Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book V: On the Sacrifice of the Mass (First)
Chapter 2: On the Definition of Sacrifice
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. IV, De Sacramento Eucharistiae, Book V: On the Sacrifice of the Mass (First Book). The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
We have explained the word Mass: now the word sacrifice must be explained, that the state of the controversy may be plainly understood, Whether the Mass is a sacrifice. Moreover in the word Sacrifice there is not to be sought an etymology or some vulgar signification, which are most well known: but what a sacrifice properly is, or what is its nature and definition; for in this matter not a few are deceived.
And first Philip Melanchthon, in the Apology of the Confession, in the article on the Mass, thus defines sacrifice: “A sacrifice is a ceremony or work which we render to God, that we may affect Him with honor.” Then he divides sacrifice into two species, namely into a propitiatory sacrifice and a eucharistic sacrifice. He says that the propitiatory is that which is a satisfaction for sins and appeases God; the eucharistic he will have to be that which does not reconcile man to God, but is a thanksgiving which is exhibited to God by the reconciled for benefits received: in which kind he says are contained faith, the preaching of the Gospel, prayers, chastisements of the flesh, and in brief all good things whence praise arises to God. And from these foundations he gathers that the Mass can be called a sacrifice in this latter way, because the reception of the Eucharist can be done for the praise of God, like other good works, yet is not a sacrifice of the former kind.
From this opinion of Philip the opinion of a certain modern doctor, a man otherwise very erudite and pious, seems not to be far off, who in his book on the sacrifice, chapter 5, teaches that a sacrifice properly so called is every good work which is done that we may cleave to God in holy fellowship, whether of itself it be a work of virtue or not, so that the chastisement of the body undertaken for God's sake is no less properly a sacrifice than the sacrifice of the Eucharist. And the same opinion divides sacrifices properly so called into two species, namely into typical and non-typical. Typical he calls those which are done to signify something else, such as were all the sacrifices of the old law, and such as are all the Sacraments of the new law. Non-typical he calls the works of the virtues, which, although they signify nothing, yet are most pleasing to God.
This opinion is false, and can be refuted by many and clear arguments. First, the sacred Scripture opposes the works of many virtues to sacrifices, as when it says, Hosea 6: I will have mercy, and not sacrifice. And 1 Kings 15: Obedience is better than victims. And Psalm 50: If Thou hadst desired sacrifice, I would indeed have given it: with holocausts Thou wilt not be delighted. A sacrifice to God is an afflicted spirit: a contrite and humbled heart, O God, Thou wilt not despise. But if all the works of the virtues were sacrifices properly so called, certainly the works of obedience, mercy, penance too would properly be sacrifices: therefore those opinions of the Scriptures above cited would not be true. For how does God will mercy and not sacrifice, if mercy itself is a true and properly so-called sacrifice? Or how is obedience better than victims, if obedience itself is truly and properly a victim? And how does God not will sacrifice and holocausts, but a contrite and humbled heart, if this very thing is a most true sacrifice?
The second argument. In every sacrifice properly so called there is required some sensible thing which is offered, nor can a sacrifice consist in an action alone. But if a sacrifice were any ceremony or work done for the honor of God, nothing would hinder a sacrifice from consisting in an action alone; and he who sings with his voice, or bends his knees, or does anything of the kind, would be said properly to sacrifice: therefore a sacrifice is not any ceremony or work done for the honor of God. The major proposition is proved. Genesis 22, Isaac says to his father: Behold fire and wood; where is the victim of the holocaust? Hebrews 8: Every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is necessary that He also should have something to offer. Where the Apostle gathers from the common nature of sacrifices that Christ could not truly be called a High Priest unless He had a victim which He offered.
The third argument. It cannot be denied that to sacrifice is a proper and elicited act of religion, as, besides the Scholastic Doctors, St. Augustine teaches, Book 10 against Faustus, chapter 21. But the same act cannot be the proper and elicited act of diverse virtues: therefore the proper works of mercy, temperance, and the other virtues cannot properly be called sacrifices, but only by a certain participation. For although one and the same act cannot be the proper and elicited act of diverse virtues, yet it can be elicited by one and commanded by another, and in that way properly pertain to one, participatively to the other. Just as to take food soberly is an elicited act of temperance; yet if it be commanded by fortitude, that a man may be more apt for fighting, it will participate fortitude; if by justice, namely that he may have wherewith to pay a pecuniary debt, it will participate justice. So, then, the works of any virtues can be commanded by religion, and participatively be called sacrifices, yet not absolutely and properly, since they are not elicited by religion. And hence it is that in the divine writings the works of virtues are not called absolutely sacrifices, but with an addition, as the sacrifice of praise, spiritual victims, the calves of the lips, and of the rest in the same manner: but those which are properly sacrifices are named such simply and absolutely, as in the passages alleged in the first argument: I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, etc.
The fourth argument. In the Church of Christ there is only one true and proper sacrifice: therefore not all the Sacraments, or all the good works which are done to worship God, are properly sacrifices. The antecedent is St. Augustine's, and of all the holy writers. Book 8 of the City of God, last chapter, Augustine, wishing to prove that those feasts which were placed by some upon the tombs of the Martyrs are not sacrifices, says thus: “That these are not sacrifices of the Martyrs, he knows who knows the one sacrifice of the Christians which is offered to God.” The same too, Book 3 on Baptism against the Donatists, last chapter, and Book 1 against the adversary of the law and the prophets, chapter 20, says that to all the sacrifices of the ancients has succeeded the one and singular sacrifice of the Eucharist: in his book on the spirit and the letter, chapter 11, he calls the sacrifice of the Eucharist most true and singular: and Book 1 against Cresconius, chapter 25, he calls it the only one. St. Leo, sermon 8 on the Passion of the Lord: “Now,” he says, “the variety of carnal sacrifices ceasing, the one oblation of Thy body and blood fulfills all the differences of victims.” St. John Chrysostom too, on Psalm 95: “Great,” he says, “and without measure was the number of sacrifices in the law, all which the new grace, supervening, embraces in one sacrifice, establishing one and the true victim.”
The fifth argument. Sacrifice and priesthood are relatives, so that to a sacrifice properly so called corresponds a priesthood properly so called; and to a sacrifice improperly so called a priesthood improperly so called. But not all who do good works for the honor of God are priests properly so called: therefore not all such works are sacrifices properly so called.
The major proposition is most certain. For the proper office of a priest, as such, is to offer sacrifice, as the Apostle teaches, Hebrews 5, and Justin Martyr in his Dialogue with Trypho beyond the middle, where he says that God does not receive a sacrifice except from priests. Augustine too always joins these two as inseparable, sacrifice and priest. See letter 49, question 3; Book 8 of the City of God, last chapter; and Book 22, chapter 10. This the very words too teach. For in Latin sacerdos and sacrificus are taken for the same. In Greek from thyein, which is to sacrifice, comes thysia, a sacrifice, and thytes, a priest; and from hierein, to sacrifice, hiereion, a sacrifice, and hiereus, a priest. Finally for no other cause do the Lutherans not acknowledge in the Church a true and properly so-called priesthood, than that they do not acknowledge a true and properly so-called sacrifice.
