Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacraments in General · Book II: On the Effect, Number, and Ceremonies of the Sacraments
Chapter 17: The objections are solved
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. III, De Sacramentis in Genere, Book II: On the Effect, Number, and Ceremonies of the Sacraments. The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
The arguments of the adversaries are five. The first is from chapter 17 of Genesis, where God thus speaks of Circumcision: The male whose flesh of his foreskin shall not be circumcised, that soul shall be destroyed out of his people, because he hath broken my covenant. From this place both Catholics who think that Circumcision justified ex opere operato, and heretics who acknowledge no difference between the Sacraments of the New and Old Testament, take an argument. And first the Catholics, following Augustine in book 16 of the City of God chapter 27, thus argue: God threatens every male of the Hebrews, even an infant, with perpetual destruction unless he be circumcised; therefore by Circumcision the males shall be freed from eternal death. But Calvin, book 4 of the Institutes chapter 16 sections 3 and 4, thus argues. In Circumcision there is the same promise which is in Baptism, namely of the remission of sins and of eternal life; therefore they differ only in the external rite or sign. He proves the antecedent. For Genesis 17, where Circumcision is instituted, God said to Abraham: I will be thy God, and of thy seed after thee. “By which words,” says Calvin, “the promise of eternal life is contained; as Christ interprets, who proved the resurrection thence, Matthew 22, that God is called the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; for he is not the God of the dead, but of the living. And so it is the same to say, I will be thy God, and, I will give thee eternal life. But the first entrance to God is through the remission of sins; therefore God promised also the remission of sins when he said, I will be thy God, and of thy seed.” Calvin confirms the argument from this, that the Apostle to the Ephesians 2 says that the Gentiles, who were uncircumcised, were without God, without Christ, without hope, and strangers to the promises. Therefore men obtained all these through Circumcision.
I answer to the argument of the Catholics that the whole force of that argument depends on two words which are had in the Greek edition which St. Augustine used. For the Greeks thus read the place cited: And the uncircumcised male, whose flesh of his foreskin shall not be circumcised on the eighth day, that soul shall perish out of his people; where those words, on the eighth day, are added by the Greeks; for they are not had in the Hebrew codices, nor in the Chaldee paraphrase, nor in the Latin Vulgate edition. Now on account of those two words, on the eighth day, St. Augustine was compelled to expound this place of little ones, and to say that God threatens a penalty to little ones lacking Circumcision; and hence he was further compelled to expound the following words, Because they have broken my covenant, of original sin, and of the covenant made with Adam of not eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, which little ones alone could transgress; and hence, last, he was compelled to expound those words, That soul shall perish, of the eternal death which is due to original sin. See Augustine book 16 of the City of God chapter 27, book 2 On original sin chapters 30 and 31, and book 2 On marriage and concupiscence chapter 11. But if we remove from the text those two words (on the eighth day), as they truly are to be removed, the whole argument will fall. For we shall not be compelled to expound this place of little ones; nay, we shall be compelled to expound it only of adults, so that this is the sense: The Hebrew male who will not be circumcised, or will not circumcise his son, shall perish from his people, because he was disobedient to the precept given by me concerning Circumcision. From which sense it no more follows that Circumcision justifies than any precept of the law whatsoever; for a thousand times God threatens death to those not keeping his precepts.
And that this is the sense of that place is shown in three ways. First, from those words: Who hath broken my covenant. For although St. Augustine expounded this of the covenant made with Adam, yet it is clearer than light that this must be expounded of the covenant made with Abraham concerning the circumcising of the males. For in that chapter the covenant of God is named eight times, and is always taken for the covenant of Circumcision. And what is clearer than that exposition of God himself in the same chapter: This is my covenant which you shall observe: every male among you shall be circumcised? And accordingly the cause of the threat in this place is not original sin, but actual sin — that is, the transgression of the precept concerning Circumcision, of which sin only adults are capable. Second, the same is proved from that penalty: His soul shall perish out of his people. For these words do not signify eternal death, or gehenna, but some temporal penalty. For that is signified by that, out of his people; for he does not say, shall perish absolutely, but shall perish out of the people — that is, shall be separated from his people, whether by corporeal death, or by a kind of excommunication. For the Hebrew word properly signifies to cut off. And this penalty is set in Scripture everywhere against all who omit some ceremony, as is plain Exodus 12 and 31, Leviticus 7, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 23, Numbers 15 and 19; in which last place it is said that his soul shall perish out of his people who shall have touched a corpse and not washed himself with water; which omission certainly does not seem a crime worthy of eternal death. Third, it is proved from chapter 4 of Exodus, where the Lord willed to kill Moses because he had not circumcised his son. Where we clearly see that that penalty is corporeal death, and inflicted on him who is an adult, and capable of actual sin, not on infants. And although St. Augustine, question 11 on Exodus, and book 4 On Baptism chapter 24, strives to show that the son of Moses, not Moses himself, was in danger on account of uncircumcision, yet the matter is most clear. For if God threatened death to a little one if he be not circumcised on the eighth day, what would that Circumcision made after the eighth day have profited the son of Moses? Then the text is most plain: And when Moses was on his journey, in the inn, the Lord met him, and would have killed him. Whom? but Moses, of whom he was speaking in the immediately preceding words. Besides, there follows: Sephora therefore took a very sharp stone, and circumcised the foreskin of her son. If that, He would have killed him, were understood of the son of Moses, the Scripture would have said, She circumcised his foreskin, not the foreskin of her son. Besides, Sephora adds and says to Moses: A bloody spouse art thou to me — that is, I was now about to lose thee, my spouse, unless I had redeemed thee by the blood of my son. Wherefore St. Jerome in the commentary on chapter 5 to the Galatians does not doubt that Moses, not his son, was in danger in this place.
To the argument of Calvin: I deny that a promise of the remission of sins and of eternal life was annexed to Circumcision. For this is repugnant. First, to the Apostle and Augustine, who, as we saw above, teach that the promises of the New Testament are better than those of the old. Second, it is repugnant to the first institution of Circumcision. For it was first commanded to Abraham himself, and to him first the promise was made; but he was most just before Circumcision, as is plain from Genesis 12 and following, and from Paul Romans 4. The promise, then, was not of the remission of sins. Third, it is repugnant to that very chapter 17 of Genesis, where we only read that God promised to Abraham, when he enjoined Circumcision on him, the propagation of his posterity and the land of Palestine: I will make my covenant between me and thee, and I will multiply thee exceedingly, and a little later: I am, and I will make my covenant with thee, and thou shalt be the father of many nations. And below: And I will give to thee, and to thy seed, the land of thy sojournment, all the land of Canaan. And the same the Apostle teaches Romans 4. It is true indeed that this earthly promise was a figure of the spiritual and heavenly promise, which was to be given to those who should be circumcised not in the flesh but in the heart; and this too the Patriarchs and Prophets, and other perfect men of that time, understood, as the Apostle says to the Hebrews 11, and Tobias the elder chapter 2, Job chapter 13; yet to the letter, the earthly promise was annexed to carnal Circumcision, and this alone pertained to the Old Testament; and to assert the contrary, as Calvin does, is nothing else than to make the Gospel out of the law, and confound all things. To the proof of Calvin from that, I will be thy God, I answer that by these words is not signified a promise of eternal life or of the remission of sins, but only, as Chrysostom expounds in the commentary on this place, a promise of a certain peculiar protection, such as is due to a peculiar people, such as the Israelite was, as is everywhere repeated in Deuteronomy. But in this manner God was the God not only of the good, but also of the evil, provided they were of the people of Israel. Accordingly those words do not signify a promise of the remission of sins; otherwise God would not have been God except of the just. Add that these words do not so much sound a promise of God as an obligation of the people. For I will be thy God, and of thy seed, is the same as if he had said: You shall have no other God than me; according to that of Jeremias 24: I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people. And that of Genesis 28: If the Lord shall be with me, and give me bread to eat, the Lord shall be my God. “But,” says Calvin, “God is not the God of the dead, but of the living, as Christ says; therefore, I will be thy God, signifies a promise of eternal life.” I answer that the words of Christ signify nothing else than that God is not the God of those who are not, but of those who are, whether they be good or evil, whether blessed or damned. For he wished to prove, against the error of the Sadducees, that the souls of dead men are immortal, and therefore are not extinguished with the body, but really remain and live; and this he proved most excellently from the words of God to Moses Exodus 4: I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. For since they were already dead as to the body, unless they lived as to the soul, God would not be said to be their God; for God is not the God of those who are nothing. To that from the epistle to the Ephesians I answer that the Gentiles were without God, without Christ, without hope, and without the promises, not because they lacked Circumcision, but because they lacked true faith and the knowledge of the true God, and worshipped idols for God. For otherwise, even among the Gentiles, those who acknowledged the true God, as of old Job, and afterward Cornelius the Centurion, and some others, were not without God, without Christ, and without hope, even though they were not circumcised.
