Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book V: On the Sacrifice of the Mass (First)
Chapter 10: The Same Is Proved from Malachi
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).
But an outstanding testimony for the sacrifice of the Mass is had in Malachi 1, in these words: I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord of hosts, and I will not receive a gift of your hand: for from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrificed and offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts.
This testimony cannot be understood of the sacrifice of the cross, because that is not offered in every place, but was offered once only in one place; nor of any Jewish sacrifice, because the prophet says it is to be offered by the Gentiles, and openly opposes it to the sacrifices of the Hebrews. Nor even of the sacrifices of the pious Gentiles who were in the world before the coming of Christ, such as Melchisedech, Job, and the like. For these true saints among the Gentiles were very few, and especially in the times of the prophets, when idolatry had plainly filled the world, so that David said: In Judea God is known, in Israel great is His name, Psalm 75. But Malachi prophesies in the contrary manner: Great is my name among the Gentiles, and from the rising of the sun even to the going down, etc. Nor finally can this passage of Malachi be understood, as some have suspected, of the sacrifices of the idolatrous Gentiles: for that could in no way be called a clean oblation, nor was it offered to the true God, but to strange gods: for the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, says the Apostle, 1 Corinthians 10, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God.
Wherefore in no way is to be admitted the exposition of Benedict Arias Montanus on this passage: for it not only contradicts the opinions of all the Fathers, whom we shall cite a little after, but also the Apostle himself, and the most open truth. For to what purpose did so many thousands of Martyrs choose rather to pour out their blood than to communicate in the sacrifices of the Gentiles, if those were clean sacrifices and pleasing to God?
“But,” he says, “the Gentiles knew a certain great God from the motions of the heavens, and to Him they sacrificed.” I answer: They indeed knew God, but they did not glorify Him as God, and served the creature rather than the Creator, as the Apostle says, Romans 1. And so either they did not sacrifice to that great God, or very few and very rarely did so; but Malachi speaks of sacrifices which are offered in every place, such as among the Gentiles were offered only to idols and demons. It remains, therefore, which even the adversaries confess with us, that Malachi prophesies of the sacrifice of the Christian Church, which both succeeded the Jewish sacrifices, and pleases God, and is clean, and is offered continually throughout the whole world by the Gentiles converted to the true God. Nor does it stand in the way that Malachi speaks in the present, not in the future; for the prophets do this, because they know future things so certainly, God indicating them, as if they beheld them present.
The whole controversy about this passage is whether Malachi speaks of a sacrifice properly so called, such as in the Church either is the Eucharist, or there is none at all; or of a sacrifice improperly so called, such as are prayers, praises, good works, patience in persecutions, and the like. For Philip in the Apology of the Confession, and Calvin, Book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 18, § 4, Kemnitz in Part 2 of the Examination, page 760, and others contend that Malachi speaks of spiritual sacrifices, improperly so called.
Kemnitz brings three arguments for his opinion, which can easily be resolved. The first is: “Malachi does not say that the little priest ought by mimic gestures, rites, and acts in bread and wine to represent the passion of Christ, and that that action is a sacrifice pleasing to God for the living and the dead, etc.” I answer: This is not an argument, but an imposture. For our question is not about gestures and rites, but about the substance of the thing, that is, about the oblation of a sacrifice properly so called: and we sufficiently prove what we wish, when we show from the prophet's testimony that there is in the Church a sacrifice properly so called.
The second argument: “Malachi in general foretells that there will be in the Church a clean sacrifice, but does not explain what sort of sacrifice. But in the New Testament we find that the sacrifices of the faithful are spiritual sacrifices; 1 Peter 2, Romans 12, Hebrews 13, Philippians 2; therefore the prophet speaks of a spiritual sacrifice.” I answer: If in the New Testament we read that there were no sacrifices of the faithful except spiritual ones, Kemnitz's argument would rightly conclude. But nowhere do we read this. Nor is it lawful to conclude from the fact that there are in the Church certain spiritual sacrifices, that there are none properly so called, or that the prophet speaks of the spiritual. Otherwise, since in the Old Testament there were also many spiritual sacrifices, it would be lawful in the same way to conclude that there were not in the Old Testament sacrifices properly so called; and when Malachi says, I will not receive a gift of your hand, we would understand him to speak of a spiritual sacrifice, not of one properly so called, which is openly false.
The third argument he takes from the Fathers, which is to be discussed afterward.
The Catholics, on the contrary, prove by these arguments that the words of this prophet are to be understood of sacrifices properly so called. First, from the word which the prophet uses, for he calls it absolutely mincha, where two things are to be considered. First, that Scripture is not wont to set down the name of sacrifice absolutely, when it speaks of a sacrifice improperly so called, but with some addition, as a sacrifice of praise, a sacrifice of justice, a host of jubilation, etc.; but in this place a clean oblation is set down absolutely. Then the very Hebrew word signifies properly a certain kind of external sacrifice, which was made of fine flour, oil, and frankincense, as is clear from Leviticus 2 and 6, and elsewhere passim.
To this first argument Calvin and Kemnitz answer. Calvin says that the prophet uses the word sacrifice because it is the custom of the prophets, when they prophesy of the conversion of the Gentiles, to designate spiritual worship by the external rite of the law. For thus for conversion to the Lord they put ascent into Jerusalem, for the adoration of God the oblation of gifts of every kind, for the fuller knowledge of Him with which the faithful were to be endowed in the kingdom of Christ, dreams and visions.
I answer: It cannot be denied that very often in the Scriptures of the Old Testament future things are described through types and external rites of the law, as when by Jerusalem is understood allegorically the Church, by Levites the clergy, by the sacrifices of sheep and oxen the sacrifice of the Eucharist; yet this is wont to be done when new and future things are described, which were not then in use: for they are described through figures, or through words then known, because they could not otherwise be understood. But those things which are common to all times and places, and which were no less then in use than they are now, there is no cause why they should be signified through figures. Now spiritual sacrifices, prayers, hymns, almsdeeds, and the like, are common to every place and time, and occur passim in the Scriptures, both of the Old and of the New Testament. Wherefore by that word mincha ought not to be understood a spiritual sacrifice, which was not new nor future, nor in any way unusual or unknown: but some true sacrifice to be celebrated in the Church, and then unknown; such as in truth is the Eucharist. For we do not so grossly understand the prophet as to think that now a mincha properly so called ought to be offered, that is, fine flour sprinkled with oil and mixed with frankincense: but we understand that the prophet through a word then known described a new and true sacrifice, foreshadowed by that ancient one.
It is also false what Calvin says, that for the adoration of God to come in the Church there are set in the Scriptures oblations of gifts of every kind. For to those oblations ought to correspond something truly future and new; but adoration was always in use.
Now Kemnitz enters by another way; for he writes that this very word mincha is taken in the Scriptures for a spiritual sacrifice (for we read in Psalm 141, The lifting up of my hands as the evening sacrifice), and that the name of oblation is had, Romans 15 and Philippians 2, for the conversion of the Gentiles.
