes them not to glory above the rest on account of the Circumcision once received, because it is nothing. Besides, Galatians 4 he says that the old Fathers were serving under the elements of this world. Likewise Philippians 3 he says that he has no confidence in the flesh — that is, that he makes no great account (as he there expounds) of having been circumcised on the eighth day; and accordingly he despises the Circumcision which he had received when it flourished. Likewise Colossians 2 and Hebrews 10 he calls them shadows and figures. But they were not shadows and figures except before the abrogation. Likewise Hebrews 7 he says that they were abrogated on account of weakness and unprofitableness. Finally Hebrews 10 he professedly teaches that it was impossible that by those sacrifices and washings sins be expiated, and therefore that Christ came to perfect what they could not. The third solution is the same author's in the same place section 25, where he says that the ceremonies of the law are called shadowy, not because they have nothing solid, but because their complement was in a manner suspended until Christ. He adds also that their being called shadows is not to be taken of efficacy, but of the manner of signifying; because, namely, they signified future things, ours signify past things. But on the contrary. First, this solution plainly destroys the text. For Paul does not only make those ceremonies shadowy, but calls them the shadow itself. Second, if they had been shadowy only because their complement was suspended until Christ — that is, because they represented something not yet present — ours too could be called shadowy; for they represent the resurrection and future glory. Third, it is most impudently asserted that Paul does not treat of efficacy, but only of the manner of signifying. For those words, It is nothing, it avails nothing, needy elements, weak, useless, cannot expiate sins, and the like, cannot be expounded but of efficacy. Finally, the Apostle's question with the Jews was of efficacy and of justification, not of the manner of signifying. For the Hebrews were not so foolish as not to understand that the old Sacraments signified future things, if they believed the Messiah to come. And this concerning the first argument.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XIV. Probatur nullum Sacramentum legis naturce, aut scripta, justificasse ex opere operato. Nunc probanda est veritas. Probabimus autem, nullum Sacramentum legis naturae, aut scriptae justificasse ex opere operato, si¬ ve eo modo, quo justificat Sacramentum novae legis, contra omnes haereticos hujus temporis, et aliquo modo etiam contra eos, qui Circumcisioni tribuunt justificationem ex opere operato. Ac primum quidem argumentum sumitur ex divinis litteris: nam et Prophetae, et Apostoli miro consensu docent, Sacramenta vetera non justificasse, cum de nostris con¬ trarium asserant. Primus locus ex Prophetis, Psalm. XXXIX : Sacrificium et oblationem noluisti, aures autem perfecisti mihi. Holocaustum et pro peccato non postulasti. Ubi Scriptura non negat, Deum velle sacrificia, cum ipse ea fieri jusserit, sed negat ea velle ad expiandum peccatura. Secundus locus Psal. L : Si votuisses sacrifi¬ cium (nimirum ad peccatum expiandum) de¬ dissem utique , holocaustis non delectaberis. Sa¬ crificium Deo spiritus contribulatus etc. (3) Ubi Scriptura opponit sacrificium contritio¬ ni; et de uno negat, quod de altero affirmat, quod non faceret, si utrumque concurreret ad justificationem : neque enim recte dice¬ retur nunc, Deus non vult Baptismum, sed