Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book V: On the Sacrifice of the Mass (First)
Chapter 12: The Sacrifice of the Mass Is Proved from the Words of the Institution
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 sixth principal argument is taken from the institution and first celebration of this mystery, which is had in Matthew 26, Mark 14, Luke 22, and 1 Corinthians 11. And the argument is of this kind: Christ in the last Supper offered Himself under the species of bread and wine to God the Father, and commanded the same to be done by the Apostles and their successors until the consummation of the world; but this is to have offered a sacrifice truly and properly so called, and to have instituted one to be offered; therefore the celebration of the Eucharist is a sacrifice properly so called. The minor of the argument is beyond controversy: but the major the adversaries most obstinately deny. But before we proceed to prove it, it will be worth while briefly to refute an imposture of the adversaries.
John Calvin, in his Antidote to the Articles of Paris, feigns that the Catholics thus prove the major of our argument: “Christ said, Do this. But to do is to sacrifice, according to that of Virgil: When I shall make with a heifer: therefore the Lord commanded to sacrifice.” Then to the argument feigned by himself he answers that the Lord, when He said, “Do this”, did not speak in Latin, that that Virgilian acceptation should have place, but in Syriac or Hebrew, where that grammatical subtlety has no place: accordingly the argument concludes nothing. Martin Kemnitz too, in Part 2 of the Examination, page 716, mocks the Catholics for using that argument from the word doing, which in Virgil is taken for that which is to sacrifice.
But the adversaries err in two things. First, that they do not report the arguments of the Catholics in good faith: for the Catholics do not argue so ineptly. Then, it is false what they assume, that in the Syriac or Hebrew tongue the word (to do) cannot be taken for to sacrifice: for nothing occurs more often in Scripture than that word in that signification. Leviticus 15, verse 15, Moses speaking of two turtledoves to be offered in sacrifice: He shall make, he says, one for sin, and the other for a holocaust, where also in the Hebrew is the word which properly signifies to make. 3 Kings 18, verse 23, Elijah says to the prophets of Baal: Let two oxen be given us, and let them choose one ox for themselves, and cutting it in pieces lay it upon the wood, but put no fire under; and I will make the other ox. Hosea 2, verse 8: I gave her corn, wine, and oil, and multiplied her silver and gold, which they made Baal. See like things Leviticus 9, 14, 23, 24; Numbers 6, 8, 14, 28; 3 Kings 8; Ezekiel 46, and elsewhere.
But these things being omitted, we shall prove the major of our argument, namely that the Lord in the Supper offered to God, and commanded to be offered, His body under the species of bread and wine. And indeed that if He Himself offered, He also commanded to be offered, is certain from those words of Luke 22: Do this in commemoration of me; for that word, This, points out, as we showed above, that which the Lord did in the Supper.
But that the Lord in the Supper offered His body to the Father in the Eucharist, and did not only hold it forth to the Apostles to be eaten, in which lies the whole difficulty, as Kemnitz and others confess, is proved first from what was said in the first, second, and third principal arguments. For He was not truly a priest according to the order of Melchisedech, nor did He fulfill the figure of the Paschal lamb, nor was there truly in the Supper the blood of the New Testament, unless in the Supper He offered Himself in sacrifice, as has been sufficiently demonstrated.
Besides those arguments, we have three others. First, Christ said: This is my body, which is given for you, Luke 22, or as Paul has it, 1 Corinthians 11: Which is broken for you. Likewise: This is the chalice, the new Testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you, Luke 22, and Matthew adds, chapter 26: Unto the remission of sins. Those words of the present tense, is given, is broken, is shed, do not signify given or shed to the Apostles to be eaten and drunk, but given and shed to God in sacrifice: for the Lord does not say, To you it is given, broken, shed, but for you. And moreover that food and drink was not then given or shed except to the Apostles present, and yet the Lord says also: For many it is shed, Matthew 26; the sense therefore is, For you and for many it is given and poured out to God in a propitiatory sacrifice, namely unto the remission of sins.
To this argument no answer can be made, except that which Kemnitz makes, in Part 2 of the Examination, page 710, that those words, is delivered, broken, shed, are referred to the cross, so that the sense is: This is my body, which a little after shall be given to death, and this is the blood which a little after is to be shed on the cross: for what is to be a little after is not unusually said to be already done. And Kemnitz proves that here the present is to be taken for the future, by these arguments. First, because in the Canon of the Mass we read: It is shed. Secondly, because if in the very action of the Mass the blood were shed, the Mass would not be an unbloody sacrifice. Thirdly, Scripture teaches that Christ's blood was shed on the cross. Fourthly, in Scripture often the present, or even the past, is taken for the future, as in those words: I lay down my life. A child is born to us. The Lamb slain from the origin of the world. He adds also, fifthly, that if those words, Which is given for you, were the substantial words of the sacrifice of the Mass, a great crime would be charged upon the Canon of the Mass, that it omitted those words.
