Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book V: On the Sacrifice of the Mass (First)
Chapter 8: The Sacrifice of the Mass Is Proved from the Figures of the Various Sacrifices of the Old Testament
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 third argument is taken from chapter 24 of Exodus, where the dedication and celebration of the Old Testament is described. For after the law was given on Mount Sinai, God made a covenant with the Hebrews, and promised them many good things, and they in turn promised God obedience to the commandments. And this covenant was ratified by a solemn sacrifice and the sprinkling of blood, with these words: This is the blood of the Testament which God hath enjoined unto you, as the Apostle recites, Hebrews 9, alleging the words of Moses, Exodus 24. That this figure was fulfilled in the last Supper, in the institution of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, we proved above in the first book on the Eucharist, nor does it seem able in any way to be denied. For first, expressly Luke chapter 22 and Paul 1 Corinthians 11 say: This chalice is the new Testament in my blood. Matthew chapter 26 and Mark chapter 14 say: This is my blood of the new Testament.
Then the ancient Fathers openly teach that Christ in the last Supper founded the new Testament. Tertullian, Book 4 against Marcion: “In the mention of the chalice,” he says, “He established a Testament sealed with His blood.” The same expressly teach Chrysostom and Theophylact on the alleged passages of Matthew and Paul; as also Ambrose on Paul, and Bede on Mark and Luke, in the cited places.
Moreover the Lutherans cannot deny this, since their chief argument against the sacrifice of the Mass is this: “The Mass is the Testament of Christ; therefore it is not a sacrifice.” This argument Luther presses before all others in his book on the Babylonian Captivity, chapter 1, and in his book on abrogating the Mass, and elsewhere; and the same argument Kemnitz presses in Part 2 of the Examination, pages 753 and 802. Others too press it commonly. What weight this argument has we shall see afterward: meanwhile we accept what they grant, that the Mass is the Testament of Christ; for thence it manifestly follows that Christ in the last Supper founded His Testament, and therefore fulfilled the figure of the Old Testament.
There is added lastly that if the Testament of Christ was not made in the Supper, certainly it would have been made on the cross, as some seem to suspect. But all the conditions of a testament fit the Supper, none the cross. First, he who makes a testament ought to live until the testament is completed and sealed; Christ in the Supper always lived, on the cross He died. Wherefore blessed Paul, Hebrews 9, does not rightly say that by the death of Christ the new Testament was made, but confirmed: for a testament is not valid while he who made it lives. Then he who makes a testament ought to be his own master. Christ in the Supper was His own master; on the cross He was not only seized and bound, but even condemned, and already affixed to the gibbet. Thirdly, he who makes a testament always commands something to his heirs. Christ in the Supper: This is, He says, my commandment, that you love one another. And again: Do this. On the cross He is not read to have commanded anything. Fourthly, he who makes a testament promises or leaves something, and is wont to express it by name, and also the persons to whom he leaves it. In the Supper the Lord expressed the remission of sins, which is the promise proper to the new Testament, Jeremiah 31; and expressed also the heirs, when He said: For you and for many. On the cross nothing of the kind, except the promise made to the thief alone. Fifthly, he who makes a testament employs witnesses; and just as Moses called not any witnesses whatever, but the very people, when he ratified the Old Testament in the name of God: so also Christ ought to call witnesses, and not any whatever, but the very Church; which He did in the Supper, for all the Apostles were present, who were the Patriarchs and true Fathers of the whole Christian people. At the cross they were neither present, nor could they easily have been called together. Sixthly, he who makes a testament is wont to explain in express words that he is making a testament. On the cross Christ did not even name a testament; but in the Supper He expressed the name of testament, and that in almost those very words in which Moses of old; for as he had said, This is the blood of the Testament which God hath enjoined unto you, so He Himself said, This is my blood of the new Testament. Seventhly, he who makes a testament confects a public instrument which perpetually has the power of applying the inheritance. This instrument Christ confected in the Supper when He instituted the Sacrament; on the cross nothing at all of the kind. Let it remain, therefore, ratified and certain that the new Testament was founded in the Supper, and therefore that the figure of the Old Testament was fulfilled.
This foundation being laid, we thus argue: The blood of the Old Testament in Moses was the blood of a victim already immolated, and truly and properly sacrificed, as is clear from Exodus 24; therefore the blood of the new Testament in Christ is the blood of an immolated victim, and truly and properly sacrificed. But that blood is the blood of Christ, as He Himself says: This is my blood; therefore He Himself was the victim immolated and sacrificed in the Supper.
