Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book V: On the Sacrifice of the Mass (First)
Chapter 15: The Sacrifice of the Mass Is Proved from the Tradition of the Fathers, and First from the Words Sacrifice, Oblation, Immolation
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).
Thus far we have drawn testimonies for the sacrifice of the Mass from the divine letters: now we come to the second place, namely to the testimonies of the ancient Fathers. For Kemnitz rightly says, page 773, that good minds are much moved by the consent and testimony of antiquity, and especially of that which was in the purer, best, and most flourishing times of the Church. But because it would be too long to sift each testimony separately, as we did in the disputation on the truth of the Lord's body in the Eucharist, we shall reduce all to a few heads, and at the same time refute the answers of the adversaries.
The first head, therefore, or argument, can be taken from the names of sacrifice, host, victim; and from the words, to offer, to immolate, to sacrifice, which the Fathers use when they speak of the celebration of the Lord's Supper; for passim both Greeks and Latins not only say that the Eucharist is a sacrifice or oblation, but say that it is offered to God, immolated, and sacrificed. Nor is it needful to note the places where such words are had: for the adversaries confess that they are most frequent among the Fathers. “It cannot be denied,” says Kemnitz, page 782, “that the ancients, when they speak of the celebration of the Lord's Supper, use the words sacrifice, immolation, oblation, host, victim; likewise use the words to offer, to sacrifice, to immolate.” This manner of speaking, therefore, sufficiently indicates what the Fathers thought: for if they esteemed the Eucharist to be only a Sacrament, and not also a sacrifice, as the adversaries think, there would be no cause why they should speak otherwise of the Eucharist than of Baptism. But nowhere do the Fathers call Baptism a sacrifice, a host, a victim; nor do they say that to baptize is to sacrifice or to immolate. Moreover what cause would there be why the Fathers should speak of the Sacrament of the Eucharist otherwise than our adversaries speak? for how will it be credible that the ancient Fathers agreed with us in the manner of speaking, but with the adversaries in the opinion?
But let us see what they answer. Luther, in his book on the Babylonian Captivity, chapter 1, timidly says that the Fathers perhaps call a sacrifice, not the Eucharist itself, but the prayers which are said in the Mass. But because he saw that this solution was not sufficient, since the Fathers passim call the Eucharist itself a sacrifice, and say it is offered to God by the priests, as we shall show a little after, he boldly bids farewell to the Fathers: “If nothing is had,” he says, “which can be said, it is safer to deny all than to grant that the Mass is a sacrifice.” And in his book on abrogating the Mass, at the beginning he writes thus: “I profess first, against those who are about to cry out that I have taught against the rite of the Church, against the statutes of the Fathers, that I will hear none of these things.” And below he openly says that he does not care what the Fathers said of the Mass, but what they ought to have said. He has like things in his book against the King of England: “Lastly,” he says, “the king brings forward the sayings of the Fathers for the sacrifice of the Mass, and laughs at my folly, that I alone wish to be wise before all. This is what I said, that the Thomistic asses have nothing to bring forward but the multitude of men and ancient usage.” And a little below he says that he cares nothing if a thousand Augustines and a thousand Cyprians stand against him. Finally in his book on private Mass: “Here we do not tarry,” he says, “if the Papists cry, The Church, the Church, the Fathers, the Fathers: because, as I said, we care nothing in such great causes for the sayings or deeds of men. For we know that the very prophets fell, and even the Apostles: by the word of Christ we judge the Church, the Apostles, and even the very angels.”
John Calvin, in Book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 18, § 10, answers at the beginning that the Sacrament of the Eucharist is called a sacrifice by the Fathers because it is a memorial of the sacrifice of the cross. Which solution Kemnitz pursues more fully, and therefore a little below we shall refute it together with the solutions of Kemnitz: especially since Calvin does not seem to trust much in this solution. For a little after, § 11, he not only confesses that the ancients used words which signify a sacrifice, but also acknowledges that in the manner of the action they approached the nature of a sacrifice, and most openly reprehends them, although he strives, ineptly, to excuse their sense: “Because I see that the ancients too,” he says, “wrested this memory otherwise than befitted the institution of the Lord (because their Supper bore, I know not by what repeated or at least renewed appearance of immolation), nothing would be safer for pious breasts than to rest in the pure and simple ordinance of God, which is also therefore called a Supper, because here His authority alone ought to prevail.” And § 12: “And certainly, if we consider that it is the Supper of the Lord, not of men, there is no reason why we should suffer ourselves by any authority of men or prescription of years to be moved from it even a finger's breadth.”
And so Luther and Calvin are not men of good mind, in the judgment of Kemnitz, since they are not moved by the consent and testimony of the ancient and true and most flourishing Church of Christ. But Kemnitz himself, that he may persuade his readers that he has a good mind, says four things about the testimonies of the Fathers. First, page 776 and following, he trifles much about the state of the question; for he writes that it cannot be proved from the Fathers that that histrionic representation, which the Pontificials call the Mass, is a sacrifice. But we have already answered above that the state of the question is not about the ceremonies and rites of the Mass; for of these we shall afterward dispute in their proper place; but about the substance of the sacrifice. Wherefore we are not bound in this place to prove from the Fathers the rites of the Mass, but only that the Eucharist is offered to God, and not only distributed to the people: for that is what we now dispute about.
Secondly, page 780 and following, he treats of the words Mass and sacrifice; and delivers six ways of explaining the places of the Fathers who seem to assert that the Mass is a sacrifice. The first is, that they speak of the almsdeeds which were made in the Mass. For the people offered bread and wine, of which a certain part was consecrated into the Eucharist, a part went to the use of the poor: but almsgiving is a certain kind of sacrifice. The second, that they speak of the prayers which were made in the celebration of the Supper: for prayers are certain sacrifices. The third, that they speak of the thanksgiving to which men are excited in the celebration of the Supper, from the consideration of God's benefits: for to give thanks pertains to the sacrifice of praise. The fourth, that they speak of the preaching and announcing of the Lord's death, which was wont to be joined to the celebration of the Supper. For Paul, Romans 15, calls the ministry of the Gospel a sacrifice. The fifth, that they speak of the various exercises of piety which occur in the Lord's Supper, as of faith, penance, hope, love; for these are called by blessed Peter spiritual hosts. The sixth, that they speak of the oblation of the faithful, who in the action of the Supper vow and consecrate themselves to God, that is, their body and soul. For Paul, Romans 12, calls the presenting of the body to His service a host pleasing to God.
But all these reasons are nothing to the point. For the Fathers, when they speak of the oblation of the Eucharist, openly say that it is lawful for priests alone to offer that sacrifice to God: but almsdeeds, prayers, praises, and the rest which Kemnitz laboriously heaped up, are offered by the whole people. Tertullian, in his book on the veiling of virgins: “It is not permitted,” he says, “to a woman to speak in the Church, nor to teach, nor to baptize, nor to offer.” The same, in his book on the exhortation to chastity, says that it is the office of a priest to teach, to baptize, to offer. Epiphanius likewise, heresy 79, contends with many words that it is not lawful for women to offer sacrifices, and therefore Christ did not permit even His own Mother to sacrifice, but the Apostles alone, whom He had ordained priests. The Council of Nicaea, canon 14, and Jerome in the letter to Evagrius, and other Councils and Fathers, teach passim that deacons have not the power of offering the sacrifice, but that this office is of the priests. But who ever denied that it is lawful for deacons, nay even for laymen and women, to offer almsdeeds, prayers, and other spiritual and improperly so-called sacrifices?
Moreover the Fathers say in express words that the sacrifice which is offered in the Church by the priests is the very body and blood of the Lord; accordingly all those solutions of Kemnitz are vain: unless perhaps he wishes, by some unheard-of trope, to understand by the body of the Lord almsdeeds, prayers, etc.