But these arguments of Kemnitz are of little force. To the first, not only the Canon of the Mass, but also the Vulgate edition of Scripture, Luke 22, and Cyprian, Book 2, letter 3, read in the future: It shall be shed. But these readings do not fight among themselves, nay one leads to the other; for from this, that the Lord said in the present, is shed, that is, is offered and poured out to God in representation of the effusion to come on the cross, it follows that the effusion on the cross was to come; and at the same time it also follows that thenceforth until the consummation of the world the blood of Christ is to be shed, that is, offered and poured out to God in the sacrifice of the Mass, which succeeded all the ancient sacrifices. And so all are true readings, whether we say, It is shed, that is, now in the Supper, or It shall be shed, that is, on the cross, or It shall be shed, that is, thenceforth in the sacrifice to be frequented through the Church. But none ought to be denied, and especially the first, since the Evangelists and Paul wrote in the present, is given, is shed; and one ought not to deny the proper and simple sense of the letter without a most urgent reason.
To the second, the blood is not shed in the Supper in its own species, but in the species of wine: for the blood is said to be shed in the Supper, when, gathered in a liquid species in the chalice, it is offered to God, and then in the same species is poured into the mouths of those who receive. But this effusion does not make a bloody sacrifice, since the blood in fact does not go forth from the body.
To the third, Scripture most truly teaches that Christ's blood was shed on the cross, but does not deny that it was also shed in the Supper, nay teaches it most openly, nor do these things, as we said, fight among themselves.
To the fourth, I confess that in Scripture often the present or past is taken for the future: but that the present is more often to be taken for the present than for the future, no one, I think, will deny. It should therefore have been proved by Kemnitz that in this place that, Is given and is shed, is taken for the future, not for the present: to omit meanwhile how inept is that example brought by Kemnitz: The Lamb slain from the origin of the world. For if, as he bids, you expound the past for the future, this will be the sense: The Lamb shall be slain from the origin of the world; which sense what a contradiction it includes, everyone sees.
To the fifth, those words, Which is given for you, are not substantial words of the sacrifice, as if the pronouncing of them were necessarily required that the sacrifice be perfected: yet they are of such a kind that they manifestly indicate that a sacrifice was offered by Christ in the Supper.
Kemnitz, therefore, did not prove what he wished: but we on the contrary prove that those words, is given and is shed, must be referred to the action of the Supper, and must be taken in the present. First, because the proper and simple sense of that passage requires it.
Secondly, because Paul, 1 Corinthians 11, said: Which is broken for you, and breaking does not befit the body of Christ except in the species of bread. Wherefore Saint John Chrysostom, homily 24 on First Corinthians, writes that Christ in the Sacrament suffers a breaking which on the cross He would not suffer. And although breaking can somehow be accommodated also to the passion of Christ in His own species, on account of the breaking of the skin and nerves and veins, etc., yet it can scarcely be doubted that the Apostle looked to the species of bread when he said, is broken; for Scripture is wont to use this word properly when it speaks of bread, as: Break thy bread to the hungry, Isaiah 58; the bread which we break, 1 Corinthians 10; They broke bread from house to house, Acts 2. Nor yet can we understand of the bread alone those words: This is my body, which is broken for you; for the bread is not broken for us, but for us the body. It is necessary, therefore, to understand those words of the true body, but under the species of bread, so that the sense is: This is my body, which now for you in the species of bread is broken, that is, is given and immolated to God.
Thirdly, because Luke chapter 22, when he says: This is the chalice, the new Testament in my blood, which is shed for you, joined that, is shed, not with the word, blood, but with the word, chalice, as appears from the Greek text, where it is had, [touto to poterion ekchunomenon]. But certainly if Luke had wished to say that the blood was to be shed on the cross only, he would have said: This is the chalice, the new Testament in my blood, which, namely blood, is shed: but now he said: This is the chalice, which is shed. And so he indicated that the blood was shed as it was in the chalice, and accordingly shed in the Supper.
The second principal argument to prove the aforesaid major, that Christ in the Supper offered Himself in sacrifice, is taken from the true presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Supper, which the Lutherans grant, and the Calvinists would grant, unless they wished to fight with the most open words of Scripture. For the body and blood of Christ are taken in the Supper as the flesh and blood of a victim offered for us; therefore necessarily in the Supper itself they are first immolated and offered to God, before they are taken by us.