Nor can it be answered that the blood of Christ in the Supper was the blood of a victim to be immolated on the cross. For in Exodus first the victim was immolated, then the blood sprinkled on the people with those words, This is the blood, etc.; therefore Christ too first had to make Himself a victim and immolate Himself, then say of the blood, This is the blood, etc. Moreover no reason allows that first the blood of a victim be drawn, then the victim immolated, since on the contrary the blood follows from the immolation. Finally, since in the figure of the Old Testament, Exodus 24, three things are found — first, the promulgation of the law before the people; secondly, the immolation of the federal or peace victim; thirdly, the sprinkling of the blood and the eating of the victim — and Christ fulfilled the first, when He said, This is my commandment, etc., and the third, when He said, Eat, this is my body; Drink, this is my blood; who would believe that the second was passed over, namely the immolation of the victim? To this argument I have read no confutation, either of Kemnitz or of others.
Hither can be referred all those passages of divine Scripture where the various sacrifices of the old law properly so called are described. For all those were types and figures of the sacrifice of the Eucharist, from which it follows that the Eucharist too ought to be a true sacrifice.
To this argument Kemnitz answers, in Part 2 of the Examination, page 771, that the sacrifices of the Old Testament were indeed figures to be fulfilled in the New Testament, but were fulfilled in the one sacrifice of the cross; and now too are fulfilled in the spiritual sacrifices of good works.
But we on the contrary prove that those sacrifices were figures not only of the cross and of good works, but also of the Eucharist, in two ways. First from the Fathers. Tertullian, in his book against the Jews, chapter 1, openly says that the sacrifice of Abel was a figure of the sacrifice of the Eucharist. Justin, in the Dialogue with Trypho: “The oblation of fine flour was a figure of the Eucharist.” Chrysostom, on Psalm 95: “All the sacrifices of the ancients the new grace, supervening, embraces in one sacrifice.” Augustine, Book 17 of the City of God, chapter 20: “The table which the priest of the new Testament exhibits is of His body and blood; for this is the sacrifice which has succeeded all the sacrifices which were immolated in the shadow of the thing to come. On account of which we also acknowledge that voice in Psalm 39, of the same Mediator, But a body Thou hast fitted to me; because for all those sacrifices and oblations His body is offered, and ministered to those who partake.” Leo, sermon 8 on the Passion of the Lord: “Now, the variety of carnal sacrifices ceasing, the one oblation of Thy body and blood fulfills all the differences of victims: and just as there is one sacrifice for every victim, so now there is one kingdom made of every nation.” See also Hesychius on Leviticus, Book 5; Isidore, Book 1 on the offices, chapter 17; and Damascene, Book 4 on the faith, chapter 14. By which testimonies of the Fathers is refuted the lie of Kemnitz, page 778, where he says thus: “That disputation is unknown to the ancients, that by the abrogation of the Levitical sacrifices, besides the sacrifice of Christ on the cross, another ceremonial sacrifice succeeded in the New Testament.”
Secondly it is proved because the sacrifice of the cross was not fulfilling of those figures except as to the very slaying and a few other ceremonies. But many other ceremonies of the sacrifices, which without doubt were figural — as that they were offered in the tabernacle, that before the multitude of the faithful people, that hands were imposed on the victim, that the victim being immolated was immediately eaten, and other like ones — could not be fulfilled on the cross: wherefore they are either fulfilled in the Eucharist, or are simply not fulfilled.