Saint Andrew the Apostle, as the priests and deacons of Achaia write in the account of his passion, said to Aegeas the proconsul: “I offer on the altar the immaculate Lamb, whose flesh, after all the people of believers have eaten it, the Lamb which was immolated remains whole and living.” Hippolytus the Martyr, in his oration on Antichrist, brings in Christ thus speaking to the priests: “Come, ye Pontiffs and Priests, who daily immolated my precious body and blood.” Ambrose on Psalm 38: “And though now Christ is not seen to offer, yet He Himself is offered on earth, when His body is offered.” And on chapter 1 of Luke: “When we sacrifice,” he says, “Christ is present, Christ is immolated.” Gregory of Nyssa in his oration on the Resurrection: “The Lord,” he says, “forestalling the onset of the Jews, offers Himself a victim, being at once priest and Lamb. But you will say to me, when did this happen? then when He gave His body to be eaten and His blood to be drunk to His familiars.” Chrysostom, homily 24 on First Corinthians: “In place of the slaying of victims and cattle He commanded Himself to be offered.” And homily 17 on the Epistle to the Hebrews: “In many places He is offered; not many Christs, but one Christ everywhere, existing here and there full, one body, not many bodies.” The same the author of the Commentaries attributed to Ambrose writes, on chapter 10 to the Hebrews, and after them Primasius on the same place. Augustine, Book 2 of the Questions on the Gospel, question 3, giving the reason why the Lord commanded the leper to offer a sacrifice for his cleansing according to the rite of Moses: “Because,” he says, “this sacrifice, the holy of holies, which is His body, was not yet instituted.” The same, Book 4 on the Trinity, chapter 11: “What could be more acceptably offered or received than the flesh of our sacrifice, made the body of our priest?” He has like things: Cyril, in his book on adoration in spirit and in truth; Leo, sermon 8 on the Passion; Fulgentius, Book 2 to Monimus, chapter 2; and other Fathers passim. And the very Council of Nicaea, in that canon which Calvin and all others receive, openly says that on the sacred table is set the Lamb of God unbloodily immolated.
Which since Kemnitz was not ignorant of, he added a third saying, page 788 and following. “But they except,” he says, “not only those exercises of piety, but the very action of the Lord's Supper, and indeed the very body and blood in the Supper, are called by the ancients a sacrifice, oblation, host, victim: but I do not deny this, etc.” Then he sets down three ways of explaining the places of the Fathers which call the very action of the Supper, or the body of Christ, a sacrifice: which ways we shall refute one by one, omitting the third, because it pertains only to those places of the Fathers which say that the sacrifice of the altar is propitiatory, which is another controversy to be explained below in its place.
The first way, therefore, is that they call the action of the Supper a sacrifice, because the consecration and dispensation of the Eucharist is a certain sacred action, which by Dionysius is called in Greek [hierourgia]. For the Latins said to sacrifice for that which the Greeks say [hierourgein]. And this he proves. For Paul, Romans 15, describes by the words of sacrifice and oblation the ministry of the Gospel, because it is a certain sacred action. And Augustine, letter 39 to Paulinus, calls the oblation of the holy altar that which is offered to God when that which is on the table of the Lord is blessed, sanctified, and broken up and prepared for distribution. And Cyprian, Book 2, letter 3, where at the beginning of the whole letter he sets the argument concerning the sanctifying of the Lord's chalice and the ministering of it to the people, thereupon repeats the words of sacrifice and oblation, and that Christ took the chalice not of water alone, but mixed of wine and water, and blessed it, and distributed it to the disciples. This Cyprian thus expresses: “Christ offered to God the Father not water alone, but wine mixed with water in the chalice.” For that oblation does not seem able to be that which the Catholics teach; for the Catholics say that the body and blood, not wine and water, are offered to God. Cyprian therefore calls the oblation made to God the very consecration of bread and wine, just as in Acts 13 Luke said that the Apostles ministered to the Lord, when, according to Chrysostom, he was speaking of the preaching of the Gospel. Whence also Augustine, letter 23, says that Christ is immolated to us, and on Psalm 79 says He is immolated to the faithful: where he calls the immolation the very consecration made for the use of the faithful. Finally Cyril, in his letter to Nestorius, calls it an unbloody sacrifice, or latria, when that which is confected we name the body and blood of Christ; when we approach the mystic blessings, and are sanctified, being made partakers of the body and blood of Christ the Redeemer of all.
To this first way I answer that Kemnitz, saying many things, says nothing, but only, by wrapping up the matter, sheds fogs over the minds of the simple. For if the action of the Supper were called a sacrifice only because it is a certain sacred action, why in the same way would not the action of Baptism be called a sacrifice, since it too is a sacred action, and of the same kind as the action of the Supper, since each is only a Sacrament according to the adversaries?
Then be it granted that any sacred action can be called a sacrifice, on account of the likeness of the words, because sacrifice sounds "to make sacred": yet not any sacred action whatever can be called an oblation, as is known. For not whoever makes a sacred action forthwith offers something to another. But the Fathers expressly say that in the Supper the sacrifice of the body of the Lord is offered to God: therefore the words of the Fathers cannot be expounded of the mere consecration of bread ordained to the communion of the faithful, since that cannot be called an oblation.
Moreover, even if the word sacrifice were ambiguous, and could be taken for any sacred action, yet when that word is attributed to a permanent thing, that is, when not the very action of sacrificing but the thing which is sacrificed by that action is called a sacrifice, then certainly the name of sacrifice cannot be expounded of a sacred action. But the Fathers call the very body of Christ, which is offered, a sacrifice: for they determinately say that in the sacred Supper the sacrifice of the body of Christ is offered to God. The opinion of the Fathers therefore cannot be expounded of the sacred action of consecrating and dispensing the Eucharist: for that action is not, nor can in any way be called, the body of Christ.
Add lastly that Kemnitz did not well prove what he assumed, and in which he placed the whole strength of his solution, namely that the Latin sacrifice and to sacrifice are the same as the Greek [hierourgia] and [hierourgein]. For although the etymology of sacrifice is taken from a sacred action, since to sacrifice is to make sacred: yet not any sacred action is a sacrifice, but that alone by which some thing is offered to God with a certain solemn rite and the real consumption of that thing, as we showed above. Wherefore the Latins, learned interpreters of the Greek books, do not render by the word sacrifice anything but the Greek word [thysia], which properly signifies a sacrifice, or certainly the word [hierourgia], or another like ambiguous and general word, when from the circumstances they see it set in that place for a true sacrifice. Which can easily be understood from the testimonies brought by Kemnitz. For in Dionysius the interpreters render the word [hierourgia] "sacred ministry," not sacrifice: and that Dionysius believed a true sacrifice to be offered to God in the Mass is clear from those words, chapter 3, part 3, of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy: “The Pontiff excuses himself, that he offers the saving host, which is above himself, etc.” In Paul, Romans 15, the interpreter renders the word [hierourgounta] not "sacrificing," as he ought to have according to Kemnitz, but "sanctifying": and the word [prosphora] he renders most rightly "oblation"; the name of sacrifice is not read in that whole chapter.
Further, Augustine most openly calls the oblation of the altar the body of the Lord, which on the altar is offered to God as a true and proper sacrifice. Nor do the words cited by Kemnitz stand in the way. For Augustine does not say, as he in worst faith cites, that the oblation is made to God when that which is on the table is broken up for distribution: but after he had said that that which is on the table is blessed and broken up, etc., with many things interposed he says that everything which is offered to God is vowed to God, but especially the oblation of the holy altar. And so Kemnitz joined these things with the former, as if they made one sentence, when they pertain to diverse sentences.