Now the assumption is proved. For in the Old Testament it is most well known that there were no priests properly so called except the sons and grandsons and other descendants of Aaron, as we read was said to king Ozias, wishing to usurp the priesthood, by Azarias the high priest, 2 Paralipomenon 26; and yet all the children of Israel ought to do good works. But in the Church of Christ, whether the Lutherans will or no, none were ever called or held priests properly except Bishops and Presbyters. And these Dionysius the Areopagite calls by this name, Book 1 on the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, chapters 1, 3, and 5; Justin in his Dialogue with Trypho beyond the middle; Tertullian in his book on prescriptions beyond the middle, and on the veiling of virgins beyond the middle; Cyprian, Book 1, letter 4; and all later writers everywhere. The Apostle himself too, Hebrews 5, speaking of the priesthood: No man, he says, taketh the honor to himself, but he that is called by God, as Aaron was: and this is so far true that Paul says in the same place that even Christ Himself did not take the priesthood to Himself of Himself, but received it from the Father. Finally (to pass over many things), the Council of Nicaea, chapter 14, and the Council of Trent, which cannot be rejected by Catholics, session 23, canons 1 and 7, openly teach that in the Church not all, but certain, are priests. Wherefore this necessarily follows, that either the rest of the faithful ought not to do good works, which is most absurd; or not all who do good works are properly priests, which is most true.
The sixth argument. Altar and sacrifice are relatives: but an altar properly so called is not necessary for every good work, nor for all the ceremonies by which we worship God; therefore not every such ceremony or good work is a sacrifice properly so called. The major proposition is clear. For first, both in Hebrew and in Greek sacrifice and altar are derived from the same root. From zabach, he sacrificed, comes zebach, sacrifice, and mizbeach, altar; and from the verb thyein, to sacrifice, comes thysia, sacrifice, and thysiasterion, altar. The Latins preferred to derive the name from the form and rite. For they said altare as it were altum (high), and ara as it were ansa (handle), as Varro interprets, because the priest was wont to hold the altar while he offered the sacrifice. Whence is that of the poet: Praying with such words, and holding the altars. Then in Genesis 8, where we first read an altar erected, we read that it was erected for the sake of sacrifice: and in every nation and religion altars were always erected for sacrifices. And just as sacrifice can rightly be offered to the true God alone, so also an altar can rightly be erected to God alone, as St. Augustine teaches, Book 10 against Faustus, chapter 21. Moreover the assumption of this argument needs no proof. For who does not see that very many good works and many ceremonies can be done for the honor of God without any altar?
It is not true, then, what Melanchthon wrote, that every ceremony or work which we render to God, that we may affect Him with honor, is a sacrifice. Wherefore John Calvin, Book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 18, § 13, without the name of the author, openly reprehends that definition in these words: “By what reason those extend the word sacrifice to all ceremonies and religious actions, I do not see.”
There is one argument on the contrary, and especially of that Catholic Doctor, namely the testimony of St. Augustine, who, Book 10 of the City of God, chapter 6, thus defines sacrifice: “A true sacrifice is every work which is done that we may cleave to God in holy fellowship, referred to that end by which we may be blessed.”
But the answer is easy. For St. Augustine does not define sacrifice in general, nor sacrifice properly so called, but only sacrifice which is chiefly internal, and is opposed to the legal and merely external sacrifices. And he calls it a true sacrifice by reason of its dignity and by reason of its effect, not by reason of the form and essence of a sacrifice properly so called. For he does not mean to say that internal sacrifices are more properly called sacrifices than external ones, since the opposite is true, but that they are more excellent, and more pleasing to God, and more easily appease God. A similar saying is in John 15: I am the true vine. For the Lord in that place did not wish to signify that He is more properly a vine, as regards the form and essence of a vine, than that which is planted in vineyards: but only that He is a nobler vine, and produces more excellent effects, as Euthymius in his commentary on this passage rightly expounds.
Let us now weigh Calvin's definition; for he reprehends others, but neither did he bring forward a better definition. And he speaks thus in the cited place: “We know that by the perpetual usage of Scripture that is called a sacrifice which the Greeks call now thysia, now prosphora, now teletē: which, generally taken, comprises whatever at all is offered to God.” So he: where he openly teaches that sacrifice is the same as an oblation made to God. And then he divides sacrifice into two species, in the way in which Philip did; except that he contends that the non-propitiatory sacrifice can be called not only eucharistic, as Melanchthon called it, but also latreutic and sebastic, that is, a sacrifice of worship and veneration.
But the division being omitted, of which there is no great controversy, the definition certainly brought forward by Calvin cannot be admitted. For although according to the usage of Scripture every sacrifice is a certain oblation, yet not every oblation is a sacrifice. For a sacrifice, besides oblation, requires a change and consumption of the thing which is offered, which a simple oblation does not require.
And this is proved first from the name of sacrifice. For in Hebrew it is called from zabach, which is to slay; and in Greek thysia, either called from thyein, that is, to slay: whence is that of Matthew 22, tauroi kai sitista tethymena, bulls and fatlings slain; or called from the noun thymiasis, that is, exhalation, as Porphyry contends in Eusebius, Book 1 of the Preparation of the Gospel, chapter 6. For he will have it that sacrifices are called from the exhalation and smoke which ascends from the burning of the sacrifice. Whence also Chrysostom and Theophylact on chapter 10 of the epistle to the Hebrews note that there is a difference between thysia and prosphora, that is, sacrifice and oblation, that thysia is said of those things which are slain or otherwise consumed. To which too pertains the word teletē; for that word is called from the verb teleō, which is to consume. From which it is gathered that Calvin did not rightly confound those names: prosphora, which signifies a simple oblation, with thysia and teletē, which add consumption over oblation.
Secondly it is proved from the usage of the Scriptures. For in the Scriptures many things are said to be offered to God which neither according to the usage of divine Scripture, nor according to the common mode of speaking, can be said to be sacrificed. Exodus 25 and 35, gold, silver, brass, wood, precious stones, fine linen, scarlet, goats' hair, and the like are said to be offered to God, which could only most absurdly be said to be sacrificed. Numbers 8, Aaron offers the Levites as a gift to the Lord from the children of Israel, and yet neither does Scripture say that those men were sacrificed, nor can it be said except very improperly, since those men were not slain, but only appointed to the ministry. But on the contrary Isaac was truly and properly said to be sacrificed by his father, when he was led to be slain and burned to the Lord, Genesis 22. And absolutely all things which in Scripture are called sacrifices had necessarily to be destroyed; if living, by slaying; if inanimate solids, as fine flour and salt and incense, by burning; if liquids, as blood, wine, and water, by pouring out, Leviticus 1 and 2.
