Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book V: On the Sacrifice of the Mass (First)
Chapter 7: The Sacrifice of the Mass Is Proved from the Figure of the Paschal Lamb
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).
The second testimony for the sacrifice of the Mass is taken from the book of Exodus, chapter 12, and like passages, where the paschal lamb is treated. And the argument is this: The celebration of the paschal lamb was an express figure of the celebration of the Eucharist. But that immolation was a certain victim offered to God; therefore the celebration of the Eucharist ought to be the immolation of a victim offered to God, that the figure may answer to the thing figured. But because some, as Kemnitz, deny the proposition, and some the assumption, both must be proved, and then the arguments of Kemnitz resolved by which he tries to weaken this reasoning.
That the celebration of the paschal lamb was a figure of the celebration of the Eucharist is proved first from the Scriptures, 1 Corinthians 5: For Christ our Pasch is sacrificed: therefore let us feast in the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. From this passage we can certainly establish that the paschal Lamb, which is also called the Pasch in the Gospel, was a figure of the immolation of Christ: but when it was fulfilled cannot be so certainly established from this passage alone.
For the adversaries will say that the Apostle speaks of the immolation made on the cross, and of the spiritual eating which is done by faith. But we shall prove from the Gospel that that figure was properly fulfilled in the institution and celebration of the Eucharist. For first it is established from the Gospel that the Apostles before the Passion of Christ ate the flesh of Christ in the last Supper, and therefore ate the true paschal Lamb, to whose feast the Apostle exhorts us when he says: Therefore let us feast in the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. But the feast follows the immolation: for first the lamb is immolated, afterward eaten, not the contrary, first eaten and afterward immolated. The immolation of Christ, therefore, ought to precede that eating of the supper which the Apostles made before the Lord's Passion; the Passion, then, is not the immolation of which Paul speaks, but the consecration and oblation of the Eucharist too is the immolation figured by the immolation of the paschal Lamb.
Moreover, as is established from the same Gospel, the Lord after the ceremony of the paschal Lamb immediately subjoined the celebration of the Eucharist; nor did He defer it to another time or place, that He might openly show that by this new ceremony He was putting an end to the old ceremony.
Then, if we consider the circumstances of each celebration, we shall see no figure more manifestly fulfilled by Christ than this one. The paschal Lamb had to be immolated on the 14th day of the first month at evening, Exodus 12, and this circumstance was supremely necessary, as could be proved from many passages of Scripture: the Eucharist Christ instituted at this very time, as is known. Secondly, the lamb was immolated in memory of the passing-over of the Lord and the liberation of the people from Egypt: and the Eucharist is celebrated in memory of the passing of the Lord through His passion from this world to the Father, and of our liberation from the power of Satan, which was made by the very death of Christ. Thirdly, the lamb was immolated to be eaten, and to be as it were the viaticum of pilgrims; for therefore it was eaten by the Jews bearing the habit of pilgrims, with staves and shoes, etc. And what is the Eucharist but the refreshment and viaticum of those journeying to the true and heavenly country? Fourthly, the lamb could be eaten only by the circumcised and clean, and in Jerusalem; so the Eucharist cannot be received except by the baptized and clean, and by those existing within the Catholic Church.
To these things: if Christ did not fulfill that figure in the institution of the Eucharist, let the adversaries say when He fulfilled it: for since, by the testimony of Paul, it was a figure, it necessarily had to be fulfilled.
They will say perhaps that that figure was fulfilled by Christ either when He Himself ate the paschal Lamb, or certainly when He was crucified: for nothing else occurs which could plausibly be said.
But that first is defended by no reason. For when the Lord ate the paschal Lamb, He observed the law, which He always did while He lived on earth; He did not fulfill the figure. Since to fulfill a figure is not to do that very thing which the law prescribes, but to substitute for it something else more excellent, to signify which that figure preceded; just as He did not fulfill the figure of circumcision when He received circumcision, but when He substituted Baptism for it. Whence by Paul, Colossians 2, Baptism is called the circumcision of Christ not made by hand.
But that other, about the Passion of the Lord, is indeed something, but not such as to suffice. For the immolation of the paschal Lamb can indeed be called a figure of the Passion of Christ. For if that lamb is a figure of the Eucharist, and the Eucharist is a representation of the Passion, who denies that that lamb too was a figure and representation of the Passion? Wherefore in John 19 we see the Evangelist render the cause why the legs of Christ in the Passion were not broken, because it is written of the paschal Lamb, You shall not break a bone of it; yet more immediately and principally the ceremony of the paschal Lamb was a figure of the Eucharist than of the Passion, as is clear from the circumstances a little before explained. For the Passion did not fall on the 14th day, nor at evening, but at midday of the 15th day. Nor was Christ crucified in memory of any passing-over or liberation. Nor was He crucified to be eaten, nor was there then anyone who ate Him so immolated. Nor in a house, or in Jerusalem, but outside the gate in an open field was He immolated. Finally, not only the baptized and clean, but also others can and ought to eat Christ, as immolated on the cross, by faith: for faith precedes both Baptism and justification.
Now it is proved from the common consent of the Fathers that the paschal Lamb was a figure of the Eucharist. Tertullian, Book 4 against Marcion, not far from the end, expounds of the Eucharist that of Luke 22: With desire I have desired to eat this Pasch with you. “Professing,” he says, “that He had with desire desired to eat the Pasch as His own (for it were unworthy that God should desire anything alien), He made the bread He had taken His own body, etc.” And a little before he had said that Christ did not desire the mutton of the Jews, when He said that He desired to eat the Pasch. Wherefore Tertullian by Pasch understands the Eucharist, not the paschal Lamb: but he would not understand by Pasch the Eucharist, unless he believed the Eucharist to be figured by that paschal lamb.
