Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacraments in General · Book II: On the Effect, Number, and Ceremonies of the Sacraments
Chapter 32: That the Objections Against Ceremonies Are Answered
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).
John Calvin, in Book IV of the Institutes, chapter 10, raises many objections against ceremonies, which must be refuted in order. His first argument, section 2: “The Apostle, in 1 Corinthians 7, did not dare to cast a snare upon even one single matter; and this not without cause. For he foresaw how great a wound would be inflicted upon consciences, if a necessity were imposed upon them in those things whose liberty had been left to them by the Lord.”
I answer: The Apostle in that passage is treating of virginal continence, which the Lord had not commanded but counselled; and it was indeed fitting that the Apostle should not make a precept of what the Lord willed to be a counsel. But the case is not the same for other matters concerning which the Lord prescribed nothing in particular. For these can be either commanded or counselled by the Church, according as the matters themselves require. Hence the same Apostle, who was unwilling to command continence, commanded many other things; and moreover, in 2 Thessalonians, the last chapter, he says thus: And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed. And the Apostles, in Acts 15, laid upon the Gentiles the burden of abstaining from blood and from things strangled, and they say that this is necessary; and yet the Lord had left it free.
His second argument, section 8: “The Apostle, in the epistle to the Colossians, teaches that the doctrine of the true worship of God is not to be sought from men, because the Lord has faithfully and fully instructed us how He is to be worshipped. To demonstrate this: in the first chapter he says that in the Gospel is contained all wisdom by which the man of God is made perfect in Christ; at the beginning of the second chapter he says that all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden in Christ; and thence he afterward concludes that the faithful should beware lest they be led away from the flock of Christ by vain philosophy, according to the ordinances of men. And at the end of the chapter, with still greater confidence, he condemns all [ethelothreskeias], that is, fictitious forms of worship which men devise for themselves or receive from others, and whatever precepts concerning the worship of God they presume of themselves to hand down.”
I answer, first, that this epistle to the Colossians has nothing against the ecclesiastical laws concerning ceremonies. For, as is clear from Chrysostom, Ambrose, Theodoret, Theophylact, and Oecumenius, it was written against Simon Magus and other heretics and impostors of that time, who were persuading men that they must approach the most high God through certain Angels, and that Christ did not suffice; and who moreover were foisting upon Christians ceremonies partly Jewish and partly heathen. Hence, therefore, in the first chapter he treats at length of the excellence of Christ, and says that He is the head of all things, and above all things, and that the Angels depend upon Him as their author. Then in the second chapter he warns them not to be deceived by philosophy—namely that of Plato and the like, which the Simonians and Gnostics used—and at the same time he reproves them because they observed Sabbaths and new moons, which are Jewish and made void by Christ; and because they abstained from certain foods as unclean; and because they walked in the religion of Angels, thinking that only through them could one ascend to God—all of which are false and superstitious.
Then I answer to Calvin’s several propositions. The first is: “Christ has fully instructed us concerning the true worship of God.” I answer: this is true of general instruction, but not of the particular, as Calvin himself confesses below, section 30, where he treats of kneeling.
The second is: “The Apostle teaches that the doctrine of true worship is not to be sought from men.” I answer: he teaches that it is not to be sought from men who teach things contrary to Christ, as were the Philosophers and the Simonians; but it is indeed to be sought from men who build upon Christ, and who teach in particular, according to His rule and doctrine, what He indicated only in general. For He Himself says, Luke 10: He that heareth you, heareth me.
The third is: “The Apostle condemns all human and voluntary worship.” I answer: by Paul, that worship is called human and voluntary which is merely human and invented by one’s own ingenuity, that is, which is not conformable to the faith and to the principles of Christ’s doctrine; but the things taught by the Church are not merely human, since they are instituted by the inspiration of God. Hence in 1 Corinthians 14, after Paul had instituted various rites in the Church concerning the order of prophesying and speaking, and that women should keep silence, about which the Lord had expressly commanded nothing, the Apostle adds: If any seem to be a prophet or spiritual, let him know the things that I write to you, that they are the commandments of the Lord—where he calls them commandments of the Lord because they had been given by His inspiration, and therefore he wills them to be recognized by the spiritual. For if they had been the Lord’s express precepts, there would have been no need of the spirit to recognize them.
The third argument, section 9: “The Apostle in Galatians 5 in no way permits that the consciences of the faithful be reduced to servitude. Therefore it is not lawful to institute ceremonies which bind in conscience.”
I answer: Paul is speaking of the Jewish servitude by which they had served under the ancient law, not of any obedience whatever to law. For otherwise the same Apostle, in Romans 13, teaches that one must obey authority not only for wrath, but also for conscience’ sake. Here it must be noted that the old law is called a yoke of servitude, not because it bound in conscience (for that is common to every true law), but because it was most difficult and most laborious, and did not have annexed to it the grace by which it could be fulfilled out of love of justice; whence either it was not fulfilled, or it was fulfilled out of fear of punishment. (For if any fulfilled it out of love of justice—as it cannot be denied that the Patriarchs and Prophets and many others did—they had this not from the law, but from the grace of the New Testament.) And in that manner it pressed down and weighed upon them after the manner of a most heavy yoke. And it is from this yoke that the Apostle deters the Galatians. For they, when they wished to be circumcised, fell away from the grace of Christ, and at the same time bound themselves to observe the whole law—which was simply to return to the state of the Old Testament. And so Calvin handles the Scriptures in the worst faith, when he wrests them from their true sense to prove his heresy.
The fourth argument, sections 10 and 15: “The Lord, in Matthew 15, reproves the traditions of men, and Isaiah does the same, chapter 29: In vain do they worship me with the commandments of men.”