I answer: David most properly used the evening sacrifice for the true and external sacrifice, which according to the law was daily offered at evening, Leviticus 6. For he did not wish to say that the lifting up of his hands in prayer is the evening sacrifice; for the lifting up of hands can be done at any time; but he prays God to hold his prayer acceptable, as He is wont to hold acceptable the evening sacrifice. For thus he says: Let my prayer be directed as incense in Thy sight: the lifting up of my hands as the evening sacrifice; that is, let my prayer be directed like incense, and let the lifting up of hands be as a certain evening sacrifice. Which Daniel also set more clearly, when he said, chapter 3: In a contrite heart, and in the spirit of humility, let us be received, as in holocausts of rams and bullocks, and as in thousands of fat lambs. But those passages, Romans 15 and Philippians 2, are not to the point. For in each place the name of sacrifice and of oblation is set with an addition, not absolutely: for he calls it the oblation of the Gentiles, or of faith. Therefore our first argument remains, drawn from the name of oblation.
The second argument is taken from that word: Clean; for the prophet opposes the clean oblation of the Church to the unclean oblations of the priests of the Jews. Which argument can be concluded in two ways. First, from the opinion of the adversaries, the good works which proceed from us are all unclean, since they are sins, and indeed mortal by their own nature. By the oblation, therefore, which the Holy Spirit calls clean, ought not to be understood our works, that is, sacrifices improperly so called, but a sacrifice instituted by God, which has its power from God Himself, not from us.
Kemnitz answers that our works are indeed unclean, as the cloth of a menstruous woman, yet in the Scriptures are sometimes called clean and acceptable to God, 1 Peter 2: Offering spiritual hosts acceptable to God by Jesus Christ; and the faithful are said to lift up pure hands, 1 Timothy 2; and all things are said to be clean to the clean, Titus 1.
But I would gladly ask of Kemnitz in what way in the Scriptures these works are called clean and acceptable. For either they are truly and properly clean, and then their opinion about the goodness of our works falls; or they are not truly and properly clean, but are called such either on account of God's imputation, or for any other cause, and then, if Malachi speaks of a spiritual sacrifice, it will be necessary so to expound those words, There is offered to my name a clean oblation: There is offered to my name an oblation truly unclean, but which I reckon to be clean. Which exposition is most absurd: for the sentence of Malachi indicates that that oblation pleases God because it is clean; not that it is clean because God reckons it such.
Secondly, the prophet opposes a sacrifice so clean of itself and generally that it cannot be made unclean by the malice of ministers, to a sacrifice which can easily be polluted, and which is not always clean. This is clear: for of the Jewish sacrifice he says: You offer polluted bread. And: If you offer the blind and the lame, is it not evil, etc., where he shows that those sacrifices could be polluted. Nor is it credible that they were so generally rejected by reason of pollution only on the part of the offerers, because by the same reason ours too could be rejected. And moreover many of the Hebrews offered well: wherefore if this were the cause of rejection, God would have rejected in particular this or that, not so generally all. And so all were rejected generally, because the cause was general, since all were liable to pollution.
But that He opposes to them a clean sacrifice generally, and not liable to pollution, is clear, because He says: In every place is offered a clean oblation. For if it were clean by reason of the offerers, it would not be said to be offered clean in every place, since in very many places evil ministers, as far as in them lies, pollute the sacrifice: but it is said to be offered clean in every place, because it is such of itself, nor can it truly be polluted by the malice of ministers. And moreover, if the cause of the repudiation of those sacrifices is that they were liable to pollution, certainly there ought to be opposed to them an oblation not liable to pollution. But spiritual sacrifices, since they depend on our work, are liable to pollution, and in fact are often polluted, no less now by Christians than of old they were polluted by the Jews; therefore the prophet speaks of the sacrifice of the Eucharist, which alone is truly clean, and which can be polluted by the malice of no minister, since the chief Priest is Christ, and He Himself is the same sacrifice.
The third argument is taken from those words: I will not receive a gift of your hands, etc. For hence is gathered that the oblation of the Church is not only clean, but also new, and such as was not before: for that clean oblation succeeds the oblations of the Jews, which are reproved on occasion of pollution. But it would not succeed, if it had been in use together with them: therefore it must be a new oblation. And moreover the prophet distinguishes the sacrifice of the Gentiles from the sacrifice of the Jews; accordingly he speaks of a new sacrifice, and one which was not in use among the Jews. But it is established that the spiritual sacrifices of prayers, psalms, and like things were all among the Jews; therefore Malachi does not speak of a spiritual sacrifice, but of a sacrifice properly so called, such as there is none in the Church, if the Eucharist is not a sacrifice properly so called.
The fourth argument is taken from the antithesis of the contempt and the glory of God, which is described in this place by the prophet. For blessed Malachi says that through the Hebrew priests the name of God was contemned and despised, but through the oblation of the Gentiles glorified. But the Hebrew priests offended God in a public and visible sacrifice: therefore the glory of God among the Gentiles ought to arise also from a public and visible sacrifice. Otherwise greater would have been the contempt brought upon the name of God in the sacrifice of the Gentiles: for that would have been an interior and exterior, and private and public contempt; but this glory would be only private, and in great part interior.
The fifth argument is taken from the antithesis of the priests. For Malachi opposes not to all the people, but only to the priests of the old law, not all Christians, but certain men who properly succeed those priests: therefore he does not speak of a spiritual sacrifice, which is wont to be offered by all Christians, but of a sacrifice properly so called, which can be offered by true priests alone. And that he speaks of the priests only, not of all the people, is clear from those words: To you, O priests, that despise my name, etc. But that he opposes to them the priests alone, and not all the people, is clear from the same prophet. For after he had said in chapter 1, There is offered to my name a clean oblation, etc., he expounds in chapter 3 by whom that clean oblation is to be offered: He shall purify, he says, the sons of Levi, and shall refine them as gold and as silver, and they shall offer sacrifices to the Lord in justice, etc., where by the sons of Levi cannot be understood the Levites of the Old Testament, because the prophet speaks most openly of the sacrifice of the Christian Church, and had already reproved the Levitical priests. And finally at the beginning of the chapter we read: Behold I send my angel. Which words the Lord Himself expounds of John the Baptist, Matthew 11; and thence we are compelled to understand this whole passage of the coming of the Lord and the time of the New Testament. Nor can by the sons of Levi be understood all Christians, because the sons of Levi were only one part in the people of God, not the whole people: wherefore there corresponds to them a certain part of the Christian people, not the whole people. And it is confirmed from chapter 66 of Isaiah, where, as we showed a little before, the priests are distinguished from the Christian people, when it is said: I will take of them to be priests. Not, therefore, are all Christians properly priests, but certain ones taken from among them, and accordingly it must be a sacrifice properly so called, which is offered by those alone and not by all.
Finally, let there be added the consent of the ancient Fathers, who always understood this passage of Malachi of the sacrifice of the Eucharist, not of good works, which can be done by all. Justin Martyr, in the Dialogue with Trypho, in express words (Kemnitz too being witness), expounds this passage of the sacrifice of the Eucharist, which in the species of bread and wine is offered to God throughout the whole world: “Of our sacrifices,” he says, “we Gentiles, which are offered in every place, that is, of the bread of the Eucharist and likewise the cup of the Eucharist, Malachi, speaking then already, foretold that we indeed should glorify His name, but you should profane it.”