But that the body and blood of Christ are taken as a participation of a victim, the Lutherans do not deny: and if they denied it, it would most easily be proved. For first, therefore in the Supper is the body consecrated separately, and separately the blood, that we may understand that the presence of the body and blood in the Supper is after the manner of a slain and dead body. Then the body and blood are in the Supper as food and drink. But flesh and blood are not fit for food unless the animal first die; but Christ does not die except by immolation. And this is the argument of Gregory of Nyssa in the first oration on the Resurrection, where he gathers that in the Supper Christ is immolated, because we could not otherwise feed on His flesh. Hence also Augustine, Book 9 of the Confessions, chapter 13, says that his mother served the altar all days, whence she knew the holy victim was dispensed.
Kemnitz, in Part 2 of the Examination, pages 772 and 773, thinks he has answered this argument excellently. For he says that a true and real presence of the body of Christ does not suffice for a sacrifice: for even in the womb of His mother, and afterward in the manger, there was a true and real presence of the body of Christ, where yet there was no sacrifice. And so he wishes four conditions to be required for a true sacrifice. First, the substance of the thing which is immolated. Secondly, a certain action of offering prescribed by God. Thirdly, a certain person deputed by God to offer. Fourthly, that it be done with that intention and to that end which is prescribed in the word of God. But of these conditions he says only the first is had in the celebration of the Supper, and the rest are altogether lacking.
I answer first, that Christ's body was truly and really present in His mother's womb or in the manger, and yet there was no sacrifice, is nothing to the point. For it was not in the womb or in the manger as a victim, but as a living infant: but in the Supper to be as a victim, they themselves confess. For thus writes Kemnitz himself, to omit others meanwhile, page 717: “There (in the Supper) is dispensed and taken the victim, which for our sins was once offered on the cross.” Thus therefore we frame our argument: The body of Christ, as it is really present in the Supper, is a certain victim; therefore by some preceding immolation it was made a victim. I ask, what was that immolation? You will say, The immolation of the cross. But when the Apostles first participated that victim, Christ had not yet been immolated on the cross. Moreover, neither now can the victim which is on the altar be said to be made by the immolation of the cross: for that immolation was made once only, and the victim made by it a little after ceased to be a victim. For the body of Christ after the resurrection, while it appeared to the disciples, and while it ascended into heaven, could not be called a victim: and much less now, as it lives and reigns in heaven, can it be called a victim. Since therefore the victim made by the immolation of the cross ceased to be a victim, if again the body of Christ begins to be a victim, it must be done by another immolation. But the immolation of the cross cannot be repeated; therefore another new immolation is required. Wherefore either the immolation which sets the victim on the altar, or in the sacred Supper, is the very action and celebration of the mystery of the Eucharist; or there is in the sacred Supper no victim at all.
But as to those three conditions of a sacrifice, which Kemnitz thinks are wanting in the Eucharist, we can easily demonstrate them. For first, the certain persons deputed to the sacrifice are the Apostles and those who succeed them; for to them alone the Lord said: Do this. The intention and end prescribed in the word of God is had in the same place in those words: In commemoration of me. For as the end of the preceding sacrifices was to represent Christ, the sacrifice of the cross, as to come: so the end of the sacrifice of the Eucharist is to commemorate and represent the sacrifice of the cross, as past. And just as those ancient sacrifices did not lose their true and proper nature of sacrifice from this, that they were representative; so also the sacrifice of the Eucharist does not lose its true and proper nature of sacrifice, because it is at the same time commemorative of another sacrifice.
There remains one condition to be demonstrated, namely the action of offering, which indeed we know for certain to be present, even if perhaps we could not easily distinguish and separate it from the other actions which are done at the same time. For from the first condition, which Kemnitz admits, the second, which he denies, is necessarily inferred; for where there is a victim, there necessarily an immolation must precede, and accordingly an oblation, since a victim is not made except by immolation; but the action of immolation and oblation is manifest enough in the Eucharist, namely the very consecration. For the adversaries ought not to demand that we show where the Lord said: I offer, or I sacrifice; or where He commanded, Offer, or Sacrifice: but it is enough if the very action of offering and immolating be shown. For in the Old Testament we nowhere read that the priests said: I offer, or I sacrifice; but by this very thing, that for the honor of God and to signify the death of Christ they set slain animals upon the altar, they were reckoned to offer to God and to sacrifice. As also the Lord on the cross is not read to have said: I offer and sacrifice myself: and yet who would doubt that that voluntary ascent of the cross was a true oblation? In the same manner, therefore, that action by which the body of Christ is set upon the table for the honor of God, that it may be consumed, and this is done to represent the passion of the same Christ, must be called an oblation and immolation. But that action is the consecration: for by consecration it comes to pass that the body of Christ is truly and visibly present upon the table, and is present aptly to represent the passion and death of the same.
The third principal argument to prove the same major is taken from the Fathers, who openly say that Christ in the Supper offered Himself to God the Father under the species of bread and wine.