I answer: in this tenth paragraph there are many most shameless lies, which could never be washed out with all the soap of Geneva: as, that Catholics forbid marriage and allow harlotry; that they judge it more grievous if someone on a Friday has stained his tongue with a small taste of meat than if on all days he has defiled his whole body by fornication, and so forth. As to the passages of Scripture, which are also everywhere adduced by Philip [Melanchthon], Brentius, Kemnitz, and others, I say that the Lord was accustomed to reprove three things in the Jewish ceremonies. First, that certain of them conflicted with the commandments of God—as were those in Matthew 15 and Mark 7, that sons should give to the priests what would have been necessary for their parents. Second, that many of the Jewish traditions of the Pharisees were empty and utterly useless, such as washing the hands so often. And these two kinds of ceremonies the Lord calls commandments of men, because they had nothing but what was human. Third, that they observed certain others that were good and useful, but sinned in the manner, placing in them the sum of religion and making more of these than of the divine commandments; and of these the Lord speaks in Matthew 23, nor does He call them human traditions, but says: These things you ought to have done, and not to leave those undone. But the Christian ceremonies approved by the Church are not of the first or second kind; nor have the adversaries yet brought forward arguments, but only lies, to prove the contrary. And if there are among Catholics some more untutored persons who make more of ceremonies than of the weightier commandments, we hold that they must be corrected. For we do not approve whatever men do—otherwise we should approve many sins—but that which they ought to do according to the sound doctrine of the Church.
The fifth argument, section 12: “The Romanists have partly taken their example from the ravings of the Gentiles, and partly, after the manner of apes, have rashly imitated the ancient Jewish rites, which pertained to us no more than the sacrifices of beasts.” I answer, first, that the Manichees of old made this same argument, in Augustine, Book 20 against Faustus, chapter 4, and Vigilantius in Jerome, in the book against Vigilantius, as regards the imitation of the Gentiles. And so Calvin ought to acknowledge from what forebears he is descended. Secondly I say, if the argument were worth anything, then Baptism and the Lord’s Supper would also have to be abolished; for the Gentiles too used a baptism, when they initiated their own into the sacred rites of Mithras; and they celebrate also a sacrament of bread, as Tertullian relates in the book On Prescriptions. The Jews too very frequently used expiations by water, nor were they without loaves of proposition. I say thirdly that it ought not to seem strange if our ceremonies have some similarity with the Jewish; for those were figures of our realities, as we read in 1 Corinthians 10. By the same reasoning it ought not to be strange if sometimes ours are similar to the rites of the Gentiles. For the devil, who has always wished to be the ape of God, tried to imitate the Jewish rites instituted by God—as Tertullian notes in the passage cited—which rites we have said were figures of our realities. I say fourthly that, although in the external symbol there is some similarity between our rites and the rites of the Gentiles and the Jews, nevertheless absolutely there is the greatest difference. For external actions take their species from their end and intention. The rites of the Gentiles were done for the worship of demons; ours are done for the worship of the true God. Therefore there is as much difference between theirs and ours as between the sacred and the sacrilegious, as between piety and impiety, and as between God and the devil. For the sacrifices too of the Gentiles and of the Jews were the same, and yet the former were idolatrous, the latter pious and religious. And in this manner Jerome answers Vigilantius, and Augustine the Manichees, in the passages cited. But the Jewish rites were good, yet foretelling Christ who was to come; ours likewise are good, but different from them, because they are partly in memory of things past, partly to signify the glory to come.
The sixth argument, section 13, is taken from Augustine’s epistle 119, chapter 19, where he complains that certain persons had so burdened the Church with a multitude of ceremonies that the condition of the Jews was more tolerable. I answer: Augustine is speaking of ceremonies which private men, and especially little women, impose upon themselves. For the same Augustine, in the same place, speaking of superfluous ceremonies, says thus: “All such things, which are neither contained in the authorities of the Holy Scriptures, nor found established in the Councils of Bishops, nor strengthened by the custom of the universal Church, but are varied innumerably according to the diverse customs of diverse places, I think are to be cut off.”
The seventh argument, section 14: “God willed this difference to be between us and the Jews, that He taught them, as children, by sensible signs, but us, as grown men, more simply, without such signs. This is clear from John 4, where the Lord says: The hour cometh, when the true adorers shall adore the Father in spirit and in truth. And in Galatians 4 the Apostle compares the Jews to little ones living under a pedagogue.” Kemnitz makes the same argument, page 166, where he says that shadows and figures are proper to the Old Testament, but that we in the new law are admonished by the light of the word of God, not by shadows. Brentius has similar things in the Confession of Wurtemberg, in the last chapter, which is on ceremonies. I answer: the difference between the Jews and Christians as regards ceremonies can be understood in two ways. In one way, that they had only external ceremonies, but we only the light of the word, and spiritual and simple truth. And this the words of the adversaries, and especially of Kemnitz, seem to sound; but it is manifestly false. For the Jews, besides ceremonies, also had the light of the word; whence is that of Psalm 118: Thy word is a lamp to my feet. Nor did God require of them only external worship, but also internal. For in Isaiah 29 God reproves the Jews when He says: This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. And on the other hand Christians, besides the light of the word, have also sensible Sacraments, which are shadows and figures of things past and future. And just as external and sensible Sacraments are not repugnant to the New Testament, as is well known, so neither are other ceremonies repugnant. For the Christian Church, although it moves in a great light in respect of the synagogue, nevertheless also moves in shadow in respect of the heavenly Jerusalem. For we walk by faith, which is obscure, and not by sight.