The second argument is taken from Leviticus chapters 4, 5, and 6, where we thus read: The soul that shall sin, and, despising the Lord, shall deny to his neighbour the thing delivered to his keeping, or shall by force extort anything, or commit oppression, or shall find a thing lost, and denying it shall also swear falsely, or shall do any other of the many things wherein men are wont to sin, being convicted of the offence, shall restore all that he would have gotten by fraud, and a fifth part besides to the owner whom he wronged; and for his sin he shall offer a ram without blemish out of the flock, and shall give it to the priest according to the estimation and measure of the offence; and he shall pray for him before the Lord, and it shall be forgiven him for every one of the things which he did in sinning. Here we plainly see the remission of any sin whatsoever, even of perjury, which is numbered among the gravest, promised to him offering sacrifice. And the argument is confirmed. For if this ceremony instituted by God with so notable a promise of the remission of sins does not justify, ineptly do the Catholics gather from the epistle of James chapter 5 that Extreme Unction justifies. For James speaks in the same manner: Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith shall save the sick man, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him.
I answer that the old sacrifices availed for the expiation of sin as to the temporal penalty, and as to legal uncleanness, not as to guilt and the penalty of gehenna, except inasmuch as they were certain signs protesting faith in Christ, as the Theologians commonly teach in book 4 of the Sentences distinction 1, and St. Thomas in the first part of the second part question 103 article 2, and Alphonsus Tostatus on chapter 1 of Leviticus question 19. And this can be proved in many ways. First, because Scripture does not institute sacrifices for all sins, but only for sins of ignorance, especially against the ceremonies of the law, as is plain Leviticus 4 and 5, and also for sins concerning the harm of a neighbor in external things, and for perjury uttered from the desire of having another's goods, as is plain Leviticus 6. For other graver sins, as for blasphemy, homicide, adultery, idolatry, no sacrifice is found. Nor does it stand in the way that Leviticus 6 it is said that by the sacrifice of a ram every sin is expiated wherein men are wont to sin. For it speaks of every sin concerning the taking away of another's goods, not of every sin simply; otherwise in vain would various sacrifices for various sins be set down in the preceding chapters. Therefore, if the sacrifices did not expiate all sins, but only certain ones, without doubt they did not expiate as to guilt, but only as to temporal penalty or legal uncleanness. For God never remits one sin as to guilt and eternal penalty without remitting all; and hence also appears the difference between those promises of the Old Testament and the promises of the Sacrament of Extreme Unction. For James says absolutely of all: If he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him. Second, it is proved because the old sacrifices, as St. Thomas notes in the place cited, did not please God of themselves, but from the devotion and obedience of the offerers; as is plain: because Proverbs 15 the victims of the wicked are called an abomination to the Lord; Ecclesiasticus 34: The gifts of the wicked the Most High approveth not, neither hath he respect to the oblations of the unjust. Isaias 1, where the Lord had said that he would not the sacrifices of the Israelites, subjoins: For your hands are full of blood. Malachias 2 God says to the evil priests: I will curse your blessings. And 1 Kings 15: Doth the Lord desire sacrifice, and not rather that the voice of the Lord should be obeyed? Finally Genesis 4: God had respect to Abel and to his offerings; but to Cain and to his offerings he had not respect. Whence Gregory book 22 of the Morals chapter 12: “An oblation knows not how to appease the anger of the Judge, unless it please from the cleanness of the offerer.” And below: “Therefore not the offerings from Abel, but Abel from his offerings, pleased.” Hence, then, we gather that the sacrifices did not avail for the expiation of sin. For either he who bade the sacrifice be offered was just, or unjust: if just, he did not need the remission of sins; if unjust, his sacrifice availed nothing, as we have already shown. You will say, it could avail the unjust man from the merit of the offering priest. But the merits of one cannot confer on another the first grace certainly and infallibly. But here an absolute promise of the remission of sins is set down; therefore it must be understood of remission as to the temporal penalty only. Third, in Ezekiel chapter 18, when the remission of sins is treated, no mention is anywhere made of sacrifices. Nay, the other Prophets, and Paul, expressly teach that the guilt of souls cannot be expiated by sacrifices. Lest, therefore, the Scriptures fight among themselves, we are compelled to confess that in Leviticus nothing is treated but the expiation of legal uncleanness, or the remission of a temporal penalty.
The third argument is taken from 1 Corinthians 10, where the Apostle, speaking of the manna of the Hebrews and of the water gushing from the rock, thus says: They did all eat the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. This argument Calvin makes much of, book 4 of the Institutes chapter 14 section 23: “The Apostle speaks nothing more splendidly of them than of these, when he teaches that the Fathers ate the same spiritual food with us, and interprets the food to be Christ. Who would dare to make void that sign which exhibited to the Jews a true communion of Christ?” And below: “Therefore, first, he makes us equal in the Sacraments, and leaves us no particle of prerogative.” The same argument Peter Martyr urges in the Commentary on 1 Corinthians 10, and Kemnitz in the second part of the Examen page 67. Now this argument has four difficulties. For, first, they urge the particle (the same). For if the old Jews ate the same food in the manna which we eat in the Eucharist, certainly the manna and the Eucharist will be of the same virtue. Second, they urge the particle (spiritual). For if that food and that drink were spiritual, certainly they had a spiritual effect, and accordingly were not bare corporeal signs. Third, they urge the state of the case. For (as they say) the Apostle wished to admonish Christians not to trust too much in the reception of the Sacraments, and not to believe that all was safe for them because they received Baptism and the Eucharist, unless they also persevered in good works; and this the Apostle does by the examples of the ancients, whom like Sacraments profited little, since they did not abstain from sins. The Sacraments of those men and ours must, then, be of the same dignity and efficacy, if Paul's argument is to have any force. Fourth, they confirm it from Augustine, who, disputing of that place of Paul, tract 26 on John, says that the Sacraments of the Jews and ours were diverse in the signs, equal in the thing which is signified; diverse in the visible species, equal in the spiritual virtue.
I answer that Calvin and Kemnitz most plainly fight with themselves. For, in the first place, Calvin and Kemnitz in the place noted will have the manna and the water gushing from the rock, nay even the passage of the Red Sea, to have been Sacraments among the Jews, and justifying Sacraments, as among us Baptism and the Eucharist. But they themselves above denied that these are Sacraments. For Calvin book 4 of the Institutes chapter 14 section 19 says that the Sacraments of which we treat are ordinary ceremonies, not something which was done once or twice. And Kemnitz in the Examen second part page 41 put in the definition of a Sacrament that it be a ceremony which lasts as long as religion lasts. But it is established that the manna, the water from the rock, and the passage of the sea were not such; for they were neither ceremonies, nor lasted but for a brief time. Then Calvin in this place says that the old Sacraments are so equal to ours that no particle of prerogative is left to ours; and yet above, in the same chapter 14 section 22, he had said that ours are more excellent, in that they confer a more abundant grace. Now Kemnitz fights with himself in another and graver matter. For in this place he admits with Calvin that the Eucharist is nothing more excellent than the manna of the Jews was; and he does not observe that Calvin brings these arguments to prove that in the Eucharist there is not the body of the Lord except tropically, as it was in the manna; the contrary of which the Lutherans teach, and Kemnitz himself in this very second part of the Examen page 332.