Cyprian, in his book on the unity of the Church, proves that the Eucharist cannot be usefully eaten outside the Church, because it is written of the paschal Lamb: “In one house shall it be eaten.” And in the sermon on the Lord's Supper: “The supper being arranged, amid the sacramental feasts the ancient and the new institutions met each other: and the lamb being consumed, which the ancient tradition set forth, the Master sets before the disciples the food that cannot be consumed.”
Ambrose, on chapter 1 of Luke: “When,” he says, “we sacrifice, Christ is present, Christ is immolated; for Christ our Pasch is sacrificed.”
Gregory Nazianzen, oration 2 on the Pasch, expounding the ceremonies of the paschal Lamb, says that God commanded the lamb to be immolated at evening because Christ at evening delivered to the disciples the Sacrament of His body.
Gaudentius, treatise 2 on Exodus, expounds the whole celebration of the lamb of the Eucharist: “In the shadow of that legal Pasch,” he says, “not one lamb was slain, but many. For single lambs were slain through the houses, for one could not suffice for all.” And below: “The same, immolated, refreshes through the several houses of the churches in the mystery of bread and wine, believed, gives life; consecrated, sanctifies those who consecrate; here is the flesh of the Lamb, here is the blood.”
Jerome, on chapter 26 of Matthew: “After,” he says, “the typical Pasch had been fulfilled, and He had eaten the flesh of the lamb with the Apostles, He takes bread, which strengthens the heart of man, and passes to the true Sacrament of the Pasch.”
John Chrysostom, in his homily on the betrayal of Judas: “At that same table,” he says, “each Pasch, of the type and of the truth, was celebrated.” And below: “There was indeed once a Jewish Pasch, but it was taken away and emptied by the coming of the spiritual Pasch, which Christ delivered. For when they were eating and drinking, He took bread, and broke it, and said: This is my body, etc.” And homily 83 on Matthew, speaking of the institution of the Sacrament: “He joined the truth to the figure.” And a little after: “If the figure freed from bondage, much more will the truth deliver the whole world.”
Augustine, Book 2 against the letters of Petilian, chapter 37: “One thing,” he says, “is the Pasch which they celebrate of a sheep, another that which we receive in the body and blood of the Lord.”
Leo, sermon 7 on the Passion of the Lord, speaking of the Pasch: “That therefore,” he says, “the shadows might yield to the body, and the images cease under the presence of the truth, the ancient observance is taken away by the new Sacrament, host passes into host, blood excludes blood, and the legal festivity, while it is changed, is fulfilled.” And below, speaking of the institution of the Sacrament: “He was consummating the Old Testament, and founding the new Pasch. For, the disciples reclining with Him, etc.”
Hesychius, Book 2 on Leviticus, chapter 8: “First,” he says, “the Lord, supping with the Apostles on the figured sheep, afterward offered His own sacrifice.” See also Book 6, chapter 23. Procopius of Gaza, on chapter 12 of Exodus, has the same.
Gregory, homily 22 on the Gospels, expounds the whole ceremony of the paschal Lamb accommodately to the Eucharist: “What the blood of the lamb is,” he says, “you have learned now not by hearing, but by drinking, etc.”
Bede, on chapter 22 of Luke, and from him Anselm on chapter 26 of Matthew: “The solemnities of the old Phase being finished, which were performed in commemoration of the ancient liberation of the people of God from Egypt, He passes to the new, which He wished the Church to frequent in memory of His own redemption, namely that in place of the flesh and blood of the lamb He might institute the Sacrament of His own body and blood.”
Rupert, Book 2 on Exodus, chapter 11: “At length on the fourteenth day at evening, when He had eaten that lamb of the old Pasch with His disciples, then He Himself, the lamb of the new sacrifice, presently to be seized and led to be immolated, already agonizing in the anguish of the Passion, first with His own hands immolated Himself to God the Father, taking bread and wine, and by a wondrous and ineffable power of sanctification transferring these into the Sacrament of His body and blood.”
From these, then, the proposition of our argument seems sufficiently confirmed. But the assumption, that the celebration of the paschal Lamb was a certain sacrifice, will be proved with still less trouble. For we read, Exodus 12: Immolate the Phase. And below: It is the victim of the passage of the Lord. Numbers 9: Behold there were certain men unclean by occasion of the soul of a man, who could not keep the Phase on that day, and coming to Moses and Aaron they said: We are unclean by occasion of the soul of a man; why are we defrauded, that we may not be able to offer the oblation to the Lord in its season among the children of Israel? And below: If any man be clean, and was not on a journey, and yet did not keep the Phase, that soul shall be cut off from among his people, because he offered not the sacrifice to the Lord in its season. From these we have that the paschal Lamb was truly and properly a sacrifice, since it is called both victim and sacrifice in the Scriptures absolutely; and moreover that it had to be offered to the Lord by immolation, which is proper to a true sacrifice.
Add that the Gospel speaks in the same way, Mark 14: And on the first day of unleavened bread, when they sacrificed the Pasch.