Irenaeus, Book 4, chapter 32: “He taught the new oblation of the New Testament.” Cyprian, Book 2, letter 3: “Who is more a priest of the most high God than our Lord Jesus Christ? who offered a sacrifice to God the Father, and offered the very same that Melchisedech had offered, namely bread and wine, that is, His body and blood.” Ambrose on Psalm 38, on those words, Man passeth as an image: “We have seen the Prince of priests coming to us; we have seen and heard Him offering for us His blood. Let us follow, as we can, we priests, that we may offer sacrifice for the people. For though weak in merit, yet we are honorable in the sacrifice: because though now Christ is not seen to offer, yet He Himself is offered on earth, when the body of Christ is offered: nay He is manifested to offer in us, whose word sanctifies the sacrifice which is offered.” Gregory of Nyssa, oration 1 on the Resurrection: “By an ineffable and secret manner of sacrifice, which cannot be seen by men, by His own disposition He forestalls the violent onset, and offers Himself an oblation and victim for us, being at once priest and Lamb of God. When did this happen? when He gave His body to be eaten and His blood to be drunk to His familiars.” John Chrysostom, homily 24 on First Corinthians: “In place of the slaying of brute beasts,” he says, “He commanded Himself to be offered.” And homily 2 on Second Timothy, near the end: “The sacred oblation itself, whether Peter offer it, or Paul, or a priest of any merit whatever, is the same which Christ Himself gave to the disciples, and which the priests now also confect: this has nothing less than that. Why so? because men do not sanctify this, but Christ, who before had consecrated it.” Augustine on Psalm 33, second sermon: “He instituted a sacrifice of His body and blood according to the order of Melchisedech.” See also Book 3 on Baptism against the Donatists, chapter 19; Book 20 against Faustus, chapter 21; letter 5 to Marcellinus; Book 17 of the City of God, chapter 20; and Book of 83 Questions, question 61. Leo, sermon 7 on the Passion of the Lord: “That the shadows might yield to the body, etc.” Hesychius, Book 2 on Leviticus, chapter 8: “First eating the figured sheep with the Apostles, the Lord afterward offered His own sacrifice.” Rupert, Book 2 on Exodus, chapter 6: “In the anguish of His passion agonizing, with His own hands He immolated Himself to God the Father, taking bread, etc.”
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XII. Probatur sacrificium Missse cx verbis institutionis. Sextum argumentum principale sumitur ab institutione, et prima celebratione hujus mysterii, qua) habetur Mattii . xxvi. Mare, xiv. Luca} xxii. et I Cor. xi. Est autem ar¬ gumentum hujusmodi: Christus in ultima Ccena se ipsum sub specie panis, et vini Deo Patri obtulit, et idipsum jussit fieri ab Apo¬ stolis, et eorum succesoribus usque ad mundi consummationem, sed hoc est sacrificium vere, ac proprie dictum obtulisse, et offe¬ rendum instituisse ; ergo celebratio Eucha¬ ristia} est sacrificium proprie dictum. Assum¬ ptio argumenti extra controversiam est: sed propositionem adversarii pertinacissime ne¬ gant. Antequam autem progrediamur ad eam comprobandam, opera} pretium erit, imposturam adversariorum breviter refu¬ tare. Joannes Calvinus in antidoto articulorum Parisiensium, fingit Catholicos ita probare propositionem nostri argumenti : <c Christus dixit, Hoc facite. Sed facere, est sacrificare, juxta illud Virgibi : Cum faciam vitula : ergo Dominus jussit sacrificare». Deinde argu¬ mento a se conficto, respondet, Dominum, cum ait : « Hoc facite » , non esse locutum latine, ut locum habeat acceptio illa Yirgi- liana, sed syriaee, sive hebraicc, ubi non habet locum illa subtilitas grammaticalis : proinde argumentum nihil concludere, Mar- tinus etiam Kemnitius in 2. par. Exam. pag. 716. Catholicos ridet, quod utantur illo ar¬ gumento ex vocabulo faciendi, quod apud Virgilium accipiatur pro eo, quod est sacri¬ ficare. Sed errant in duobus adversarii. Pri¬ mum quod non bona fide referant argu¬ menta Catholicorum : non enim Catholici tam inepte argumentantur. Deinde, falsum est, quod assumunt, in lingua Syriaca, vel Hebraica, verbum (facere) non posse accipi pro sacrificare : nihil enim sa}pius occurrit in Scriptura, quam illud verbum in ea significa tione. Levit, xv. ver. 15 loquens Moses de duobus turturibus in sacrificium offerendis : Faciet, inquit, unum pro peccato , et alterum CAPIT X/I. in holocaustum , ubi etiam in Hebraeo est verbum quod proprie significat facere, ^nan En£ mE7£ III. Reg. 