contritionem. Tertius locus Isaia? I : Quo mihi multitudo victimarum vestrarum ? quis quaesivit hac de manibus vestris? Quartus locus (1) Rom. II. 13; Jac. II, 21. — (2) Joan. VII, 22. — (3) Psal. XXXIX, 7 ; L, 18. CAPUT XIV. 455 Hierem. XI : Numquid carnes sancta auferent a te malitias tuas, in quibus gloriata esi ubi de sacrificio pro peccato loquitur. Et certe de Baptismo non diceret : Numquid Baptismus auferet a te malitias? Quintus locus Amos V : Quod si obtuleritis mihi holocausta , et mu¬ nera vestra, non suscipiam, et vota pinguium non respiciam (i). Porro si Sacrificia non jus¬ tificabant, multo minus justificabant aliae caeremonia?: nullae enim caeremonia) habent clariores promissiones de remissione pecca¬ torum, quam sacrificia. Jam ex verbis Apostolorum idem probari potest. Piamus locus estRom III : Quid ergo amplius Judceo est , aut quce utilitas Circumci¬ sionis ? Multum quidem per omnem modum. Primum , quia credita sunt illis eloquia Dei , ubi illud, Primum (etiam Calvino et Petro Martyre testibus in commentario) non est nota ordinis, quasi vellet Paulus multas uti¬ litates Circumcisionis adferre; sed significat potissimum, seu praecipuum; non enim ad- fert alias utilitates. Solum ergo , auctore Paulo, Judaei circumcisi praestabant Genti¬ bus incircumcisis, quod illi habuerint Dei legem et oracula; non ergo Circumcisio jus¬ tificabat. Nam alioqui praestitissent Judaei Gentibus etiam justitia, quod praecipue Pau¬ lus refutare intendit ; unde paulo post sub¬ jungit : Quid ergo prceccllim.us cosl nequa¬ quam. Causati enim sumus , (id est, causam attulimus et ostendimus) Judceos et Grcecos omnes sub peccato esse. Ubi Paulus etiam si dixerat, Judaeos praestare Gentibus ob Cir¬ cumcisionem, quia fuerint illis credita elo¬ quia Dei : tamen nunc negat, Judaeos prae¬ stare Gentilibus, quia non praestant, quod attinet ad justificationem, de qua agebatur; omnes enim tam circumcisi, quam incir- cumcisi peccatores sunt. Quihus verbis cla¬ rissime docet, Circumcisionem non justifi¬ casse. Non enim vult dicere, milium fuisse justum ante Christi adventum, cum constet; Patriarchas et Prophetas et multos Gentiles fuisse justos, ut Melchisedech, Job, et alios. Sed vult dicere, non fuisse justos ex eo, quod essent circumcisi vel incircumcisi, sed ex eo, quod in Christum venturum crederent. Ibidem addit Apostolus : Ex operibus legis non justificabitur omnis caro coram illo. Quis autem neget, Circumcisionem fuisse opus le¬ gis? Ibidem : An Judaeorum , inquit, Deus tantum ? nonne et Gentium ? imo et Gentium , quoniam unus est Deus, equi justificat Circum¬ cisionem ex fide , et preeputium per fdem (2) ; Quasi dicat, Deus est omnium Deus, quo¬ modo igitur credibile est, eum dedisse re¬ medium contra peccatum solis Judapis? Pos¬ sumus nos hinc etiam aliter argumentari : An masculorum Deus tantum? nonne et fe¬ minarum? Quis ergo credat, Deum dedisse remedium, quod solis masculis prodesset? Secundus locus est Bom. IV, ubi Aposto¬ lus ex professo probat, Abrahamum non in Circumcisione, sed in praeputio fuisse justifi¬ catum : ut inde admoneat, Circumcisionem non esse datam, ut justificaret. Si enim is, cui primo data est, non fuit ex ea justifica¬ tus, quanto minus alii ex ea justificandi erunt? Tertius locus I. Corinth. VII : Circumcisio nihil est , et preeputium nihil' est; (3) ubi ita Paulus Circumcisionem ut praeputium des¬ picit, cum agitur de justificatione. Quartus locus est Galat. IV : Quomodo ite¬ rum convertimini ad infrma , et egena elemen¬ ta, quibus iterum servii e vultis ? (4) Quorum elementorum nomine intelligit Circumcisio¬ nem, de qua praecipue loquitur in ea epi¬ stola, et simul etiam alias caeremomas lega¬ les : et sane non dicerentur infirma et ege¬ na, si justificarent. Ibidem dicit, Judaeos tamquam parvulos sub elementis hujus mun¬ di servientes fuisse; nos autem viros esse perfectos : quae sane differentia non esset vera, si Sacramenta nostra non haberent aliam vim, quam illa Judaeorum. Quintus locus Gal. VI : Neque Circumcisio aliquid valet, neque praeputium, sed nova crea¬ tura (5). Ubi videmus opponi novam creatu¬ ram tam Circumcisioni, quam prajputio; quod esset ineptum, si Circumcisio efficeret novam creaturam. Sextus locus Philip. III, ubi Paulus dicit, se arbitrari detrimentum, justitiam quae est ex lege, et hoc aliquoties repetit : quod certe non diceret, si ex ulla legali caeremo¬ nia justificatus fuisset. Unde ibidem Cir¬ cumcisionem per contemptum concisionem vocat : «Videte, inquit, concisionem.» Nam (ut exponit Chrysostomus) circumciditur, quod aperte expolitur resecatis superfluis; conciditur, quod temere et praeter artem scinditur in frustra. Ibidem Apostolus ait, (1) Isai. I, 11 ; Jerem. XI, 15; Amos.V, 22. — (2) Rom. III, 1, 2, 9, 20, 28, 29 et 30. — (3) I.Cor, VII, 19. — (4) Galat, 4, 9. — (5) Galat. VI, 15. 456 L1UEII II. se non habere fiduciam in carne, et per fi¬ duciam in carne, exponit ipse, fiduciam in Circumcisione, aliisque id genus rebus. Septimus locus Culoss. II, ubi omnia Sa¬ cramenta vetera dicuntur umbra futurorum, corpus autem Christi. Quod si nostra eam- dem vim haberent, adhuc essemus in um¬ bra. Ibidem : Circumcisi, inquit, estis circum¬ cisione non manu facta , in exspoliatione corporis carnis , sed Circumcisione Christi consepulti ei in Baptismo (I). Ubi Paulus circumcisionem vocat manu factam, et proinde Baptismum non manu factum, quia principalis bapti¬ zans est Deus. Item nihil tribuit Circumci¬ sioni, nisi carnem exspoliare, et eam Baptis¬ mo opponit : Notandum autem est, in textu Graeco haberi : In exspoliatione corporis pec- catomm carnis; et proinde conjungendam hanc partem (In exspoliatione etc. ) cum illa (circumcisi estis) non cum illa (Circumcisione manu facta) ut sensus sit : Circumcisi estis in exspoliatione corporis peccatorum, non Circumcisione manu facta, sed Circumcisio¬ ne Christi spirituali consepulti ei in Baptis¬ mo. Ex quo textu sumitur idem argumen¬ tum, sed alio modo. Nam (ut exponunt Grae¬ ci, Chrysostomus, Theodoretus, Theophy- lactus) Paulus docet. Circumcisionem Judai¬ cam fuisse denudationem unius pelliculae, nostra autem Circumcisio est expoliatio to¬ tius corporis peccatorum. Octavus est Ileb. YII : Reprobatio, inquit Apostolus, fit praecedentis mandati propter infirmitatem et inutilitatem (2). Loquitur au¬ tem de mandatis caeremonialibus, quorum praicipuum erat de Circumcisione. Nonus locus Ileb. IX, ubi caeremonias ve¬ teres dicit fuisse justitias carnis, et sanclifi- cassequidem inquinatos, sed solum ad emun¬ dationem carnis. Decimus locus Heb. X, ubi dicit legem umbram habuisse, non ipsam imaginem re¬ rum, nec potuisse accedentes perfectos fa¬ cere ; nec potuisse auferre peccata, et mun¬ dare conscientiam : et Deum hostias et ob¬ lationes noluisse, nec ei placuisse; quod in- telligi debet in ordine ad justificationem ex opere operato, nam alioqui negari non po¬ test, quin ei placuerint, ex obedientia et de¬ votione offerentis. Nam vocantur odor sua¬ vissimus Domino, Levit. I. Sed videamus, quid ad haec loca adver¬ sarii respondeant. Lutherus et Lutherani (1) Coloss. II, 1L — (2) Hebr. VII, 18. respondent, Scripturas cum negant, Sacra¬ menta vetera justificare, debere