Nor does the example of Melchisedech stand against these, who was a priest of the most high God, and offered bread and wine: and yet is not read to have consumed that oblation, Genesis 14. For Scripture does not explain the mode of that sacrifice; but from other passages we gather that he sacrificed after the usual manner, so that he consumed that bread and wine for the honor of God. It is established, then, that a sacrifice is not whatever is offered to God, as Calvin says, unless something else be added.
Finally, thirdly, let there be added the arguments drawn from the priesthood and from the altar, which we made a little before against Melanchthon. For oblation, generally taken, requires neither priesthood nor altar: for that evangelical widow truly and properly offered to God two mites, though she was not herself a priest, nor had any altar.
I come now to Martin Kemnitz: he, at the beginning of his disputation on the sacrifice of the Mass, in Part 2 of the Examination of the Council of Trent, page 712 and following, in the first place brings forward the acceptations of this word Sacrifice, which he says are in general three. For first, he will have it taken for an external and ceremonial sacrifice, such as he says was in the Old Testament only; and in this kind he numbers holocausts, peace-offerings, offerings for sin, and finally the sacrifice of profession, as tithes and first-fruits. Secondly, he says it is taken for the death of Christ, which is called the sacrifice of the cross. Thirdly, for the interior, invisible, and spiritual sacrifice of the faithful; and to this kind he reduces the preaching of the Gospel, prayers, alms, praises of God, mortification, and like good works. He adds a little below, page 717, fourthly, an acceptation for the commemorated sacrifice, that is, for that thing which is done in memory of the sacrifice of the cross, although he confesses that this acceptation is not had in the Scriptures. From these he concludes that, on account of such various acceptations of sacrifice, sacrifice in general was well defined by St. Augustine, Book 10 of the City of God, chapters 5 and 6: “Every good work which is done that we may cleave to God in holy fellowship, etc.”
But in this doctrine of Kemnitz there are very many errors. First, tithes and first-fruits are not rightly numbered with the sacrifices of the old law properly so called: for nowhere in Scripture are such tithes and first-fruits called sacrifices, nor does the name or nature of a sacrifice belong to them, as we showed above. Add that a sacrifice can be offered to God alone, as all confess: but tithes were offered, and are offered, immediately to the priests, not to God.
Then, what Kemnitz says, that external and ceremonial sacrifices were only in the old law and have now altogether ceased, fights with what the same Kemnitz says, that every good work done for the honor of God is even at this time a sacrifice. For certainly to confect, give, receive the Sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist are good works done for the honor of God, and yet are external and ceremonial. Nay the same Kemnitz a little below proves in many ways that the consecration and reception of the Eucharist can be called a sacrifice: which nevertheless no one can deny to be external and ceremonial.
Thirdly, it is a wonder why Kemnitz admits the fourth acceptation of sacrifice, since he confesses that it cannot be gathered from the divine writings; but he seems to admit it that he may elude the passages of the Fathers in which the Mass is called a sacrifice. But that acceptation is plainly arbitrary and feigned: for neither Scripture nor the Fathers call that a sacrifice which is only a figure or commemoration of a sacrifice.
Finally, Kemnitz falsely concludes that sacrifice in general is defined by Augustine, Book 10 of the City of God, chapter 6. For so far is it that Augustine wished to define sacrifice in general in that place, that rather he expressly excluded from his definition all the sacrifices of the old law, which were placed in the slaying of sheep and oxen, which most properly retain the name and nature of a sacrifice. Wherefore Kemnitz, neither by dividing nor by defining, could attain what he desired, to explain what a proper sacrifice is.
These things, then, being rejected, the true definition of a sacrifice properly so called in general can be this: “A sacrifice is an external oblation made to God alone, by which, for the acknowledgment of human infirmity and the profession of the divine Majesty, some sensible and permanent thing is by a lawful minister, by a mystic rite, consecrated and transmuted.” This definition had to be a little longer, that it might comprise all the conditions of a sacrifice properly so called.
First, then, we say it is an oblation, to indicate the genus of sacrifice: for in this place we take sacrifice for the action of sacrificing, not for the very victim which is sacrificed, although that too is wont to be called a sacrifice. Sacrifice, then, taken for the action, is a species of oblation: for that is a sacrifice which properly and per se pertains to the action of the priest. Moreover the proper office of a priest is to offer, Hebrews 5: Every high priest taken from among men is appointed for men in the things that appertain to God, that he may offer up gifts, etc. Among the sacred and ecclesiastical writers to offer and to sacrifice are taken for the same. Genesis 4, where first mention is made of sacrifice, Abel is said to have offered of the firstlings of his flock: and Genesis 8, Noe offered holocausts; and in the same way Scripture everywhere speaks. Tertullian among the Fathers, in his book on the veiling of virgins, and in his book on the exhortation to chastity, says that there are three offices of the priests of the new law: to wash, to offer, to teach, that is, to baptize, to sacrifice, to preach. Finally the same is indicated by the name which the Greeks everywhere use when they speak of sacrifice, namely prosphora, that is, oblation, which Calvin too noted, as we saw above.
Secondly we say that it is an external oblation which is a sacrifice. For a twofold oblation, and in a broad way a twofold sacrifice, can be distinguished, as St. Augustine distinguishes, Book 10 of the City of God, chapter 5: invisible, or internal, and visible, or external. The invisible is the pious will which offers itself and all its own to the divine Majesty: but the visible is a certain external testification of the internal affection. Wherefore in the same place Augustine, defining the visible sacrifice, says that it is the Sacrament, that is, the sacred sign, of the invisible sacrifice. But although the invisible oblation is nobler and better than the visible, and the invisible pleases God without the visible, but the visible without the invisible does not please God: yet the name and nature of a sacrifice does not properly belong to the invisible oblation, but only to the visible and external, as we have set down in the definition. For the invisible oblation is always hidden and private; but by the name of sacrifice all properly understand a public and manifest honor exhibited to God by a common and public minister. And so it is necessarily required for a sacrifice properly so called that it be an external oblation.
Thirdly we said in the definition: “Made to God alone.” For an external oblation can be made even to a man, or to a man and God, as when alms are given to the poor for God's sake; for these are offered to men, and at the same time also to God, Christ saying: What you have done to one of these least, you have done to me, Matthew 25. But such oblations are not sacrifices: for a sacrifice properly pertains to the worship of latria, which can be exhibited to God alone. For as there is a certain interior worship which we exhibit to God alone, when we acknowledge Him the first and highest good, the efficient and final cause of all things, and as such most humbly prostrate our heart before Him; so also there had to be some external sign by which we might protest that worship due to God alone. And such a sign is nothing but sacrifice: for every other external reverence which we exhibit to God, whether by baring the head, or bending the knees, or prostrating the whole body, or even by supplicating and invoking, is wont sometimes to be exhibited to men too. Whence Exodus 22 we read: He that sacrificeth to gods shall be put to death, save only to the Lord. Nor does Scripture only teach this, but even by the natural light all the nations acknowledged this same thing: “Who indeed,” says St. Augustine, Book 10 of the City of God, chapter 4, “has thought that sacrifice should be made except to Him whom he either knew, or thought, or feigned to be God?” And Book 1 against the adversary of the law and the prophets, chapter 18: “The demon would not exact a sacrifice for himself, unless he knew it was due to the true God. For the other homage which is exhibited to the divinity, men have dared even out of the pride of arrogance to arrogate to themselves: but very rarely are any recorded who dared, when they could by royal power, to command that sacrifice be made to them. Yet whoever did dare, by this wished to be held for God.”