'xviii. ver 23. dicit Elias prophetis Baal : Dentur nobis duo boves, et illi eligant sibi bovem unum, et in frusta ce¬ dentes ponant super ligna, ignem autem non supponant , et ego faciam bovem alterum "IDm DS i;svi Oscae 11. ver. 8. Ego dedi ei frumentum, vinum , et oleum, et argen¬ tum multiplicavi ei, aurum quie fecerunt Baal. “1©!? Vide similia Levit, ix. xiv. xxni. xxiv. Num. vi. vm. xiv. xxym. 111. Reg. viii. Ezeeh. vlxi. et alibi. Sed his omissis, probabimus propositionem nostri argumenti, quod videlicet Dominus in corna obtulerit Deo, et jusserit offerri corpus suum in specie panis, et vini. Et quidem, quod si ipse obtulit, jusserit etiam offerri, certum est ex illis verbis Lucar xxn : Hoc fa¬ cite in meam commemorationem ; illud enim. Hoc , demonstrat, ut supra ostendimus, id quod Dominus fecit in ccena. Quod autem Domi nusin ccena obtulerit cor¬ pus suum Patri in Eucharistia, et non solum Apostolis manducandum porrexerit, in quo lota est difficultas, ut etiam Kemnitius et alii fatentur, probatur primo ex dictis in 1. 2. et 3. argumento principali. Non enim fuit vere sacerdos secundum ordinem Melchise- dech, neque implevit figuram agni Pascha¬ lis, neque fuit vere sanguis comar, sanguis Testamenti novi, nisi in ccena se obtulerit in sacrificium, ut satis luse demonstratum est. Prarter illa argumenta, habemus alia tria. Pri mum, Christus dixit : Hoc est corpus meum, quod pro vobis datur, Lucar xvn, vel ut habet Paulus I Corint. xi : Quod pro vobis datur frangitur. Item : Hic est calix novum Testa¬ mentum in sanguine meo, qui pro vobis effun¬ ditur, , Luc. xxn. et addit Mattharus, cap. xxvi ; In remissionem peccatorum. Illa verba tem¬ poris praesentis, datur, frangitur , funditur uon significant dari, vel effundi Apostolis ad manducandum, et bibendum, sed dari, et effundi Deo in sacrificium : nam non ait Do¬ minus, Vobis datur, frangitur, effunditur, sed pro vobis. Et praeterea non dabatur, aut effundebatur cibus ille, et polus tunc nisi Apostolis praesentibus, et tamen Dominus ait etiam : Pro multis effunditur, Matth.xxvi sen¬ sus igitur est, Pro vobis, et pro multis datur; et libatur Deo in sacrificium propitiatorium, in remissionem videlicet peccatorum. Ad hoc argumentum non potest respon¬ deri, nisi id quod respondet Kemnitius. in Tom. IV. par. exarn. pug. 710. illa verba, traditur frangitur , effunditur , referri ad crucem, ut sensus sil : Hoc est coipus meum, quod paulo post dabitur ad mortem, et hic est sanguis, qui paulo post in cruce fundendus est : quod enim paulo post futurum est, non inusitate dicitur jam fieri. Et probatKemnitius debere accipi hoc loco praesens pro futuro, his ar¬ gumentis. Primo, quia in Canone Missa: le¬ gimus : Effunditur. Secundo, quia si ipsa actione Missae sanguis effunderetur, non esset Missa incruentum sacrificium. Tertio, Scriptura tradit Christi sanguinem fusum esse in cruce. Quarto, in Scriptura saepe accipiturpraosens, vel etiam praeteritum pro futuro, ut in illis verbis : Ego pono animam meam. Puer natus est nobis. Agnus occisus est ab origine mundi. Addit etiam quinto, quod si ista verba : Quod pro vobis datur , essent substantialia verba sacrificii Missae, magnum scelus impengeretur Canoni Missae, quod illa verba praetermiserit. Sed ista Kemnitii argumenta parum va¬ lent. Ad primum, non solum canon Missae, sed etiam vulgata editio Scriptubac Lucae xxn. et Cyprianus lib. n. epist. 