intelligi de illis, quae non habent annexam promissio¬ nem. At loca a nobis adducta, loquuntur ex¬ presse de Circumcisione, quam omnes con¬ cedunt habuisse annexam promissionem. Deinde nullae ca?remoni* Judaicae habuerunt promissionem magis expressam, quam sacri¬ ficia et ablutiones. Nam Levit. IV, V et VI, promittitur remissio peccatorum offerentisa- crificium. Et rursus Levit. XX, XXI et XXII, promittitur sanctificatio iis, qui abluuntur aqua, ut lex praecipit ; et tamen Apostolus Ileb. X disertis verbis dicit impossibile esse sacrificiis et ablutionibus Judaicis remitti peccata. Kemnitius in Exam. 2. par. pag. 63. post solutionem Lutheri, proponit aliam, quae est etiam Calvini lib. IV Instit. cap. -14. §. 23 et 25. et Martyris in cap. VII, 1. ad Cor. quod videlicet Scriptura cum reprehendit tam¬ quam inutilia Sacramenta vetera, non loqua¬ tur de illis secundum se, sed ut perperam intelligebantur a Judaeis, id est, de nudis caeremoniis, remota promissione, et fide in Christum. Verissimum enim est, Sacrameu- ta illa nihil valuisse accipientibus ea sine fide. At contra ; nam primo , non est quaestio inter nos, et haereticos, an Sacramenta illa ex fide prodessent. Id enim fatemur omnes, et hoc est quod Scholastici dicunt, et illi ma¬ le reprehendunt , Sacramenta vetera fuisse utilia ex opere operantis. Sed quaestio est, an praeterea ex divina institutione fuerint utilia, ut Sacramenta. Illa enim utilitas ex opere operantis , non est proprie Sacra¬ mentorum, sed communis omni bono operi. Secundo, Sacramenta sine promissione et fide nihil prodesse, non tantum convenit Sa¬ cramentis veteribus, sed etiam novis, ut ipsi adversarii docent : et tamen Paulus ita dis¬ tinguit nova a veteribus ut dicat, nostra sal¬ vare , regenerare, mundare, justificare, Ephes. V, Tit. III, I. Corinth. I, vetera au¬ tem esse elementa egena , nihil valere, et nihil esse, I. Corinth. VII, Gal. V, Heb. X, et glibi. Tertio Apostolus in his locis dicit, illas caeremonias fuisse inutiles ad justificandum, ubi dicit , fuisse umbras et figuras rerum nostrarum, Coloss. II, I. Corinth. X, Hebr. I CAPUT XIV. 457 X. Ergo Apostolus vult, Sacramenta illa fuisse inutilia ad justificandum , non solum ut falso exponebantur a Judaeis , sed etiam secundum se, et ut erant Sacramenta a Deo instituta. Non enim ut exponebantur perpe¬ ram a Judaeis, figurae dici poterant, sed so¬ lum ut erant Sacramenta a Deo instituta. Non enim illis figurae erant, qui nihil de Christo cogitabant, sed solum illo ritu acquie¬ scebant. Denique , si Paulus solum dicere vellet, Sacramenta vetera sine fide nihil prodesse : non conferret cum praeputio , nec diceret : Circumcisio nihil est , et praeputium nihil est, I. Corinlh. VII, et Gal. YI : Neque Circum¬ cisio aliquid valet, neque praeputium (1). Prae¬ putium enim non solum sine fide nihil est, et nihil valet, sed absolute nihil est ct nihil valet. Calvinus praeter hanc solutionem adhibet alias tres. Una est lib. IV Instit. cap. 14, §. 22. quod Paulus loquatur de Sacramentis veteribus, non absolute sed comparative; ac praesertim Colos. II. ubi vocantur umbrae il¬ la Sacramenta. Dicit enim Calvinus, Paulum non voluisse extenuare efficaciam illorum Sacramentorum, sed magnificare efficaciam nostrorum, quae dant uberiorem gratiam, quam illa. At contra; nam si solum differrent nostra a veteribus , quod nostra darent majorem gratiam, illa minorem, Paulus non recte di¬ ceret, illa nihil esse, et nihil valere ; nec conferret cum praeputio Circumcisionem;* neque etiam distingueret illa ut umbram a corpore. Umbra enim non est corpus minus sed nullum ; nec habet aliud , nisi similitu¬ dinem corporis. Imo Heb. X. ita extenuat ea Sacramenta, ut dicat, non fuisse imagi¬ nes, sed umbras. Nam imago habet positi¬ vam, et realem corporis similitudinem: um¬ bra autem habet similitudinem privativam, et qua; revera nihil est. Altera solutio Calvini est ibidem §. 