Finally, what clearer than the words of Paul, 1 Corinthians 5: Christ our Pasch is sacrificed? For they will not deny that the Passion of Christ was a true sacrifice. But why would Paul call the sacrifice of Christ the immolation of the Pasch, if the immolation of the paschal Lamb had not been a true sacrifice? Nor does it stand in the way that it was offered not by priests alone, but by many who were not priests. For this sacrifice was instituted before the family of Aaron was determined to the priesthood, and therefore, as regards this sacrifice, the ancient privilege remained, that all heads of families exercised the priesthood. See Philo, Book 1 on the life of Moses.
But now let us see what Kemnitz objects against this our argument, in Part 2 of the Examination, pages 758 and 759. First, he objects the testimony of Augustine, in his book on the unity of the Church, against the letters of Petilian, chapter 16: “Let them not gather and commemorate those things which are said obscurely, ambiguously, or figuratively, which each interprets as he wills according to his own sense: for such things cannot be rightly understood and expounded unless first those which are set down most openly be held by firm faith. But bring forward something which needs no interpreter, nor whence you may be convicted that it was said of another matter, and you try to wrest it to another thing according to your own sense.” And chapter 19: “These are mystical, they are open, they are figured; we demand something manifest which needs no interpreter.” Likewise: “But if, being ambiguously set down, they can be interpreted both for us and for you, they help your cause nothing at all, but plainly such things sustain a bad cause by making delays.”
I answer: Figured testimonies of Scripture, because they can be expounded in various ways, do not make faith, unless from another passage of Scripture it be certainly established how they are to be taken. And Scripture is wont to explain a figure in three ways. First, when it immediately and in particular expounds in proper words what had been said figuratively. Hence from the parables of the Lord about the good and bad fishes in the same nets, and about the sheep and goats in the same fold, and others like, the Catholics convicted the Donatists denying that there are good and bad in the Church: because the Lord Himself explained the parables, applying them to the Church, Matthew 13 and 25. On which matter see Augustine in the short summary of the collation of the third day. Secondly, when Scripture does not immediately explain a figure, yet approves the explanation of the Church, since it gives most open testimony to it that it is the pillar and ground of truth, 1 Timothy 3. Augustine, Book 1 against Cresconius, chapter 33, and everywhere else, delivers this form of arguing. Thirdly, when Scripture teaches that in certain words a figure is contained to be fulfilled in Christ or by Christ: and then by manifest reason we gather at what time and place it was fulfilled, although Scripture did not explain it. For since it is established that something is a figure, at the same time it is established that it had to be fulfilled: and therefore if we can by reasoning conclude either that it was fulfilled at such a time and place, or absolutely that it was not fulfilled, we most firmly demonstrate what we will.
Our argument, then, from the figure of the paschal Lamb, and the explanation of that figure, has testimony from Scripture in the second and third way. For first we brought forward the consent of the ancient Fathers, Greek and Latin, which is the consent of that Church which both we and the adversaries do not doubt to be the true Church, and therefore, according to the Apostle, the pillar and ground of truth. Then Scripture testifies that this is a figure to be fulfilled in Christ, as we showed from the same Paul, 1 Corinthians 5. And we from the manifest circumstances concluded by evident reason that it was fulfilled either never, or in the last Supper in the institution of the Sacrament.
Moreover Augustine, in the passages cited by Kemnitz, speaks of those figures whose explanation has no testimony from Scripture; and therefore he always adds that they are obscure, covered, needing an interpreter, and can be wrested at will into various senses. For he does not simply reject an argument from figures, but from obscure figures, and those not yet explained either in another passage of Scripture or by the Church. For otherwise in that very book on the unity of the Church, chapter 13, Augustine proves that the Church consists of good and bad, from the parables of the cockle, and of the good and bad fishes, and like figured expressions. He rejects, then, only the argument from those figures whose interpretation is uncertain; such was that from the Canticles, Where thou liest in the midday, which the Donatists always boasted, to prove that the Church is in Africa alone; against whom Augustine rightly objects that of Psalm 47, The sides of the north, the city of the great King; and like passages equally obscure.
Add that Augustine in that book therefore asks of the Donatists most open testimonies of Scripture, and does not willingly admit obscure ones, because he himself had for himself most open testimonies. For the question was about the place of the Church, whether it was Africa alone or the whole world. And because there are very many testimonies which without any obscurity teach that the Church would be in the whole world, Augustine deservedly requires from the adversary like testimonies: for the open and proper ought not to yield to the obscure and figured. But in other more obscure questions, such as at that time was the question of Baptism, Augustine does not appeal to open testimonies of Scripture, but to the authority of the Church, which cannot err in explaining Scripture, as is clear from the cited place against Cresconius. Wherefore if Kemnitz thinks his cause similar to the cause of Augustine, let him bring forward an open testimony of Scripture which needs no interpreter, where we read that the celebration of the Eucharist is not a sacrifice, and then he can rightly with Augustine reject the arguments from figures.
Secondly, Kemnitz objects that from the figure of the paschal Lamb many absurdities follow, if it is to be applied to the Eucharist. For first the figure will not answer to the thing figured, since the immolation of the paschal Lamb was bloody, but the Eucharist is unbloody. Then the paschal Lamb was immolated not by priests, as the Eucharist, but by the multitude. And finally the sacrifice of the paschal Lamb was not propitiatory for sin, as we say the Eucharist is, but was done in memory of the liberation from Egypt.