Now Cyprian, when in the argument of the letter he sets down the sanctifying of the chalice and the ministering of it to the people, by sanctification does not understand simple consecration, namely consecration ordained only to Communion, but understands consecration ordained to sacrifice: for he frequently says that that sacrifice is offered to God. Whence Cyprian rightly repeats the word sacrifice and victim. But that Kemnitz presses that Cyprian said bread and wine were offered by Christ, not the body and blood, does nothing against our opinion. For Cyprian speaks of the oblation of bread and wine, which precedes the sacrifice, and which necessarily requires the subsequent sacrifice: for bread and wine are offered, as even now we see done in the Mass, as the matter of the future sacrifice, to be blessed by God.
Of the passage of the Acts we disputed above, and showed that the opinion of those is more probable who by those words, “As they were ministering to the Lord”, understand the sacrifice of the Mass. But even if another opinion were admitted as probable, that Luke speaks of the ministry of preaching, Kemnitz would gain nothing thereby. For the words of Luke are general, nor do they explicitly contain any certain ministry: for Luke did not say, As they were offering to the Lord the sacrifice of the body of Christ, but in general, As they were ministering to the Lord. And although one who preaches can not ineptly be said to minister to the Lord; and in the same way one who dispenses the Sacrament of the Eucharist or of Baptism can be said to minister to the Lord: yet it cannot, except very harshly, unusually, and ineptly, be said that he who baptizes offers water to the Lord, or that he who dispenses the Eucharist offers the body of Christ to God. Since therefore the Fathers passim say that in the sacred Supper the body and blood of Christ are offered to God in sacrifice, their words cannot be so depraved as Kemnitz would wish.
To the passages of Augustine, where Christ is said to be immolated to us, or to the peoples, it can easily be answered. For that to us, or to the peoples, signifies that the sacrifice is offered to God for our advantage: for even the sacrifice of the cross, which is a most true sacrifice offered to God, can be said to be made for us, because it was offered for us. Nay, Augustine in the latter place speaks of the sacrifice of the cross: for he says that Christ is then immolated to us when we begin to partake of the fruit of His death: for it is as much to us as if Christ were then first offered on the cross.
Finally Cyril has nothing against our opinion. For he calls the consecration and Communion of the Eucharist an unbloody latria, inasmuch as by those actions we offer to God a sacrifice, and then consummate it, or partake of it: for he would not call it latria, unless the primary end of that action were immediately to worship God with that worship due to Him alone, which is done only by a sacrifice properly so called. For hence it is that neither Cyril nor the other Fathers who call the Mass an unbloody latria ever call the celebration of Baptism an unbloody latria, because forsooth Baptism is immediately referred to our sanctification, not to rendering the worship due to God alone. And thus far of the first way.
The other way of expounding the sayings of the Fathers is that we understand the Lord's Supper to be called by the Fathers a sacrifice, oblation, immolation, because it is a certain commemoration and representation of the true sacrifice, namely the death of Christ. And in the same way Christ is said to be immolated in the Supper, not that He is truly and properly immolated in Himself, but that He is immolated in the Sacrament, that is, in image and likeness. Which solution, as we indicated above, Kemnitz took from Calvin, and he proves it from the Fathers, who often say that Christ was truly immolated once only, and that the Eucharist is a representation of that immolation. For this Augustine has in the Sentences of Prosper, on the faith to Peter, chapter 18; against Faustus, Book 20, chapter 18; in letter 23, and in 121, and on Psalm 79. Ambrose, Chrysostom, and Theophylact on chapter 10 of the Epistle to the Hebrews.
Finally Lombard, Book 4, distinction 12, asks whether what the priest performs is properly called a sacrifice or immolation; and answers that what is offered and consecrated by the priest is called a sacrifice and oblation, because it is a memory and representation of the true sacrifice and holy immolation made on the altar of the cross. Where Kemnitz notes that the Council of Trent, session 22, canon 1, said anathema to this opinion of Lombard, confirmed from the Fathers. For Lombard from the Fathers teaches that the sacrifice of the Mass is called a sacrifice because it is a memory of the sacrifice of the cross, not that in itself it is properly a sacrifice; but the Council says: “If anyone shall say that in the Mass a true and proper sacrifice is not offered to God, let him be anathema.”
To this second way I answer that it is most true, what the Fathers say, that Christ was immolated once only, and that the action of the sacred Supper is a memory and likeness of that immolation: for they speak of the immolation in the proper species, or of the bloody immolation, which was truly and properly made once only: but now it is done not properly, but by representation. But this does not hinder the Fathers from having esteemed that in the Mass a true and proper sacrifice is offered.
Further, Lombard, when he asks whether what the priest performs is to be called a sacrifice and immolation, takes the name of sacrifice and immolation for a slaying, as if he had asked more openly whether what the priest performs is to be called the slaying of Christ: and he answers most rightly that Christ was truly immolated, that is, slain, once only; but now is not properly immolated, that is, slain, but only in the sacrament and representation. But whether what the priest performs is a sacrifice properly so called, though unbloody, Lombard does not ask, but presupposes it, as known to all, from the very daily celebration of the sacrifice. In which manner also Saint Thomas and the other Scholastics were not solicitous about that which is now in controversy, but only by what reason the sacrifice of the Mass can be called the immolation of Christ, that is, His slaying, and therefore they are wont to answer, almost always, that it is called an immolation because it is a representation of the immolation, or because it has an effect like the true and real slaying of Christ. Wherefore the Council of Trent taught nothing contrary to the doctrine of Lombard or of the Scholastics.
But that the Fathers held the sacrifice of the Mass to be not only commemorative, but also true and proper, is proved. First, because Augustine, in the places cited by Kemnitz, on the faith to Peter, chapter 18, and Book 20 against Faustus, chapter 18, as he says the action of the Supper is a commemoration of the sacrifice of the cross already accomplished, so he says the sacrifices of the Old Testament were a commemoration of the sacrifice of the cross afterward to come: and yet it cannot be denied that those ancient sacrifices were in themselves truly and properly so-called sacrifices.
Secondly, if the Fathers had thought the sacrifice of the Eucharist to be no sacrifice except a representative one, they would never have said, in the plural number, that victims and sacrifices are offered to God on the altar, as Cyprian speaks passim, Book 1, letter 2; Book 2, letter 3; Book 3, letters 2, 6, 25; in the sermon on almsgiving, and in another on the Lord's prayer; but only in the singular, sacrifice. For there is only one thing which is represented: and therefore its name cannot be uttered except in the singular. For for this cause the Calvinists never say that many consecrated breads are many bodies of Christ, because they represent one body: and we of images say indeed that we have or have seen many images of Caesar, but we do not say, except ineptly, many Caesars.
Thirdly, Baptism is a Sacrament representative of the death of Christ, as the Apostle teaches, Romans 6. For while we are immersed in the water, we die with Christ, and when we emerge from the water, we rise with Christ: and yet none of the ancients ever called Baptism a sacrifice offered to God. Not therefore could that representation alone be the cause why the action of the Lord's Supper is called a sacrifice.
Fourthly, if the celebration of the Eucharist were not a new, real, and true oblation made to God, but only a certain image and representation of the oblation accomplished on the cross, we could not truly say to God: I offer Thee this gift, or Receive, O Lord, this sacrifice. For he who says to anyone: I offer thee, or Receive, then really holds forth something, and does not only represent an oblation, unless perhaps he wishes to mock him whom he pretends to honor. Wherefore our adversaries, since they well understand this, abstain altogether in the celebration of their Supper from such words, and reprehend them most of all in us. But the ancient Fathers most frequently speak thus, and especially Augustine, Book 8 of the City of God, last chapter: “Who,” he says, “of the faithful ever heard a priest standing at the altar say in the prayers, I offer to thee, Peter, or Cyprian, etc.?” Add that the Fathers not only say that they offer, but also say that by this oblation the oblation of the cross is commemorated: where they distinguish two oblations, one representing and one represented, one unbloody, the other bloody. Augustine, Book 20 against Faustus, chapter 18: “Christians,” he says, “now celebrate the memory of the accomplished sacrifice by the most holy oblation and participation of the body of Christ.” Where this too is to be observed in passing, that as the participation of the body of the Lord does not cease to be a true and real participation, though it be commemorative; so also the oblation which is made at the same time with that participation does not cease to be a true and real oblation, though it be commemorative of another oblation.