Fourthly we said: “For the acknowledgment of human infirmity and the profession of the divine Majesty.” Since this is the general end of all sacrifices: for they are as it were tributes which are rendered to God in recognition of His supreme dominion and of our subjection. And this is also the reason whence the action of sacrificing has praise and is a work of virtue. For of themselves the works are indifferent, to slay and burn animals and the like; but when these are done to signify that all things proceed from God and are to be consumed in His honor, then they are works of religion, and therefore good and praiseworthy.
Fifthly we said: “By a lawful minister.” For it is not for everyone to offer sacrifice, but for a public and certain man who performs it in the common name. In the law of nature, indeed, the priests were either the heads of families, as Noe, Abraham, or those to whom God inspired it. But in the written law, only the sons of Aaron. In the law of grace, only Bishops and Presbyters rightly ordained, as all the Councils, and all the Fathers, and the custom of all the Churches teach. And hence are excluded from the nature of a sacrifice properly so called many oblations of private men made to God alone, as when the faithful light and consume candles in the temple for the honor of God.
Sixthly we said: “Some sensible and permanent thing,” namely that there be excluded from the nature of a sacrifice properly so called the transient actions done for the honor of God, such as are the psalmodies, prayers, genuflections, and other things which are done by priests by an external act for the honor of God, and yet are not properly called sacrifices.
Seventhly we said: “By a mystic rite is consecrated.” For that thing which is offered to God ought from profane to become sacred and dedicated to God: for this is what to sacrifice signifies, to make sacred, as St. Thomas rightly warns, 2a2ae, question 85, article 3. And this consecration and dedication was always made in the old law by a certain rite and ceremony containing a mystery, as by the imposition of hands upon the victim, or the elevation of the oblation on high. And in this a sacrifice is distinguished from a simple oblation, which does not of itself require any such mystic consecration.
Eighthly we said: “And is transmuted.” Because for a true sacrifice it is required that that which is offered to God in sacrifice be plainly destroyed, that is, so changed that it ceases to be what it was before: and in this it especially differs from a simple oblation, which sometimes was by a mystic rite elevated before God, but was not destroyed, except when it was truly sacrificed. Of which condition we said more a little above in the refutation of the definition of John Calvin. And the reason of this thing seems to be twofold. One, on account of the signification of the death of Christ. For God, who without doubt first inspired Abel and other holy men with the use of sacrifices, willed by those sacrifices to foreshadow the most excellent sacrifice of all sacrifices: but that consisted in the death and destruction of the thing offered. The other reason is that a sacrifice is the highest protestation of our subjection to God, and the highest external worship which can be exhibited. And that highest protestation requires that not only the use of the thing be offered to God, but the very substance too: and therefore that not only the use, but the substance be consumed.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT II. De sacrificii definitione. Explicuimus vocabulum Missae : nunc ex¬ plicanda est vox sacrificium, ut plane intel- ligatur status controversiae : An Missa sit sa¬ crificium. Porro in voce Sacrificium non est quaerenda etymologia, aut vulgaris aliqua significatio, quae notissima sunt : sed quid proprie sit sacrificium, sive quae sit ejus na¬ tura, et definitio ; in hac enim re non pauci falluntur. Ac primum Philippus Melanchthon in A- pologia Confessionis in articulo de Missa, ita sacrificium definit : « Sacrificium est caere¬ monia vel opus, quod nos Deo reddimus, ut eum honore afficiamus. » Deinde dividit sa¬ crificium in duas species, in sacrificium vi¬ delicet propitiatorium, et sacrificium lu/apt- crrtxov. Propitiatorium esse dicit, quod est sa¬ tisfactio pro peccatis, et Deum placat ; so/a- ptff-rotov esse vult, quod non reconciliat homi¬ nem Deo, sed est gratiarum actio, quae a re¬ conciliatis pro acceptis beneficiis exhibetur Deo : quo genere contineri dicit fidem, prae¬ dicationem Evangelii, orationes, castigatio¬ nes carnis, et breviter omnia bona, unde laus Deo consurgit. Atque ex his fundamen¬ tis colligit Missam posse dici sacrificium hoc modo posteriore, quia sumptio Eucharistiae fieri potest ad laudem Dei, sicut caetera ope¬ ra bona, non tamen esse sacrificium prioris generis. Ab hac Philippi sententia non procul abes¬ se videtur opinio doctoris cujusdam moderni, hominis alioqui valde eruditi, et pii, qui in lib. de sacrificio cap. 5. docet, sacrificium proprie dictum esse omne opus bonum, quod fit, ut sancta societate inhaereamus Deo, sive ex se sit opus virtutis, sive non, ita ut non minus proprie sit sacrificium castigatio cor¬ poris propter Deum assumpta, quam sacrifi¬ cium Eucharistiae. Dividit autem eadem opi¬ nio sacrificia proprie dicta in duas species, in sacrificia videlicet typica, et non typica. Typica vocat, quae fiunt ad aliud significan¬ dum, qualia erant sacrificia omnia veteris legis, et qualia sunt omnia Sacramenta no¬ vae legis. Non typica, vocat opera virtutum, quae tametsi nihil significent, tamen Deo gra¬ tissima sunt. Haec sententia falsa est, ac multis, et per¬ spicuis argumentis refutari potest. Primum, Scriptura sacra opponit opera multarum virtutum sacrificiis, ut cum ait Oseae vi : Mi¬ sericordiam volo , non sacrificium. Et I Re¬ gum xv. Melior est obedientia, quam victimae. Et Psalm. l: Si voluisses sacrificium, dedissem utique , holocaustis non delectaberis. Sacrifi¬ cium Deo spiritus contribulatus, cor contritum, et humiliatum Deus non despicies (1). At si omnia opera virtutum essent sacrificia