3. legunt in futuro : Effundetur. Sed istae lectiones non pugnant inter se, imo una inducit alteram; nam ex eo, quod Dominus in praesenti dixit, funditur, id est, offertur, ac libatur Deo in in repraesentationem effusionis futurae in cruce, sequitur effusionem in crucc fuisse futurum ; et simul etiam sequitur, deinceps usque ad mundi comsummationem funden¬ dum sanguinem Christi, id est, offerendum et libandum Deo in sacrificio Missae, quod omnibus veteribus sacrificiis successit. Ita¬ que omnes sunt verae lectiones, sive dica¬ mus, Funditur, id est, nunc in coena, sive Fundetur, id est, in cruce, sive Fundetur, id est, deinceps in sacrificio per Ecclesiam frequentando. Sed nulla negari debet, et praesertim prima, cum Evangelistae, et Pau¬ lus scripserint in praesenti, datur, effunditur ; et non oporteat negare proprium, et sim¬ plicem litterae sensum sine urgentissime ra¬ tione. Ad secundum, non effunditur in coma sanguis in propria specie, sed in specie vini: dicitur enim sanguis in ccena fundi, cluni in specie liquida in calice collectus offertur Deo, ac deinde in eadem specie funditur in ora sumentium. Sed haec effusio non facit sacrificium cruentum, cum sanguis reipsa de corpore non egrediatur. 22 338 LIBER V. Ad tertium, Scriptura verissime tradit Christi sanguinem fusum esse in cruce, sed non negat fusum etiam fuisse in Ccena, imo id appertissime docet, neque ista, ut diximus, inter se pugnant. Ad quartum, fateor in Scriptura ssope ac¬ cipi praesens, aut praeteritum pro futuro : sed saepius praesens pro praesenti, quam pro futuro accipiendum nemo, credo, inficiabi- tur. Probandum igitur esset Kemnitio hoc loco, illud : Datur , et effunditur , accipi pro futuro, non pro praesenti : ut interim omit¬ tam, quam ineptum sit illud exemplum a Kemnitio adductum : Agnus occisus est ab ori¬ gine mundi. Si enim, ut ipse jubet, expo¬ nas praeteritum pro futuro, hic erit sensus : Agnus occidetur ab origine mundi; qui sen¬ sus quam repugnantiam includat, nemo non videt. Ad quintum illa verba : Quod pro vobis datur , non sunt verba substantialia sacri¬ ficii, quasi necessario requiratur eorum pronunciatio , ut sacrificium percifiatur : sunt tamen ejusmodi, ut manifeste indicent sacrificitim a Christo in Ccena fuisse obla¬ tum. Non igitur probavit Kemnitius quod vole¬ bat : nos vero contra probamus, illa verba : datur, et funditur , debere referri ad actio¬ nem ccenee, et in praesenti accipienda esse. Primo, quia id requirit propria, et simplex ejus loci sententia. Secundo, quia Paulus I Corinth. xi. dixit : Quod pro vobis frangitur, frangi autem non convenit Christi corpori, nisi in specie panis. Quare S. Joannes Chrysostomus homil. 24. in priorem ad Corinth. scribit Christum in Sacramento pati fractionem, quam in cruce pati noluit. Et quamvis utcumque possit fra¬ ctio etiam ad passionem Christi in propria specie accommodari, propter confractionem cutis, et nervorum, ac venarum etc., tamen vix dubium esse potest, quin Apostolus re¬ spexerit ad species panis, cum ait, frangitur ; Scriptura enim proprie uti solet hac voce cum loquitur de pane, ut : Frange esurienti panem tuum, Isaiee lviii. ; panis quem frangi¬ mus, I Corinth. x ; Frangebant circa domos panem. Actor, ii. Nec tamen possumus de solo pane intelligere illa verba : Hoc est cor¬ pus meum, quod pro vobis frangitur ; non e- nim panis pro nobis frangitur, sed nobis. Oportet igitur intelligere verba illa de vero corpore, sed sub specie panis, ut sensus sit : Hoc est corpus meum, quod nunc pro vobis in specie panis frangitur, id est, datur, et immolatur Deo. Tertio, quiaLucascap. xxii. cum ait : Hic est calix novum Testamentum in sanguine meo , qui pro vobis funditur ; illud, funditur, non conjunxit cum voce, sanguine , sed cum voce, calix , ut ex Graeco textu apparet, ubi habe¬ tur, XOUTO TO TTOXV^ptOV ZXf UVOgSVOV. At Cei’te si Lucas dicere voluisset, sanguinem funden¬ dum in cruce tantummodo, dixisset : Hic est calix novum Testamentum in sanguine meo, qui, nimirum sanguis, funditur : nunc autem dixit : Hic est calix, qui funditur. Ita¬ que indicavit sanguinem fundi, ut erat in calice, et proinde fundi in coena. Secundum argumentum principale ad pro¬ bandam propositionem supradictam, quod Christus in coena se obtulerit in sacrificium, sumitur ex vera praesentia corporis, et san¬ guinis Christi in coena, quam Lutherani con¬ cedunt, et Calvinistae concederent, nisi cum apertissimis Scripturae verbis pugnare vel¬ lent. Nam Christi