Fifthly, the Fathers to the name of sacrifice often add epithets which befit only a true sacrifice, and which would be ineptly said of a mere representation. Cyprian, Book 2, letter 3, calls it a full and true sacrifice. Chrysostom, homily 60 to the people, and all the Greeks passim, call it a terrible sacrifice and full of horror. Augustine, Book 10 of the City of God, chapter 20, calls it the highest and most true sacrifice; in the book on the Spirit and the letter, chapter 11, he calls it a most true and singular sacrifice. Eusebius, Book 1 of the Demonstration of the Gospel, last chapter, calls it a sacrifice full to God.
Finally, lastly, there is added that the Fathers most openly say that by this sacrifice, which is now offered to God by the Church throughout the whole world, is exhibited to the same God the worship of latria due to Him alone, as is clear from the place of Augustine already cited; where he thence proves that we do not hold the Saints for gods, because no one at the altar says: I offer to thee, Peter, or Cyprian: and from Cyril and the other Greeks, who, even by the testimony of Kemnitz himself, call this sacrifice an unbloody latria. But if this sacrifice were nothing but a representation and memory of the sacrifice of the cross, it would not be the worship of latria; for to commemorate another's sacrifice, but truly and properly to sacrifice, is the worship of latria. Thus therefore is refuted the second way devised by Kemnitz.
The last pronouncement of Kemnitz on the testimonies of the Fathers is had page 798 and 799. For after all the solutions given, when he perceived that in truth he could not satisfy his readers, he too, together with his masters Luther and Calvin, bids farewell to the Fathers, forgetting what he had before written, that good minds always made much of the consent of antiquity: “Not,” he says, “the sentences, of whatever kind, of the ancients, but the canonical Scripture is the rule and norm of faith and of judgment in this controversy.” And a little below he calls the testimonies of the Fathers blemishes: at last he gives three causes why he prefers, with his party, to call the Eucharist a Sacrament, and not a sacrifice, though all the Fathers called it a sacrifice. The first is, because divine Scripture nowhere calls the Lord's Supper a sacrifice. The second, because that appellation of sacrifice not a little obscures the true doctrine and use of the Lord's Supper. The third, because from that catechesis of the appellation of sacrifice, not rightly interpreted, was constructed the theatrical sacrifice of the Pontifical Mass.
But these causes contain first the greatest reprehension of the Fathers: for they signify that the Fathers did not speak according to the manner of Scripture, and obscured the true doctrine and use of the Lord's Supper, and by their license and impropriety of speaking brought the greatest inconveniences upon the Church. But who would believe this of those most learned men who flourished in the purer, as Kemnitz speaks, the best and most flourishing times of the Church?
Then the first cause is most inept, to say nothing of the second and third, which contain mere calumnies. For if the name of sacrifice displeases, because Scripture does not use it, why by the same reason does not the name of Sacrament displease? for I do not believe they will show a place in the divine letters where the Lord's Supper is named a Sacrament. What is it, therefore, that Kemnitz says, when he says: “This consideration of the blemishes of certain of the ancients shows why we preferred to call the Lord's Supper rather a Sacrament than a sacrifice. For first, Scripture, which can attribute to things the most right and most fitting appellations of all, nowhere calls the Lord's Supper a sacrifice”?
Add that Scripture in express words calls the Lord's Supper a sacrifice in Isaiah and Malachi, as we showed above: and in Paul it so openly compares the Lord's Supper with the sacrifices of the Hebrews and Gentiles, that he is plainly blind who does not see that according to Paul's opinion it is a sacrifice.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XV. Probatur sacrificium Missse ex traditione Pa¬ trum , ac primum ex vocibus saaificii, obla¬ tionis, immolationis , etc. Hactenus ex divinis litteris testimonia pro sacrificio Missae deprompsimus : nunc ad secundum locum accedimus, videlicet ad testimonia veterum Patrum. Recte enim Kemnitius dicit pag. 773. bonas mentes plu¬ rimum moveri consensu, et testimonio anti¬ quitatis ejus potissimum, quae fuit purioribus, optimis et florentissimis Ecclesiae tempori¬ bus. Sed quia nimis longum esset singula testimonia seorsim excutere, ut fecimus in disputatione de veritate corporis Domini in Eucharistia : reducemus omnia ad aliquot capita, et simul refellemus responsiones adversariorum. Primum igitur caput, sive argumentum sumi potest ex nominibus sacrificii, hostiae, victimae ; et ex verbis, offerre, immolare, sacrificare, quibus Patres utuntur cum de celebratione Ccenae Domini verba faciunt; passim enim tum Graeci, tum Latini, non so¬ lum dicunt Eucharistiam esse sacrificium, seu oblationem, sed dicunt, offerri Deo, im¬ molari, et sacrificari. Neque opus est loca notari ubi ejusmodi voces habeantur : ad¬ versarii enim fatentur eas apud Patres esse frequentissimas : « Negari non potest, in¬ quit Kemnitius pag. 782, veteres quando loquuntur de celebratione ccenae Dominicae, usurpare vocabula, sacrificii, immolationis, oblationis, hostiae, victimae ; item uti verbis, offerre, sacrificare, immolare. » Haec ille. Hic igitur modus loquendi satis indicat quid Patres senserint : si enim existimarent Eucharistiam solum esset Sacramentum, non etiam sacrificium, ut adversarii sentiunt, nulla esset causa cur aliter loquerentur de Eucharistia, quam de Baptismo. Nusquam autem Patres Baptismum vocant sacrificium, hostiam, victimam ; nec dicunt baptizare esse sacrificare, vel immolare. Preeterea qua? causa esset cur Patres de Sacramento Eu¬ charistiae aliter loquerentur, quam adversarii nostri loquantur? quomodo enim credibile erit veteres Patres in modo loquendi nobis- cum, in sententia cum adversariis conve¬ nisse? Sed videamus quid illi respondeant. Lu- therus in lib. de captivitate Babylon, cap. i. timide dicit, Patres fortasse vocare sacrifi¬ cium, non ipsam Eucharistiam, sed orationes quse in Missa dicuntur. Quia vero videbat istam solutionem non esse sufficientem, cum Patres passim ipsam Eucharistiam sacrificium vocent, et offerri dicant Deo a sacerdotibus, ut paulo post ostendemus, audacter valedicit Patribus : « Si nihil habetur, inquit, quod dicatur, tutius est omnia negare, quam Mis¬ sam sacrificium esse concedere. » Et in lib. de abroganda Missa, initio ita