But these things omitted, to the first part of the argument I answer that when the Scripture says, They ate the same food, it does not mean to say that our food and theirs is the same, but the same of all of them; for the sense is: All the Jews ate the same food, and yet not all pleased God. Which is proved: for, first, those were not Sacraments, ours are Sacraments, as we have already shown. Second, those were common even to beasts; for the beasts too drank of the water gushing from the rock, and passed the Red Sea; and dogs, and hens, and like domestic animals took the manna for food; and that not by any chance, or by anyone's malice, in the way that it could also happen that the signs of the Eucharist be devoured by beasts, but from the ordinance and will of God. For God brought water out of the rock that men and beasts might drink; and opened the sea, and rained manna, that men and beasts might pass and live. Third, because no promise is read as made to him eating manna, or drinking that water, or passing through the Red Sea; but our Sacraments have most ample promises. Here they are plainly reduced to straits. Peter Martyr in the commentary on 1 Corinthians 10 strives to extricate himself; and after he had asked where the promises annexed to the Red Sea and the manna are, thus answers: “I think they are those which we read in Exodus and in Numbers. For in Exodus they were admonished to attend, as about to see the great works of God. The same you will find written of the manna, if you run through all diligently.” So he. But these testimonies are of the poverty and misery of the adversaries. For if they had anything, they would note the place of Scripture, not enjoin us to seek. Now I have diligently sought, and found nothing but these promises. Exodus 14, to the children of Israel about to cross the Red Sea, it is said by Moses: Stand, and see the great things of the Lord. For the Egyptians, whom you see now, you shall see no more for ever. The Lord will fight for you, and you shall hold your peace. But this promise is temporal, and was straightway fulfilled, the Egyptians being slain in the Red Sea, as we there read. Again Exodus 16 the manna and the quails are exhibited to the people, and no promise is added, unless that be called a promise: In the evening you shall eat flesh, and in the morning you shall be filled with bread. Finally Exodus 17 and Numbers 20 water is brought out of the rock; but there is no promise there, but this: When thou hast brought water out of the rock, all the multitude shall drink, and their beasts. Peter Martyr saw that these were earthly promises; and therefore, lest he should seem utterly to have lost his cause, he strives to elicit from these very promises a promise of the remission of sins. And he uses this reasoning: The extreme of evils, and the root of all others, is sin; therefore when we ask to be freed from any evil, whatsoever it be, by a tacit sense we ask to be freed from sin. Therefore in the same manner, whatever goods God promises or exhibits, they rest on reconciliation with him, and on his grace and favor. But certainly it would be easier to elicit water from the rock than to elicit from these places of Scripture a promise of reconciliation. For although the sin of Adam was the occasion of all evils, yet the afflictions of this life are not so connected with sins that they cannot be separated. For often men sin, and yet are not punished in this life; often they do not sin, and are afflicted, as is plain of St. Job and Tobias, and others, who were afflicted not for sins, but for the exercise of virtue. And on the contrary, in good things, often God gives an affluence of temporal things to those to whom he is not about to give his grace and eternal life — whether to remunerate their moral good works, or for other causes; and does not give temporal goods to those to whom he is about to give eternal life, as is plain Luke 16 by the example of the rich man and the beggar; and in the Scriptures everywhere of Nebuchadnezzar, of Cyrus, and others, to whom God subjected the world, though they were not his friends. See Augustine book 5 of the City of God chapters 12 and 15. And so Martyr errs most plainly when he says that whatever goods God gives rest on reconciliation with God and his grace. Nor does it follow: God promised to the people of the Jews victory over their enemies, or an abundance of food and drink; therefore he promised the remission of sins and eternal life. See Basil in the book On the Holy Spirit chapter 14, where he proves that there was no spiritual promise in the passage of the Red Sea, the manna, the water, etc., and says that those who equate those signs with ours extenuate the whole Evangelical dispensation: “What remission of sins,” he says, “what renovation of life was in the sea? What spiritual gift was given through Moses? What mortification of sin was there?”
To the second part of the argument I say that the manna and the water gushing from the rock are called spiritual food and drink, not on account of the effect, but on account of the cause and on account of the signification. On account of the cause indeed, because each was produced by a miracle through the work of Angels, as Chrysostom and Theophylact indicate on this place. Whence Psalm 77 the manna is called the bread of Angels: Man ate the bread of Angels. And certainly it is not called the bread of Angels because Angels feed on it, but because Angels made it. And of the water the same Apostle explains why it should be called spiritual drink: They drank, he says, of the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ. Where he calls spiritual not the water itself which they drank, but the rock which was the cause of that water; and admonishes that the true cause of that water was not a corporeal and visible rock which lay fixed in the ground, but a certain other invisible rock — that is, the providence of Christ God, which never deserted them. Wherefore when the Apostle says, They drank of the spiritual rock, the sense is not (as Calvin thought) that they drank the spiritual rock, that is, Christ, but that they drank water flowing from the spiritual rock, that is, Christ, as from an efficient cause. Wherefore the Apostle does not compare the water with Christ, but the rock which was the cause of the water. This whole exposition is confirmed from John 6: Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and are dead. He that eateth this bread shall live for ever. Where the Lord most plainly teaches that the manna of the Jews was not spiritual food as to the effect, as the Eucharist is; for those who ate the manna are dead. Calvin answers, book 4 of the Institutes chapter 14 section 23, and Martyr in the place cited, that Christ accommodated himself to the gross opinion of the Jews, who thought the manna nothing but food of the belly. And so that Christ did not assert that he would give a better food than the manna really was, but than the manna was according to the gross opinion of the Jews. But on the contrary. For either the Jews rightly thought that the manna was only corporeal food, or not rightly: if rightly, then our Eucharist is far better, since it is spiritual food; if not rightly, then the Lord approved their error, and spoke not sincerely, nay not even truly. Since he himself too asserts that that food was only corporeal, when he says: Your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. And more clearly a little before: for when they gloried that their fathers ate manna in the desert, and boasted of this bread as heavenly, Christ said: Moses gave you not bread from heaven, but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven — that is (as Cyril rightly expounds, book 3 on John chapter 34, and Chrysostom homily 44 on John), the manna was not really heavenly bread, but earthly, though it descended from heaven, that is, from the air; but the truly heavenly bread is this which now the Father gives you. Add that Chrysostom homily 45 on John thinks with us: “Observe,” he says, “what difference he makes between this bread and the manna, namely from the end of each; for that the manna afforded nothing great, he adds: Our fathers ate,” etc. Likewise Cyril book 4 on John chapter 41 of the manna of the Jews thus introduces Christ speaking: “I am the living bread; that was a figure, an image, and a shadow only.”
To the third part of the argument I answer that the aim of the Apostle is not to show that we must not trust too much in the Sacraments, but rather that we must not abuse the Sacraments. For if he wished to show that we must not trust too much in the Sacraments by the example of the Jews, he would have taken their proper Sacraments, as Circumcision, the Paschal Lamb, and the like. But he took certain other things which are indeed figures of our Sacraments, yet are not the Sacraments themselves, as we showed above. Besides, this is plain from the context itself. For chapter 8 he was exhorting Christians not to eat things offered to idols, lest in that manner they offend the weak; then chapter 9 he shows by his own example that the weak must not be offended; then chapter 10 he returns to the question of things offered to idols, and proves that they must not be eaten, because it is too base to pass from the table of the Lord to the table of demons; for that is a sign of great ingratitude toward Christ, and of great irreverence toward his Sacraments. To show this, then, he brings forward the examples of the Jews. And accordingly it is not required (as Calvin will have it) that we attribute equal force to the Red Sea and to Baptism, to the manna and to the Eucharist. For the more those are inferior, the stronger is Paul's argument. For if the Jews were punished because they despised the figures of our Sacraments, and were ungrateful to God from whom they had received those benefits, how much more justly are Christians to be punished who despise the Sacraments themselves, and are ungrateful to God from whom they have received far greater benefits? To the fourth part of the argument I answer that St. Augustine nowhere says that our Sacraments and the old are equal as to efficacy, but only as to signification, or the thing signified, because, namely, they all signify the same Christ. See Augustine not only tract 26 and 45 on John, which places the adversaries cite, but also on Psalms 72 and 77, and tract 11 on John, and homily 27 out of the book of 50 homilies; for everywhere he repeats this, that the signs were diverse, but the thing signified one, that is, Christ. But those words which Calvin cites from tract 26 on John, “They are diverse in visible species, equal in spiritual virtue,” are not adduced whole and in good faith. For Augustine speaks thus: “They had one thing, we another, but in visible species indeed, yet signifying this same thing by spiritual virtue” — that is, the signs were diverse, yet as to the spiritual force of signifying they were the same, because they signified the same; which he had said more clearly a little before in these words: “In the signs they are diverse, but in the thing which is signified they are equal.” Nor could Augustine in any way say what Calvin attributes to him, that the old Sacraments are equal to ours as to efficacy, since on Psalm 72 he said that ours are more salutary and more happy, and book 19 against Faustus chapter 13 said that ours are greater in virtue, better in utility.