corpus, et sanguis in ccena sumuntur, ut caro, et sanguis victimae pro nobis oblatae ; ergo necessario in ipsa coena prius immolantur, et offeruntur Deo, quam a nobis sumantur. Sumi autem Christi corpus, et sangui¬ nem, ut participationem victimae, Lutherani non negant : et si negarent, facillime proba¬ retur. Nam in primis ideo in coena seorsim consecratur corpus, et seorsim sanguis, ut intelligamus, praesentiam corporis et sangui¬ nis in coena esse ad modum occisi, et mortui corporis. Deinde corpus, et sanguis sunt in coena, ut cibus, et potus. At caro, et san¬ guis, non sunt apta ad cibum, nisi prius ani¬ mal moriatur; Christus autem non moritur, nisi per immolationem. Et hoc est argumen¬ tum Gregorii Nysseni in prima oratione de Resurrect. ubi colligit in coena Christum immolari, quia non possemus aliter carne ejus vesci. Hinc etiam Augustinus lib. ix. Confess. caip. 13. dicit matrem suam omni¬ bus diebus servisse altari, unde sciret dis¬ pensari victimam sanctam. Kemnitius in 2. par. Exam. pag. 772. et 773. egregie se ad hocargumentum respon¬ disse putat. Dicit enim non sufficere praesen¬ tiam veram, et realem corporis Christi ad sacrificium : nam etiam in utero matris, et postea in praesepi, fuit vera, et realis prae¬ sentia corporis Christi, ubi tamen nullum fuit sacrificium. Itaque vult quatuor condi¬ tiones requiri ad verum sacrificium. Primo, CAPUT XII. 339 substantiam rei, qua? immolatur. ..Secundo, certam offerendi -actionem a Deo proscri¬ ptam. Tertio, certam personam a Deo depu¬ tatam ad offerendum. Quarto, ut fiat ea in¬ tentione. et ad cum finem, qui in verbo Dei praescriptus est. Ex his autem conditionibus primam duntaxat haberi dicit in celebra¬ tione ccenae, reliquas omnino deesse. Respondeo primum, quod Christi corpus in utero matris, vel in praesepi vere, ac rea- liter fuerit praesens, et tamen non fuerit sa¬ crificium, ad rem nihil facit. Nam non erat in utero, vel in praesepi, ut victima, sed ut vivens infantulus : in ccena autem esse ut victimam, ipsi fatentur. Sic enim scribit ipse Kemnitius, ut alios interim omittam, pag. 717. c. Ibi (in ccena) dispensatur, et su¬ mitur victima, quae pro peccatis nostris se¬ mel in cruce oblata est » . Haec ille. Sic igitur nos argumentum instruimus : Christi corpus, ut in Coena reipsa adest, victima quaedam est ; ergo aliqua praecedente immolatione victima factum est. Quaero, quae fuerit illa immolatio ? dices, Immolatio crucis. At cum primum Apostoli participarunt istam victi¬ mam, nondum Christus in cruce fuerat im¬ molatus. Praeterea neque nunc victima, quae est in altari, potest dici facta per immola¬ tionem crucis : nam illa immolatio semel tantum facta est, et victima per eam facta, paulo post desiit esse victima. Christi enim corpus post resurrectionem dum apparebat discipulis, et dum in coelum ascendebat, victima dici non poterat : et multo minus nunc, ut in coelis vivit ac regnat, victima dici potest. Cum igitur victima per immola¬ tionem crucis facta, desierit esse victima, si iterum Christi corpus incipit esse victima, debet alia immolatione id fieri. Sed immo¬ latio crucis non potest repeti ; alia igitur nova requiritur immolatio. Quare aut immolatio, quae victimam ponit altari, seu in sacra ccena, est ipsa actio, celebratioque mysterii Eucha¬ ristiae : aut non est in sacra ccena ulla victi¬ ma. Quod vero attinet ad illas tres conditiones sacrificii, quas in Eucharistia desiderari Kemnitius putat, nos facile possumus eas demonstrare. Nam in primis certae personae deputatae ad sacrificium, sunt Apostoli, et qui eis succedunt ; illis enim solis Dominus dixit : Hoc facite. Intentio, et finis in verbo Dei praescriptus, habetur ibidem in illis ver¬ bis : In meam commemorationem. Nam ut finis erat sacrificiorum praecedentium, Christum repraesentare sacrificium crucis, ut futurum : sic finis est sacrificii Eucharistiae commemo¬ rare, et repraesentare sacrificium crucis, ul praeteritum. Et sicut vetera illa sacrificia non amittebant suam, et veram, et propriam sa¬ crificii rationem exeo, quod essent repraesen- tativa ; ita etiam sacrificium Eucharistiae, non amittit suam, et veram, ac propriam sacrificii