scribit : « Pro¬ fiteor in primis, adversus eos qui clamaturi sunt, quod contra ritum Ecclesise, contra statuta Patrum docuerim, nihil horum me auditurum. » Et infra aperte dicit, se non curare quid Patres de Missa dixerint, sed quid debuerint dicere. Similia habet in lib. contra regem Anglia? : « Ultimo, inquit, dicta Patrum inducit rex pro Missario sacri¬ ficio, et ridet meam stultitiam, quod solus velim sapere prae omnibus. Hoc est quod dixi, Thomisticos asinos habere nihil quod producant, nisi multitudinem hominum et usum antiquum. » Et paulo infra dicit, se nihil curare si mille Augustini, et mille Cy¬ priani contra se stent. Denique in lib. dd Missa privata : « Hic non moramur, inquit, si clamitent Papistse, Ecclesia, Ecclesia, Pa¬ tres, Patres : quia ut dixi, hominum dicta, aut facta, nihil in tam magnis causis curamus. Scimus . enim ipsos Prophetas lapsos esse, adeoque Apostolos : Verbo Christi judica¬ mus Ecclesiam, Apostolos, adeoque ipsos Angelos. » Joannes Calvinus in lib. iv. Institut. cap. 10. §. 10, respondet initio sacramentum Eu¬ charistia? a Patribus vocari sacrificium, quia est memoriale sacrificii crucis. Quam solu¬ tionem fusius persequitur Kemnitius, et ideo .v< < UBER V. paulo infra cum Kemnitii solutionibus eam refellemus : praesertim cum Calvinus non multum videatur in hac solutione confidere. Nam paulo post§. 11. non solum fatetur ve¬ teres usos esse vocabulis, queo sacrificium significant, sed etiam agnoscit eos in modo actionis ad sacrificii rationem accessisse, et apertissime cos reprehendit, quamvis inepte sensum eorum excusare nitatur : « Quia ve¬ teres quoque, inquit, video alio hanc memo¬ riam detorsisse, quam institutioni Domini conveniebat (quod nescio quam repetita;, aut saltem renovat re immolationis faciem eorum Cee na prre se ferebat) nihil tutius piis pecto¬ ribus fuerit, quam in pura, simplicique Dei ordinatione acquiescere, cujus etiam ideo vo¬ catur cama, quoniam sola hic ejus auctoritas vigere debet. » Et § 12 : «Et certe si cogita¬ mus Domini, non hominum ccenamessc, non est cur ulla hominum auctoritate vel annorum praescriptione patiamur nos ab illa vel latum unguem dimoveri. » Htec ille. Itaque Lutherus, et Calvinus non sunt ho¬ mines bonae mentis, judice Kemnitio, cum non moveantur consensu, et testimonio vete¬ ris ac verae, et flore ntissimee Christi Ecclesiae. Tpse autem Kemnitius, ut se bonam mentem habere lectoribus persuadeat, quatuor quae¬ dam dicit de testimoniis Patrum. Primum, pag. 776. et sequentibus multa nugatur de statu quaestionis ; scribit enim non posse probari ex Patribus histrionicam illam reprae¬ sentationem, quam Pontificii Missam vocant esse sacrificium. Sed jam supra respondimus statum quaestionis non esse de caeremoniis, et ritibus Missa; ; de his enim postea, loco proprio disseremus ; sed de substantia sacri¬ ficii. Quare non tenemur hoc loco probare ex Patribus ritus Missae , sed solum Eu¬ charistiam offerri Deo, et non solum distri¬ bui populo : id enim est de quo nunc dispu¬ tamus. Secundo, pag. 780. et sequentib. disserit de vocibus Missae, et sacrificii; ac tradit sex rationes explicandi loca Patrum, qui viden¬ tur asserere Missam esse sacrificium. Prima est, quod loquantur de eleemosyna, quae fiebat in Missa. Offerrebat enim popiilus pa¬ nem, et vinum, ex quo pars quaedam conse¬ crabatur in Eucharistiam, pars cedebat in - usum pauperum : eleemosyna autem est ge¬ nus quoddam sacrificii. Secunda, quod lo¬ quantur de precibus, quae fiebant in celebra¬ tione Coeme : sunt enim preces sacrificia quaedam. Tertia, quod loquantur dc gratia- umactione, ad quam excitantur homines in celebratione Crenae, ex consideratione bene¬ ficiorum Dei : nam et gratias agere ad laudis sacrificium pertinet. Quarta, quod loquantur de praedicatione, et annuntiatione mortis Domini, quae adjungi solebat celebrationi Coeme. Nam Paulus Rom. 15. ministerium Evangelii sacrificium vocat. Quinta, quod loquantur de variis exercitiis pietatis quae occurrunt in Coena Domini, ut fidei, poeniten¬ tiae, spei, dilectionis ; istae enim dicuntur a B. Petro spirituales hostiae. Sexta, quod lo¬ quantur de oblatione fidelium, qui in actio¬ ne Caena; seipsi Deo vovent, et consecrant, hoc est, corpus et animam suam. Paulus enim Roman. 12 vocat hostiam Deo placentem exhibitionem corporis ad obsequium ejus. Sed istae omnes rationes nihil ad rem fa¬ ciunt. Patres enim cum de oblatione Eucha¬ ristia; loquuntur, aperte dicunt, solis sacer¬ dotibus licitum esse id sacrificium offerre Deo : eleemosynae autem, preces, laudes, et c cetera quae Kemnitius laboriose coacervavit, a toto populo offeruntur. Tertullianus in lib. de velandis virginibus : « Non permittitur, inquit, mulieri in Ecclesia loqui, nec docere, nec tingere, nec offerre.» Idem in lib. de ex¬ hortatione castitatis, dicit officium sacerdotis esse docere, tingere, offerre. Epiphanius si¬ militer haeresi 79. multis verbis contendit, non licere mulieribus offerre sacrificia, et ideo Christum ne ipsi quidem Matri suae per¬ misisse ut sacrificaret, sed solis Apostolis, quos sacerdotes ordinaverat. Concilium Nicae¬ num canone 14. et Hieronymus in Epistola ad Evagrium, et alia Concilia, et Patres, pas- sim docent, non habere diaconos potestatem offerendi sacrificium, sed id munus sacer¬ dotum esse. At quis unquam negavit licere Diaconis, imo etiam laicis, et mulieribus offerre eleemosynas, orationes, et alia sacri¬ ficia spiritualia, et improprie dicta? Prceterea Patres disertis verbis dicunt sa¬ crificium, quod in Ecclesia offertur a sacer¬ dotibus, esse ipsum Domini corpus, et san¬ guinem ; proinde solutiones illae Kemnitii omnes sunt vana; : nisi forte velit inaudito aliquo tropo, per corpus Domini intelligerc eleemosynas, preces, etc. S. Andreas Apostolus, ut scribunt Presby¬ teri, et Diaconi Achaia; in ejus passione, dixityEgeee proconsuli : « Ego immaculatum agnum in altari offero, cujus carnes postea- quam omnis populus credentium manduca¬ verit. agnus, qui immolatus est, integer per- CAPUT XV. severat, et vivus. » Hippolytus Martyr in ora¬ tione de Antichristo, inducit Christum ita loquentem ad sacerdotes : «Venite, Pontifices et Sacerdotes, qui pretiosum corpus, et san¬ guinem meum quotidie immolastis. » Am¬ brosius inPsal. 38: «Et si nunc Christus non videatur offerre, ipse tamen offertur in torris, cum corpus ejus offertur. » Et in cap. i Luceo : « Cum sacrificamus, inquit, Christus adest, Christus immolatur. » Gregorius Nissenus in orat, de Resurrcct. : « Dominus, inquit, prae¬ occupa n s impetum Judaeorum, seipsura victi¬ mam offert idem simul sacerdos, et agnus. Sed dices mihi, quando hoc accidit ? tum cum #uum corpus ad comedendum, et sanguinem adbibendum familiaribus dedit. » Chrvsosto- «/ mus hom. 2 i. in priorem adCorinth. : «Pro victimarum, et pecorum cEcde seipsum offe- rendum praecepit. » Et homil. 