I answer: The Eucharist was figured not by the paschal Lamb alone, but also by the sacrifice of Melchisedech, and by the Manna, and by other things in the Old Testament: therefore not all the things which were done in the paschal Lamb pertain to the figure of the Eucharist, but only those which do not fight with the fulfillment of the other figures. And so from the figure of the paschal Lamb we have in the Eucharist the true flesh and blood of Christ the immaculate Lamb: but in an unbloody manner, and under the species of bread and wine, that the other figure of the sacrifice of Melchisedech offered in bread and wine may have place. And so the oblation and eating of the lamb pertain to the figure of the Eucharist, but the manner of bloody slaying does not pertain to this figure, because it would fight with the figure of the sacrifice of Melchisedech; just as, on the contrary, the form or external species of bread and wine in the sacrifice of Melchisedech pertains to the figure of the Eucharist, but the interior substance of bread and wine does not pertain to this figure, because it would fight with the figure of the paschal Lamb, which requires the true substance of flesh in the thing figured, lest the thing figured be viler than its figure. And that that manner of bloody slaying does not hinder the paschal Lamb from being a figure of the Eucharist is clear from Augustine, Book 17 of the City of God, chapter 20, and Book 1 against the adversary of the law and the prophets, chapter 18, and Leo, sermon 8 on the Passion of the Lord, who teaches that all the sacrifices of the old law, however bloody, were figures of the sacrifice of the Eucharist.
Now as to the other absurdity, there is no difficulty. For what is said in Scripture, that the paschal Lamb had to be immolated by the whole multitude of the children of Israel, is not so understood as if each of the people had to immolate a lamb; but that it had to be immolated in the several houses and families, the head of the family properly and per se immolating, the rest immolating through him, and by will and participation consenting to the sacrifice. Which too is observed in the Church concerning the Eucharist: for the presbyters, who in the family of Christ are the fathers, properly and per se immolate, but the people immolate through them, and at the same time by will and participation consent to the sacrifice.
Finally the third absurdity which Kemnitz brought forward is of no weight. For the sacrifice of the Eucharist, as we said, was foreshadowed not by the paschal Lamb alone, but by many other types. And indeed the paschal Lamb was a type of the Eucharist, not as a propitiatory sacrifice, but as a commemorative one of the liberation, and as properly eucharistic: but the sacrifices which very many were made in the law for sin were types and figures of the same Eucharist as a propitiatory sacrifice.
Thirdly Kemnitz objects that the paschal Lamb bore a figure of the Lord's Passion, which he laboriously tries to prove from the Scriptures and even from the Ecclesiastical testimony itself, drawn from the preface of the Mass.
But the argument was already resolved before. For the paschal Lamb was a type of both things, both of the Passion and of the Eucharist; nay, it could not be a type of the Eucharist without being also of the Passion, since the Eucharist is a representation and commemoration of the Passion. Nor is this proper to the paschal Lamb, but common to all the sacrifices of the old law, that they were at once figures both of the Lord's Passion and of the Eucharist.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT VII Probatur sacrificium Missx ex figura agni paschalis. Alterum testimonium pro sacrificio Missa) sumitur ex lib. Exod. cap. xii et similibus locis, ubi agitur de agno paschali. Est autem hoc argumentum : Celebratio agni paschalis figura erat expicssa celebrationis Euchari¬ stia) . Sed [illa immolatio qmedam erat vi¬ ctima) Deo oblata) ; ergo celebratio Euchari¬ stia) immolatio victima) Deo oblata) .esse debet, ut figura figurato respondeat. Quia vero aliqui, ut Kemnitius, negant propositio¬ nem, aliqui assumptionem : utraque pro¬ banda erit, ac deinde argumenta Kemnitii diluenda, quibus hanc rationem infirmare conatur. Quod igitur celebratio agni paschalis fuerit figura celebrationis Eucharistia), pro¬ batur primo ex Scripturis, I Corinth . v. Etenim Pascha nostrum immolatus est Chri¬ stus : itaque epulemur in azymis sinceritatis , et veritatis (1). Ex hoc loco certo constituere (1)1 Cor. V, 7 et 8. CAPUT VII. 321 possumus, Agnum Paschalem, qui et Pascha dicitur in Evangelio, figuram immolationis Christi luisse : quando autem fuerit impleta, non ita certo ex hoc solo loco constitui pot¬ est. Dicent enim adversarii, Apostolum loqui de immolatione in cruce lacta, et de mandu¬ catione spirituali, qua: fit per fidem. Sed nos ex Evangelio probabimus