In another way that difference can be understood, that the Jewish worship, inasmuch as it is Jewish, that is, of the Old Testament, was principally external and bodily; the Christian worship, that is, of the New Testament, is principally internal and spiritual. And this is most true. For internal and spiritual worship proceeds from the spirit of faith and charity, which spirit is the very grace of the New Testament, and can in no way be had from the old law. Hence Paul, in 2 Corinthians 3, calls the Old Testament the letter, the new he calls the spirit. And in John 1 the former is called law, the latter grace. Finally, in John 4 that phrase in spirit and in truth signifies (as Chrysostom, Cyril, and Euthymius expound) that Christian worship is in spirit, as opposed to the Jewish, which was bodily, and is in truth, as opposed to that same Jewish worship, which consisted in shadows and figures. Although Theophylact and blessed Thomas, in the commentary on that same passage, not badly also set that phrase in spirit against the Jewish worship, which was bodily, and that phrase in truth against the worship of the Samaritans, which was mingled with falsehood and error. Whence a little before the Lord had said: Neither on this mountain—that is, Garizim, where the Samaritans adored—nor in Jerusalem shall you adore the Father: as if He were saying: You shall henceforth worship God neither with the false worship of the Samaritans, nor with the Jewish worship, chiefly bodily, but with the Christian worship, which shall be in spirit and in truth, that is, spiritual, and pure from all error.
It must nevertheless be observed that, although the Jewish worship, as of the Old Testament, was bodily, yet it did not please God without the spiritual, and therefore God sought from them also a spiritual worship, as we showed from Isaiah 29. But those who rendered it had this not from the Old Testament but from the new, to which even then they were beginning to belong. Just as it is also well known that fear is proper to the Old Testament, and love to the new; and yet God asked of the Jews that they should love Him with their whole heart, and truly the holy men of that time did render this, not from the force of the Old Testament, but from the grace of the new. By the same reasoning, although Christian worship is principally spiritual, yet it cannot be without the bodily in this pilgrimage, and therefore it admits Sacraments and other ceremonies, which serve the spiritual worship.
The eighth argument, section 15: “Whatever commendation works have, they have it wholly with a view to obedience, which alone God regards, as He testifies through the Prophet: I commanded not concerning sacrifices and victims, but only that you hearken to my voice, Jeremiah 7; and 1 Kings 15: Doth the Lord desire sacrifice, and not rather that His voice be obeyed? Therefore ceremonies which God did not institute cannot please Him, nor be meritorious.” He confirms his argument in the same place, because our ceremonies are not only not meritorious but not even useful, since they are scarcely understood by anyone. I answer: the antecedent is false, and against the plainest Scriptures. For the sacrifice of Abel pleased God, Hebrews 11, which yet God had not commanded. And 1 Corinthians 7: He that giveth not [his virgin in marriage] doth better. And in the same place, of the widow: She shall be more blessed if she so remain; and yet in the same place he asserts that it is not a precept not to marry, even a second time. And in 1 Corinthians 9 he maintains that it had been lawful for him to live on the goods of those to whom he preached, and yet that he had preferred to live from his own labor, that he might have a greater reward; for those words signify this: It is good for me to die, rather than that any man should make my glory void. Now those Scriptures set obedience before sacrifices. But it is not therefore lawful to conclude: Therefore unbidden sacrifices merited nothing, provided they were offered with faith and devotion; since the contrary is established from the Scriptures, as we have just shown. To the confirmation I answer: the ceremonies of the Church are most easily understood, at least in general, as is plain if one runs through the ceremonies drawn from person, from place, from time, from things. And if some ceremonies are not understood by all, such as the multitude of vestments in the Mass, and of signs, yet they are not without usefulness even among the most untutored, since without doubt they conciliate veneration toward sacred things. Certainly the Jews understood very little, and yet they received them not in vain.
The ninth argument, section 17: “Does not that law once spoken to the Church remain eternal: What I command thee, that only do thou observe; thou shalt not add anything, nor diminish. And Proverbs 30: Add not anything to the words of the Lord, lest thou be reproved and found a liar.” I answer: the Lord in these passages does not forbid any and every addition. For whether by ‘word’ are understood the sacred books, or the moral, judicial, or ceremonial precepts, we shall always find that an addition was made. For after Deuteronomy, where that prohibition of adding to the words of the Lord is found, all the other sacred books were written, both historical and prophetical, and the whole New Testament. Likewise there are many moral precepts in the prophets and in the books of Solomon, which seem added to the Pentateuch; and David added a judicial precept, that they should equally divide the spoil in war, both those who fought and those who guarded the baggage, 1 Kings 30. The later Jews also added ceremonial laws concerning new feast days, Esther 9, Judith the last chapter, and 1 Maccabees 4. God therefore forbids a corrupting addition; and it is the same to say Thou shalt not add nor diminish as if He said: Observe wholly and perfectly what I command. This is clear from the reason given in Proverbs 30: Lest perhaps He reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. For he cannot be called a liar and a falsifier who institutes a new ceremony, provided it in no way injures the ceremonies of God; but he is called a liar and a falsifier who corrupts the words or precepts of God. Now this corruption can be done in two ways. In one way, if someone add to or diminish from the very words or precepts of God something whereby they are corrupted; as if someone in the Sacrifice of Christ should offer bread without wine, or bread and wine and honey. In another way, if someone should pass off as the word of God a non-canonical book, or as a Sacrament some ceremony invented by himself; or, on the contrary, should subtract a truly canonical book, or a true Sacrament, from the number of the sacred books or of the Sacraments—which sin the heretics commit, when they deny that many sacred books are canonical, and remove five Sacraments from the number of the Sacraments. We see the same in the corrupting of coinage: for those are called counterfeiters who either corrupt the coins themselves, by adding tin to silver or diminishing the silver itself, or who thrust coins struck by themselves in place of the Prince’s coin. But none of these things will they find in the ceremonies of the Church.
The tenth argument, section 23, Calvin takes from three examples of divine Scripture. In 2 Kings 17, those who dwelt in Samaria are said to have been torn by wild beasts because they worshipped God with new ceremonies which God had not instituted. In 2 Kings 16, Ahaz is reproved because he set up a new altar in the temple, which indeed might have seemed to be for the adornment of the temple: “And yet we see,” says Calvin, “how the Spirit detests that boldness, for no other cause than that men’s inventions in the worship of God are impure corruptions.” In 2 Kings 21, the crime of Manasseh is aggravated, says Calvin, by this circumstance, that he built a new altar in Jerusalem.