rationem, quia simul est alterius sacrificii commemorativum. Restat una conditio demonstranda, nimi¬ rum actio offerendi, quam quidem certo sci¬ mus adesse, etiamsi forte eam non facile possemus distinguere, et separare ab aliis actionibus quse simul fiunt. Nam ex prima conditione, quam Kemnitius admittit, neces¬ sario infertur secunda, quam ipse negat ; Ubi enim est victima, ibi necessario pree ce¬ dere debet immolatio, et proinde oblatio, cum victima non fiat, nisi per immolationem ; sed satis manifesta est actio immolationis, et oblationis in Eucharistia, nimirum ipsa con¬ secratio. Neque enim petere debent adver¬ sarii, ut ostendamus ubi Dominus dixerit : Ego offero, vel sacrificio; aut ubi . j usserit, Offerte, vel sacrificate : sed satis est, si actio ipsa offerendi, et immolandi ostendatur. Nam in Testamento vetCri nusquam legimus dixisse sacerdotes : Ego offero, vel sacrifico ; sed hoc ipso, quod ad Dei honorem, et ad significandam Christi mortem, animalia caesa super altare ponebant, offerre Deo, et sacri¬ ficare censebantur. Quemadmodum etiam Dominus in cruce non legitur dixisse : Ego me offero, et sacrifico : et tamen quis dubi¬ tet spontaneam illam ascensionem crucis, veram oblationem fuisse?Adeumdem igitur modum illa actio, qua Christi corpus ad Dei honorem super mensam ponitur, ut consu¬ matur, idque fit ad repraesentandam ejusdem Christi passionem, oblatio, et immolatio, di¬ cenda est. Illa autem actio consecratio est : nam per consecrationem fit, ut Christi cor¬ pus vere et visibiliter adsit super mensam, et adsit apte ad repraesentandam passionem, et mortem ejusdem. Tertium argumentum principale ad cam- dem probandam propositionem, sumitur ex Patribus, qui aperte dicunt, Christum in ccena seipsum Deo Patri sub specie panis, et vini obtulisse. Iren0euslib.1v. cap. 32: «Novi Testamenti novam docuit oblationem». Cyprianus lib.11. epist. 3 : « Quis magis sacerdos Dei summi, quam Dominus noster Jesus Christus ? qui 310 LIBER V. sacrificium Deo Putri obtulit, ct obtulit hoc i ilem quod Mclcliiscdceh obtulerat, panem scilicet, et vinum, Jioc est, suum corpus, et sanguinem ». Ambrosius in Psalm. xxxvili. in illa verba : In imagine pertransit horno : « Vidimus, inquit, Principem sacerdotum ad nos venientem; vidimus, et audivimus offe¬ rentem pro nobis sanguinem suum. Sequa¬ mur, ut possumus, Sacerdotes, ut offeramus pro populo sacrificium. Nam et si infirmi merito, tamen honorabiles saerifio : quia et si nunc Christus non videtur offerre, tamen ipse offertur in terris, quando Christi corpus offertur : imo ipse offerre manifestatur in nobis, cujus sermo sanctificat sacrificium quod offertur ». Gregorius Nyssenus orat. i. de Resurrect. : « Pro ineffabili, arcanoque, ct qui ab hominibus cerni nequit , sacrificii modo, sua dispositione prieoccupat impetum violentum, ac sese oblationem, ac victimam offert pro nobis sacerdos simul, et agnus Dei. Quando hoc accidit? cum suum corpus ad comedendum, et sanguinem adbibendum fa¬ miliaribus praebuit.» Joann. Chrysostomus homil. 24. in priorem ad Corinthios : « Pro brutorum, inquit, caedo seipsum offerendum praecepit.)) Et homil. 2. in posteriorem ad Ti¬ motheum, prope finem: «Sacra ipsa oblatio, sive illam Petrus, sive Paulus, sive alius cu- jusyis meriti sacerdos offerat, eadem est, quam dedit Christus ipse discipulis, quamque sacerdotes modo quoque conficiunt: nihil ha¬ bet ista, quam illa minus. Cur id ? quia non hanc sanctificant homines, sed Christus, qui illam ante sacraverat ». Augustinus in Psal. xxxiii conc. 2. «Ipse de corpore, et sanguine suo, sacrificium instituit secundum ordinem Molchiscdech ». Vide etiam lib. ni de Bapti¬ smo contra Donatistas, cap. 19. lib. xx. contra Faustum, cap. 21.epist. o. ad Marcellinum, lib. xvn. de civit. Dei, cap. 20. ct lib. lxxxiii queest. 61. Deo ser. vii. de passione Domini: « Ut umbrae cederent corpori ctc. Isichius lib. 2. in Levit, cap. 8. « Prius figuratam ovem cum Apostolis comans Dominus, post¬ ea suum obtulit sacrificium. » Itupertus lib. ii. in Exodum cap. G. « In angustia pas¬ sionis- agonizans, propriis manibus Deo Patri, semetipsum immolavit, -accipiens panem ctc. ))