figuram illam pro¬ prie impletam fuisse in institutione, ct cele¬ bratione Eucharistiae. Nam in primis ex Evangelio constat, Apostolos ante Christi passionem manducasse carnem Christi in no¬ vissima ccena, et proinde manducasse verum Agnum Paschalem, ad cujus epulas nos hor¬ tatur Apostolus, cum ait: Itaque epulemur in azymis sinceritatis , et veritatis. Sed epulum sequitur immolationem : prius enim agnus immolatur, postea comeditur, non e contra¬ rio, prius comeditur, et postea immolatur. Debuit ergo praecedere immolatio Christi il¬ lam manducationem corna:, quam fecerunt Apostoli ante passionem Domini ; non ergo passio est immolatio de qua loquitur Paulus, sed etiam consecratio, et oblatio Euchari¬ stia: est immolatio per Agni Paschalis immo¬ lationem figurata. Praeterea, ut ex eodem Evangelio constat, Dominus post caeremoniam Agni Paschalis continuo subjunxit celebrationem Eucha¬ ristia: ; neque distulit in aliud tempus, aut locum , ut aperte ostenderet se nova ista caeremonia finem imponere caeremoniae ve¬ teri. Deinde, si consideremus circumstantias utriusque celebrationis, videbimus nullam fi¬ guram a Christo manifestius impletam, quam istam. Agnus Paschalis 14 die primi mensis ad vesperam immolari debuit, Exod. xii. et fuit haec circumstantia summe necessaria, ut ex inultis locis Scripturae probari posset : Eu¬ charistiam Christus instituit hoc ipso tem¬ pore, ut notum est. Secundo, agnus inmiQlai- batur in memoriam transitus Domini, et liberationis populi de zEgypto : et Eucha¬ ristia celebratur in memoriam transitus Do¬ mini per passionem ex hoc inundo ad Pa¬ trem , ct nostrae liberationis de potestate Satanae, quae per ipsam Christi mortem lacta est. Tertio , agnus immolabatur , ut manducaretur, ct esset quasi viaticum pe¬ regrinorum ; nam ideo manducabatur a Judaeis, habitum peregrinornm pree se fe- (l)Exod. XII, 46; Num, IX, 12: Joan. XIX, 36. Tom. IV. rentibus cum baculis, et calceis etc. Et Eu¬ charistia quid est aliud , nisi refectio , et viaticum peregrinantium ad veram ac coe¬ lestem patriam ? Quarto, agnus non poterat manducari, nisi a circumcisis et mundis, et in Hierusalem; ita Eucharistia non potest suini, nisi a baptizatis et mundis, et intra Ecclesiam Catholicam existentibus. Ad htec, si non implevit Christus eam figuram in institutione Eucharistia:, dicant adversarii, quando eam impleverit : nam cum, teste Paulo, figura fuerit, debuit neces¬ sario impleri. Dicent fortasse impletam eam figuram a Christo, vel quando ipse manducavit Agnum Paschalem, vel certe quando fuit crucifixus : nec enim aliud occurrit, quod verisimiliter dici possit. At illud primum, nulla ratione defenditur. Cum enim Dominus Agnum Paschalem man¬ ducavit, legem observavit, quod semper fa¬ ciebat dum in terris viveret, non figuram implevit. Siquidem implero figuram, non est illud ipsum, quod lex praescribit agere, sed aliquid aliud ei substituere excellentius , ad quod significandum figura illa praecesserit ; quemadmodum figuram circumcisionis non implevit cum circumcisionem accepit , sed cum Baptismum ei substituit. Unde a Paulo Coloss. ii. Baptismus vocatur Circumcisio Christi non manufacta. Illud autem alterum de passione Domini, est quidem aliquid, sed non ejusmodi, ut sufficiat. Nam immolatio Agni Paschalis pot¬ est quidem dici figura passionis Christi. Nam si agnus ille figura est Eucharistico, et Eucharistia est repraesentatio passionis, quis neget etiam agnum illum, fuisse figuram, et repraesentationem passionis? Quare Joan. xix. videmus EvangelisLam reddere causam, cur non fuerunt Christi crura in passione confracta, quia scriptum est de Agno Pa¬ schali : Os non comminuetis ex eo (1) ; tamen magnis immediate, et principaliter caere¬ monia Agni Paschalis figura fuit Eucharistico, quam passionis, ut patet ex circumstantiis paulo ante explicatis. Passio enim non in¬ cidit in diem 14. nec in vesperam , sed in meridiem diei 13. Neque fuit Christus cru¬ cifixus in memoriam transitus alicujus, aut liberationis. Neque crucifigebatur ut man¬ ducaretur, nec fuit ullus tunc, qui eum sic immolatum manducaverit. Neque in domo, 21 322 LIBER V. aut; Hierusalem, sed extra portam in aperto campo immolatus fuit. Denique non solum baptizati et mundi, sed etiam alii possunt ac debent Christum, ut in cruce immolatum, fide manducare : fides enim praecedit et Baptismum, et justificationem. Probatur nunc ex Patrum communi con¬ sensu, Agnum Paschalem Eucharistiae fi¬ guram fuisse. Tertullianus lib. iv. in Mar- cionem non procul a fine, exponit de Eu¬ charistia illud Lucae xxn. : Desiderio deside¬ ravi hoc Pascha manducare vobiscum (f). (i Professus, inquit, se concupiscentia con- cupisse edere pascha, ut suum (indignum enim ut quid alienum concupisceret Deus) acceptum panem, corpus suum fecit etc. » Et paulo ante dixerat, Christum non con- cupisse vervecinam Judaeorum, cum ait se desiderasse edere Pascha. Quare Tertullianus de Pascha