24. quod Paulus loquatur de Sacramentis vete¬ ris legis pro eo tempore, quo jam erant per Christum abrogata. At contra. Nam Rom. II , Paulus dicit : Circumcisio quidem prodest, si legem obser¬ ves (2). Ubi indicat se loqui de eo, quod con¬ veniebat Circumcisioni, cum adhuc vigeret. Nam post abrogationem non prodest , sed obest, ut idem Paulus dicit Galat. III. Vult er¬ go Paulus dicere, Circumcisionem, quando vigebat, fuisse utilem, non quidem quod ipsa justificaret, sed quia circumcisi habebant le¬ gem Dei, et poterant facilius quam alii nos- se Dei voluntatem , ut idem Paulus explicat cap. III : Quae utilitas Circumcisionis ? multum per omnem modum etc. (3) Item I. Cor. VII, ubi dicit, Circumcisionem nihil esse, loqui¬ tur pro tempore , quo vigebat; nam paulo ante dixerat : Circumcisus vocatus est ? non adducat praeputium. In praeputio vocatus est ? non circumcidatur (4). Et est sensus perinde esse, utrum quis ex Judaismo ad fidemChri- sti veniat, an ex Gcntilismo. Itaque loquitur de illis, qui fuerant circumcisi vigente lege, et postea ad fidem Christi venerant, et illos monet ne glorientur 'praeter caeteros, ob Cir¬ cumcisionem olim acceptam, quia nihil est. Praeterea Gal. IV dicit, antiquos Patres sub elementis mundi hujus fuisse servientes. Item Philip. III dicit, se non habere fidu¬ ciam in carne, id est , non magnifacere (ut ibidem exponit) quod fuerit circumcisus oc¬ tavo die; ac proinde contemnit Circumci¬ sionem , quam acceperat , cum ea vigeret. Item Coloss. II et Heb. X vocat umbras, et figuras. Non autem erant umbra;, et figu¬ rae, nisi ante abrogationem. Item Heb. VII dicit, abrogata illa fuisse ob infirmitatem et inutilitatem. Denique Heb. X ex professo do¬ cet , impossibile fuisse , ut sacrificiis , et lotionibus illis expiarentur peccata, et prop- terea Christum venisse, ut perficeret quod illa non poterant. Tertia solutio est ejusdem ibidem, §. 25. ubi dicit, caeremonias legis vocari umbrati¬ les, non quod nihil habeant solidi, sed quia earum complementum usque ad Christum quodammodo suspensum erat. Addit etiam, quod vocantur umbrae , non esse accipien¬ dum de efficacia, sed de modo significandi : quia nimirum significabant res futuras, nos¬ tra significant res" praeteritas. At contra. Primo, ista solutio plane des¬ truit textum. Nam Paulus non solum umbra¬ tiles facit eas caeremonias , sed ipsam um¬ bram appellat. Secundo, si ideo solum fuis¬ sent umbratiles , quia complementum erat suspensum usque ad Christum, id est, quia repraesentabant aliquid, quod nondum ade¬ rat; nostra etiam umbratilia dici possent. Nam repraesentant resurrectionem et glo¬ riam futuram. Tertio, impudentissime asse- (1) I. Cor. VII, 19: Galat. VI, 15. — (2) Rom. II, 25. — (3) Rom. III, 1 et 2. — (4) I.Cor.VII, 18. 438 LIBER II. ritur, Paulum non agere de efficacia, sed so¬ lum de modo significandi. Nam illa verba : Nihil est, nihil valet, elementa er/ena, infirma , inutilia, non posse expiare peccata, et similia, non possunt nisi de efficacia exponi. Deni¬ que, Apostoli quaestio cum Judaeis de effica¬ cia erat, et de justificatione , non de modo significandi. Neque enim tam stulti erant Hebraei, ut non intelligerent, Sacramenta ve¬ tera significasse res futuras, si Messiam ven¬ turum credebant. Atque haec de primo ar¬ gumento.