pro¬ prie dicta, certe etiam obedientiae, miseri¬ cordiae, poenitentiae opera essent proprie sa¬ crificia : non igitur verae essent illae senten¬ tiae Scripturarum supra citatae . Quomodo enim vult Deus misericordiam, et non sa¬ crificium, si ipsa misericordia est verum, ac proprie dictum sacrificium ? aut quomodo melior est obedientia, quam victimae, si ipsa obedientia vere, ac proprie victima est? quemadmodum autem non vult Deus sacri¬ ficium, et holocausta, sed cor contritum et humiliatum, si hoc ipsum est verissimum sacrificium? Secundum argumentum. In omni sacrifi¬ cio proprie dicto requiritur res aliqua sensi¬ bilis, quae offeratur, nec in sola actione sa¬ crificium consistere potest. At si sacrificium esset quaelibet caeremonia, vel opus ad ho¬ norem Dei factum, nihil obstaret quo minus (1) Oseae. VI, 6; I Reg. XV, 22 ; Psal. L, 18. CAPUT II. 301 in sola actione sacrificium consisteret; et qui voce psallit, aut genua flectit, aut aliquid ejusmodi facit, is proprie sacrificare dicere¬ tur : non igitur sacrificium est quaelibet cae¬ remonia, vel opus ad honorem Dei factum. Probatur major propositio. Genes, xxn, Isaac ait patri : Ecce ignis , et ligna , ubi est victima holocausti ? Hebr. viii. : Omnis Pontifex ad of¬ ferendum munera , et hostias constituitur : un¬ de necesse est et hunc habere aliquid , quod of¬ ferat (1). Ubi Apostolus colligit ex ratione communi sacrificiorum, non. potuisse Chri¬ stum vere dici Pontificem, nisi habuisset vi¬ ctimam, quam offerret. Tertium argumentum. Negari non potest, quin sacrificare sit actus proprius, et elicitus religionis, ut praeter Doctores scholasticos docet S. Augustinus lib. xx. contra Faustum cap. 21. Non potest autem idem actus esse proprius, et elicitus diversarum virtutum : igitur opera propria misericordiae, tempe¬ rantiae, aliarumque virtutum non possunt proprie sacrificia dici, sed solum per quam¬ dam participationem. Quamvis enim unus, et idem actus non possit esse proprius, et elicitus diversarum virtutum, potest tamen ab una elici, et ab alia imperari, et eo modo ad unam proprie pertinere, ad alteram par- ticipative. Quemadmodum sobrie cibum su¬ mere, est actus elicitus temperantise ; tamen si imperetur a fortitudine, ut homo sit magis aptus ad pugnandum, participabit fortitudi¬ nem; si a justitia, ut nimirum habeat unde debitum reddat ‘pecuniarium, participabit justitiam. Sic igitur opera quarumlibet vir¬ tutum, possunt imperari a religione, et par- ticipative sacrificia dici, non tamen absolute, et proprie, cum a religione non eliciantur. Atque hinc est, quod in divinis litteris opera virtutum non vocantur absolute sacrificia, sed cum addito, ut sacrificium laudis, hostiae spirituales, vituli labiorum, et de caeteris ad eumdem modum : illa vero, quae sunt pro¬ prie sacrificia, simpliciter, et absolute talia nominantur, ut in lucis allegatis in primo argumento : Misericordiam volo, non sacrifi¬ cium , etc. Quartum argumentum. In Ecclesia Chri¬ sti unum est tantum verum, ac proprium sa¬ crificium : non igitur sunt proprie sacrificia omnia Sacramenta, vel omnia bona opera, quae fiunt ad colendum Deum. Antecedens est S. Augustini, et omnium sanctorum scri¬ ptorum. Lib. viii. de Civitate Dei cap. ult. probare volens Augustinus non esse sacrifi¬ cium epulas illas, quae ponebantur a quibus¬ dam super sepulchra Martyrum, sic ait : « Ea non esse sacrificia Martyrum novit, qui novit unum, quod Deo offertur, sacrificium Christianorum » . Idem quoque lib. m. de Baptismo contra Donatistas cap. ult. et lib. i. contra adversar, legis et prophetarum cap. 20. dicit, omnibus sacrificiis veterum, successisse unicum et singulare Eucharistise sacrificium : libro de spiritu et littera cap. 11. vocat Eucharistia! sacrificium verissi¬ mum, et singulare : et lib. i. contra Cresco- nium cap. 25. unicum appellat. S.Leoserm. 8. de passione Domini : « Nunc, inquit, car¬ nalium sacrificiorum varietate cessante, om¬ nes differentias hostiarum, una corporis, et sanguinis tui impletoblatio ». Sanctus etiam Joannes Ghrysostomus in Psalm. xcv : «Ma¬ gnus, inquit, erat, et sine modo numerus sacrificiorum in lege, quae omnia nova su¬ perveniens gratia uno complectitur sacrifi¬ cio, unam, et veram statuens hostiam. » Quintum argumentum. Sacrificium, et sa¬ cerdotium relativa sunt, ita ut sacrificio pro¬ prie dicto sacerdotium proprie dictum ; et sacrificio improprie dicto sacerdotium im¬ proprie dictum respondeat. At non sunt om¬ nes, qui operantur bona opera ad honorem Dei Sacerdotes proprie dicti : non igitur sunt omnino talia opera sacrificia proprie dicta. Major propositio certissima est. Nam Sa¬ cerdotis, ut talis est, proprium munus est offerre sacrificium, ut Apostolus docet, Hebr. v. et Justinus Martyr in Dialogo cum Tri- phone ultra medium, ubi dicit, Deum non accipere sacrificium nisi a Sacerdotibus. Au¬ gustinus quoque semper conjungit haec duo tamquam inseparabilia, sacrificium, et Sa¬ cerdotem. Vide epist. 49. qusest. 3. lib. viii. de Civitate Dei cap. ultim. et lib. xxn. cap. 10. Id etiam docent ipsa vocabula. Latine enim pro eodem accipiuntur sacerdos, et sa¬ crificus. Graece a Gueiv, quod est sacrificare, fit Gucrta sacrificium, et 6uxr,? Sacerdos, et ab hpyjstv, sacrificare, hpEtov sacrificium, etiepEu? Sacerdos. Denique non alia de causa Luthe- rani non agnoscunt in Ecclesia verum, et proprie dictum sacerdotium, nisi quod non agnoscant verum, et proprie dictum sacrifi¬ cium. (1) Gen. XXII, 7; Hebr. VIII, 3. 302 LIBEll V. Probatur nunc assumptio. Nam in Testa¬ mento veteri notissimum est non fuisse Sa¬ cerdotes proprie dictos, nisi fdios, et nepo¬ tes, atque alios posteros Aaronis, ut regi Oziee sacerdotium usurpare volenti, dictum legimus ab Azaria pontifice, II Paral. xxvi. et tamen omnes filii Israel bona opera face¬ re debebant. In Ecclesia vero Christi, velint nolint Lutherani, nunquam dicti, vel habiti sunt Sacerdotes proprie, nisi Episcopi et Presbyteri. Hos autem hoc nomine appellant Dionysius Areopagita lib. i. de Ecclesiastica hierarchia cap. 1. 3. et 5. Justinus in dialogo cum Triphone ultra medium. Tertullianus lib. de prsescript. ultra medium, et de ve¬ landis virginibus ultra medium. Cyprianus lib. i. epist. 