One thing is here to be observed: that the exposition of Augustine, who by the same spiritual food, 1 Corinthians 10, understands that it is signified that the old and new Sacraments are the same as to the force of signifying, and thence that that food is called spiritual, is not indeed against us, as we have already shown; yet it is not necessarily to be followed. For if by spiritual food we understood food spiritually understood, as Augustine will have it, then only the just would have eaten it. Which Augustine confesses, and therefore notes that Paul said, Our fathers all ate the same spiritual food, not your fathers, because he was speaking only of the just, who are like us; but that Christ, John 6, said, Your fathers did eat manna, not our fathers, because the Lord was speaking of the evil Jews, who did not eat that food spiritually. But this is repugnant to the words of the Apostle, who says: Our fathers all ate the same spiritual food, and by all understands not all the just only, but all absolutely, both good and evil, who were in that desert. For he subjoins: But with the most of them God was not well pleased; and a little before he had said: Our fathers all were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea. But certainly not only the good, but also the evil were under the cloud and passed the sea. Truer, then, is the exposition of Chrysostom and Cyril, and of the other interpreters whom we followed above. Nor ought it to be a marvel if in the explanation of this place we prefer Chrysostom to Augustine. For he wrote commentaries professedly on this epistle of blessed Paul; but Augustine explained this place in passing in his commentaries on John.
The fourth argument Kemnitz takes from Paul Colossians 2: You are circumcised with circumcision not made by hand, in the despoiling of the body of the flesh. “Paul,” says Kemnitz page 66, “by interchanging the words of Circumcision and Baptism, signifies that we, who in the New Testament through Baptism have the despoiling of the body of the sins of the flesh, have received and have the same which the circumcised in the Old Testament received through Circumcision.” I answer that this argument concludes nothing. For although Paul calls Baptism Circumcision, because Circumcision was a figure of Baptism, yet it does not thence follow that the effect of each was the same; nay, it follows that it is not the same, since the force of the figure and of the thing figured cannot be the same. Whence the same Apostle calls the Jewish Circumcision made by hand, but denies ours to be made by hand, because he who principally baptizes is God, not man. Nor does Paul attribute the effect of Circumcision to Baptism. For to despoil of the body of sins — that is, of the whole body liable to sins — and to render a man fully spiritual, Paul attributes to Christian Circumcision alone, that is, to Baptism. For Jewish Circumcision circumcised not the whole body, but one little part.
The fifth argument is Kemnitz's, page 67, from Paul to the Hebrews 13: Jesus Christ, yesterday, and today, and the same for ever. I answer that the argument, if it concludes anything, only concludes that the old Sacraments signify the same which ours signify, namely Christ, who was in the Old Testament latent in figures and predictions. But it does not even conclude this. For the Apostle speaks of faith and doctrine, not of the Sacraments; for he will have it believed that Christ is eternal, not temporal, as the heretics dreamed.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XVII. Solvuntur objectiones. Argumenta adversariorum sunt quinque. Primum est ex cap. XVII. Genes, ubi Deus sic loquitur de Circumcisione : Masculus, cujus preeputii caro circumcisa non fuerit , de¬ lebitur anima illa de populo suo , quia pactum meum irritum fecit (3). Ex hoc loco sumunt argumentum tam Catholici, qui putant Cir¬ cumcisionem justificasse ex opere operuto, quam haeretici, qui non agnoscunt discri¬ men inter Sacramenti novi , ac veteris Tes¬ tamenti. Ac primum Catholici Augustinum secuti in lib. XVI. de civit. Dei, c. 17. ita argu¬ ti) Joan. I, 17. — (2) Rorn. III. 3 et 4. — (3) Gen. XVII. 14. 462 LIRER II. mentantur ; Deus minatur omni masculo Hebramrum, etiam infanti, perpetuum inte¬ ritum, nisi fuerit circumcisus; ergo per Cir¬ cumcisionem liberabuntur masculi ab aeter¬ na morte. Calvinus autem lib. IY Instit. c. 16, §. 3. et 4. ita argumentatur. In Circumcisione eadem est promissio , quae in baptismo, ni¬ mirum remissionis peccatorum , et vitae ae¬ terna; ; igitur non differunt nisi externo ritu, seu signo. Probat antecedens. Nam Genes. XVII, ubi instituitur Circumcisio, dixit Deus Abrahse : Ego ero Deus tuus, et seminis tui post te (I). « Quibus verbis, inquit Calvinus, vitae aeternae promissio continetur : quem¬ admodum interpretatur Christus, qui resur¬ rectionem inde probavit, Matthaei XXII, quod dicatur Deus, Deus Abraham, Deus Isaac, et Deus Jacob : non est enim Deus mortuorum, sed viventium. Itaque idem est dicere, Ero Deus tuus, et Dabo tibi vitam acernam. Sed primus ingressus ad Deum est per remissio¬ nem peccatorum ; ergo promisit Deus etiam remissionem, peccatorum , cum ait : Ero Deus tuus, et seminis tui. » Confirmat argu¬ mentum Calvinus ex eo, quod Apostolus ad Ephes. II. dicit, Gentiles, quierant incir- cumcisi fuisse sine Deo, sine Christo, sine spe, et alienos a promissionibus. Ergo ista om¬ nia consequebantur homines per Circumci¬ sionem. Respondeo ad argumentum Catholicorum, vim totam illius argumenti pendere ex dua¬ bus vocibus, qua; habentur in editione Grae¬ ca, qua utebatur S. Augustinus. Graeci enim sic legunt locum citatum : Et incircumeisus masculus, cujus non circumcidetur caro praepu¬ tii in die octavo , peribit anima illa de populo si/o; ubi illa verba : In die octaro, sunt ad- dila a Graecis : non enim habentur in codi¬ cibus Hebraicis, nec in paraphrasi Chaldai¬ ca, nec in Latina vulgata editione. Porro ob illa duo verba : !n die octavo, S. Augustinus coactus est hunc locum exponere de parvu¬ lis, ac dicere, Deum minari poenam parvu¬ lis carentibus Circumcisione, et hinc ulterius coactus est verba sequentia : Quia pactum meum irritum fecenint, exponere de peccato originali, et de paclo.facto cum Adamo de non comedendo ligno scientiae boni, et mali, quod solum parvuli praevaricari potuerunt : et hinc ultimo coactus est illa verba : Peribit anima illa, exponere de morte aeterna, quae debetur peccato originali. Vide Augustinum lib. XVI. civit, c. 27. lib. II de peccato ori¬ ginali, c. 30. et 31. et lib. II de nuptiis, et concupiscentia, cap. II. At si removeamus a textu duo illa verba (In die octavo) ut vere removenda sunt, totum argumentum conci¬ det. Nam non cogemur exponere hunc lo¬ cum de parvulis, imo cogemur exponere so¬ lum de adultis , ut hic sit sensus : Masculus Hebraeus, qui noluerit circumcidi, aut filium suum circumcidere noluerit , peribit de po¬ pulo suo, quia inobediens fuit praecepto a me dato de. Circumcisione. Ex qua sententia non magis sequitur, Circumcisionem justifi¬ care, quam quodcumque legis praeceptum; millies enim Deus minatur mortem non ser¬ vantibus praecepta. Esse autem illum sensum ejus loci, osten¬ ditur tribus modis. Primo, ex illis verbis: Qui pactum meum irritum fecit. Nam etsi