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT VIII. Probatur sacrificium Missx ex figuris variorum sacrificiorum Testamen ti veteris. Tertium argumentum sumitur ex cap. xxiv. Exodi, ubi describitur dedicatio, ac celebratio Testamenti veteris. Nam post da¬ tam legem in monte Sina, pepigit Deus foe- dus cum Hebraeis, ac promisit eis mhlta bona, et ipsi vicissim obedientiam manda¬ torum promiserunt Deo. Sancitum autem fuit hoc foedus solemni sacrificio, et sangui¬ nis aspersione, illis verbis : Hic est sanguis Testamenti , quod mandavit ad vos Deus, ut Apostolus recitat Hebr. ix. allegans verba Moysis. Exod. xxiv.(l). Hanc figuram imple¬ tam esse in ultima caena, in institutione Sa¬ cramenti Eucharistiae, nos probavimus su¬ pra in i. lib. de Eucharistia, nec videtur ullo modo negari posse. Nam in primis ex¬ presse Lucas cap. xxii. et Paulus I Cor. xi. dicunt: Hic calix novum Testamentum est in sanguine meo. Matt. cap. xxvi. etMarcus cap. xiv dicunt .' Hic est sanguis meus novi Testa¬ menti (2). Deinde Patres veteres aperte docent, Christum in ultima caena condidisse Testa¬ mentum novum. Tertullianus lib. iv in Mar- cionem : In calicis mentione, inquit, Testa¬ mentum constituit sanguine suo obsignatum.)) Idem expresse docent Chrysostomus, et Tlieo- -phylactus in loca allegata Matthaei, et Pauli : necnon Ambrosius in Paulum, et Beda in Marcum, et Lucam, locis citatis. Praeterea id Lutherani negare non pos¬ sunt, cum eorum praecipium argumentum contra sacrificium Missa) hoc sit : « Missa est Testamentum Christi ; non igitur est sa¬ crificium. i) Hoc argumentum pra) omnibus urget Lutherus in libro de captivitate Baby¬ lonica, cap.i. etin lib. de abroganda Missa, et alibi urget idem argumentum Kemnitius in 2. par examinis, pagina 753 et 802. Ur¬ gent etiam alii communiter. Quid momenti hoc argumentum habeat, postea videbimus : interim accipimus, quod dant, Missam esse Testamentum Christi; inde enim manifeste HI, 29; 1 Cor. XI, 25 ; Matth. XXVI, 28; Mare. 326 LIBER Y. sequitur, Christum in ultima ccena condi¬ disse suum Testamentum et proinde implesse figuram Testamenti veteris. Accedit postremo, quod si Testamentum Christi in ccena factum non fuisset, certe factum fuisset in cruce, ut quidam suspicari videntur. At omnes conditiones Testamenti in ccenam quadrant, nullae in crucem. Pri¬ mum qui testatur, vivere debet usque ad completum, et obsignatum Testamentum, Christus in ccena semper vixit, in cruce mortuus est. Quare recte B. Paulus Hebr. ix. non ait Christi morte Testamentum novum factum fuisse, sed confirmatum : non enim testamentum valet, dum vivit, qui testatus est. Deinde qui testatur, sui juris esse debet. Christus in ccena sui juris erat ; in cruce non modo captus, et vinctus, sed etiam damna¬ tus, et jam patibulo affixus erat. Tertio qui testatur, semper aliquid mandat haeredibus Christus in ccena : Hoc est, inquit , praeceptum meum , ut diligatis invicem. Et rursum : Hoc facite. In cruce nihil mandasse legitur. Quar¬ to qui testatur, aliquid promittit, seu relin¬ quit, idque nominatim exprimere solet, ut etiam personas, quibus relinquit. In Ccena Dominus expressit remissionem peccatorum, quae est promissio propria Testamenti novi, Hierem. xxxi. et expressit etiam haeredes, cum ait : Pro vobis , et pro multis. In cruce nihil ejusmondi, excepta promissione soli latroni facta. Quinto qui testatur, testes ad¬ hibet, et sicut Moyses, non testes quoscum¬ que, sed ipsum populum convocavit, cum Testamentum vetus nomine Dei sanciebat : sic etiam Christus testes, et non quoscumqne sed ipsam Ecclesiam convocare debuit ; id fecitin ccena, adherant enim onmes Apostoli, qui Patriarchae fuerunt, et veri Patres totius Christiani populi. Ad crucem nec aderant, nec facile convocari potuissent. Sexto qui testatur, solet disertis verbis explicare Te¬ stamentum se facere. In cruce Testamentum Christus ne nominavit quidem ; at in ccena expressit nomen testamenti, et quidem illis fere verbis, quibus olim Moyses ; ut enim ille dixerat : Hic est sanguis Testamenti, quod mandavit ad vos Deus, ita ipse dixit : Hic est sanguis meus novi Testamenti. Septimo qui testatur, instrumentum publicum conficit, quod perpetuo vim habeat applicandae hae- reditatis. Id instrumentum Christus in ccena confecit dum Sacramentum instituit ; in cruce nihil omnino