17. inEpistol. adflebr. : « In multis locis offertur, non plo¬ res Christi, sed unus ubique Christus, hic et illic plenus existens, unum corpus, non multa corpora. » Quod idem scribit auctor Com¬ mentariorum, qua) tribuuntur Ambrosio, in. cap. 10. ad Hebr. et post eos Primasius in eumdem locum. Augustinus lib. n. quaest. Evangel. quaest,. 3. reddens rationem, cur Domini j usserit leproso, ut sacrificium pro sua emundatione offerret secundum ritum Mosis : « Quia, inquit, nondum institutum erat hoc sacrificium, sanctum sanctorum, quod corpus ejus est. » Idem lib. iv. de Tri¬ nitate cap. 11 : « Quid gratius offerri, aut suspici posset, quam caro sacrificii nostri, corpus effectum sacerdotis nostri. » Similia habet Cyrillus lib. de adoratione in spiritu, et veritate. Leo serm. 8, de passione. Ful¬ gentius lib. ii. ad Monynum cap. 2. et alii Patres passim. Et ipsum Nicaenum Concilium in eo canone, quem Calvinus, et alii omnes recipiunt, aperte dicit in sacra mensa situm esse Agnum Dei incruente immolatum. Quod cum non ignoraret Kemnitius, addi¬ dit tertium dictum pag. 788. et sequent. « Sed excipiunt, inquit, non illa tantum pie¬ tatis exercitia, sed ipsam actionem Coeum Dominicae, et quidem ipsum corpus, et san¬ guinem in Goena a veteribus vocari sacrifi¬ cium, oblationem, hostiam, victimam : Ego vero non nego hoc, etc. » Deinde ponit tres modos explicandi loca Patrum, quae ipsam crenae actionem, vel Christi corpus, sacrifi¬ cium vocant : quos modos singillatim refelle¬ mus, omisso tertio, quod is ad ea loca Pa¬ trum solum pertineat, qui dicunt sacrifi- 345 cium altaris esse propitiatorium, qute est al¬ tera controversia suo loco inferius expli¬ canda. Igitur primus modus est, ut sacrificium appellent actionem Comae, quia consecratio, et dispensatio Eucharistia) est quaedam sacra actio, qusea Dionysio vocatur grsece hpoupYta?. Latini enim sacrificare dixerunt, quod Graeci dicunt 'upoupvsiv. Id vero probat. Nam Paulus ad Rom. xv. describit per vocabula sacrificii et oblationis ministerium Evangelii, quia est quaedam sacra actio. Et Augustinus Epistol. 39 ad Paulinum, vocat sancti altaris oblatio¬ nem, quae offertur Deo, quando id, quod in mensa Domini est, benedicitur, sanctificatur, et ad distribuendum comminuitur, et prae¬ paratur. Et Cyprianus lib. ii. epist. 3. ubi in principio totius epistolae argumentum ponit de calice Dominico sanctificando, et plebi ministrando , subinde ingeminat vocabula sacrificii , et oblationis, et quod Christus sumpsit calicem non sola aqua, sed vino, et aqua mixtum, iliumque benedixit, et distri¬ buit discipulis. Hoc Cyprianus ita effert : « Christus obtulit Deo Patri non aquam solam sed vinum aqua mixtum in calice. » Non enim ista oblatio videtur posse esse ea, quam Catholici docent; nam corpus, et sanguinem, non vinum, et aquam Catholici Deo offerri dicunt. Vocat igitur Cyprianus oblationem Deo factam, ipsam consecrationem panis et vini, quemadmodum Actor, xiii. Lucas dixit, Apostolos ministrasse Domino, cum, inter¬ prete Ghrysostomo, loqueretur praedicatio¬ ne Evangelii. Unde etiam Augustinus epistol. 23. dicit Christum immolari nobis, etinPsalm. 79. dicit, immolari fidelibus: ubi immolatio¬ nem vocat ipsam consecrationem factam in usum fidelium. Denique Cyrillus in Epistola ad Nestorium, vocat incruentum sacrificium, seu latriam, quando id. quod confectum est, nominamus corpus, et sanguinem Christi : quando accedimus admysticasbenedictiones, et sanctificamur, participes effecti corporis, et sanguinis omnium redemptoris Chiisti. Haec Kemnitius. Ad hunc primum modum respondeo, Kcm- nitium multa dicendo nihil dicere, sed tan¬ tum mentibus simplicium rem involvendo nebulas offundere. Nam si ideo solum dice¬ retur sacrificium actio Comae, quia est quae¬ dam sacra actio, cur eodem modo non dice¬ retur sacrificium, actio Baptismi, cum et illa sit sacra actio, et ejusdem generis, cum actio- 346 LIBER V. ne Ccenae, cum utraque sit tantum Sacramen¬ tum secundum adversarios? Deinde esto, quasvis sacra actio possit vo¬ cari sacrificium, ob vocabulorum similitudi¬ nem, quia sacrificium sonat sacrum facere : tamen non quaslibet sacra actio potest dici oblatio, ut notum est. Non enim quicumque sacram actionem facit, continuo aliquid of¬ fert alteri. At Patres diserte dicunt in Goena offerri Deo sacrificium corporis Domini : non igitur possunt verba Patrum exponi de sola consecratione panis ordinata ad communica¬ tionem fidelium, cum illa non possit dici obla¬ tio. Praeterea etsi vocabulum sacrificii esset ambiguum, et posset accipi pro quavis sacra actione, tamen quando tribuitur ea vox rei permanenti, id est, cum vocatur sacrificium non ipsa actio sacrificandi, sed res quae illa actione sacrificatur, tunc certe non potest exponi, nomen sacrificii pro sacra actione. At Patres ipsum corpus Christi, quod offertur, sacrificium vocant : nam determinate dicunt in sacra Goena offerri Deo sacrificium corpo¬ ris Christi. Non igitur potest exponi sententia Patrum de sacra actione consecrandi, et dispensandi Eucharistiam : neque enim illa actio est, aut dici potest ullo modo corpus Christi. Adde ultimo, quod Kemnitius non bene probavit quod assumpsit, et in quo totum ro¬ bur suae solutionis constituit, nimirum idem esse Latinis sacrificium, et sacrificare, quod Grsecis ispoupYia et hpoupyslv. Nam licet etymo¬ logia sacrificii sumatur a sacra actione, cum sit sacrificare sacrum facere : tamen non quselibet sacra actio est sacrificium, sed ea sola, qua Deo res aliqua offertur cum certo quodam solemni ritu, et reali illius rei con¬ sumptione, ut supra ostendimus . Q uare Latini , eruditi interpretes Graecorum librorum, non reddunt per vocabulum sacrificii nisi Graecam vocem Quatav, quae proprie significat sacrifi¬ cium, aut certe vocem, UpoupYstav, aut aliam similem ambiguam, et generalem, quando ex circumstantiis vident eo loco positam es¬ se pro vero sacrificio. Id quod facile potest intelligi ex testimoniis a Kemnitio allatis.Nam apud Dionysium, vocem hp oupya'av, reddunt interpretes sacrum ministerium, non autem sacrificium : et quod Dionysius crediderit in Missa offerri Deo verum sacrificium, patet ex illis verbis cap. 3. par. 3. de Ecclesiastica hierarchia : « Pontifex excusat se, quod ho¬ stiam salutarem, quae supra seipsum est, li¬ te. » Apud Paulum. Rom. xv. vocem tjpoup- Youv-ra vertit interpres non sacrificantem, ut debuisset secundum Kemnitium, sed sanctifi¬ cantem : vocem autem 7rpoacpopdv vertit rectis¬ sime oblationem ; nomen sacrificii in toto eo capite non legitur. Porro Augustinus altaris oblationem aper tissime vocat corpus Domini, quod in altari, ut verum ac proprium sacrificium Deo offer¬ tur. Neque obstant verba a Kemnitio citata, Nam Augustinus non