4. et omnes posteriores passim. Ipse etiam Apostolus Hebr. v. de sacerdotio loquens : Nemo , inquit, assumit sibi honorem , nisi qui vocatur a Deo , tamquam Aaron (i) : et hoc usque adeo verum est, ut ipsum etiam Christum dicat ibidem Paulus non sibi per se sacerdotium assumpsisse, sed a Patre illud accepisse. Denique (ut multa praeter¬ eam) Concilium Nicaenum cap. 14. et Triden- tinum quod a Catholicis rejici non potest sess. xxih. can. 1. et 7. aperte docent, in Ecclesia non omnes, sed certos quosdam Sa¬ cerdotes esse. Quare id necessario sequitur, ut aut CEeteri fideles bene operari non de¬ beant, quod est absurdissimum ; aut non sint proprie Sacerdotes omnes, qui bene operan¬ tur, quod est verissimum. Sextum argumentum. Altare, et sacrificium relativa sunt : non est autem altare proprie dictum necessarium propter omne opus bo¬ num, nec propter omnes caeremonias, quibus Deum colimus; non igitur est sacrificium proprie dictum omnis ejusmodi caeremonia, seu opus bonum. Propositio major perspicua est. Nam in primis et hebraice, et graicc ab eadem radice deducitur sacrificium, et alta¬ re. A ny sacrificavit, fit pD'' sacrificium, et PDT2 altare, et a verbo Oue-.v sacrificare, fit Ouctoc, sacrificium, et OuGtaa-rrjptov altare. Latini a forma, et ritu nomen deducere maluerunt. Dixerunt enim altare quasi altum, et aram, quasi ansam, ut Varro interpretatur, quia Sacerdos aram tenere consueverat, dum sa¬ crificium offerret. Unde est illud poetee : Talibus orantem dictis, arasque tenentem. Deinde Genes. 8. ubi primum altare ere¬ ctum legimus, sacrificii causa erectum fuisse legimus : et in omni gente, et religione sem- per altaria ad sacrificia erigebantur. Et sicut sacrificium soli Deo vero rite potest offerri, ita etiam altare soli Deo vere rite potest erigi, ut S. Augustinus docet lib. xx. contra Faustum cap. 21. Porro assumptio hujus argumenti nulla probatione eget. Quis enim non videt plurima bona opera, multasque caeremonias sine ulla ara fieri ad honorem Dei posse? Non igitur verum est, quod Melanchthon scripsit, omnpm caeremoniam, seu opus, quod nos Deo reddimus , ut eum honore afficia¬ mus, esse sacrificium. Quare Joannes Calvi¬ nus lib. iv. Instit. cap. 18. § 13. sine nomine auctoris, eam definitionem aperte reprehen¬ dit his verhis : « Qui sacrificii vocabulum ad omnes caeremonias, et religiosas actiones ex¬ tendunt, qua ratione id faciant, non video. » Unum est argumentum in contrarium, ac praesertim Catholici illius Doctoris, testimo¬ nium videlicet S. Augustini, qui lib. x. Civit, cap. 6. sic definit sacrificium : « Sacrificium, inquit, verum, est omne opus, quod agitur, ut sancta societate inhaereatur Deo, relatum ad illud finem, quo beati esse possimus. » Sed facilis est responsio. Nam S. Augusti¬ nus non definit sacrificium in genere, nec sacrificium proprie dictum, sed solum sacri¬ ficium, quod praecipue est internum, et op¬ ponitur sacrificiis legalibus, et mere externis. Et vocat sacrificium verum ratione dignita¬ tis , et ratione effectus , non ratione formae, et essentiae sacrificii proprie dicti. Non enim vult dicere sacrificia interna esse magis pro¬ prie dicta sacrificia, quam externa, cum op¬ positum sit verum, sed esse preestantiora, et Deo gratiora, et facilius Deum placare. Si¬ milis sententia est Joan. xv : Ego sum vitis vera. Nec enim Dominus eo loco significare volebat se magis proprie esse vitem, quod attinet ad formam, et essentiam vitis, quam sit illa, quse plantatur in vineis : sed solum esse vitem nobiliorem, et effectus excellen¬ tiores producere, ut Euthymius in commen¬ tario hujus loci recte exponit. Expendamus nunc Calvini definitionem ; reprehendit enim alios, sed nec ipse melio¬ rem definitionem attulit. Sic autem loquitur loco citato : « Nos perpetuo Scriptur® usu sacrificium appellari scimus, quod Grceci nunc Qutriav, nunc irpoGcaopav, nunc TsXexviv di¬ cunt : quod generaliter acceptum complecti- (1) Hebr. V, 4. CAPUT II. 303 tgr quidquid omnino Deo offertur. » Haec ille : ubi aperto docet idem esse sacrificium quod oblationem Deo factam. Ac deinde partitur sacrificium in duas species, ad eum modum, quo Philippus fecit ; nisi quod sacri¬ ficium non propitiatorium, contendit vocari posse non solum u^aptiti xov, ut Melanchton vocabat, sed etiam Xarpsu-nxov, et csSacmxov, id est, sacrificium cultus, et venerationis. Sed omissa partitione, de qua non magna controversia est, definitio certe a Calvino allata admitti non potest. Nam licet secun¬ dum Scripturae usum, omne sacrificium obla¬ tio quaedam sit, non tamen omnis oblatio est sacrificium. Sacrificium enim praeter 'obla¬ tionem requirit mutationem, et consumptio¬ nem rei, quae offertur, quam non requirit simplex oblatio. Id vero probatur primum ex nomine sacri¬ ficii. Nam Hebraice dicitur a fijjn quod est mactare ; et Graece Quolx, vel dicitur a 0usiv, id est mactare : unde est illud Mattii. XXII. Taupot.xai GiTtara Ts6up.lv a, tauri, et altilia occisa ; vel dicitur a nomine Ouutacn?, id est, exhalatio, ut Porphyrius contendit apud Eu- sebium lib. 1. praeparat. Evang. cap. 6. Yult enim sacrificia dicta esse ab exhalatione, et fumo, qui ex combustione sacrificii ascen¬ dit. Unde etiam Ghrysostomus, et Theophi- lactus in cap. x. epist. ad Hebr. notant, dif¬ ferentiam esse inter Ouctav et irpocrcpopiv, id est, sacrificium, et oblationem, quod Quora, dica¬ tur de rebus illis, quae occiduntur, vel aliter consumuntur. Quo etiam pertinet, vox teastt), dicitur enim ea vox a verbo tsXIw, quod est consumo. Ex quibus colligitur, non recte Cal¬ vinum confudisse illa nomina : Tpoaaopav, quae significat simplicem oblationem, Oucfiav ac tsXst/jV, quae addunt consumptionem su¬ pra oblationem. Secundo, probatur ex usu Scripturarum. Nam in Scripturis multa dicuntur Dei offerri, quae nec secundum usum Scripturae divinae, nec juxta communem loquendi modum dici possunt sacrificari. Exodi xxv. et xxxv. offe¬ renda Deo dicuntur aurum, argentum, aes, ligna, lapides pretiosi, byssus, coccus, pili caprarum, et similia, quae nonnisi absurdis¬ sime sacrificari dici possent. Numeri vm. Aaron offert Levitas in munus Domino a filiis Israel, et tamen nec Scriptura dicit, homines illos sacrificatos fuisse, nec dici potest, nisi valde improprie , cum homines illi non sint occisi, sed solum ad ministerium deputati. Contra vero Isaac vere, et proprie sacrifi¬ candus dicebatur a patre, quando occiden¬ dus, et cremandus Domino ducebatur. Ge¬ nes. xxii. Et omnia omnino, quae in Scriptura dicuntur sacrificia , necessario destruenda erant; si viventia, per occisionem; si inani¬ ma solida, ut simila, et sal, et thus, per com¬ bustionem; si liquida, ut sanguis, vinum, et aqua, per effusionem, Levit. 