intelligit Eucharistiam, non Ag¬ num Paschalem : non autem per Pascha Eucharistiam intclligeret, nisi Eucharistiam esse crederet per agnum illum paschalem figuratam. . Cyprianus lib. de unit. Eccles. probat non posse extra Ecclesiam manducari utiliter Eucharistiam , quia scriptum est de Agno Paschali : « In domo una comedetur. » Et serim de ccena Domini : ci Ccena, inquit, dis¬ posita inter sacramentales epulas obviave¬ runt sibi instituta antiqua, et nova : et con¬ sumpto agno, quem antiqua traditio propo¬ nebat , inconsumptibilem cibum Magister apponit discipulis. » Ambrosius in cap. i. Luca} : « Quando, inquit, sacrificamus, Christus adest, Christus immolatur ; etenim Pascha nostrum immo¬ latus est Christus. » Gregorius Nazianzenus orat. 2. de Pascha, exponens Cceremonias Agni Paschalis, dicit imperasse Deum, ut ad vesperam agnus im¬ molaretur, quia Christus ad vesperam Sa¬ cramentum corporis sui discipulis tradidit. Gaudentius tract. 2. in Exodum, totam celebrationem agni de Eucharistia exponit : « In umbra, inquit, illius legalis Paschce, non unus agnus occidebatur, sed plures. Singuli enim occidebantur per domos, nam sufficere unus non poterat universis. » Et infra : (t Idem per singulas Ecclesiarum domos in mysterio panis et vini reficit immolatus, vi¬ vificat creditus ; consecrantes sanctificat con¬ secratus, Inoe agni caro, hic sanguis est. » Hieronymus in cap. xxvi. Matth. : a Post¬ quam, inquit, typicum Pascha fuerat imple¬ tum, et agni carnes cum Apostolis comederat : assumit panem, qui confortat cor hominis, et ad verum Pascha} transgreditur Sacramen¬ tum. » Joannes Chrysostomus homil. de prodi¬ tione Juda) : « In ipsa mensa , inquit , utrumque Pascha, et typi, et veritatis cele¬ bratum est. » Et infra : « Fuit quidem ali¬ quando Pascha Judaicum, sed exemptum, et evacuatum est Paschae spiritalis adventu , quod Christus tradidit. Nam cum manduca¬ rent, et biberent, accepit panem, et fregit, et dixit: Hoc est corpus meum etc. » Et homil. 83. in Matth. de institutione Sacramenti lo- quens : « Yeritatem, inquit, figura) adjunxit. » Et paulo post : « Si figura a servitute libe¬ ravit, multo magis veritas orbem terrarum vindicabit. ». Augustinus lib. ii. contra litteras Petii, c. 37. « Aliud, inquit, est Pascha quod illi de ove celebrant, aliud quod nos in corpore, et sanguine Domini accipimus. » Leo serm. 7. de passione Domini, de Pa¬ scha loquens : « Ut ergo, inquit, umbrte ce¬ derent corpori, et cessarent imagines sub praesentia veritatis ; antiqua observantia novo tollitur Sacramento, hostia in hostiam trans¬ it, sanguinem sanguis excludit, et legalis festivitas dum mutatur, impletur. » Et infra de Sacramenti institutione loquens : « Vetus, inquit, Testamentum consumabat, et novum Pascha condebat. Discumbentibus enim se- cum discipulis etc. » Isichius lib. ii. in Leviticum , cap. 8 : a Prius, inquit, figuratam ovem cum Apo- tolis ccenans Dominus, postea suum obtulit sacrificium. » Vide etiam lib. vi. c. 23. Pro- copius Gazffius in cap. 12. Exodi , idem habet. Gregorius homil. 22. in Evangelia, totam camemoniam Agni Paschalis exponit accom¬ modate ad Eucharistiam : « Quid, inquit, sit sanguis agni non jam audiendo, sed bibendo didicistis etc. » Beda in cap. xxii. Luca}, et ex illo Ansel- mus in c. 26. Matth. « Finitis, inquit, veteris Phase solemniis, quse in commemoratione antiqua; de ^Egypto liberationis populi Dei agebantur, transit ad novum, quod in sua} redemptionis memoriam Ecclesiam frequen¬ tare volebat, ut scilicet pro carne agni, ac ; (I) Luc. XXII, 15. CAPUT VII. 323 sanguine, sui corporis, sanguinisque Sacra¬ mentum institueret. » Rupertus lib. ii. in Exodum , cap. Ii. a Tandem, inquit, quarta decima die ad ve¬ speram , ubi illum veteris Paschse agnum comedit cum discipulis suis, tunc ipse novi sacrificii agnus continuo capiendus, et do¬ cendus ad immolandum , jam in angustia passionis agonizans, prius propriis manibus Deo Patri semetipsum immolavit, accipiens panem, et vinum, et mira, atque ineffabili sanctificationis potentia transferens heec in corporis sui, et sanguinis Sacramentum. » Ex his igitur propositio nostri argumenti satis confirmata videtur. Assumptio vero , celebrationem Agni Paschalis, sacrificium quoddam fuisse, minori adhuc negotio com¬ probabitur. Nam legimus Exodi xii : Immo¬ late Phase. Et infra : Victima transitus Do¬ mini est. Num. ix. : Ecce, inquit, quidam im¬ mundi super anima hominis , qui non poterant facere Phase, in die illo accedentes ad Moysem , et Aaron dixerunt : Immundi sumus super anima hominis , quare fraudamur, ut non va¬ leamus oblationem offeime Domino in tempore suo inter filios Israel ? Et infra : Si quis mundus est, et in itinere non fuit, et tamen non fecit Phase, exterminabitur anima illa de po¬ pulis suis , quia sacrificium domino non obtulit tempore suo (1). Ex his habemus Agnum Pas¬ chalem vere, et proprie sacrificium fuisse , cum et victima, et