dicit, ut ille pessima fide citat, oblationem Deo fieri, cum quod est in mensa, ad distribuendum comminui¬ tur : sed posteaquam dixerat, id quod est in mensa benedici, et comminui, etc., multis in¬ terpositis dicit, voveri Deo id omne quod ei offertur, maxime autem sancti altaris obla¬ tionem. Itaque Kemnitius conjunxit ista cum superioribus, ac si unam sententiam facerent cum ad diversas sententias pertineant. Jam vero Cyprianus cum in argumento epistolae ponit de calice sanctificando, et plebi ministrando : per sanctificationem non intelligit simplicem consecrationem, conse¬ crationem videlicet solum ordinatam ad Communionem, sed intelligit consecratio¬ nem ordinatam ad sacrificium : nam ipse frequenter dicit offerri Deo sacrificium illud. Unde merito Cyprianus ingeminat vocem sacrificii, et victimae. Quod autem ponderat Kemnitius Cyprianum dixisse, oblatum a Christo panem, et vinum, non corpus, et sanguinem : nihil facit adversus sententiam nostram. Loquitur enim Cyprianus de obla¬ tione panis, et vini, quae sacrificium praece¬ dit, et quae necessario requirit subsequens sacrificium : offertur enim panis, et vinum, ut etiam nunc in missa fieri videmus, tan- quam materia sacrificii futuri a Deo benedi¬ cenda. De loco Actorum supra disseruimus, atque ostendimus probabiliorem esse illorum sen¬ tentiam, qui per illa verba : « Ministrantibus illis Domino», intelligunt sacrificium Missse. Sed etiamsi admitteretur alia sententia, ut probabilis, quod loquatur Lucas de ministerio concionandi: nihil inde lucraretur Kemnitius. Nam verba Lucae sunt generalia, neque ex¬ plicate continent certum aliquod ministe¬ rium : non enim dixit Lucas : Offerentibus illis Domino sacrificium corporis Christi, sed in genere : Ministrantibus illis Domino. Quamvis autem non inepte possit, qui con¬ donatur, dici, ministrare Domino ; et eodem modo possit qui Eucharistiae, vel Baptismi CAPUT XY. 347 Sacramentum dispensat, diei ministrare Do¬ mino : non tamen potest nisi valde dure, inu¬ sitate, et inepte dici is, qui baptizat offerre Domino aquam, vel is qui Eucharistiam dis¬ pensat, offerre corpus Christi Deo. Cum igi¬ tur Patres passim dicant, in sacra Coena of¬ ferri Deo corpus, et sanguinem Christi in sacrificium : non possunt eorum verba ita depravari, ut Kemnitius vellet. Ad loca Augustini, ubi dicitur Christus immolari nobis, vel populis, facile respon¬ deri potest. Illud enim nobis , vel populis, sig¬ nificat in nostram utilitatem sacrificium Deo offerri : nam etiam sacrificium crucis, quod est verissimum sacrificium Deo obla¬ tum, potest dicit factum nobis, quia pro no¬ bis oblatum est. Imo Augustinus in poste¬ riore loco, loquitur de sacrificio crucis : di¬ cit enim tunc nobis Christum immolari, quando incipimus participare fructum mor¬ tis ejus : perinde enim nobis est, ac si tunc primum Christus in cruce oblatus fuisset. Denique Cyrillus nihil habet contra sen¬ tentiam nostram. Yocat enim incruentam latriam consecrationem, et Communionem Eucharistias, quatenus per illas actiones offe¬ rimus Deo sacrificium, et deinde illud con¬ summamus, vel inde participamus : non enim appellaret latriam, nisi primarius finis illius actionis, esset Deum immediate colere cultu illi soli debito, quod fit solum per sa¬ crificium proprie dictum. Hinc est enim quod neque Cyrillus, neque alii Patres, qui vocant Missam incruentam latriam, unquam vocant incruentam latriam Baptismi celebra¬ tionem, quia nimirum Baptismus immediate refertur ad nostram sanctificationem, non ad cultum Deo soli debitum reddendum. Atque haec de primo modo. Alter modus exponendi dicta Patrum est, ut intelligamus Coenam Domini vocari a Pa¬ tribus sacrificium, oblationem, immolatio¬ nem, quia est commemoratio quaedam et repraesentatio veri sacrificii, nimirum mor¬ tis Christi. Et eodem modo Christus dicitur in Coena immolari, non quod revera in se proprie immoletur, sed quod immoletur in Sacramento, id est, in imagine, et similitu¬ dine. Quam solutionem, ut supra indicavi¬ mus, accepit Kemnitius a Calvino, eamque probat ex Patribus, qui saepe dicunt, Chri¬ stum semel tantum vere fuisse immolatum : et Eucharistiam esse repraesentationem illius immolationis. Hoc enim habet Augustinus in sententiis Prosperi, de fide ad Petrum, cap. 18. contra Faustum lib. xx. cap. 18. in epist. 23. et in 121. et in Psalm. lxxix. Ambrosius, Chrysostomus, et Theophylactus in cap. x. epist. ad Hebr. Denique Longobardus lib. iv. dist. 12. quairit, si quod gerit sacerdos dicatur pro¬ prie sacrificium, vel immolatio ; et respon¬ det id quod offertur, et consecratur a sacer¬ dote vocari sacrificium, et oblationem, quia memoria est ; et repraesentatio veri sacrifi¬ cii, et sanctae immolationis factae in ara cru¬ cis. Ubi notat Kemnitius Concilium Triden- tinum sess. 22.can. 1. dixisse anathema huic sententiae Longobardi ex Patribus confirma¬ tae. Nam Longobardus ex Patribus docet, sacrificium Missae dici sacrificium, quia est memoria sacrificii crucis, non quod in se sit proprie sacrificium ; Concilium autem ait : « Si quis dixerit in Missa non offerri Deo ve¬ rum et proprium sacrificium, anathema sit.» Ad hunc secundum modum respondeo, verissimum esse, quod Patres dicunt, Chri¬ stum semel tantum immolatum fuisse, et il¬ lius immolationis memoriam, et similitudi¬ nem esse actionem sacrae Ccenae : nam lo¬ quuntur de immolatione in propria specie, sive de cruenta immolatione, quae semel tan¬ tum vere, et proprie facta est : nunc autem non proprie, sed per repraesentationem agi¬ tur. Sed hoc non impedit, quo minus Patres existimaverint in Missa offerri verum, et pro¬ prium sacrificium. Porro Longobardus, cum quaerit, an quod sacerdos gerit sit dicendum sacrificium, et immolatio, accipit nomen sacrificii et immo¬ lationis pro occisione, ac si apertius quaesi¬ visset, an quod gerit sacerdos, sit dicenda Christi occisio : respondet autem rectissime, Christum semel tantum -vere immolatum, id est, occisum fuisse ; nunc autem non pro¬ prie immolari, id est, occidi, sed solum in sacramento, et repraesentatione. An autem sit quod sacerdos gerit, sacrificium proprie dictum, sed incruentum, Longobardus non quaerit, sed praesupponit, ut omnibus notum, ex ipsa celebratione quotidiana sacrificii. Ad quem modum etiam sanctus Thomas, et alii scholastici non fuerunt solliciti de eo, quod nunc est in controversia, sed solum qua ra¬ tione sacrificium Missae possit dici Christi immolatio, id est occisio, et ideo fere respon¬ dere solent, dici immolationem, quia est re¬ praesentatio immolationis, vel quia habet ef¬ fectum similem cum ipsa vera, et reali Chri¬ sti occisione. Quare concilium Tridentinum LIBER V. 3 iR nihil contrarium docuit Longobardi, aut scholasticorum doctrina). , Quod autem Patres senserint, sacrificium Missse non esse solum commemorativum, sed etiam verum, et proprium, probatur. Primo, quia Augustinus in locis a Kemnitio citatis de fide ad Petrum, cap. 18. et lib. 20. contra Faustum, cap. 18, sicut dicit actio¬ nem Coeme esse commemorationem sacrifi¬ cii crucis jam peracti; ita dicit sacrificia ve¬ teris Testamenti fuisse commemorationem sacrificii crucis postea futuri : et tamen ne¬ gari non potest, quin sacrificia illa vetera fuerint in se vere, et proprie dicta sacrificia. Secundo, si Patres putassent sacrificium Eucharistia) pon esse sacrificium, nisi ro- priesentativum, nunquam dixissent in nu¬ mero multitudinis, offerri Deo victimas, et sacrificia in altari, ut loquitur passirn Cy¬ prianus lib. i. epist. 