1. et 11. Neque his repugnat exemplum Melchise- dechi, qui erat Sacerdos Dei altissimi, et obtulit panem et vinum : nec tamen legitur illam oblationem consumpsisse, Genes, xiv. Nam Scriptura non explicat modum illius sacrificii ; sed ex aliis locis colligimus eum more solito sacrificasse, ita ut panem illum, et vinum ad honorem Dei consumpserit. Constat igitur sacrificium non esse quidquid offertur Deo, ut Calvinus dicit, nisi aliquid aliud addatur. Denique tertio, accedant argumenta ducta a sacerdotio, et ab altari, quae paulo ante fecimus adversus Melanchtonem. Nam obla¬ tio generatim sumpta, nec sacerdotium, nec altare requirit : vere enim ac proprie obtulit Deo vidua illa evangelica duo aera minuta, cum nec sacerdos ipsa esset, nec altare ul¬ lum haberet. Venio nunc ad Martinum Kemnitium : is initio disputationis de sacrificio Missae in 2. par. Exam. Tridentini Concilii pag. 712. et seq. primo loco adfert acceptiones hujus vocis, Sacrificium, quas in genere tres esse dicit. Primo enim, accipi vult pro sacrificio externo, et caeremoniali, quale dicit fuisse in solo Testamento veteris ; et in hoc genere numerat holocausta, hostias pacificas, ho¬ stias pro peccato, et denique sacrificium pro¬ fessionis, ut decimas, et primitias. Secundo, accipi dicit pro morte Christi, quae dicitur sacrificium crucis. Tertio, pro sacrificio inte¬ riore, invisibili, et spirituali fidelium ; atque ad hoc genus reducit praedicationem Evan- gelii, orationes, eleemosynas, laudes Dei, mortificationem, et similia opera bona. Addit paulo infra pag. 717. Quarto, acceptionem pro sacrificio commemorato, id est, pro ea re, quae fit in memoriam sacrificii crucis, quamvis fateatur non haberi in Scripturis hanc acceptionem. Ex his concludit ob tam varias acceptiones sacrificii, bene definitum esse sacrificium in genere a S. Augustino, lib. x. de Civitate Dei cap. o. et 6. « Omne opus bonum, quod agitur, ut sancta societate inhaeremus Deo, etc. » Sed in hac doctrina Kemnitii plurima sun 304 LIBER V. errata.’Primum, non recte numerantur deci¬ mae, et primitiae cum sacrificiis, veteris legis proprie dictis : nusquam enim in Scriptura dicuntur sacrificia, ejusmodi decimae, et pri¬ mitiae, nec eis nomen, aut ratio sacrificii convenit, ut supra ostendimus. Adde, quod sacrificium soli Deo offerri potest, ut omnes fatentur : decimae autem immediate Sacer¬ dotibus offerebantur, et offeruntur, non Deo. Deinde, quod Kemnitius dicit, sacrificia externa et caeremonialia fuisse solum in lege veteri, et jam omnino desiisse, pugnat cum eo, quod idem Kemnitius dicit, omne opus bonum faictum ad Dei honorem esse etiam hoc tempore sacrificium. Nam certe Bapti¬ smi, et Eucharistiae Sacramenta conficere, dare, sumere, sunt opera bona, facta ad Dei honorem, et tamen sunt externa, et caere¬ monialia. Imo idem Kemnitius paulo infra multis modis probat Eucharistiae consecra¬ tionem , et sumptionem dici posse sacrifi¬ cium : quam tamen externam, et Cceremo- nialem esse nemo negare potest. Tertio, mirum est, cur admittat Kemnitius quartam sacrificii acceptionem , cum eam fateatur non posse colligi ex divinis litteris, sed videtur eam admittere, ut possit eludere loca Patrum, in quibus Missa dicitur sacrifi¬ cium. Gaeterum ea acceptio plane arbitraria, et conficta est : nam nec Scriptura, nec Pa¬ tres sacrificium appellant, id quod est solum figura, vel commemoratio sacrificii. Denique, falso concludit Kemnitius ab Au¬ gustino definiri sacrificium in genere lib. x. civit, cap. 6. Tantum enim abest, ut Augu¬ stinus definire voluerit eo loco sacrificium in genere, ut potius expresse excluserit a sua definitione omnia sacrificia veteris legis, quae in mactatione ovium, et boum sita erant, quse propriissime sacrificii nomen, et ratio¬ nem retinent. Quare Kemnitius, neque divi¬ dendo, neque definiendo id assequi potuit, quod cupiebat, ut quid sit proprium sacrifi¬ cium explicaret. His ergo rejectis, vera definitio sacrificii proprie dicti in gem*re hsec esse potest : « Sacrificio est oblatio externa facta soli Deo, qua ad agnitionem humanse infirmitatis, et professionem divinse Majestatis a legitimo ministro res aliqua sensibilis, et permanens ritu mystico consecratur et transmutatur. » Hsec definitio paulo longior esse debuit, ut (1) Hebr. VIII, 3. omnes conditiones sacrificii proprie dicti complecteretur. Primo igitur dicimus esse oblationem, ut genus sacrificii indicaremus : hoc enim loco sacrificium accipimus pro actione sacrifi¬ candi ; non pro ipsa victima, quse sacrifica¬ tur, tametsi ipsa etiam sacrificium dici solet. Sacrificium igitur pro actione acceptum, spe¬ cies est oblationis : id enim est sacrificium, quod proprie et per se ad actionem Sacer¬ dotis pertinet. Porro Sacerdotis proprium munus est offerre, Heb. v : Omnis Pontifex ex hominibus assumptus pro hominibus consti¬ tuitur, in his , quse sunt ad Deum , ut offerat dona, etc. (1). Apud sacros, et ecclesiasti¬ cos scriptores pro eodem accipitur offerre et sacrificare. Genes, iv. ubi primum fit mentio sacrificii, dicitur Abel obtulisse de primoge¬ nitis gregis sui : et Genes, vm, Noe obtulit holocausta ; et eodem modo Scriptura pas- sim loquitur. Tertullianus inter patres in lib. de velandis virginibus, et in lib. de exhorta¬ tione castitatis, dicit tria esse munera Sacer¬ dotum novae legis : tingere, offerre, docere, id est , baptizare , sacrificare, concionari. Denique idem indicat nomen, quo passim utuntur Graeci, cum de sacrificio loquuntur, nimirum Ttpoa^opa, id est, oblatio, quod