sacrificium in Scripturis absolute dicatur; et preeterea offerri Domi¬ no per immolationem, quod est veri sacri¬ ficii proprium, debuerit. Adde, quod eodem modo loquitur Evan- gelium, Mare. xiv. : Et primo die azymorum , quando Pascha immolabant (2). Denique, quid clarius verbis Pauli I Co- rinth. v. : Pascha nostrum immolatus est Chri¬ stus ? (3) Neque enim negabunt Christi pas¬ sionem verum sacrificium fuisse. Cur autem Paulus sacrificium Christi Paschae immo¬ lationem appellaret, si non fuisset verum sacrificium Agni Paschalis immolatio? Neque obstat, quod non offerebatur a solis Sacer¬ dotibus, sed a multis non Sacerdotibus. Nam hoc sacrificium fuit institutum, antequam familia Aaron determinaretur ad sacerdo¬ tium, et ideo quantum ad hoc sacrificium, mansit antiquum privilegium, ut omnes pa- tresfamilias sacerdotio fungerentur. Vide Philonem lib. i. de vita Moysis. Sed jam videamus, quid Kemnifcius contra hoc nostrum argumentum objiciat in secunda parte Examinis, pag. 758. et 759. Primo, objicit testimonium Augustini, libro de uni¬ tate Ecclesia;, contra litteras Petiliam, cap. 16. « Non ea colligant, et commemorent, qua; obscure, ambigue, vel figurate dicta sunt, qua; quisque sicut voluerit, interpre¬ tetur secundum sensum suum : talia enim recte intelligi, exponique non possunt, nisi prius ea, quae apertissime posita sunt, firma fide teneantur. Sed aliquid proferte, quod non egeat interprete, nec unde convinca¬ mini, quod de alia re dictum sit, et vos aliud ad vestrum sensum detorquere conemini. » Et cap. 19. « Haec mystica sunt, aperta sunt, . figurata sunt ; aliquid manifestum, quod in¬ terprete non egeat flagitamus. » Item : <( Quod si ambigue posita et pro nobis, et pro vobis possunt interpretari, nihil utique adjuvant causam vestram, sed plane talia malam causam, vel moras faciendo susten¬ tant. » Respondeo : Testimonia Scripturee figu¬ rata, quia possunt variis modis exponi, non faciunt fidem , nisi ex alio loco Scriptura; certo constet , quemadmodum sint acci¬ pienda. Scriptura autem tribus modis solet figuram aliquam explicare. Primo quando immediate, et in particulari exponit propriis verbis, quod figurate dictum erat. Hinc ex parabolis Domini de piscibus bonis, et malis in iisdem retibus ; et de ovibus, et hcedis in eodem ovili, et aliis similibus, Catholici con¬ vicerunt Donatistas negantes in Ecclesia esse bonos, et malos : quia Dominus ipse para¬ bolas explicuit, applicans eas ad Ecclesiam Matthaei xm. et xxv. De qua re vide Au¬ gustinum in breviculo collationis tertia; diei. Secundo , quando Scriptura immediate fi¬ guram non explicat, tamen approbat Eccle¬ siae explicationem, dum ei apertissimis ver¬ bis testimonium perhibet, quod sit columna, et firmamentum veritatis, I Timot. m. Au¬ gustinus lib. i. contra Crescon. cap. 33. et alibi passim tradit hanc formam argumen¬ tandi. Tertio quando Scriptura docet, in verbis quibusdam figuram in Christo, vel a Christo implendam contineri : et deinde ma¬ nifesta ratione colligimus , quo tempore, et loco fuerit impleta, licet Scriptura id non explicaverit. Nam cum constat aliquam esse figuram, simul constat impleri debuisse: (1) Exod. XII, 21 et 27: Num. IX, u et 13. - (2) Mare. XIV, 12. - (3) I Cor. V, 7, LIBER V. proinde si possimus ratiocinando concludere, aut tali tempore, et loco fuisse impletam, aut absolute non fuisse impletam, firmissime quod volumus demonstramus. Nostrum igitur argumentum ex figura Agid Paschalis, et ejusdem figurae explicatio habet testimonium a Scriptura secundo et tertio modo. Nam in primis protulimus con¬ sensum veterum Patrum Graecorum, et La¬ tinorum, qui est consensus ejus Ecclesiae, quam et nos, et adversarii veram Ecclesiam esse, et proinde juxta Apostolum columnam et firmamentum veritatis esse non dubita¬ mus. Deinde , Scriptura testatur illam esse figuram in Christo implendam, ut ex eodem Paulo ostendimus, I Corinth. v. Et nos ex manifestis circumstantiis evidenti ratione conclusimus, aut nunquam, aut in novissima coma in institutione Sacramenti fuisse im¬ pletam. Porro Augustinus in locis a Kemnitio ci¬ tatis, loquitur de figuris illis, quarum expli¬ catio nullum habet a Scriptura testimonium; et ideo semper adjungit esse obscuras, oper¬ tas, interprete indigpntes, et quai possint pro arbitrio in varios sensus detorqueri. Non enim simpliciter rejicit argumentum ex figu¬ ris sed ex figuris obscuris, et nondum expli¬ catis, vel in alio Scripturae loco, vel ab Eccle¬ sia. Nam alioqui in ipso libro eodem de uni¬ tate Ecclesiae, cap. 13. probat Augustinus Ec¬ clesiam constare ex bonis, et malis, ex para¬ bolis zizaniorum, et bonorum ac malorum piscium, et similibus figuratis locutionibus. Solum igitur rejicit argumentum ab illis fi¬ guris , quarum est incerta interpretatio ; quale illud erat ex Canticis : Ubi cubas in meridie, quod semper Dona^istac jactabant , ut probarent in sola Africa esse Ecclesiam ; quibus Augustinus