S. Augustinus hoc exposuerit de pacto facto cum Adamo, tamen luce clarius est hoc de¬ bere exponi de pacto facto cum Abraham de circumcidendis masculis. Nam in illo capite octies nominatur pactum Dei, et semper ac¬ cipitur pro pacto Circumcisionis. Et quid clarius illa expositione ipsius Dei in eodem capite : Hoc est pactum meum , quod observa¬ bitis : circumcidetur ex vobis omne masculi¬ num? Proinde causa comminationis hoc loco non est peccatum originale, sed pecca¬ tum actuale, id est, transgressio praecepti de Circumcisione, cujus peccati soli adulti ca¬ paces sunt. . Secundo , idem probatur ex illa poena : Peribit anima ejus de populo suo. Non enim ista verba significant mortem aeternam, seu gehennam, sed poenam aliquam tempora¬ lem. Nam id significat illud : De populo suo; non enim dicit, peribit absolute, sed peribit de populo, id est, separabitur a populo suo, seu per mortem corporalem, seu per quam¬ dam veluti excommunicationem. Vox enim Hebraica rns proprie exscindere significat. Et ponitur haec poena in Scriptura passim contra omnes, qui aliquam caeremoniam omisissent, ut patet Exodi XII et XXXI, Le¬ vit. VII, XVII, XVIII, XIX, XX et XXIII, Num. XV et XIX, in quo ultimo loco dicitur, peritura anima illius de populo suo, qui te¬ tigerit cadaver, et se aqua non abluerit ; quae certe omissio non videtur crimen dignum ob- terna morte. (1) Gen. XVII, 7. I CAPUT XVII. 463 Tertio probatur ex cap. IV Exodi, ubi Do¬ minus Mosem occidere voluit, quia filium suum non circumciderat. Ubi clare videmus, poenam illam esse mortem corporalem, et in eum latam, qui adultus sit, et capax peccati actualis, non in infantes. Et quamquam S. Augustinus qusest. 11. in Exodum, etlib. IV de Baptismo, c. 24 conatur ostendere filium Mosis, 'non ipsum Mosem in periculo fuisse ob incircumcisionem ; tamen res clarissima est. Nam si Deus minaretur mortem parvu¬ lo, si non circumcidatur octavo die ; quid profuisset filio Mosis Circumcisio illa facta post octavum diem? Deinde textus apertis¬ simus est : Cumque dsset, inquit , in itinere in diversorio Moses, occurrit ei Dominus , et vole¬ bat occidere eum. Quem eum? nisi Mosem, de quo loquebatur in proximis verbis. Prmterea sequitur : Tulit ergo Sephora acutissimam pe¬ tram , et circumcidit prcepulium filii sui. Si illud : Voluit occidere eum , de filio Mosis in- telligeretur, dixisset Scriptura : Circumcidit praeputium ejus, non autem filii sui. Praete¬ rea addit Sephora, et dixit Mosi : Sponsus sanguinum tu mihi es (1), id est, jam te spon¬ sum meum amissura eram , nisi te sanguine filii mei redemissem. Quare S. Hieronymus in comment. cap. V ad Galat. non dubitat, quin Moses in periculo fuerit hoc loco, non filius ejus. Ad argumentum Calvini; nego Circumci¬ sioni fuisse annexam promissionem remis¬ sionis peccatorum, et vitaj ajternae. Id enim repugnat. Primo, Apostolo et Augustino, qui, ut supra vidimus, docent meliores esse promissiones Testamenti novi , quam vete¬ ris. Secundo , repugnat primaj institutioni Circumcisionis. Nam primum imperata est ipsi Abrahre, et ei primo facta est promissio : ipse autem justissimus erat ante Circumci¬ sionem, ut patet ex Genes, c. XII et sequen¬ tibus ex Paulo Hom. IV. Non ergo promissio erat de remissione peccatorum. Tertio, re¬ pugnat isti ipsi cap. XVII Genes, ubi so¬ lum legimus , Deum promissione Abraham * quando illi injuriat Circumcisionem, pro¬ pagationem posteritatis, et terram Pa- lestinoe : Ponam , inquit, foedus meum inter me et te , et multiplicabo te vehementer himis , et paulo post : Ego sum, et ponam pactum meum tecum , erisque pater multarum gentium. Et infra : Daboque tibi, et semini tuo terram peregrinationis tuae, omnem terram Cha- naan (2). Et idem docet Apostolus liom. IV. Verum quidem est, promissionem hanc ter¬ renam, figuram fuisse promissionis spiritua¬ lis, et coelestis, quae danda erat iis, qui non carne, sed corde circumciderentur : et hoc etiam intelligebant Patriarchae et Propheta}, et alii viri perlecti illius temporis, ut dicit Apostolus ad Hebr. XI , et Tob. senior. II, Job. XIII, tamen ad litteram, promissio ter¬ rena erat annexa carnali Circumcisioni, et haec sola ad vetus Testamentum pertinebat; et contrarium asserere, quod facit Cahinus, nihil est aliud, quam ex lege Evangelium fa¬ cere, et omnia confundere. Ad probationem Calvini ex illo : Ero Deus tuus, Respondeo, his verbis non significari promissionem vitae aiterna}, vel remissionis peccatorum, sed tantum, ut exponit Chry- sost. in comment. hujus loci, promissionem cujusdam peculiaris protectionis ; qualis de¬ betur populo peculiari, qualis fuit Israeliti- cus, ut iu Deuteronomio passim repetitur. Hoc autem modo Deus non tantum erat Deus bonorum, sed etiam malorum, inodo essent de populo Israel. Proinde non signi¬ ficant promi-sionem remissionis peccatorum illti verba : alioqui Deus non fuisset Deus, nisi justorum. Adde, quod ista verba non tam sonant promissionem Dei, quam obliga¬ tionem populi. Idem enim est : Ero Deus tuus et seminis lui, ac si dixisset : Non ha¬ bebitis alium Deum quam me; juxta illud Ilierem XXIV : Ego ero illis in Deum, et ipsi erunt mihi in populum. Et illud Gen. XXVIII : Si fuerit Dominus mecum, et dede¬ rit mihi panem ad manducandum, erit mihi Dominus in Deum (3). « At, inquit Calvinus, Deus non est mor¬ tuorum Deus, sed viventium ; ut Christus ait; Ergo, Ero Deus tuus, significat promis¬ sionem vitae seternse. » Respondeo , Christi verba nihil aliud significare, nisi Deum non esse Deum eorum, qui non sunt, sed eorum, qui sunt, sive sint boni, sive mali; sive bea¬ ti, sive damnati. Nam probare volebat con¬ tra errorem Sadducaeorum, animas mortuo¬ rum hominum esse immortales, et ideo non extingui cum corpore, sed revera perma¬ nere, et vivere : id vero probavit optime ex verbis Dei ad Mosem Exod. IV : Ego sum Deum Abraham ^ Deus Isaac, et Deus Ja- (1) Exod. IV, 24 et seq. — (2) Gen. XVII, 2, 4 et 8. — (3) Jerem. XXIV* 7; Gen. XXVIII, 20 et 21. 4G4 LIBER II. cob (I). Cum enim illi jam mortui essent, quantum ad corpus, nisi viverent, quantum ad animam, non diceretur, Deus esse Deus eorum ; non enim Deus est Deus eorum, qui nihil sunt. Ad illud ex epist. ad Ephes. Respondeo, Gentiles fuisse sine Deo, sine Christo, sine spe, et sine promissionibus, non quia care¬ bant Circumcisione, sed quia carebant vera fide, et notitia veri Dei, et idola pro Deo co¬ lebant. Alioqui enim etiam inter Gentiles, qui Deum verum agnoscebant, ut olim Job, et postea Cornelius Centurio, et alii non¬ nulli, non erant sine Deo, sine Christo, et sine spe, etiamsi circumcisi non essent. Argumentum secundum sumitur ex Levit, cap. IV, V, et VI, ubi sic legimus : Anima quae peccaverit, ct contempto Domino, negave¬ rit proximo suo depositum, quod fidei ejus cre¬ ditum fuerat, vel vi aliquid extorserit, aut ca¬ lumniam fecerit, sive rem perditam invenerit, et inficiatis etiam pejeraverit, et quodlibet aliud ex pluribus fecerit, in quibus solent peccare homines , convicta delecti reddet omnia, quee per fraudem voluit obtinere integra, et quin¬ tam insuper partem domino, cui damnum in¬ tulerat; pro peccato autem suo offeret arietem immaculatum de grege, et dabit eum Sacerdoti juxta aestimationem mensuramque delicti, qui rogabit pro eo coram Domino, et dimittetur ei pro singulis , quae faciendo peccavit. Hic aper¬ te videmus promitti remissionem cujuscum- que peccati, etiam perjurii, quod inter gra¬ vissima numeratur, offerenti sacrificium. Et confirmatur argumentum. Nam si haec cae¬ remonia a Deo instituta cum tam insigni promissione remissionis peccatorum non justificat, inepte Catholici colligunt ex epist. Jacobicap.V, Extremam unctionem justi¬ ficare. Nam eodem modo loquitur Jacobus : Infirmatur quis in vobis ? inducat presbyteros Ecclesiae, et orent super eum, ungentes eum oleo in nomine Domini, et oratio fidei salvabit in¬ firmum, et alleviabit eum Dominus, et si in peccatis sit, remittentur ei (2). Respondeo, Sacrificia vetera valuisse ad expiationem peccati, quoad poenam tempo¬ ralem, et quoad immunditiam legalem, non quoad culpam, et poenam gehennae, nisi quatenus signa quaedam erant protestantia fidem in Christum, ut docent communiter Theologi in IV. sent. distinet. 