I answer that in all these examples Calvin uses bad faith after his manner. For in 2 Kings 17 those Samaritans are not accused of worshipping God with new ceremonies, but that at first they did not fear the Lord nor worship Him, since they were Gentiles; nor did they know the law of God; and then, having been taught the law of God, they began at the same time to worship God and their own idols. And in 2 Kings 16, Ahaz is reproved, not because he built a new altar in the temple, but because he ordered a new altar to be made in the temple of the Lord after the likeness of the altar of the idols which was in Damascus, and removed the altar of the Lord from its place, in order to set that idolatrous altar in the best place. Finally, in 2 Kings 21, Manasseh not only set a new altar in the temple, but an altar where sacrifice should be made to idols. For thus the Scripture speaks: He built altars to all the host of heaven in the two courts of the temple. And below: He set also an idol of the grove, which he had made, in the temple of the Lord. For otherwise to erect a new altar in the temple of the Lord would have been no crime. For in 3 Kings 8 we read that Solomon ordered the middle part of the court to be sanctified for offering holocausts, because the brazen altar, on which they ought to have been offered, was not capable of so great a multitude of victims; for Solomon then offered twenty-two thousand oxen and a hundred and twenty thousand sheep.
And this from Calvin. With like fidelity Melanchthon handles the Scriptures. For in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, article 15, besides other things, he brings forward these arguments. First, Ezekiel 20: Walk not in the precepts of your fathers: “Therefore it is not lawful to institute new forms of worship without the command of God.” But Ezekiel is speaking of idolatrous fathers; for otherwise the Scripture says, Proverbs 22: Pass not beyond the ancient bounds which thy fathers have set. Likewise, secondly Philip argues: “If it is lawful for men to institute forms of worship, then the forms of worship of all nations will have to be approved, and even those which Jeroboam instituted.” Excellently indeed—as though forsooth it were lawful to establish an unjust law, if it is lawful to establish a new law. Thirdly he adds, from Daniel chapter 11: “It signifies that new human forms of worship shall be the very form of Antichrist. For thus, he says, he shall worship the god Maozim in his place, and a god whom his fathers knew not.” And this is a splendid argument—as though it were the same to worship the true God with a new worship, and to worship a new God, that is, a false and counterfeit God.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XXXII. V x Solvuntur objectiones contra cceremonias. Joannes Calvinus lib. IY Institut. cap. 10. multa objicit contra caeremonias, quae ordi¬ ne refellenda sunt. Primum argumentum, §. 2 : « Apostolus I. Corinth. VII ne una qui¬ dem in re laqueum injicere ausus est; ne¬ que id nulla causa. Prospiciebat enim quan¬ tum vulnus infligeretur conscientiis, si earum necessitas illis imponeretur, quarum relicta esset a Domino libertas. » Respondeo : Agit Apostolus eo loco de continentia virginali ; quam Dominus non imperaverat, sed consuluerat; et sane aequum fuerat, ut Apostolus non faceret praeceptum, quod Dominus consilium esse voluit. At non eadem est ratio aliarum rerum , de quibus Dominus nihil in particulari praescripsit. Illa enim possunt ab Ecclesia vel imperari , vel consuli, prout res ipsae requirunt. Unde idem Apostolus , qui continentiam imperare no¬ luit , multa alia imperavit , et praeterea II. Thessal. ult. sic ait : Quod si quis non obedit verbo nostro per epistolam , hunc notate , et ne commisceamini cum. illo , ut confundatur (I). Et Apostoli Actor. XY, imposuerunt genti¬ bus onus abstinendi a sanguine, etsufTocato, et necessarium id esse dicunt ; et tamen Do¬ minus liberum id reliquerat. Secundum argumentum, §. 8 : « Aposto¬ lus in epistola ad Colos, docet , non esse de vero Dei cultu petendam ab hominibus doc¬ trinam : quia Dominus fideliter nos , et ad plenum instituit, qualiter sit colendus. Quo hoc demonstret; primo capite dicit in Evan- gelio contineri omnem sapientiam, qua pei'- fectus reddatur homo Dei in Christo : initio secundi capitis dicit , omnes thesauros sa¬ pientiae, et scientiae in Christo esse abscondi¬ tos ; inde postea concludit : caveant fideles, ne per inanem philosophiam abducantur a grege Christi secundum constitutiones ho¬ minum. In fine autem capitis majore adhuc fiducia damnat omnes i&slobp/ia xeta? , hoc est fictitios cultus, quos homines sibi ipsis com¬ miniscuntur, vel ab aliis accipiunt, et quse- cumque de cultu Dei tradere praecepta ex se audent, » Respondeo Primum , epistolam illam ad Colossenses , nihil habere contra Ecclesia¬ sticas leges de caeremoniis. Nam ut ex Chrysostomo, Ambrosio, Theodoreto, Theo- phylacto , et OEcumenio constat, scriptu est contra Simonem Magum, et alios ejus temporis haereticos , et impostores , qui persuadebant hominibus, per Angelos quos¬ dam oportere accedere ad summum Deum, nec sufficere Christum; et praeterea obtru¬ debant Christianis caeremonias , partim Ju¬ daicas , partim ethnicas. Hinc igitur in primo capite fuse tractat de excellentia Christi, ac dicit, eum esse caput omnium, et super omnia, et Angelos ab ipso, ut auctore, pendere. Deinde in secundo capite monet, ne decipiantur per Philosophiam, videlicet Platonis et similium , qua uteban¬ tur Simoniani , et Gnostici , et simul arguit eos , quod Sabbata , et neomenias servent, qua; Judaica sunt, et evacuata perChristum; et quod abstinerent a cibis quibusdam , ut immundis : et quod jp religione Angelorum ambularent putantes per eos tantum ascen¬ di posse ad Deum; qua; omnia sunt falsa et superstitiosa. Deinde Respondeo ad singulas propositio¬ nes Calvini. Prima est : « Christus ad ple¬ num nos instruxit de vero Dei cultu. » Res¬ pondeo : id verum esse de instructione ge¬ nerali , non autem de particulari , ut ipse etiam Calvinus fatetur infra, §. 30. ubi agit de geniculatione. Secundo est : « Apostolus docet non esse petendam ab hominibus doctrinam de vero cultu. » Respondeo : docet non esse peten¬ dam ab hominibus , qui contraria Christo doceant ut erant Philosophi, et Simoniani, . sed bene esse petendam ab hominibus , qui super Christum aedificant, et secundum ejus regulam, et doctrinam docent in particula¬ ri, quod ille solum in genere indicavit. Ipse enim ait , Luc. X : Qui vos audit , me au¬ dit (2). Tertia est : « Apostolus damnat omnem cultum humanum , et voluntarium. » Res¬ pondeo : vocari cultum humanum, et volun¬ tarium apud Paulum eum, qui est mere hu¬ manus, et proprio ingenio inventus, id est, qui non est conformis fidei , et principiis doctrinae Christi; quae autem ab Ecclesia do¬ ti) II. Thessal. III, 14. — (2) Luc. X, 16. CAPUT XXXII. 505 centur, non sunt mere humana, cum Deo inspirante instituantur. Unde I. Cor. XIV, posteaquam instituerat Paulus varios ritus in Ecclesia de ordine prophetandi , et le- quendi, et ut mulieres taceant, de quibus Dominus nihil expresse mandaverat, sub¬ jungit Apostolus : Si quis Propheta , aut spiritualis est, cognoscat quae scribo vobis, quia Domini sunt mandata ( 1 ), ubi vocat mandata Domini , quia ejus inspiratione da¬ ta erant , ideo vult a spiritualibus cognosci. Si enim fuissent expressa Domini prsece- pta, non fuisset opus spiritu ad ea cognos¬ cenda. Argumentum Tertium, §. 9 : « Apostolus Galat. V non patitur ullo modo, ut fidelium conscientiae in servitutem redigantur. Non ergo licet instituere caeremonias , quae obli¬ gent in conscientia. » Respondeo : loquitur Paulus de servitute Judaica, qua servierant illi sub antiqua le¬ ge, non autem de quavis obedientia legis. Nam alioqui idem Apostolus, Roman. XIII, docet , obediendum potestati : Non solum propter iram, sed etiam propter conscien tiam (2) . Ubi notandum est , legem veterem dici ju¬ gum servituris , non quia obligabat in con¬ scientia; (id enim est commune omni verae legi) sed quia difficillima, et laboriosissima erat , et non habebat secum annexam gra¬ tiam, qua impleri posset amore justitiae : unde vel non implebatur, vel implebatur ti¬ more poenae, (si qui enim amore justitiae il¬ lam implebant, quales Patriarchas, et Pro¬ phetas, et multos alios fuisse negari non po¬ test; id non ex lege, sed ex gratia novi Tes¬ tamenti habebant) et eo modo premebat , et gravabat more gravissimi jugi. Atque ab hoc jugo deterret Apostolus Galatas. Illi enim cum circumcidi vellent , excidebant a gratia Christi, et simul obligabant se ad om¬ nem legem servandam : quod erat prorsus redire ad statum veteris Testamenti. Itaque Calvinus pessima fide Scripturas tractat, dum eas detorquet a vero sensu ad suam hasresim comprobandam. Argumentum Quartum, §. 10 et 15 : «Do¬ minus Matth. XV ^reprehendit traditiones hominum, et idem facit Isaias XXIX : Frus¬ tra colunt me mandatis hominum. » Respondeo : in hoc paragrapho decimo sunt multa impudentissima mendacia, quae toto sapone Genevensi uumquam elui pos¬ sent : ut, quod Catholici interdicant conju¬ gium , et concedant scorta : quod gravius judicent, se quis die Veneris modico carnis gustu linguam infecerit , quam si omnibus diebus totum corpus scortando foedaverit etc. Ad loca Scripturae , quae etiam passim affe¬ runtur a Philippo, Brentio, Kemnitio et aliis, dico Dominum tria reprehendere solitum in caeremoniis Judaicis. Primo, quod quaedam pugnarent cum mandatis Dei ; ut erant illa Matth. XV et Mare. VII, ut filii donarent Sacerdotibus, quae necessaria fuissent pa¬ rentibus. Secundo, quod multae ex Judaicis traditionibus Pharisaeorum inanes essent, et inutiles prorsus, ut lavare toties manus. At¬ que haec duo genera caeremoniarum Domi¬ nus vocat mandata hominum , quod nihil haberent nisi humanum. Tertio, quod quas¬ dam alias bonas et utiles servarent, sed pec¬ carent in modo, constituentes in eis sum¬ mam religionis , et pluris istas facientes, quam divina mandata; et de his loquitur Dominus Matth. XXIII. nec vocat eas huma¬ nas traditiones, sed dicit : Haec oportuit fa¬ cere, et illa non tfmittere (3). Caeremoniae autem Christianae ab Ecclesia approbatae, non sunt piimi, aut secundi generis : nec adversarii adhuc protulerunt argumenta, sed sola men¬ dacia, ad probandum contrarium. Quod si qui sunt inter Catholicos rudiores, qui plu¬ ris faciant caeremonias, quam graviora man¬ data , eos corrigendos putamus. Non enim probamus, quidquid homines faciunt , alio¬ qui multa peccata approbaremus : sed id, quod facere debent secundum sanam doctri¬ nam Ecclesiae. Quintum argumentum, §. 