ejusmodi. Maneat igitur ratum el certum in crena Testamentum novum conditum, et proinde figuram Testamenti veteris impletam. Hoc fundamento posito, ita argumentamur : Sanguis Testamenti veteris apud Moysem erat sanguis victimae jam immolatae, et vere, ac proprie sacrificatae, ut patet Exod. xxiv. ; ergo sanguis Testamenti novi apud Christum, est sanguis victimae immolatae, et vere, ac proprie sacrificatae. Est autem sanguis ille sanguis Christi, ut ipse dicit : Hic est sanguis meus ; ergo ipse fuit victima in ccena immo¬ lata, et sacrificata. Neque responderi potest, sanguinem Chri¬ sti in ccena fuisse sanguinem victimae futurae in cruce. Nam in Exodo prius immolata est victima, deinde sanguis aspersus in populum illis verbis : Hic est sanguis , etc. ergo etiam Christus prius debuit se ipse victimam fa¬ cere, et immolare ; deinde de sanguine di¬ cere : Hic est sanguis , etc. Preterea, nullo ratio patiter, ut prius sanguis victimae hau¬ riatur , deinde victima immoletur , cum e contrario ex immolatione sanguis sequatur. Denique, cum in figura Testamenti veteris, Exod xxiv, tria inveniantur. Primo, promul¬ gatio legis coram populo. Secundo, immola- tion victimae fcederalis, seu pacificae. Tertio, aspersio sanguinis, et manducatio victimae ; et Christus impleverit primum, cum ait : Hoc est praeceptum meum etc. Et tertium, cum ait : Comedite , hoc est corpus meum ; Bibite, hic est sanguis meus ; quis credat praetermis¬ sum fuisse secundum , nimirum victimae immolationem ? Ad hoc argumentum nul¬ lam legi vel Kemnitii, vel aliorumconfutatio- nem. Huc referri possunt ortinia illa Scripturae divinae loca, ubi describuntur varia sacrificia veteris legis proprie dicta. Illa enim omnia fuerunt typi, ac figurae sacrificii Eucharistiae, ex quo sequitur ut etiam Eucharistia verum sacrificium esse debeat. Respondet ad hoc argumentum Kemnitius in 2. par. Examin. pag. 771. sacrificia vete¬ ris Testamenti fuisse quidem figuras implen¬ das in novo Testamento, sed impletas esse in unico sacrificio crucis; et nunc etiam im¬ pleri in sacrificiis spiritualibus operum bono¬ rum. Sed nos contra probamus, figuras fuisse sacrificia illa non solum crucis, et operum bonorum, sed etiam Eucharistiae dupliciter. Primo ex Patribus. Tertullianus in lib. contra Judaeos, cap. i, aperte dicit, sacrificium Abel figuram fuisse sacrificii Eucharistiae, Justinus 327 CAPUT IX. in Triphone: « Similae, inquit, oblatio figu- rafuitEucharistiae. )) Chrysostomus inPsalm. xcv: «Omnia veterum sacrificia nova super¬ veniens gratia uno complectitur sacrificio. » Augustinus lib. xvn. Civit, cap. 20 : « Mensa quam sacerdos novi Testamenti exhibet, de corpore ac sanguine suo est; id est enim sa¬ crificium, quod successit omnibus sacrificiis, quae immolabantur in umbra futuri. Pro¬ pter quod etiam agnoscimus vocem illam in Psalmo xxxix. ejusdem Mediatoris, Cor¬ pus autem aptasti mihi ; quia pro illis omnibus sacrificiis, et oblationibus corpus ejus offer¬ tur , et participantibus ministratur. » Leo serm. 8. de passione Domini : « Nunc carna¬ lium sacrificiorum varietate cessante, omnes differentias hostiarum, una corporis et san¬ guinis tui implet oblatio : et sicut unum est pro omni victima sacrificium, ita nunc unum de omni gente fit regnum. » Yide etiam Isi- chium in Leviticum lib. v. Isidorum lib. i, de officiis, cap. 17. et Damascenum lib. iv. de fide, cap. 14. Ex quibus testimoniis Pa¬ trum refellitur mendacium Kemnitii, pagina 778. ubi sic ait : « Ignota est veteribus illa disputatio, quod abrogatione Leviticorum sacrificiorum, prseter sacrificium Christi in cruce, aliud successisset caeremoniale sacri¬ ficium in novo Testamento. » Secundo probatur, quia sacrificium crucis non fuit impletivum figuram illarum, nisi quoad ipsam mactationem, et paucas alias cajremonias. Multe autem aliee caeremoniae sacrificiorum, quae sine dubio figurales erant, ut quod in tabernaculo offerrentur, quod coram multitudine populi fidelis, quod ma¬ nus imponerentur super victimam quod vi¬ ctima immolata continuo manducaretur, et aliae similes, in cruce impleri non potuerunt : quare aut in Eucharistia implentur, aut sim¬ pliciter non implentur.