1. et S. Tho- mas in f. 2. qiuest CIII. articul. 2. et Al- plionsus Tostat in cap. I Levit, qusest. 19. Potest autem id probari multis modis. Primo, quia Scriptura non instituit sacrificia pro omnibus peccatis, sed solum pro pecca¬ tis ignorantiae, praesertim contra caeremo¬ nias legis, ut patet Levit. IV ct V, et etiam pro peccatis circa damnum proximi, in re¬ bus externis, et pro perjurio ex cupiditate habendi res alienas prolato, ut patet Levi- tic.VI. Pro aliis peccatis gravioribus, ut pro blasphemia, homicidio, adulterio, idolola¬ tria, nullum invenitur sacrificium. Neque obstat, quod Levitic. VI dicitur, sacrificio arietis expiari omne id ‘peccatum, quo pec¬ care solent homines. Nam loquitur de omni peccato circa ablationem rei alienae, non de omni peccato simpliciter, alioqui frustra capitibus superioribus ponerentur varia sa¬ crificia pro variis peccatis. Igitur si sacrifi¬ cia non expiabant omnia peccata, sed so¬ lum quasdam, sine dubio non expiabant quoad culpam, sed solum quoad poenam tem¬ poralem, vel immunditiam legalem. Nam Deus numquanl remittit unum peccatum quoad culpam et poenam aeternam,, quin re¬ mittat omnia ; et hinc etiam apparet diffe¬ rentia inter promissiones istas veteris Tes¬ tamenti, et promissiones Sacramenti Extre¬ mae unctionis. Jacobus enim absolute de omnibus dicit : Si in peccatis fuerit, remitten¬ tur ei. Secundo id probatur, quia sacrificia ve¬ tera, ut notat S. Tliomas loco citato, non placebant Deo ex se, sed ex devotione et obedientia offerentium; ut patet : Quia Pro- verb. XV, victimae impiorum dicuntur abo- minales Domino ; Eccles. XXXIV : Dona iniquorum non probat Altissimus, nec respmt in oblationes iniquorum. Isaiae I, Ubi Domi¬ nus dixerat se nolle sacrificia Israelitarum ; subjungit : Manus enim vestree sanguine plena; sunt. Maluch. II dicit Deus malis sacerdo¬ tibus : Maledicam benedictionibus vestris. Et I. Reg. X V : Numquid vult Deus sacrificium, et non potius, ut obediatur voci Domini ? De¬ nique Genes. IV: Respexit Deus ad Abel et ad munera ejus-, adCain et ad munera ejus non respexit (3) : Unde Gregorius lib. XXII mo- ral. cap. 12. « Iram Judicis placare nescit oblatio, nisi ex munditia placeat offerentis. » Et infra : « Idcirco non Abcl ex muneribus, (1) Exod. IV, 5. — (2) Jac. V, 14 et seq. — (3) Eccl. XXXIV, 23; Isai. I. 15; Malach. II, 2; I. Reg. XV, 22; Gen. IV. 4 et 5. CAPUT XVII. 465 sed ex Abel munera oblata placuerunt. » Hinc ergo colligimus, sacrificia non valuisse ad expiationem peccati. Nam vel qui offerri jubebat, justus erat, vel injustus : si justus, non egebat remissione peccatorum; si injus¬ tus, nihil valebat ejus sacrificium, ut jam ostendimus. Dices, valere poterat injusto ex merito Sacerdotis offerentis. At non possunt merita unius conferre alteri primam gra¬ tiam certo, et infallibiliter. Hic autem poni- turpromissio absoluta de remissione pccca- rum ; ergo oportet intelligere de remissione, quoad poenam temporalem tantum. Tertio, Ezechielis cap. XVIII, cum de re¬ missione peccatorum agitur, nusquam fit mentio sacrificiorum. Imo Prophetae cietcri, et Paulus diserte docent, non posse sacrifi¬ ciis expiari culpas animorum. Ne igitur Scriptura; inter se pugnent, cogimur fateri, in Levitico non agi, nisi de expiatione lega¬ lis immunditia;, vel remissione temporalis poena;. Argumentum tertium sumitur ex I. Co- rinth. X, ubi Apostolus loquens de manna IIebra;orum, et de aqua scaturiente ex pe¬ tra, sic ait ; Eamdern escam spiritualem man¬ ducaverunt, et eumdem potum spiritualem bi¬ berunt (1). Hoc argumentum magni facit Cal¬ vinus lib. IV Instit. cap. 14. §. 23 : « Nihilo splendidius de illis, inquit, loquitur Aposto¬ lus, quam de his : cum docet, Patres eam- dem nobiscum escam spiritualem mandu¬ casse, et escam Christum interpretatur. Quis inane ausit facere signum illud, quod veram Christi communionem Judafis exhibebat? » Et infra : « Ergo, inquit, primum in Sacra¬ mentis pares nobis facit, nec ullam pra;ro- gativa; particulam nobis relinquit. ^ Idem argumentum urgent Petrus Martyr in Com- ment. I. Corinth. X. etKemnitius in 2. part. Exam. pag. 67. Porro argumentum hoc quatuor habet difficultates. Nam primo, urgent particulam (Eamdern). Si enim eamdem escam Judafi veteres manducaverunt in manna, quam nos in Eucharistia, certe ejusdem erunt vir¬ tutis manna et Eucharistia. Secundo, ur¬ gent particulam ( Spiritualem ). Si enim esca illa, et ille potus spiritualia erant, certe spi¬ ritualem effectum habebant, proinde non erant nuda signa corporalia. Tertio, urgent statum causae. Nam (ut ipsi dicunt) Aposto¬ lus volebat admonere Christianos, ne ni- (1) I. Cor. X, 3 et 4. Tom. III. mium confiderent in perceptione Sacramen¬ torum, et ut non crederent, sibi esse omnia salva, quia Baptismum et Eucharistiam per¬ ciperent, nisi etiam perseverarent in bonis operibus : id vero Apostolus facit exemplis antiquorum, quibus parum profuerunt'simi- lia Sacramenta, cum non abstinuerint se a peccatis. Oportet igitur Sacramenta illorum et nostra ejusdem esse dignitatis et effica¬ cia;, si Pauli argumentum aliquid valere de¬ bet. Quarto, confirmant ex Augustino, qui de isto loco Pauli disputans tract. 26. in Joannem, dicit, Sacramenta Judaeorum et nostra fuisse in signis diversa; in re quoe significatur, paria; diversa specie visibili, paria virtute spirituali. Respondeo ; Calvinum et Kemnitium se- cum apertissime pugnare. Nam in primis Calvinus et Kemnitius loco notato volunt, manna et aquam de petra scaturientem, imo et transitum maris rubri, Sacramenta fuisse apudJuda;os, et Sacramenta justifi¬ cantia, ut apud nos Baptismus et Eucharis¬ tia. At ipsi idem supra negarunt, ista esse Sacramenta. Nam Calvinus lib. IV. Institut. cap. 14. §. 19. dicit, Sacramenta, de quibus agimus, esse caeremonias ordinarias, non aliquid quod semel, aut iterum factum est. Et Kemnitius in Examine 2. par. pag. 41. posuit in definitione Sacramenti, ut sit cce- remonia quae duret, quamdiu religio durat. Constat autem, tales non fuisse manna, aquam de petra, et transitum maris : illa enim nec caeremonia; fuerunt, nec nisi ad breve tempus durarunt. Deinde Calvinus hocHoco dicit, ita esse paria Sacramenta ve¬ tera nostris, ut nulla praerogativas particula nostris relinquatur, et tamen supra eodem cap. 14. §. 