Kemnitz strives to deprave this passage, from the fact that Justin there adds that the Eucharist is done in memory of the passion of Christ, and in thanksgiving to God, who created the world for us and freed us from sins. For hence he himself gathers that the sacrifice of which Malachi according to Justin speaks is a spiritual sacrifice, that is, the memory of the Lord's passion and thanksgiving to God for the benefit of creation and redemption.
But he labors in vain. For Justin by those words explains the final cause of the sacrifice foretold by Malachi, not the sacrifice itself. For he says the sacrifice is the oblation of the Eucharist made of bread and wine; but he says the cause of the sacrifice is the memory of the Lord's passion and thanksgiving. And indeed, if it were lawful to cavil in this manner, we could prove that there were never, not even among the Jews, sacrifices properly so called: for all were done in representation of the Lord's passion, and thanksgiving, or some like cause.
Irenaeus, Book 4, chapter 32: “He,” he says, “took that which is of creation, bread, and gave thanks, saying: This is my body, and the cup likewise, which is of that creation which is according to us, He confessed to be His blood, and taught the new oblation of the New Testament. Which the Church, receiving from the Apostles, offers to God throughout the whole world, to Him who bestows on us nourishment, the firstfruits of His gifts: of which also in the twelve prophets Malachi thus foresignified: I have no pleasure in you, etc.” He has like things in chapters 33 and 34.
This passage too Kemnitz attempted to twist to his opinion, but so feebly that it scarcely needs any answer. For he says that Irenaeus speaks of the oblation of almsdeeds, which was wont to be done during the action of the Lord's Supper: and that these almsdeeds he called a sacrifice, because that can be said to be offered to God which is offered to the poor for God's sake, according to that: He that hath mercy on the poor lendeth to God. And that: I was hungry, and you gave me to eat, which two passages he alleges raging, in chapter 34.
But Kemnitz does not notice that Irenaeus draws an argument from a likeness. For when he wished to show that a sacrifice is exhibited to God, not because He Himself needs it, but because it is useful for us to show gratitude toward Him, he brings as an example almsdeeds, which are said to be done to God, when yet they are not useful to God, but to us. But that Irenaeus understands Malachi of a sacrifice properly so called, not of almsdeeds, is clear from those words which are had at the end of chapter 32: “Manifestly signifying,” he says, “Malachi by these things, that the former people indeed shall cease to offer to God; but in every place a sacrifice is offered to Him, and that pure, and His name is glorified among the Gentiles.” And from those which are had in chapter 34: “And the kind of oblations is not reproved: for there were oblations there, and there are oblations here; sacrifices among the people, sacrifices also in the Church.” Where Irenaeus says that our sacrifice succeeds that which ceased among the Hebrews: and that God did not reprove sacrifices absolutely, but a certain kind of sacrifices, namely the Jewish. Now among the Jews almsdeeds and prayers and other improperly so-called sacrifices did not cease: but there ceased the true and properly so-called immolations, which could be done only in Jerusalem; therefore Irenaeus speaks of a sacrifice properly so called, and such he wishes the sacrifice of the Eucharist to be. Finally those words of chapter 32, “He taught the new oblation of the New Testament”, do they not most clearly show what we wish? For almsdeeds are not a new oblation, nor proper to the New Testament, since they are and were in use even among the Jews.
Tertullian, Book 3 against Marcion, declaring the sacrifice foretold by Malachi: “In every place,” he says, “there is offered a sacrifice to my name, and a pure sacrifice, namely the relating of glory, and blessing, and praise, and hymns, all which, since they are also reprehended in thee, and the sealing of foreheads, and the Sacraments of the Churches, and the cleannesses of sacrifices, etc.”
This passage Kemnitz seizes for himself, on account of those words: “The relating of glory, praise, and hymns.” But Tertullian describes briefly, and after his manner a little obscurely, the whole rite of the sacrifice of the Mass: since in that sacrifice, both before and after the consecration and oblation of the sacrifice, God is praised, and prayer is made, and hymns are sung, as is known. And Tertullian calls blessing the very consecration of the Eucharist; whence he presently subjoins: “the Sacraments of the Churches, and the cleanness of sacrifices.” Finally Tertullian alludes to the very first oblation of this sacrifice. For the Lord in the last Supper first gave thanks, then blessed, and at last sang a hymn: for the hymn being said He went out to the Mount of Olives, as we read in the Gospel. All which things Tertullian expressed in almost as many words, when he said: “The relating of glory, blessing, praise, and hymns.”
Kemnitz brings forward two other passages from Tertullian. One from the book against the Jews, where he says that Malachi spoke of spiritual sacrifices, not of earthly ones. The other, Book 4 against Marcion, where we read that simple prayer from a pure conscience is the sacrifice of which Malachi speaks.
But it is easy to answer. For Tertullian does not call the Eucharist a spiritual sacrifice because it is not truly and properly a sacrifice: but both because it is from the Holy Spirit, not devised from human and carnal sense; and also because it does not consist of an earthly victim, but a heavenly one, nor is it sacrificed in a carnal manner by sword and fire and the effusion of blood, but in a spiritual manner by the blessing and consecration of words. Nor will this seem hard to any who considers that by the same Tertullian in the same place the sacrifice of Abel is called spiritual in respect of the sacrifice of Cain, because forsooth Abel sacrificed under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, but Cain had for guide in his oblation not so much the spirit as the sense of his flesh. But if the sacrifice of Abel, though it be called spiritual, does not cease to be a true, nay even a bloody sacrifice; how much more can the Eucharist be called a spiritual sacrifice, and yet retain the name and nature of a true sacrifice? Add that in the same place Tertullian says the sacrifice of Abel was a figure of the Eucharist, from which it follows that the Eucharist is called by him a spiritual sacrifice in the same manner as the sacrifice of Abel.
In the other passage Tertullian does not expound the testimony of Malachi by prayer where he names the sacrifice, but where he names the incense. For in the Hebrew and Greek edition we read thus: Incense is offered to my name, and a clean sacrifice. Where that word incense Tertullian interprets prayer, which also before him Irenaeus did in the cited place, and after him Jerome in his commentary on Malachi; but the latter word, sacrifice, they commonly expound of the Eucharist.
Cyprian, Book 1 against the Jews, chapter 16, sets in the title of the chapter that the old sacrifice is done away and the new celebrated; and then cites this passage of Malachi. But there is no new sacrifice except the sacrifice of the Eucharist: for those spiritual things which the heretics commemorate always existed.
Eusebius of Caesarea, Book 1 of the Demonstration of the Gospel, last chapter, citing the passage of Malachi, thus says: “We sacrifice therefore to the most high God the sacrifice of praise, we sacrifice to God the full and fragrant and most holy sacrifice, we sacrifice in a new manner, according to the New Testament, a clean host.” By these words is most openly described the sacrifice of the Eucharist: for this alone is proper to the New Testament, and is offered in a new manner, and is full to God and most holy: the sacrifices of prayers and almsdeeds are neither proper to the New Testament, nor offered in a new manner, nor full to God, etc.
Kemnitz cites from the same Eusebius, Book 1 of the Demonstration, chapter 6, another testimony. For Eusebius writes that the sacrifice of Malachi signifies that the Gentiles throughout the whole world would offer the incense of prayer, and a clean sacrifice, not through gore, but through pious actions.