12 : « Roma¬ nenses partim ex Gentilium deliriis sibi desumpserunt exemplum , partim simiarum more temere imitati sunt veteres Judaicos ritus , qui nihilo magis ad nos pertine¬ bant , quam pecudum victimae. » Respon¬ deo Primum , idem argumentum fecisse olim Manichaeos apud Augustinum ; libro vigesimo contra Faustum, capite quarto, et Vigilantium apud Hieronymum in lib. contra Vigilantium, quod ad Gentilium imi¬ tationem attinet. Itaque agnoscere debet Calvinus, a quibus majoribus descenderit. Secundo dico, si argumentum aliquid vale¬ ret, deberet etiam tolli Baptismus, et Coena Domini; nam etiam Gentiles utebantur Bap¬ tismo, cum initiarent suos Mithrae sacris; et (1) I. C*»r. XIV, 37. — (2) Rom. XIII, 5. — (3) Matth. XXIII, 23. 506 . LIBER II. Sacramentum etiam panis celebrant, ut Ter¬ tullianus refert in lib. da praescriptionibus. Judaei quoque frequentissime utebantur ex¬ piationibus per aquam, nec eis deerant pa¬ nes propositionis. Dico tertio , non debere mirum videri, si nostrae caeremoniae habent aliquam similitudinem cum Judaicis; nam erant illae figurae rerum nostrarum , ut I. Corinth. X legimus. Eadem ratione non de¬ bet esse mirum si interdum nostrae similes sunt ritibus Gentilium. Diabolus enim, qui semper simia Dei esse voluit, imitari cona¬ tus est Judaicos ritus a Deo institutos, ut lo¬ co citato Tertullianus notat, quos rerum no¬ strarum figuras fuisse diximus. Dico quarto, licet in externo symbolo sit aliqua similitu¬ do inter nostros ritus, et ritus Gentilium, et Judaeorum; absolute tamen maximum esse discrimen. Nam a fine, et intentione sumunt externae actiones speciem suam. Ritus Gen¬ tilium fiebant ad cultum Daemoniorum : nos¬ tri fiunt ad colendum verum Deum; ideo tantum interest inter illos et nostros , quan¬ tum inter sacrum et sacrilegium ; quantum inter pietatem et impietatefn ; et quantum inter Deum et Diabolum. Nam etiam sacri¬ ficia erant eadem Gentilium , et Judaeorum, et tamen erant illa idololatrica, ista pia, et religiosa. Et hoc modo respondent Hierony¬ mus Vigilantio , et Augustinus Manichaeis, locis citatis. Ritus autem Judaici boni erant, sed Christum venturum praenuntiantes; no¬ stri item sunt boni, sed ab illis diversi, quia partimsuntin memoriam rerum praeterita¬ rum, partimad significandam gloriam futu¬ ram. Sextum argumentum, §. 13. sumitur ex epistola Augustini 119. capite decimo-nono, qui conqueritur , quod multitudine caere¬ moniarum ita aliqui Ecclesiam oneraverint, ut tolerabilior sit conditio Judaeorum. Res¬ pondeo, Augustinus loquitur de caeremo¬ niis, quas privati homines, et maxime mu¬ liercula? sibi ipsis imponunt. Nam idem Augustinus ibidem loquens de caeremoniis supervacaneis , sic ait : « Omnia talia, quae neque sanctarum Scripturarum auctorita¬ tibus continentur, neque in Conciliis Epi¬ scoporum statuta inveniuntur, neque con¬ suetudine Ecclesiae universae roborata sunt, sed diversorum locorum, diversis moribus innumerabiliter variantur, resecanda exis¬ timo. » Septimum argumentum, §. 14: «Deus hoc discrimen esse voluit inter ros et Ju¬ daeos, quod illos ut pueros docuit per signa sensibilia, nos ut viros, simplicius, sine ta¬ libus signis. Id patet excap.IV Joannis, ubi Dominus ait : Yenit hora, qua veri adora¬ tores in spiritu et veritate adorabunt Pa¬ trem. Et Galat. IV Apostolus comparat Ju¬ daeos parvulis sub paedagogo degentibus. » Idem argumentum facitKemnitius, pag. 166. ubi dicit, umbras et figuras esse proprias Testamenti veteris, nos autem in nova lege luce verbi Dei admoneri, non umbris. Simi¬ lia etiam habet Brentius in confessione Wjr- tembergensi, cap. ult. quod est de caeremo¬ niis. Respondeo : discrimen inter Judaeos et Christianos quod ad caeremonias attinet, duobus modis intelligi posse. Uno, ut illi so¬ las habuerint caeremonias externas, nos au¬ tem solam lucem verbi, et spiritualem ac simplicem veritatem. Et hoc videntur so¬ nare verba adversariorum , ac praesertim Kemnitii, sed id manifeste falsum est. Nam Judaei praeter caeremonias habuerunt etiam lucem verbi; unde est illud Psalm. CXVIII : Lucerna pedibus meis verbum tuum. Nec solum ab eis Deus cultum externum, sed etiam in¬ ternum requirebat. Nam Isai. XXIX Judaeos reprehendit Deus, cum ait : Populus hic la¬ biis me honorat , cor autem eorum longe est a me( 1). Et contra Christiani, praeter lucem verbi habent etiam Sacramenta sensibilia, quae sunt umbrae et figurae rerum praeterita¬ rum et futurarum. Et sicut non repugnant novo Testamento Sacramenta externa et