22. dixerat, nostra esse excellen¬ tiora, eo quod uberiorem gratiam conferant. Porro Kemnitius in alia re graviore secum pugnat. Nam hoc loco admittit cum Calvi¬ no, Eucharistiam nihilo esse praestantiorem, quam fuerit manna Judaeorum ; et non ad¬ vertit, Calvinum ista argumenta proferre ad probandum, in Eucharistia non esse cor¬ pus Domini, nisi tropice, quomodo fuit in manna, cujus contrarium docent Lutherani, et ipse Kemnitius in hac ipsa 2. part. Exam. pag. 332. Sed his omissis, ad primam partem argu¬ menti respondeo; cum Scriptura dicit : Eamdem escam manducaverunt; non velle 30 466 LIBER II. dicere, earadem esse escam nostram et illo¬ rum , sed eamdem illorum omnium ; est enim sensus : Omnes Judaii eamdem escam manducarunt, et tamen non omnes placue¬ runt Deo. Id quod probatur : nam primo, illa non erant Sacramenta, nostra sunt Sa¬ cramenta, ut jam ostendimus. Secundo, illa erant communia etiam bestiis : nam etiam bestiae biberunt ex aqua scaturiente ex pe¬ tra, et transierunt mare rubrum ; et canes, et gallinae, et similia animantia domestica, manna in cibum sumpserunt ; et id non casu aliquo, aut malitia alicujus, quomodo etiam fieri posset, ut signa Eucharistiae a bestiis vorarentur : sed ex instituto et voluntate Dei. Deus enim aquam de petra eduxit, ut biberent homines et jumenta : et mare ape¬ ruit, et pluit manna, ut transirent, et vive¬ rent homines et jumenta. Tertio, quia nulla legitur promissio facta comedenti manna, aut bibenti aquam illam, aut transeunti per mare rubrum : nostra autem Sacramenta ha¬ bent amplissimas promissiones. Hic plane in augustias rediguntur. Petrus Martyr in comment. I. Gorinth. X. conatur extricare se ; et postquam petiit, ubi- nam sint promissiones annexae mari rubro et mannae, ita respondet : « Existimo ea esse, quae in Exodo et in Numeris legi¬ mus. In Exodo quippe admonebantur, ut attenderent visuri magnalia Dei. Idemquo invenies de manna scriptum, si omnia dili¬ genter percurreris. » Haec ille. At ista tes¬ timonia sunt inopiae et miseriae adversario¬ rum. Si enim aliquid haberent, notarent locum Scripturae, non nobis injungerent, ut quaeramus. Porro diligenter quaesivi, et non inveni, nisi has promissiones. Exod. XIV. filiis Israel transituris mare rubrum dicitur a Mose : State, et videte magnalia Dei. y&gyptios enim, quos nunc videtis , non videbitis ultra in sempiternum. Dominus pu¬ gnabit pro vobis, et vos tacebitis. Ilaec autem promissio temporalis est, et continuo im¬ pleta occisis iu mari rubro yEgyptiis, ut ibi¬ dem legimus. Rursus Exod. XVI. exhibetur manna populo, et coturnices, nec ulla pro¬ missio additur, nisi illa dicatur promis¬ sio : Vespere comeditis carnes, et mane sa¬ turabimini panibus. Denique Exodi XVII. et Num. XX. educitur aqua de petra : sed nulla est ibi promissio, nisi ista Cum edu¬ xeris aquam de petra, bibet omnis multitudo, et jumenta ejus (I). Vidit Petrus Martyr, has esse terrenas pro¬ missiones; et idcirco ne penitus causa ceci¬ disse videatur, ex istis ipsis promissionibus elicere conatur promissionem remissionis peccatorum. Utitur autem hac ratiocinatio¬ ne : Extremum malorum, et radix omnium aliorum est peccatum ; igitur cum petimus ab aliquo malo liberari, quodeumque illud sit tacito sensu petemus a peccato liberari. Igitur eodem modo, qusecumque bona Deus promittit aut exhibet, innituntur reconcilia¬ tioni cum eo, et gratiae ac favori ejus. At certe facilius esset,» ex petra elicere aquam, quam ex his locis Scripturae elicere promis¬ sionem reconciliationis. Nam etiamsi pec¬ catum Adse fuit occasio omnium malorum, tamen non sunt ita connexae afflictiones hu¬ jus vitae cum peccatis, ut non possint esse separata?. Saepe enim peccant homines, et tamen non puniuntur in hac vita : saepe non peccant, et affliguntur, ut patet de S. Job el Tobia, et aliis, qui non propter peccata, sed ad exercitium virtutis affligebantur. Et contra in rebus bonis, saepe Deus dat af¬ fluentiam rerum temporalium iis, quibus non est daturus gratiam suam, et vitam ae¬ ternam, \el ut remuneret eorum bona opera moralia, vel aliis de causis ; et non dat bona temporalia iis, quibus daturus est vitam aeternam, ut patet Luc. XVI. exemplo divi¬ tis et mendici ; et in Scripturis passim de Nabuchodonosor, de Cyro, et aliis, quibus Deus subjecit orbem terrae, cum tamen ejus amici non essent. Vide Augustinum lib, V. de Civit. Dei cap. 12. et 15. Itaque errat Martyr apertissime, cum dicit, quaelibet bona quae Deus dat, inniti reconciliationi cum Deo, et gratia* ipsius. Nec sequitur; Deus promisit populo Judaeorum victoriam de hostibus, vel abundantiam cibi et polus; ergo promisit remissionem peccatorum, et vitam aeternans Vide Basilium lib. de Spi¬ ritu sancto cap. 14. ubi probat, nullam fuisse spiritualem promissionem in transitu maris rubri, mannae, aquae etc. ac dicit, eos universam Evangelicam dispensationem extenuare, qui signa illa nostris aequant : « Quae, inquit, peccatorum remissio, qua? vitae renovatio in mari? quod donum spiri¬ tuale datum est per Moysen ? quae illic pec¬ cati mortificatio? » Ad secundam partem argumenti dico, (1) Exod. XIV, 13; XVI, 12; Num. XX, 8. CAPUT XVII. 467 Manna et aquam de petra scaturientem vo¬ cari cibum et potum spiritualem, non prop¬ ter effectum, sed propter causam, et propter significationem. Propter causam quidem, quia utrumque productum erat per miracu¬ lum opera Angelorum ; ut indicant hoc loco Chrvsostomus et Theophylactus. Unde Psal. LXXVII manna dicitur panis Angelorum ? Panem Angelorum manducavit horno. Et certe non dicitur panis Angelorum , quia eo ves¬ cantur Angeli, sed quia eum fecerunt An¬ geli. Et de aqua explicat idem Apostolus, cur diceretur potus spiritualis : Bibebant , inquit, de spirituali consequente eos petra , pe¬ tra autem erat Christus (1). Ubi non ipsam aquam quam bibebant, vocat spiritualem ; sed petram, quae erat causa illius aquae; et monet, veram causam iilius aquae non fuisse petram corporalem et visibilem, quae fixa liumi jacebat, sed quamdam aliam invisibi¬ lem petram, id est, Christi Dei providen¬ tiam, quae eos numquam deserebat. Quare cuin dicit Apostolus : Bibebant de spirituali petra , non est sensus (ut putavit Calvinus) quod biberent spiritualem petram, id est, Christum, sed quod biberent aquam ex pe¬ tra spirituali, id est, Christo , tamquam ex causa efficiente profluentem. Quocirca non comparat Apostolus aquam cum Christo, sed petram, quae erat causa aquae. Confirmatur haec tota expositio ex Joan. VI : Patres ves¬ tri manducaverunt manna in deserto , et mortui sunt. Qui manducat hunc panem , vivet in aeter¬ num (2). Ubi Dominus apertissime docet, non fuisse manna Judaeorum cibum spiri¬ tualem, quoad effectum, ut est Eucharis¬ tia : qui enim manna manducarunt , mortui sunt. Respondet Calvinus lib. IV Instit. c. 14, §. 