But Kemnitz does not seem to have understood Eusebius; for those Greek words of Eusebius do not signify the incense of prayer, as if prayer itself were the incense or sacrifice of which Malachi speaks, but the incense or sacrifice which is perfected through prayer, that is, through the words of consecration. For the Fathers are wont to call the words of consecration prayers, or mystic prayers. Then even if by incense we ought to understand prayer, yet the following words pertain to the Eucharist; for it is the clean sacrifice which is offered not through gore, but through pious and religious actions, that is, through mystic consecrations. And so Eusebius in each place understands by the sacrifice foretold by Malachi the Eucharist.
John Chrysostom, in his commentary on Psalm 75, after he had cited the words of Malachi, subjoins: “See how brightly and clearly he interpreted the mystic table, which is the unbloody host. And the pure incense he calls the sacred prayers which are offered after the host.” From which place can be expounded another of the same Chrysostom, from homily 2 against the Jews (which Kemnitz cites), where he understands the words of Malachi of the spiritual worship which succeeded the carnal worship of the Jews. For he calls spiritual worship the sacrifice of the Eucharist, because, as we said above, it is effected not in a carnal manner by sword and the effusion of blood, but by the Holy Spirit and by the words of consecration. Whence in the same place Chrysostom writes that our sacrifice is called clean because it is so excellently clean that in comparison of it all others seem unclean. Which encomium certainly does not fit our works, which are sacrifices improperly so called, but agrees excellently with the Eucharist.
Jerome, in his commentary on Malachi, although by incense he understands prayer (which passage Kemnitz vainly presses), yet by sacrifice understands the oblation of the Eucharist; for he says that a clean host is offered to God in the ceremonies of the Christians.
Augustine, Book 1 against the adversary of the law and the prophets, chapter 20, treating this passage of Malachi: “The Church,” he says, “through the successions of the Apostles immolates in the body of Christ a sacrifice of praise.” Where that he speaks of a true sacrifice, which can be offered by priests properly so called alone, is clear from those words: “Through the successions of the Apostles.” For they alone rightly immolate the sacrifice of the body of Christ, who lawfully succeed the Apostles, who first were instituted priests by Christ. Wherefore it is frivolous what Kemnitz answers to this passage, that therefore it is not against him, or for us, because Augustine did not mention the mimic representation. For, as we have often said, the controversy is not about that representation, but about the oblation of the Eucharist made to God. And what Kemnitz adds, that by Augustine incense is understood as prayers, has already been declared above.
The same Augustine, speaking of the sacrifice of the body of the Lord in the Eucharist, Book 18 of the City of God, chapter 35: “This sacrifice,” he says, “since through priests according to the order of Melchisedech they now see offered in every place, from the rising of the sun to its going down, to God, and the sacrifice of the Jews, of which it was said, I have no pleasure in you, now to cease, they cannot deny, or they await another Christ.” See the same, Book 19 of the City of God, chapter 23; in the oration against the Jews, chapter 9; and on Psalm 106, on those words: He hath set the desert into pools of water.
Theodoret, in his commentary on Malachi, in express words says that, according to Malachi's prediction, now the immaculate lamb is immolated, in place of the irrational victims which were in the law of the Jews.
Damascene, Book 4 on the faith, chapter 14: “This,” he says, “is that pure and unbloody sacrifice, which the Lord foretold through the prophet would be offered from the rising of the sun to its going down.” Finally Rupert in his commentary most openly expounds the prophecy of the sacrifice of the Eucharist.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT X. Probatur idem ex Malae hia. . Sed insigne testimonium pro sacrificio Missae habetur Malachia? i. in illis verbis : CAPUT X. 329 Non est mihi voluntas in vobis, dicit Domi¬ nus exercituum, ct munus non suscipiam de manu vestra : ab ortu enim solis, usque ad oc¬ casum, magnum est nomen meum in gentibus, ct in omni loco sacrificatur , ct offertur nomini meo obtatio munda, quia magnum est nomen meum in gentibus , dicit Dominus exercituum. Hoc testimonium non potest intelligi de sacrificio crucis, quia illud non offertur in omni loco, sed semel tantum uno in loco oblatum fuit, nec de sacrificio aliquo Judaico, quia Propheta dicit a gentibus offerendum, et aperte illud opponit sacrificiis Hebraeorum. Neque etiam de sacrificiis Gentilium piorum, qui erant in mundo ante Christi adventum , ut Melchisedech, Job, et similium. Hi enim veri sancti inter Gentiles paucissimi erant, ac praesertim temporibus Prophetarum , quando idololatria mundum plane repleve¬ rat, ita ut David diceret : Notus in Judaea Deus, in Israel magnum nomen ejus , 'Psal. lxxv. Malachias autem contrario modo va¬ ticinatur : Magnum est nomen meum in genti¬ bus , et ab ortu solis usque ad occasum etc. Nec denique potest locus hic Malachiai intel¬ ligi, ut quidam suspicati sunt, de sacrificiis Gentilium idololatrarum : non enim illa obla¬ tio munda ullo modo dici posset, nec Deo vero offerebatur, sed Diis alienis : Quae enim gen¬ tes immolant , inquit Apostolus I Corinth. x, daemoniis immolant, et non Deo. Quare nullo modo admittenda est expositio Benedicti Ariae Montani in hunc locum : nam non tantum repugnat omnium Patrum, quos paulo post citabimus, sententiis, sed etiam ipsi Apostolo, et apertissima! veritati. Quor¬ sum enim tot millia Martyrum sanguinem profundere maluerunt, quam communicare in sacrificiis Gentilium, si illa erant sacrificia munda, et Deo grata ? « At, inquit ille, cognoverunt Gentiles magnum quemdam Deum ex motibus coelo¬ rum , et illi sacrificabant. » Respondeo : Cognoverunt quidem illi Deum, sed non sic¬ ut Deum glorificarunt, et creatura! potius, quam creatori servierunt, ut Apostolus dicit Hom. i. Itaque vel magno illi Deo non sacri¬ ficabant, vel paucissimi, et rarissimi id fece¬ runt ; Malachias autem loquitur de