sensibilia, ut notum est; ita non repu¬ gnant alia? caeremoniae. Ecclesia enim Chri¬ stiana, licet versetur in magna luce res¬ pectu synagogae, tamen versatur etiam in umbra respectu coelestis Hierusalem. Nam per fidem, quae obscura est, ambulamus, et non per speciem. Altero modo potest intelligi discrimen illud, quod cultus Judai¬ cus , quatenus Judaicus, id est, veteris Testamenti , erat principaliter externus et corporalis ; cultus Christianus, id est, novi Testamenti , est principaliter internus et spiritualis. Et hoc est verissimum. Nam cultus internus et spiritualis a spiritu fidei et charitatis, procedit , qui spiritus est ipsa gratia novi Testamenti, et ex lege veteri nullo modo haberi potest. Unde Paulus II. Cor. III vetus Testamentum vocat litte— (1) Psal. CXVIII, 105: Isai. XXIX, 13; Matth. XV, 8. CAPUT XXXII. 507 ram, novum vocat spiritum. Et Joannis I illud dicitur lex, hoc gratia. Denique Joan. IV illud In spiritu et veritate , significat (ut exponunt Chrysostomus, Cyrillus, et Euthy- mius) cultum Christianum esse in spiritu, ut opponitur Judaico, qui erat corporalis, et esse in veritate, ut opponitur eidem J«daico, qui in umbris et figuris consistebat. Quam¬ vis non male etiam Theophylactus, et B. Thomas in commentario ejusdem loci illud : In spiritu , opponant Judaico cultui, qui erat corporalis, illud : In veritate , opponant cul¬ tui Samaritanorum, qui erat falsitati et er¬ rori admixtus. Unde paulo ante Dominus dixerat : Neque in monte hoc , id est Garizim, ubi Samaritani adorabant : neque in Hieroso¬ lymis adorabitis Patrem (I), ac si diceret : Non coletis Deum deinceps cultu Samarita¬ norum falso, neque cultu Judaico, praecipue corporali, sed cultu Christiano, qui erit in spiritu et veritate, id est, spiritualis, et pu¬ rus ab omni errore. Est tamen observandum, licet cultus Ju¬ daicus, ut veteris Testamenti, fuerit corpo¬ ralis, tamen non placuisse Deo sine spiri¬ tuali, et ideo Deum ab eis quaesivisse cul¬ tum etiam spiritualem, ut ostendimus ex Isaise XXIX. Sed qui eum praestabant, id non ex veteri Testamento, sed ex novo ha¬ bebant; ad quod jam tunc pertinere incipie¬ bant. Sicut etiam notum est, timorem esse veteris Testamenti proprium, et amorem novi : et tamen Deus a Judaeis petebat , ut ex toto' corde diligerent , et vere id sancti illius temporis praestabant , non ex vi Testamenti veteris , sed ex gratia novi. Pari ratione, licet cultus Christianus sit principaliter spiritualis , tamen sine cor¬ porali esse non potest in hac peregrina¬ tione , et ideo Sacramenta et caeremo¬ nias alias admittit, quae cultui spirituali deserviant. Octavum argumentum, §. 15: «Quid¬ quid commendationis habent opera , id to¬ tum habent obedientiae intuitu , quam solam Deus respicit, ut testatur per Pro¬ phetam. : Non praecepi de sacrificiis et victimis, sed tantum ut audiendo audiatis vocem meam, Jerem. VII et I. Reg. XI. Numquid vult Deus sacrificium , et non potius, ut obediatur voci Domini? Non ergo caeremoniae, quas Deus non instituit, ipsi placere, aut meritoriae esse possunt. » Confirmat ibidem argumentum suum, quia caeremoniae nostraj non solum non sunt meritoriae, sed nec utiles, cum vix ab ullo intelligantur. Respondeo : Antecedens fal¬ sum esse, et contra apertissimas Scriptu¬ ras. Nam Deo placuit sacrificium Abel , Ilebr. XI, quod tamen Deus non impera¬ verat. Et I. Corinth. VII : Qui non nubit, melius facit. Et > ibidem de vidua : Beatior erit, si sic permanserit (2) ; et tamen ibidem asserit non esse praeceptum, non nubere, etiam secundo. Et 1. Corinth. IX contendit sibi fuisse licitum vivere de bonis eorum, quibus praedicabat, et tamen se maluisse vi¬ vere ex proprio labore, ut majorem mor- cedem haberet; id enim significant illa verba : Melius est mihi mori , quam ut glo¬ riam meam quis evacuet (3). Porro Scriptu¬ rae illae anteponunt obedientiam sacrificiis. Sed non ideo licet concludere : Ergo sa¬ crificia non imperata nihil merebantur , modo cum fide et devotione offerrentur ; cum constet ex Scripturis contrarium, ut jam ostendimus. Ad confirmationem Res¬ pondeo, caeremonias Ecclesias facillime in- telligi saltem in genere, ut patet, si quis discurrat per caeremonias a persona, a lo¬ co, a tempore, a rebus sumptas. Quod si aliquae caeremoniae non ab omnibus intel¬ ligantur, ut est multitudo vestium in Mis¬ sa , et signorum , tamen non carent uti¬ litate etiam apud rudissimos, cum sine dubio concilient venerationem rebus sa¬ cris. Certe Judaei parum admodum intelli- gebant, et tamen non frustra eas accepe¬ runt. Nonum argumentum, §. 17 : « An non illa semel Ecclesiae dicta lex aeterna manet? Quod praecipio tibi, hoc observabis, ut fa¬ cias. Non addes quidquam, nec detrahes. Et Proverb. XXX : Non addas ad verbum Domini, neque minuas ex eo, ne te forte arguat, inveniarisque mendax. » Respon¬ deo : Non prohibet Dominus in his locis quamlibet additionem. Nam sive per ver¬ bum intelligantur libri sacri, sive prae¬ cepta moralia, aut judicialia , aut caeremo* nialia, semper inveniemus factam fuisse additionem. Nam post Deuteronomium, ubi habetur illa prohibitio additionis ad verba Domini, scripti sunt omnes alii libri sacri, (1) Joan. IV, 23 et 21. — (2) I. Cor. VII. 38#et 40. — (3) I. Cor. IX, 15. . 