recte objicit illud Psalm. xlvii : Latera Aquilonis civitas Regis mag¬ ia (1) ; et similia eeque obscura. Adde, quod Augustinus in eo libro, ideo petit a Donatistis testimonia Scriptura!, aper¬ tissima, nec libentur admittit obscura, quia habebat ipse pro se apertissima testimonia. Nam agebatur de loco Ecclesia!, an esset Africa sola, an totus orbis terrdrum. Et quia sunt plurima testimonia, qmc sine ulla ob¬ scuritate docent, Ecclesiam in toto orbe ter¬ rarum esse futuram ; merito Augustinus re¬ quirit ab adversario similia testimonia : non enim debent aperta et propria, obscuris et figuratis cedere. At in aliis quaestionibus obscurioribus, qualis fuit eo tempore quaestio de Baptismo, Augustinus non provocat ad aperta Scripturae testimonia, sed ad Eccle¬ siae auctoritatem, quae non potest errare in Scriptura explicanda, ut patet ex loco citato contra Cresconium. Quare si Kemnitius putat, causam suam similem esse causae Au¬ gustini, proferat apertum testimonium Scri¬ pturae, quod non egeat interprete, ubi le¬ gamus Eucharistiae celebrationem non esse sacrificium , et tum jure poterit cum Au¬ gustino rejicere argumenta ex figuris. Secundo, Kemnitius objicit, ex figuras Agni Paschalis multa sequi absurba, si ea ad Eucharistiam applicanda sit. Nam in pri¬ mis non respondebit figura figurato, cum immolatio Agni Paschalis cruenta fuerit ; Eucharistia sit incruenta. Deinde Agnus Pa¬ schalis non a Sacerdotibus, ut Eucharistia, sed a multitudine immolabatur. Et denique sacrificium Agni Paschalis non erat propi- tiatiorum pro peccato, ut nos Eucharistiam esse dicimus, sed in memoriam fiebat libe¬ rationis de ASgypto. Respondeo: Eucharistia non a solo Agno Paschali, sed etiam a sacrificio Melchiscdech et a Manna, et ab aliis rebus in testamento veteri figurata fuit: ideo non omnia, queo in Agno Paschali fiebant, ad figuram Euchari¬ stia! pertinent, sed illa tantum, quai non pug¬ nant cum implctione aliarum figurarum . Itaque ex figura Agni Paschalis habemus iu Eucharistia veram carnem et sanguinem Christi Agni immaculati : sed modo incru¬ ento, et in specie panis et vini, ut locum ha¬ beat alia figura sacrificii Melchiscdech iu pane et vino oblati. Atque ita oblatio, et manducatio agni, ad figuram Eucharistia! pertinet , modus cruenta! mactationis , ad hanc figuram non pertinet, quia pugnaret cum figura sacrificii Melchiscdech, sicut e contrario forma seu species externa panis et vini in sacrificio Melchiscdech, ad figuram Eucharistia! pertinet : substantia panis et vini interior ad hanc figuram non pertinet, quia pugnaret cum figura Agni Paschalis, qua! veram carnis substantiam requirit in figurato, ne sit figuratum sua figura vilius. Quod autem modus ille cruentai mactationis non impediat, quo minus Agnus Paschalis figura fuerit Eucharistia), patet ex Augusti- tino lib. xvii. civit, cap. 20. et lib. i, contra (i) Cantic. I, 6 ; Psal. XLVIII, 3. CAPUT VIII. advcrs. Leg. et Prophet. c. 18. et Leone serm. 8. de passione Domini, qui omnia sa¬ crificia veteris legis quantumvis cruenta, fi¬ guras fuisse docet sacrificii Eucharistia. Jam vero quod attinet ad alterum absur¬ dum, nulla est difficultas. Nam quod in Scri¬ ptura dicitur, Agnum Paschalem debuisse a tota multitudine filiorum Israel immolari, non sic intelligitur, quasi debuerint singuli de populo agnum immolare : sed quod debue¬ rit in singulis domibus, ac familiis immolari, patrefamilias proprie, et per se immolante, reliquis per illum immolantibus, et voluntate, ac participatione in sacrificium consentienti¬ bus. Quod etiam in Ecclesia circa Euchari¬ stiam observatur: presbyteri enim, qui in Christi familia patres sunt, proprie ac per se immolant, populus autem per illos immo¬ lat, et simul voluntate, et participatione in sacrificium consentit. Denique tertium absurdum, quod Kemni- tius proferebat, nullius ponderis est. Nam Eucharistiae sacrificium, ut diximus, non solo agno Paschali, sed multis aliis typis adumbratum fuit. Et quidem Agnus Pascha¬ lis typus Eucharistia) fuit, non ut sacrificium propitiatorium, sed ut commemorativum li¬ berationis, et ut proprie Eucharisticum : sa* crificia autem, qua) plurima in lege pro pec¬ cato fiebant, ejusdem Eucharistia), ut sacri¬ ficii propitiatorii, typi ac figura) fuerunt. Tertio objicit Kemnitius, Agnum Pascha-, lem figuram gessisse passionis Dominica), id quod operose probare nititur ex Scripturis et ex ipso etiam Ecclesiastico testimonio, ex praefatione Missa) deprompto. Sed argumentum jam ante solutum est, Agnus enim Paschalis utriusque rei typus fuit, et passionis, et Eucharistia) ; imo non potuit Eucharjstia) typus esse, quin etiam passionis esset, cum Eucharistia repraesenta¬ tio, et commemoratio passionis sit. Neque id proprium est Agni Paschalis, sed commu¬ ne omnibus sacrificiis legis veteris, ut simul et passionis Dominica), et Eucharistiae figurae fuerint. (0 Exod. XXIV, 8; Hebr. IX, 20. —(2) Luc. X XIV, 24.