sacrifi¬ ciis, qua! in omni loco offeruntur, qualia apud Gentiles nonnisi idolis, et daemonibus offerebantur. Restat igitur quod nobiscum fatentur etiam adversarii, ut Malachias vati¬ cinetur de sacrificio Ecclesia! Christianae, quod et successit Judaicis sacrificiis, et Deo placet, ac mundum est, et in toto orbe ter¬ rarum a Gentibus ad Deum verum conversis jugiter offertur. Neque obstat, quod Mala¬ chias loquitur in preesenti, non in futuro; id enim Propheta! faciunt, quia res futuras ita certo norunt Deo eis indicante, ac si praesen¬ tes intuerentur. Tota controversia circa hunc locum est, an Malachias loquatur de sacrificio proprie dicto, quale in Ecclesia aut est Eucharistia, aut nullum omnino est ; an vero de sacrificio improprie dicto, quales sunt orationes, lau¬ des, bona opera, patientia in persecutioni¬ bus, et similia. Nam Philippus in Apolog. Confess. et Calvinus lib. iv. Instit. cap. 18. §. A. Kemnitius in 2. par. Exam. pag. 7G0. et alii contendunt, Malachiam loqui de sa¬ crificiis spiritualibus, ac improprie dictis. Adducit autem Kemnitius tria argumenta pro sua opinione, qua! facile solvi possunt. Primum est : « Malachias non dicit, sacrifi¬ culum debere mimicis gestibus, ritibus, et actibus in pane et vino repraesentare passio¬ nem Christi, et illam actionem esse sacrifi¬ cium Deo gratum pro vivis et mortuis etc. » Respondeo : Hoc non argumentum, sed im¬ postura est. Neque enim de gestibus, et riti¬ bus, sed de substantia rei, id est, de oblatione sacrificii proprie dicti nostra quaestio est : ac satis probamus, quod volumus, cum osten¬ dimus ex Prophetae testimonio, esse in Eccle¬ sia sacrificium proprie dictum. Secundum argumentum : « Malachias in genere praedicit futurum in Ecclesia sacrifi¬ cium mundum, non autem explicat, quale sacrificium. In Testamento autem novo in¬ venimus sacrificia fidelium esse sacrificia spiritualia ; I. Petri n. Rom. xi. Hebr. xu. Philipp. ii. ergo loquitur Propheta de sacri¬ ficio spirituali. » Respondeo : Si in novo Testamento legeremus, nulla esse sacrificia fidelium, nisi spiritualia, argumentum Kem- nitii recte concluderet. At nusquam id legi¬ mus. Non autem licet concludere ex eo, *quod sunt in Ecclesia quaidam sacrificia spiritualia ; nulla esse, proprie dicta, vel Prophetam loqui de spiritualibus. Alioqui quoniam. in Testamento veteri, multa erant etiam sacrificia spiritualia, liceret eodem modo concludere, non fuisse in Testamento veteri sacrificia proprie dicta ; et cum Mala¬ chias ait : Non accipiam munus de manu ve¬ stra , intelligeremus eum loqui de sacrificio spirituali, non de proprie dicto, quod aperte falsum est. 330 LIBER V. Tertiam argumentum sumit ex Patribus, quod postea discutiendum est. Catholici contra his argumentis probant verba hujus Prophetae intelligenda esse de sacrificiis proprie dictis. Primo, ex voce qua utitur Propheta, nam vocat absolute mincha, ubi duo consideranda sunt. Primo, Scripturam non solere nomen sacrificii abso¬ lute ponere, cum loquitur de sacrificio im¬ proprie dicto, sed cum adjuncto aliquo, ut sacrificium laudis, sacrificium justitiae, ho¬ stiam vociferationis etc.; hoc autem loco ab¬ solute ponitur oblatio munda. Deinde ipsa vox Hebraica flHXO significat proprie certum genus sacrificii externi , quod ex simila , oleo, et thure conficiebatur, ut patet Levit. 2. et 6. et alibi passim. Ad hoc primum argumentum respondent Calvinus et Kemnitius. Calvinus dicit, Pro¬ phetam uti vocabulo sacrificii, quoniam mos est prophetarum cum de conversione Gen¬ tium vaticinantur, cultum spiritualem exter¬ no legis ritu designare. Sic enim pro con¬ versione ad Dominum, ascensum in Hieru¬ salem, pro Dei adoratione, munerum omnis generis oblationem, pro ampliore ejus notitia, qua in regno Christifideles donandi erant, somnia et visiones ponunt. Respondeo : Negari non potest, quin sae- pissime in Scripturis Testamenti veteris , describantur res futurae, per typos, et ritus externos legis, ut cum per Hierusalem intel- ligitur allegorice Ecclesia, per Levitas cle¬ rici, per sacrificia ovium et boum, sacrificium Eucharistiae ; tamen id fieri solet , cum describuntur res novae, et futurae, quae non erant eo tempore in usu : ideo enim descri¬ buntur per figuras, seu per voces tunc cog¬ nitas, quia non potuissent aliter intelligi. Ea vero, quae sunt communia omnibus tempori, bus, et locis, et quae non minus tunc in usu erant, quam modo sint, nulla causa est, cur per figuras significari deberent. Porro sacri¬ ficia spiritualia, orationes, hymni, eleemosy¬ nae, et similia, communia sunt omni loco et tempori, et passim occurrunt, in Scripturis, tum veteris, tum novi Testamenti. Quare per vocem illam nnVO non debet intelligi sacrificium spirituale, quod non erat novum nec futurum, nec ullo modo inusitatum, vel incognitum : sed verum aliquod sacrificium in Ecclesia celebrandum, et tunc incognitum ; quale revera est Eucharistia. Non enim ita crasse intelligimus Prophetam, ut existime¬ mus oportere nunc offerri mincha proprie dictum, id est, similam conspersam oleo, et thuri admixtam : sed intelligimus Prophetam per vocem tunc cognitam descripsisse sacri¬ ficium novum, et verum, per illud ahtiquum adumbratum. Falsum est etiam, quod Calvinus dicit, pro adoratione Dei futura in Ecclesia, poni in Scripturis oblationes munerum omnis gene¬ ris. Nam illis oblationibus debet respondere aliquid vere futurum, et novum ; adoratio autem semper fuit in usu. Jam vero Kemnitius alia via ingreditur; scribit enim istam ipsam vocem firfoia accipi in Scripturis pro sacrificio Spirituali (legimus enim in Psal. cxli. Elevatio manuum mearum sacrificium vespertinum) et nomen oblationis haberi Roman. xv. et Philipp. n. pro con¬ versione Gentium. Respondeo : David propriissime sacrificium vespertinum usurpavit pro vero, atque exter¬ no sacrificio, quod secundum legem quotidie offerebatur ad vesperam, Levit, vi. Neque enim dicere voluit, elevationem manuum suarum in oratione, esse sacrificium vesper¬ tinum ; elevatio enim manuum omni tempore fieri potest, sed orat Deum ut gratam habeat orationem suam, sicut habere solet gratum sacrificium vespertinum. Sic enim ait : Diri¬ gatur oratio mea sicut incensum in conspectu tuo : elevatio manuum mearum sacrificium ve¬ spertinum; id est, dirigatur oratio sicut in¬ censum et elevatio manuum sit velut quod¬ dam sacrificium vespertinum. Quod etiam clarius posuit Daniel, cum ait cap. ni : In animo contrito , et in spiritu humilitatis susci¬ piamur , sicut in holocausto arietum, et tauro¬ rum , et sicut in millibus agnorum pinguium. Loca autem illa, Roman. xv. et Philipp. n. ad rem non faciunt. Nam in utroque loco ponitur nomen sacrificii, et oblationis cum adjuncto, non autem absolute : vocat enim oblationem Gentium, vel fidei. Manet igitur nostrum argumentum primum, ex nomine oblationis depromptum. Secundum argumentum sumitur ex illa voce : Munda ; opponit enim Propheta obla¬ tionem Ecclesiae mundam, oblationibus im¬ mundis Sacerdotum Judaeorum. Quod argu¬ mentum duobus modis concludi potest. Pri¬ mo, ex opinione adversariorum, opera bona, quae a nobis procedunt, omnia sunt immunda, cum sint peccata, et quiderii mortalia natura sua. Per oblationem igitur, quam Spiritus CAPUT X. 331 sanctus mundam appellat, non debent intel- ligi opera nostra, id est, sacrificia impro¬ prie dicta, sed sacrificium a Deo institutum, quod ab ipso Deo, non a nobis vim suam ha¬ bet. Res*pondet Kemnitius, opera nostra, esse quidem immunda, ut pannum menstruatae, tamen in Scripturis aliquando vocari munda, et Deo accepta, I Petri n. : Offerentes spiri- rituales hostias acceptabiles Deo per Jesum Christum , et fideles dicuntur elevare puras manus, I Timoth. n. : et omnia dicuntur munda mundis, Tit. i. Sed quaererem libenter a Kemnitio, quo¬ modo in Scripturis dicantur munda, et ac- ceptabilia ista opera. Nam vel sunt vere, ac proprie munda, et tunc ruit eorum opinio de operum nostrorum bonitate : vel non sunt vere et proprie munda, sed dicuntur talia vel ob imputationem Dei, vel quacumque a- lia de causa, et tunc si Malachias loquitur de sacrificio spirituali, oportebit illa verba : Offertur nomini meo oblatio munda , sic expo¬ nere : Offertur nomini meo oblatio vere im¬ munda, sed quam ego mundam esse reputo. Quae expositio absurdissima est : nam sen¬ tentia Malachiae indicat oblationem istam Deo placere, quia est munda ; non autem esse mundam, quia Deus eam reputet ta¬ lem. Secundo Propheta opponit sacrificium ita mundum ex se, et generaliter, ut non possit malitia ministrorum fieri immundum, ei sa¬ crificio, quod facile pollui potest, et quod non est semper mundum. Id patet : nam de sacrificio Judaico dicit : Offertis panem pol¬ lutum. Et : Si offeratis caecum , et claudum , nonne malum est , etc. ubi ostendit sacrificia il¬ la potuisse pollui. Neque credibile est, ita generaliter fuisse rejecta ratione pollutionis tantum ex parte offerentium, quia eadem ratione et nostrum rejici posset. Et praeterea multi Hebraeorum bene offerebant : quare si ista esset causa rejectionis , rejecisset Deus in particulari ista, vel illa, non ita in genere omnia. Itaque rejecta sunt generaliter om¬ nia, quia causa erat generalis, cum omnia pollutioni obnoxia essent. Quod vero illis opponat sacrificium mun¬ dum generaliter, et non obnoxium pollutio¬ ni, patet, quia dicit : In omni loco offertur oblatio munda. Nam si esset mundum ra¬ tione offerentium, non in omni loco offerri mundum diceretur, cum in plurimis locis mali ministri, quod est in se, sacrificium polluant : sed dicitur in omni loco offerri mundum, quia tale est in se, nec potest re¬ vera pollui ex malitia ministrorum. Et prae¬ terea, si causa repudiationis illorum sacrifi¬ ciorum est obnoxia fuisse pollutioni, certe opponi debet illis oblatio non obnoxia pollu¬ tioni. At sacrificia spiritualia, cum ab opere nostro pendeant, obnoxia sunt pollutioni, et reipsa saepe polluuntur, non minus nunc a Christianis, quam olim polluerentur a Judae¬ is ; ergo loquitur Propheta de sacrificio Eu¬ charistiae, quod unum, et solum est vere mundum, et quod nullius ministri malitia pollui potest, cum praecipuus Sacerdos sit Christus, et ipse idem sit sacrificium. Tertium argumentum sumitur ex illis ver¬ bis : Non accipiam munus de manibus vestris etc. Hinc enim colligitur, oblationem Eccle¬ siae non solum esse mundam, sed etiam no¬ vam, et quae antea non fuerit : nam oblatio ista munda, succeditoblationibus Judaeorum, quae occasione pollutionis reprobantur. Non autem succederet, si una cum illis in usu fuisset : debet igitur esse nova oblatio. Et praeterea distinguitur a Propheta sacrificium Gentilium, a sacrificio Judaeorum ; proinde loquitur de sacrificio novo, et quod Judaeis in usu nCn fuerit. Constat autem sacrificia spiritualia precum, psalmorum, et similium rerum, omnia fuisse apud Judaeos; ergo non loquitur de sacrificio spirituali Malachias, sed de sacrificio proprie dicto, quale nullum est in Ecclesia, si Eucharistia non est sacri¬ ficium proprie dictum. Quartum argumentum sumitur ex anti- thesi contemptus, et gloriae Dei, quae descri¬ bitur hoc loco a Propheta. Dicit enim S. Malachias per Haebraeos Sacerdotes contem¬ ptum ac despectum fuisse nomen Dei : sed per oblationem Gentilium glorificatum. He¬ braici autem Sacerdotes Deum offendebant in publico, et visibili sacrificio : ergo gloria Dei apud Gentes nasci debuit etiam ex pu¬ blico, et visibili sacrificio. Alioqui major fuisset contemptus illatus nomini Dei in sa¬ crificio Gentium : ille enim fuisset contem¬ ptus interior, et exterior, et privatus, et pu¬ blicus ; haec autem gloria esset solum priva¬ ta, et magna ex parte interior. Quintum argumentum sumitur ex antithe- si Sacerdotum. Opponit enim Malachias non omni populo, sed Sacerdotibus tantum vete¬ ris legis, non omnes Christianos, sed cer¬ tos homines, qui proprie Sacerdotibus illis succedunt : ergo non loquitur de sacrificio LIBE R V. OOC) spirituali, quoti ab omnibus Christianis offer¬ ri solet, sed de sacrificio proprie dicto, quod a solis 'veris Sacerdotibus offerri potest. Et quidem quod loquatur de Sacerdotibus tan¬ tum, non de omni populo, patet ex illis ver¬ bis : Ad vos, o Sacerdotes , qui despicitis no¬ men meum etc. quocl autem illis opponat solos Sacerdotes, non autem omnem populum pa¬ tet ex eodem Propheta. Nam postquam di¬ xerat cap. i. Offertur nomini meo oblatio mun¬ da etc. exponit cap. m a quibus offerenda sit ista munda oblatio : Purgabit , inquit, fi¬ lios Levi , et colabit cos , quasi aurum, et quasi argentum, et erunt offerentes Domino sacrifi¬ cium in justitia, etc. ubi per filios Levi non possunt intelligi Levita; Testamenti veteris, quia loquitur Propheta apertissime de sacri¬ ficio Ecclesia; Christiana;, et Sacerdotes Lc- viticos jam reprobaverat. Et denique initio capitis legimus : Eccc ego mitto Angelum meum. Qua) verba exponit ipse Dominus de Joan. Baptista Matth. xr. et inde cogimur totum hunc locum intelligere