508 LIBER II. tum historici, tum prophetales, et totum novum Testamentum. Item multa sunt moralia praecepta in prophetis, et in libris Salomonis, quae videntur addita Penta¬ teucho : et David addidit judiciale prae¬ ceptum , ut aequaliter dividerent praedam in bello, qui pugnabant, et qui sarcinas custodiebant, I. Reg. XXX. Addiderunt etiam posteriores Judaei cneremoniales le¬ ges de novis festis diefifcs , Esther IX, Judith. ultimo et I. Machabaeorum IV. Prohibet igitur Deus additionem corrum¬ pentem ; et idem est : Non addes , ac mi¬ nuas , ac si diceret : Integre et perfecte observa, quod ego praecipio. Id patet ex ratione, quae redditur, Proverbiorum XXX : Ne forte arguat te, et inveniaris mendax (I). Non enim potest dici mendax et falsarius, qui instituit novam caeremoniam , modo illa nihil officiat caeremoniis Dei ; sed ille dicitur mendax et falsarius, qui corrumpit Dei verba aut praecepta. Potest autem duobus modis fieri ista corruptio. Uno modo, si quis ipsis Dei verbis, aut prae¬ ceptis aliquid addat, vel minuat, quo illa corrumpantur; ut si quis in Sacrificiis Christi offerret panem sine vino, aut panem, et vi¬ num, et mei. Alio modo, si quis venditaret pro Dei verbo librum non Canonicum, aut pro Sacramento aliquam caeremoniam a se inventam; aut contra librum vere Canoni¬ cum, aut verum Sacramentum detraheret de numero librorum Sacrorum, aut Sacra¬ mentorum ; quod peccatum haeretici com¬ mittunt, cum multos sacros libros negant esse Canonicos, et quinque Sacramenta tollunt de numero Sacramentorum. Idem videmus in monetarum corruptione : illi enim dicun¬ tur falsarii, qui vel ipsas monetas corrum¬ punt, addendo stannum argento, aut mi¬ nuendo ipsum argentum ; vel qui monetas a se cusas obtrudunt pro moneta Principis. Nihil autem horum invenient in caeremoniis Ecclesiae. Decimum argumentum , §. 23. sumit Calvinus a tribus exemplis divinae Scrip¬ turae, IV. Reg. XVII. Qui incolebant Sa¬ mariam a feris discerpti dicuntur , quod illi novis caeremoniis Deum colerent, quas Deus non instituerat, IV. Reg. XVI. Repre¬ henditur Achaz, quod novum altare posuerit in templo, quod quidem ad ornatum templi videri poterat : « Et tamen videmus , inquit Calvinus, ut spiritus audaciam illam detes- tetur, non alia de causa, nisi quod homi¬ num inventa in Dei cultu, impurae sunt corruptelae. IV. Reg. XXI, Aggravatur, in¬ quit Calvinus, hac circumstantia crimen Manasue, quod altare novum exstruxerit in Hierusalem. Respondeo in his omnibus exemplis more suo Calvinum mala fide uti. Nam IV. Reg. XVII non arguuntur Samaritani illi, quod novis caeremoniis Deum colerent, sed quod initio non timerent Dominum, neque cole¬ rent, quippe Gentiles erant; nec sciebant legem Dei ; deinde autem edocti legem Dei, simul Deum colere incepissent, et sua idola. Et IV. Reg. XVI, Achaz reprehenditur, non quod novum altare in templo exstruxerit, sed quod jusserit fieri in templo Domini al¬ tare novum ad similitudinem altaris idolo¬ rum, quod erat in Damasco, et removerit altare Domini de loco suo, ut in optimo loco constitueret altare illud idololatricum. De¬ nique IV. Reg. XXI, Manassesnon solum no¬ vum altare in templo posuit, sed altare, ubi sacrificaretur idolis. Sic enim Scriptura lo¬ quitur : Exstruxit altaria universae militiae coeli in duobus atriis templi. Et infra : Posuit quoque idolurn luci, quem fecerat in templo Domini (2). Alioqui enim novum altare eri¬ gere in templo Domini, nullum crimen fuis¬ set. Nam III. Reg. VIII, legimus, Salomonem jussisse mediam partem atrii sanctificari ad holocausta offerenda, quoniam altare ae¬ neum, in quo offerri debuissent.- non erat capax tantae multitudinis victimarum : ob¬ tulit enim tum Salomon viginti duo millia boum, et centum viginti millia ovium. At¬ que haec ex Calvino. Simili fide Scripturas tractat Melanchthon. Nam in Apologia Con- fess. Augustanae, articul. decimo - quinto, praeter alia, profert haec argumenta. Primo Ezech. XX : In praeceptis patrum vestrorum nolite incedere : « Ergo non licet instituere novos cultus sine Dei mandato. » At lo¬ quitur Ezechiel de patribus idololatris : nam alioqui Scriptura dicit, Proverb. XXII : Ne transgrediaris terminos, quos posuerunt patres tui (3). Item Secundo argumentatur Philippus : « Si licet hominibus instituere cultus, jam omnium gentium cultus erunt approbandi, et illi etiam quos instituit (1) Prov. XXX, 6. — (2) IV. Reg. XXI, 5 et 7. — (3) Ezech. XX. 18; Prov. XXII. 28. CAPUT XXXII. 509 Jeroboam. » Egregie sane, quasi vero liceat condere legem injustam, si licet condere legem novam. Tertio addit , Daniel. ca¬ pite XI : « Significat novos cultus humanos ipsam formam Antichristi fore. Sic enim, inquit, Deum Maosim in loco suo colet, et Deum, quem non noverunt Patres eorum. » Et hoc praeclarum est argumentum, quasi idem sit colere Deum verum novo cultu, et colere novum Deum, id est, falsum et ficti¬ lium Deum.