23. et Martyr loco citato, Christum se ac¬ commodasse crassae Judaeorum opinioni, qui manna nihil aliud nisi cibum ventris es¬ se cogitabant. Itaque Christum non asse¬ ruisse, se daturum meliorem cibum, quam fuerat manna revera, sed quam fuerat man- nasecundum crassam Judaeorum opinionem. At contra. Nam vel Judaei recte sentiebant, manna fuisse cibum corporalem tantum, vel non recte : si recte, igitur nostra Eucharis¬ tia est longe melior, cum sit cibus spiritua¬ lis : si non recte, igitur Dominus approba¬ vit illorum errorem , et non sincere, imo nec vere locutus est. Siquidem etiam ipse asserit, cibum illum fuisse corporalem tan¬ tum, cum ait : Patres vestri manducaverunt manna, et mortui sunt. Et clarius paulo ante nam cum gloriarentur, patres suos mandu¬ casse manna in deserto : et hunc panem quasi- caelestem jactarent, Christus dixit : Non Moyses dedit vobis panem de coelo , sed pater meus dat vobis panem de coelo verum (3), id est, (ut recte exponit Cyrillus lib. III. in Joan. c. 34. et Chrysostomus hom. 44. in Joan.) manna non erat revera panis coeles¬ tis, sed terrenus , licet de coelo, id est, ex aere descenderit; panis autem vere coelestis est iste, quem nunc Pater dat vobis. Adde quod Chrysostomus hom. 43. in Joan. nobiscum sentit : « Animadverte, in¬ quit, quam faciat hujus panis et mannae dif¬ ferentiam, ab utriusque scilicet fine : quod enim manna nihil magnum praeberet, ad¬ dit : Patres nostri manducaverunt etc. » Item Cyrillus lib. IV. in Joan. cap. 41. de manna Judaeorum, ita Christum loquentem inducit : « Ego sum panis vivus; ille figura, imago, umbraque solummodo fuit. » Ad tertiam partem argumenti respondeo, scopum Apostoli non esse ostendere, non esse nimium confidendum in Sacramentis, sed potius non esse abutendum Sacra¬ mentis. Nam si vellet ostendere non esse nimirum confidendum in Sacramentis, id- que exemplo Judaeorum, ut Circumcisio¬ nem, et agnum Paschalem , et similia. Ipse autem accepit alia quaedam, quae sunt qui¬ dem figurae Sacramentorum nostrorum, non tamen sunt ipsa Sacramenta , ut supra os¬ tendimus. Praeterea id patet ex ipso con¬ textu. Nam c. VIII. hortabatur Christianos, ne manducarent idolothyta ; ne eo modo of¬ fenderent infirmos : deinde cap. IX ostendit exemplo suo , oportere non offendere infir¬ mos : tum cap. X. redit ad quaestionem de idolothytis, et probat non esse ea comeden¬ da, quia nimis turpe sit, a mensa Domini transire ad mensam daemoniorum ; id enim est signum magnae ingratitudinis in Chris¬ tum, et magnae irreverentiae erga Sacra¬ menta ipsius. Ad hoc igitur ostendendum profert exempla Judaeorum. Proinde non requiritur (ut vult Calvinus) ut parem vim tribuamus mari rubro et Baptismo , mannae et Eucharistiae. Nam quo sunt illa inferiora, eo argumentum Pauli est fortius. Si enim Judaei puniti sunt, quod contempserint figu- (1) Psal. LXXVII, 25; I. Cor. X, 4. — (2) Joan. VI, 49 et 52. — (3) Joan. VI, 49 et 32. 468 LIBER I. ras Sacramentorum nostrorum, et ingrati fuerint Deo, a quo illa beneficia acceperant; quanto justius puniendi sunt Christiani , qui contemnunt* Sacramenta ipsa, et ingrati sunt Deo, a quo acceperunt beneficia longe ma¬ jora ? Ad quartam partem argumenti respondeo, S. Augustinum nusquam dicere Sacramenta nostra, et vetera esse paria, quoad effica¬ ciam , sed tantum quoad significationem, seu rem significatam, quia nimirum eumdem Christum omnia significant. Vide Augusti¬ num non solum tract. 26 et 45. in Joannem, qua; loca adversarii citant; sed etiam in Psalm. LXX1I et LXXVJI, et tract. 11. in Joannem, et hom. 27. ex lib. L. homilia- rum : ubique enim hoc repetit, diversa fuis¬ se signa, sed unam rem significatam, id est, Christum. Illa autem verba, qua; Calvinus citat ex tractat. 26. in Joannem : « Diversa sunt specie visibili, paria virtute spirituali ; » non integre et bona fide adducta sunt. Sic enim Augustinus loquitur : « Aliud illi, aliud nos, sed specie \isibili quidem, tamen hoc idem significante virtute spirituali, » id est, diversa erant signa , tamen quoad vim spi¬ ritualem significandi , eadem erant, quia idem significabant : quod clarius paulo ante dixerat his verbis : « In signis diversa sunt, sed in rc, qua; significatur, paria sunt. » Nec poterat Augustinus ullo modo dicere, quod ei Calvinus tribuit , Sacramenta vetera nos¬ tris mqualia esse , quoad efficaciam, cum in Psalm. LXXII dixerit nostra esse salubriora et fceliciora, et lib. XIX contra Faustum c. 13. nostra dixerit esse virtute majora, utili¬ tate meliora. Unum est hic observandum, Augustini expositionem, qui per eamdem escam spiri¬ tualem I. Corinth. X. intelligit significari, eadem esse Sacramenta vetera et nova, quoad vim significandi, et inde illam escam dictam esse spiritualem , non esse quidem centra nos, ut jam ostendimus : tamen non esse necessario sequendam. Nam si per es¬ cam spiritualem intelligeremus escam spiri- tualiter intellectam, ut vult Augustinus, tunc soli justi eam manducassent. Id quod fate¬ tur Augustinus , et ideo notat Paulum dixis¬ se ; Patres nostri eamdem escam spiritualem manducaverunt (I); non autem Patres vestri, quia loquebatur solum de justis, qui sunt nobis similes. Christum autem Joannis VI, dixisse : Patres vestri manducaverunt man¬ na (2), non, Patres nostri; quia loquebatur Dominus de malis Judaeis, qui non mandu¬ caverunt illam escam spirituali ter. At hoc re¬ pugnat Apostoli verbis, qui ait : Patres nos- tri omnes eamdem escam spiritualem manduca¬ verunt, et per, Omnes, intelligit non omnes justos tantum, sed omnes absolute tam bo¬ nos, quam malos, qui in deserto illo fuerunt. Nam subjungit : Sed non in pluribus eorum beneplacitum est Beo : et paulo ante dixerat : Patres nostri omnes sub nube fuerunt, et om¬ nes mare transierunt (3). At certe non tan¬ tum boni, sed etiam mali sub nube fuerunt, et mare transierunt. Verior igitur est Chry- sostomi ct Gyrilli expositio, et aliorum in¬ terpretum, quos supra secuti sumus. Nec mirum esse debet, si anteponimus in hujus loci explicatione Chrysostomum Augustino. Nam ille scripsit commentaria ex professo in epistolam hanc B. Pauli : hic autem obiter explicuit hunc locum in commentariis in Joannem. Argumentum quartum sumit Kemnitius ex Paulo Coloss. II : Circumcisi estis Circum¬ cisione non manu facta, in exspoliatione corporis carnis (4). « Paulus, inquit Kemnitius, pag. 66, permutatis vocabulis Circumcisionis et Baptismi, significat nos , qui in novo Testa¬ mento per Baptismum habemus exspoliatio¬ nem corporis peccatorum carnis, accepisse, et habere idem , quod circumcisi in veteri Testamento per Circumcisionem accepe¬ runt. » Respondeo, hoc argumentum nihil con¬ cludere. Nam etiamsi Paulus Baptismum vo¬ cat Circumcisionem, quia Circumcisio fuit figura Baptismi ; tamen non inde sequitur, eumdem fuisse effectum utriusque , imo se¬ quitur non esse eumdem , cum non possit esse vis eadem figura;, et rei figurata;. Unde idem Apostolus Circumcisionem Judaicam vocat manu factam , nostram autem negat esse manu factam, quia qui principaliter baptizat, Deus est, non homo. Neque tribuit Paulus effectum Circumcisionis Baptismo. Nara exspoliare corpore a peccatorum, id est, a toto corpore obnoxio peccatis, et red¬ dere hominem plene spiritualem tribuit Paulus soli Circumcisioni Christiana; , id est, Baptismo. Circumcisio enim Judaica non totum corpus, sed unam particulam circum¬ cidebat. (1) I. Cor. X, 3. — (2) Joan. VI, 49. — (3) I. Cor. X. 5 et 1. — (4) Coloss. II, 11. Argumentum quintum est Keinnitii pagi¬ na G7. ex Paulo ad Hebr. XIII : Christus Je- sus heri, et hodie , ipse et in scecula (1). Respondeo, argumentum si quid conclu¬ dit, tantum concludere Sacramenta vetera idein significare, quod nostra significant, ni¬ mirum Christum, qui erat in Testamento ve¬ teri latens in figuris et vaticiniis. At ne hoc quidem concludit. Nam Apostolus loquitur de fide, et doctrina, non de Sacramentis : vult enim credi, Christum esse aeternum, non temporalem, ut somniabant haeretici.