de adventu Do¬ mini, et tempore Testamenti novi. Nec pos¬ sunt intelligi per filios Levi omnes Christiani, quia filii Levi una tantum pars erat in popu¬ lo Dei, non totus populus : quare respondet eis pars quaulam populi Christiani, non totus populus. Et confirmatur ex cap. lxvi. Isaia;, ubi, ut paulo ante ostendimus, distinguuntur Sacerdotes a populo Christiano, cum dicitur : Assumam ex eis Sacerdotes. Non igitur omnes Christiani sunt proprie Sacerdotes, sed certi quidam ex eis assumpti, ac proinde sacrifi¬ cium proprie dictum esse debet, quod ab illis tantum et non ab omnibus offeratur. Denique accedat consensus veterum Pa¬ trum, qui locum hunc Malachise de sacrificio Eucharistiae semper intellexerunt, non de operibus bonis, quae ab omnibus fieri pos¬ sunt. Justinus Martyr in Dialogo cum Tri- phone, disertis verbis (Kemnitio etiam teste) hunc locum exponit de sacrificio Euchari¬ stiae, quod in specie panis, et vini toto orbe terrarum Deo offertur : « De nostris, inquit, Gentium, quae in omni loco offeruntur, sa¬ crificiis, hoc est, pane Eucharistiae, et poculo similiter Eucharistiae, jam tum locutus Mala¬ chias, praedixit nos quidem glorificare no¬ men ejus, vos autem profanare. » Kemnitius nititur hunc locum depravare, ex eo quod Justinus ibidem addit, Euchari¬ stiam fieri in memoriam passionis Christi, et in gratiarum actionem Deo, qui mundum pro nobis condidit, et nos a peccatis libera¬ vit. Hinc enim ipse colligit, sacrificium, de quo Malachias secundum Justinum loquitur, esse sacrificium spirituale, id est, memoriam passionis Domini, et gratiarum actionem Deo pro beneficio creationis, et redemptionis. Sed frustra laborat. Nam Justinus ilKs ver¬ bis explicat causam finalem sacrificii a Ma- lachia praBdicti, non ipsum sacrificium. Sa¬ crificium enim esse dicit oblationem Eucha¬ ristia; ex pane, et vino confecte; causam autem sacrificii esse dicit memoriam passio¬ nis Domini, et actionem gratiarum. Et sane si liceret hoc modo cavillari, probare posse¬ mus, nulla unquam fuisse, ne apud Juda;os quidem, sacrificia proprie dicta : Omnia e- nim fiebant in repraBsentationem passionis Domini, et gratiarum actionem, aut similem aliquam causam. Ireneeus lib. iv. cap. 32. : « Eum, inquit, qui est ex creatura, panem accipit, et gratias egit, dicens : Hoc est corpus meum, et cali¬ cem similiter, qui est ex ea creatura, qua; est secundum nos, suum sanguinem confes¬ sus est, et novi Testamenti, novam docuit oblationem. Quam Ecclesia ab Apostolis ac¬ cipiens, offert Deo in universo mundo ei, qui alimenta nobis pra;stat, primitias suorum munerum : de quo et in duodecim Prophetis Malachias sic pra;significavit : Non est mihi voluntas in vobis etc. » Similia habet eap. 33. et 34. Ifunc etiam locum Kemnitius ad suam sen¬ tentiam detorquere conatus est, sed usque adeo debiliter, ut vix ulla responsione sit opns. Dicit enim Irenamm loqui de oblatione eleemosynarum, qua; inter actionem CoBiia; Domini fieri solebat : atque has eleemosynas sacrificium appellasse, quod Deo offerri dici possit, id quod propter Deum pauperibus offertur, juxta illud : Qui miseretur pauperis, f veneratur Deo. Et illud : Esurivi , et dedistis mihi manducare , qufe duo loca fremens alle¬ gat cap. 34. Sed non advertit Kemnitius IrenaBum a si¬ mili ducere argumentum. Nam cum vellet ostendere , sacrificium Deo exhiberi, non quia ipse indigeat, sed quia nobis utile est gratitudinem erga illum ostendere : affert in exemplum eleemosynam, qua; Deo fieri dicitur, cum tamen non sit utilis Deo, sed nobis. Quod autem Ircnseus intelligat Mala- cbiam de sacrificio proprie dicto, non de eleemosynis, patet ex illis verbis, qua; ha¬ bentur in fine capitis 32 : « Manifeste, inquit, significans Malachias per ha;c , quoniam CAPUT X. 333 prior quidem populus cessabit offerre Beo ; omni autem loco sacrificium offertur ei, et hoc purum, nomen autem ejus glorificatur in Cientibus. » Et ex illis, quae habentur cap. 3 i.: <( Et genus oblationum reprobatum est : oblationes enim et illic, oblationes autem et hic sacrificia in populo, sacrificia et in Ec¬ clesia. » Ubi Irenaeus dicit, sacrificium no¬ strum succedere illi, quod cessavit apud He¬ braeos : et Deum non reprobasse sacrificia absolute, sed genus quoddam sacrificiorum, nimirum Judaicorum . Porro apud Judaeos non cessarunt eleemosyna?, et orationes, et alia improprie dicta sacrificia : sed cessarunt verae, ac proprie dictae immolationes, quae non nisi in Hierusalem fieri poterant; ergo loquitur Irenaeus de sacrificio proprie dicto, et tale vult esse sacrificium Eucharistia?. Denique illa verba cap. 32. « Novi Testamen- ti novam docuit oblationem», nonne cla- rissime, quod volumus, ostendunt ? non e- nim eleemosyna est nova oblatio, nec pro¬ pria Testamenti novi, cum etiam apud Ju- <la?os sit, et fuerit in usu. Tertullianus lib. m. contra Marcionem de¬ clarans sacrificium a Malachia pra?dictum : <c In omni loco, inquit, offertur sacrificium nomini meo, et sacrificium purum, gloriae scilicet relatio, et benedictio, et laus, et hymni, quae omnia, cum in te quoque re¬ prehendantur, et signaculum frontium, et Ecclesiarum Sacramenta, et munditiis sa¬ crificiorum etc. » Hunc locum ad se rapit Kemnitius, ob il¬ las voces : « Gloriae relatio, laus, ethvmni.» Sed Tertullianus describit breviter, et more suo, paulo obscurius, totum ritum sacrificii Missa? : siquidem in eo saicrificio, et ante, et post consecrationem, et oblaitionem sacrifi¬ cii, laudatur Deus, et oratur, et hymni ca¬ nuntur, ut notum est. Vocat autem Tertul¬ lianus benedictionem, ipsam consecrationem Eucharistiae ; unde mox subjungit : « Eccle¬ siarum Sacramenta, et munditiem sacrificio¬ rum. » Denique alludit Tertullianus ad ip¬ sam primani hujus sacrificii oblationem. Do- minus enim in ultima e<ena primo gratias egit, deinde benedixit, et tandem hymnum cecinit : nam hymno dicto exiit in montem olivarum, ut in Evangelio legimus. Quae om¬ nia totidem fere verbis Tertullianus expres¬ sit, cum ait : « Gloriae relatio, benedictio, laus, et hymni. » Profert Kemnitius duo alia loca ex Tertul¬ liano. Unum ex libro contra Judaeos, ubi di¬ cit de sacrificiis spiritualibus locutum esse Malachiam, non de terrenis. Alterum lib. iv. contra Marcionem, ubi legimus simplicem orationem de conscientia pura esse sacrifi¬ cium, de quo loquitur Malachias. Sed facile est respondere. Tertullianus enim non vocat Eucharistiam sacrificium spirituale, quia non sit vere, ac proprie di¬ ctum sacrificium : sed tum quia a Spiritu sancto est, non ab humano, et carnali sensu excogitatum; tum etiam quia non constat victima terrena, sed coelesti, nec carnali modo per gladium et ignem, et sanguinis ef¬ fusionem, sed modo spirituali per verborum benedictionem, et consecrationem sacrifica¬ tur. Neque id durum ulli videbitur, qui co¬ gitet ab eodem Tertulliano in eodem loco, sacrificium Abelis vocari spirituale respe¬ ctu sacrificii Cain, quia nimirum Abel Spi¬ ritu sancto duce sacrificaverit, Cain autem non tam spiritum, quam sensum carnis sua? in sua oblatione ducem habuerit. Quod si sacrificium Abel, licet spirituale dicatur, non desinit esse verum, imo etiam cruentum sa¬ crificium; quanto magis Eucharistia poterit spirituale sacrificium appellari, et tamen ve¬ ri sacrificii nomen, et rationem retinere ? Adde, quod ibidem Tertullianus dicit, sacri¬ ficium Abel fuisse figuram Eucharistia?, ex quo sequitur sic ab eo appellari Euchari¬ stiam sacrificium spirituale, quomodo sacrifi¬ cium Abel. In altero loco Tertullianus non exponit testimonium Malachia? per orationem, ubi nominat sacrificium, sed ubi nominat incen¬ sum. Nam in Hebraa, et Graea editione sic legimus : Incensum offertur , nomini meo, et sacrificium mundum. Ubi. vocem illam incen¬ sum , Tertullianus interpretatur orationem, quod etiam ante cum fecit Irena?us loco ci¬ tato, et post eum Hieron. in comment. Ma¬ lachia?; sed posteriorem vocem, sacrificium, communiter exponunt de Eucharistia. Cyprianus lib. i. contra Juda?os, cap. Hi. ponit in titulo capitis, quod sacrificium vetus evacuetur, et novum celebretur; ac deinde citat hunc locum Malachia*. Non est autem novum sacrificium, nisi sacrificium Eucha¬ ristia : illa enim spiritualia, qua harctici commemorant, semper fuerunt. Eusebius Casariensis lib. i. deinonstr. Evangel. cap. ult. citato loco Malachia, sic ait : « Sacrificamus igitur Deo altissinm sa¬ crificium laudis, sacrificamus Deo plenum, et odorem afferens, et sacrosanctum sacri- cium, sacrificamus novo more, secundum novum Testamentum, hostiam mundam » . His verbis apertissime describitur sacrificium Eucharistiee : hoc enim solum est proprium Testamenti novi, et novo more offertur, et est Deo plenum, et sacrosanctum : oratio¬ num, et eleemosynarum sacrificia, nec sunt propria Testamenti novi, nec novo more offeruntur, nec sunt Deo plena etc. Kemnitius citat ex eodem Eusebio lib. i. demonstrat. Evang. cap. 6. aliud testimo¬ nium. Scribit enim Eusebius Malachise sa¬ crificium significare, quod Gentes in toto mundo orationis incensum, et sacrificium mundum, non per cruores, sed per pias a- ctiones essent oblaturae. At non videtur intellexisse Eusebium Kem¬ nitius illa; enim verba Graeca Eusebii : To Si’ suytov fluuuaga,non significant orationis incen¬ sum, quasi ipsa oratio sit incensum, seu sacrificium, dc quo loquitur Malachias, sed incensum, seu sacrificium, quod per oratio¬ nem, id est, per verba consecrationis percifi- fur. Solent enim Patres consecrationis verba, orationes, seu mysticas preces appellare, Deinde etiamsi per incensnm intelligere de¬ beremus orationem : tamen sequentia verba ad Eucharistiam pertinent; ipsa enim est sacrificium mundum, quod non per cruo- rem, sed per pias, et religiosas actiones, id est, per mysticas consecrationes offertur. Itaque Eusebius utroque loco per sacrifi¬ cium a Malachia praedictum intelligit Eu¬ charistiam. Joan. Ghrysostomus in comment. Psalm. lxxv. posteaquam verba Malachise citaverat, subjungit : « Yide quam luculenter, atque dilucide mysticam interpretatus est mensam, quae est incruenta hostia. Thymiama autem purum vocat sacras preces, quae post ho¬ stiam offeruntur». Ex quo loco exponi potest alius ejusdem Chrysostomi ex homil. 2. con¬ tra Judaeos [quem citat Kemnitius, ubi verba Malachise intelligit de cultu spirituali, qui carnali cultui Judaeorum successit. Yocat enim cultum spiritualem sacrificium Eucha¬ ristiae, quia, ut supra diximus, non carnali modo per gladium, et sanguinis effusion°m, sed per Spiritum sanctum, et per verba con¬ secrationis efficitur. Unde ibidem Ghryso¬ stomus scribit, nostrum vocari sacrificium mundum, quia adeo excellenter est mundum, ut comparatione ejus omnia alia videantur immunda. Quod encomium certe non qua¬ drat in opera nostra, quae sunt sacrificia im¬ proprie dicta, sed in Eucharistiam optime convenit. Hieronymus in comment. Malachise, licet per incensum intelligat orationem (quem lo¬ cum frustra urget Kemnitius tamen per sa¬ crificium intelligit Eucharistiae oblationem ; dicit enim offerri Deo hostiam mundam in caeremoniis Christianorum. Augustinus lib. i. contra advers. legis, et Prophet. cap. 20. tractans hunc locum Mala- chiae : « Ecclesia, inquit, per successiones Apostolorum immolat in corporo Christi sa¬ crificium laudis » . Ubi quod loquatur de vero sacrificio, quod a solis Sacerdotibus proprie dictis offerri potest, patet ex illis verbis : « Per successiones Apostolorum ». Illi enim soli recte immolant sacrificium corporis Christi, qui legitime Apostolis succedunt, qui primi a Christo Sacerdotes instituti fuerunt. Quare frivolum est, quod Kemni- nitius ad hunc locum respondet, ideo non esse contra se, vel pro nobis, quod Augu¬ stinus non inemineritmimicae repraesentatio¬ nis. Nam, ut saepe diximus, non de illa re¬ praesentatione, sed de oblatione Euchari¬ stiae Deo facta controversia est. Quod etiam Kemnitius addit, ab Augustino per incensum intelligi orationes, jam supra declaratum est. Idem Augnstinus de sacrificio corporis Domini in Eucharistia loquens, lib. xvm. Civit, cap. 35. : «Hoc sacrificium, inquit, per Sacerdotes secundum ordinem Melchisedech cum in omni loco a solis ortu usque ad occa¬ sum Deo jam videant offerri, sacrificium Ju¬ daeorum, de quibus dictum est: Non est mihi voluntas in vobis, jam cessare, negare non possunt, aut alium Christum exspectant». Vide eumdem lib. xix. Civit, cap. 23. In oratione contra Judaeos, cap. 9, et in Psal. cvi. in illa verba: Posuit desertum in stagna aquarum. Theodoretus in comment. Madachiae di¬ sertis verbis dicit, secundum Malachise prae¬ dictionem, nunc immolari agnum immacu¬ latum, loco victimarum irrationalium, quae erant in lege Judaeorum. Damascenus lib. iv. de fide, cap. 14: «Hoc, inquit, illud est purum et incruentum sacri¬ ficium, quod a solis ortu usque ad occasum Dominus oblatum iri per Prophetam prae¬ dixit». Denique Rupertus in commentario apertissime de sacrificio Eucharistiae vatici¬ nium exponit,