etiam Calvinus notavit, ut supra vidimus. Secundo dicimus, externam oblationem esse sacrificium. Duplex enim oblatio , et largo modo, duplex sacrificium distingui potest, iit S. Augustinus distinguit lib. x. de Civ. Dei cap. 3. invisibile, sive internum, et visibile, sive externum. Invisibile est pia voluntas, quae divinae Majestati, se, et sua omnia offert : visibile autem est testificatio quaedam externa interni affectus. Quare ibi¬ dem Augustinus definiens visibile sacrifi¬ cium, invisibilis sacrificii Sacramentum, id est, sacrum signum esse dicit. Quamvis au¬ tem invisibilis oblatio sit nobi ior, et melior visibili, et placeat Deo invisibilis sine visi¬ bili, visibilis sine invisibili Deo non placeat: tamen nomen, et ratio sacrificii proprie non convenit invisibili oblationi, sed solum visi¬ bili, et externae, ut nos in definitione posui¬ mus. Oblatio enim invisibilis, semper est occulta, et privata ; nomine autem sacrificii proprie omnes intelligunt publicum, et ma¬ nifestum honorem Deo exhibitum a commu¬ ni, et publico ministro. Itaque necessario / CAPUT II. requiritur ad sacrificium proprie dictum, ut .sit oblatio externa. Tertio diximus in definitione : « Facta soli Deo. » Nam oblatio externa potest fieri etiam homini, vel homini, et Deo, ut cum dantur eleemosyna? pauperibus propter Deum ; illa? enim offeruntur hominibus, ct simul etiam Deo, dicente Christo : Quod uni ex minimis istis fecistis, mihi fecistis (1), Mattii, xxv. Sed non sunt sacrificia ejusmodi oblationes : sa¬ crificium enim proprie pertinet ad cultum latriae, qui soli Deo exhiberi potest. Ut enim est interior quidam cultus, quem soli Deo exhibemus, cum cum agnoscimus primum et summum bonum, causam efficientem, et finalem omnium rerum, et ut tali cor no¬ strum illi demississime prosternimus; sic etiam debuit esse externum aliquod signum quo protestaremur cultum istum soli Deo debitum. Tale autem signum non est, nisi sacrificium : nam omnis alia externa reve¬ rentia, quam exhibemus Deo, sive caput nudando, sive genua flectendo, sive corpus totum prosternendo, sive etiam supplicando, ct invocando, solet etiam hominibus ali¬ quando exhiberi. Unde Exod. xxn. legimus: Qui sacrificat Diis , occidetur , prxterquam Domino soli (2). Neque id solum Scriptura docet, sed etiam idipsum naturali lumine omnes Gentes agnoverunt : « Quis vero, in¬ quit, S. Augustinus lib. x. de Civ. Deicap. 4, Sacrificandum censuit, nisi ei, quem Deum, aut scivit, aut putavit, aut finxit. » Et lib. i. contra advers. leg. et prophet. cap. 18 : « Daemon sibi sacrificium non exigeret, nisi Deo vero deberi sciret. Nam obsequia ca?- tera, qua? divinitati exhibentur, ausi sunt sibi etiam superbia? fastu homines arroga¬ re : rarissimi autem commemorantur, qui sibi ut sacrificaretur, cum regia potestate possent, ausi fuerint imperare. Quicumque tamen ausi sunt, per hoc se Deus haberi vo¬ luerunt. » Quarto diximus : « Ad agnitionem huma¬ na? infirmitatis, et possessionem divina? Ma¬ jestatis. » Quoniam hic est finis generalis omnium sacrificiorum : sunt enim quasi tri¬ buta, qua? Deo redduntur in recognitionem supremi dominii ipsius, ct nostra? subjectio¬ nis. Et ha?c est etiam ratio, unde laudem habet, et est opus virtutis actio sacrificandi. Nam ex se opera indifferentia sunt occidere, et cremare animalia, ct similia ; sed cum illa (t) Matth. XXV, 40. - (2) Exod. XXII, 20. Tom. IV. 303 fiunt ad significandum, omnia a Deo proce¬ dere, et in ipsius honorem consumenda esse ; jam sunt opera religionis, et proinde bona, et laudabilia. Quinto diximus : « A legitimo ministro », Non enim est cujusquc offerre sacrificium, sed publici, ct certi hominis, qui communi nomine id peragat. In lege quidem natura?. Suder dotes erant, vel capita familiarum, ut Noe, Abraham, vel ii, quibus Deus id inspi¬ rabat. In lege autem scripta, soli filii Aaron. In lege gratia?, soli Episcopi, et Presbyteri rite ordinati, ut omnia Concilia, et omnes Pa¬ tres, et omnium Ecclesiarum consuetudo do¬ cet. Atque hinc excluduntur a ratione sacri¬ ficii proprie dicti multa? oblationes privato¬ rum hominum, facta? soli Deo ut cum fideles candelas accendunt, ct consumunt in templo ad honorem Dei. Sexto diximus : « Ites aliqua sensibilis, et permanens», ut nimirum excludantur a ra¬ tione sacrificii proprie dicti, actiones trans¬ euntes, in honorem Dei facta?, quales sunt psalmodia?, preces, gcnuflexiones, et alia qua? fiunt a Sacerdotibus actu externo ad ho - norem Dei ct tamen sacrificia proprie non dicuntur. Septimo diximus : «Ritu mystico conse¬ cratur». Nam debet res illa, qua? Deo offer¬ tur, ex profana fieri sacra, «'t Deo dicata : id enim significat sacrificare, sacrum facere, ut S. Thomas recte monet in 2. 2. quaest. lxxxv. art. 3. Ista autem consecratio, et dedicatio semper fiebat in lege veteri certo ritu, ct cferemonia mysterium continente, ut impositione manuum super viet imam, vel ele¬ vatione oblationis in altum. Et in hoc distin¬ guitur sacrificium a simplici oblatione, qua? non requirit ex se ullam ejusmodi mysticam consecrationem. Octavo diximus: «Et transmutatur». Quia ad verum sacrificium requiritur, ut id, quod offertur Deo in sacrificium, plane destruatur, id est, ita mutetur, ut desinat esse id, quod ante erat : ct in hoc maxime differta simpli¬ ci oblatione, qua? interdum ritu mystico ele¬ vabatur coram Deo, sed non destruebatur, nisi quando vere sacrificabatur. De qua con¬ ditione plura diximus paulo superius in refu¬ tatione definitionis Joannis Calvini. Ratio au¬ tem hujus rei duplex esso videtur. Una oh significationem mortis Christi. Deus enim, qui primus sine dubio inspiravit Abeli, et 20 30G LIBER V. aliis sanctis viris usum sacrificiorum, voluit per ca sacrificia sacrificium omnium sacrifi¬ ciorum prsestantissimum adumbrari : illud autem morte, et destructione rei oblata? con¬ stabat. Altera ratio est, quia, sacrificium est summa protestatio subjectionis nostra? ad Deum, et summus cultus externus, qui exhi¬ beri possit. Summa autem ista protestatio requirit, ut non solum usus rei Deo offera¬ tur, sed ipsa etiam substantia : et ideo non solum usus, sed substantia consumatur.