2. lib. n. epist. 3. lib. ni. epist. 2. 6. 25. in serm. de eleemosyna, et in alio de oratione Dominica ; sed solum in singulari, sacrificium. Unum enim tantum est, quod reprresentatur : et ideo nornen ejus non potest, nisi in singulari efferri. Nam hac de causa Calvi nistre nunquam dicunt multos panes consecratos, esse multa corpora Chri¬ sti, quia unum corpus reprresentant : et nos de imaginibus dicimus quidem nos habere, aut vidisse multas imagines Ceesaris, sed non dicimus, nisi inepte, multos Cfesares. Tertio, Baptismus est Sacramentum re- praesentativum mortis Christi, ut Apostolus docet Iioman. vi. Dum enim immergimur in aqua, Christo commorimur, et cum de aqua emergimus, cum Christo resurgimus : et ta¬ men nulli veterum Baptismum sacrificium Deo oblatum unquam appellaverunt. Non igi¬ tur ista sola repriesentatio causa esse potuit cur actio Camae Domini sacrificium appel¬ letur. Quarto, si celebratio Eucharistia) non esset oblatio nova, realis et vera, Deo facta, sed solum imago quaedam, ac repraesentatio oblationis in cruce paractee, non possemus vere Deo dicere : Offero tibi hoc munus, seu Accipe Domine hoc sacrificium. Qui enim dicit alicui : Offero tibi, seu Accipe, reipsa tunc aliquid porrigit, et non solum reprae¬ sentat oblationem, nisi forte irridere velit eum, quem honorare se simulat. Quare ad¬ versarii nostri, cum hoc probe intelligunt, abstinent omnino in suae Coe nae celebratione ab ejusmodi vocibus, et eas in nobis maxime reprehendunt. At veteres Patres frequentis¬ sime ita loquuntur, ac praeser tim Augustinus lib. vm. de Civitate cap. ult. : « Quis, inquit, audivit aliquando fidelium, sacerdotem stantem ad altare, dicere in precibus, Offero tibi, Petre, aut Cypriane, etc. » Adde quod Patres non solum dicunt, se offerre, sed etiam dicunt per hanc oblationem com¬ memorari oblationem crucis : ubi duas dis¬ tinguunt oblationes, unam repraesentantem, et unam repraesentatam, incruentam unam, alteram cruentam. Augustinus lib. xx. cont. Faustum cap. 18 : « Christiani, inquit, jam peracti sacrificii memoriam celebrant sacro¬ sancta oblatione, et participatione corporis Christi. » Ubi illud etiam est obiter obser¬ vandum, quod sicut participatio corporis Domini non desinit esse vera, et realis parti¬ cipatio, licet sit commem orativa; ita etiam oblatio, qua) simul fit cum illa participatione, non desinit e^ge vera, et realis oblatio, licet sit alterius oblationis commemorativa. Quinto, Patres ad nomen sacrificii ssepe addunt epitheta, qua) soli vero sacrificio conveniunt, et qua) inepte dicerentur de sola reprresentatione, Cyprianus lib. n. epist. 3. vocat plenum, ac verum sacrificium. Chry- sostonms homil. 60. ad populum, ct omnes Graeci passim vocant sacrificium terribile, et plenum horroris. Augustinus lib. x. de Civ. cap. 20. vocat summum, et verissimum sa¬ crificium; lib.de Spiritu et littera cap. 11. ap¬ pellat verissimum, et singulare sacrificium. Eusebius lib. i. demonstr. Evangel. cap. ult. vocat sacrificium Deo plenum. Denique ultimo accedit quod Patres aper¬ tissime dicunt per hoc sacrificium, quod nunc ab Ecclesia toto orbe terrarum offertur Deo, exhiberi eidem Deo cultum latrite illi soli debitum, ut patet ex loco Augustini jam citato; ubi inde probat, nos non habere Sanctos pro Diis, quia nemo ad altare dicit : Offero tibi, Petre, aut Cypriane : et ex Cy- rillo, aliisque Graecis, qui, ipso etiam teste Kemnitio, vocant hoc sacrificium incruen¬ tam latriam. At si non esset hoc sacrificium nisi repraesentatio, et memoria sacrificii cru¬ cis, non esset cultus latriee ; non enim com¬ memorare sacrificium alterius, sed vere, et proprie sacrificare, est cultus latriee. Ita igi¬ tur confutatur secundus modus a Kemnitio excogitatus. Ultimum Kemnitii pronuntiatum de testi¬ moniis Patrum, habetur, pagina 798 et 799. •Nam post omnes datas solutiones, cum ani- madvertetet non posse revera lectoribus sa- C.YPCT XYl. 319 f.isiieri , ipso quoquo cum Magistris suis Lulhoro, ct Calvino, Patribus valedicit, o- blitus ejus, quod antea scripserat, bonas mentes semper plurimi fecisse consensum antiquitatis : « Neque, inquit, veterum qua- lescumquc sententia}, sed Scriptura canonica regula est, et norma fidei, et judicii in hae controversia. » Et paulo infra, na}vos ap¬ pellat tostimonia Patrum : tandem reddit tres causas, cur malit ipse cum suis Eu¬ charistiam vocare Sacramentum , ct non sacrificium, licet Patres omnes appellave¬ rint sacrificium. Prima est, quia Scriptura divina Cee nam Domini nusquam vocat sa¬ crificium. Secunda, quia ista appellatio sa¬ crificii, non parum obscurat veram doctri¬ nam, et usum Comte Dominicte. Tertia, quia ex illa catechesi appellationis sacrificii, non dextre interpretata, extructum est theatri¬ cum Pontificia) Missa; sacrificium. Iltec ille. Istte vero causte continent in primis ma¬ ximam Patrum reprehensionem : significant enim Patres non esse locutos secundum morem Scriptura}, et obscurasse veram do¬ ctrinam, et usum Ccervje Domini, et sua li¬ centia, et improprietate loquendi, maxima incommoda Ecclesite attulisse. At quis id credat de illis doctissimis hominibus, qui Jiorucruiit purioribus, ut Kcmnitius loquitur, optimis et florentissimis Ecclesia} tempori¬ bus ? Deinde prima causa ineptissima 'est , ut nihil de secunda et tertia, qiue meras ca¬ lumnias continent, dicamus. Nam si displicet nomen sacrificii , quia Scriptura eo non utitur, cur non eadem ratione displicet no¬ men Sacramenti ? neque enim credo, locum ostendent in divinis Litteris, ubi Ccena Do¬ mini Sacramentum nominetur. Quid est ergo quod Kemnitius loquitur, cum ait : « Hac consideratio de navis quorumdam veterum ostendit, quare maluimus Camam Domini- nicam Sacramentum potius, quam sacrifi¬ cium appellari. Primo enim Scriptura, qua omnium rectissimas, et commodissimas ap¬ pellationes potest rebus ipsis tribuere, nul¬ libi Cumam Domipicam vocat sacrificium ? Adde, quod Scriptura disertis verbis- Co)- nam Domini vocat sacrificium apud Isaiam, et Malachiam , ut supra ostendimus : Apud Paulum autem tam aperte confert Camam Domini cum sacrificiis Ilebraorum, et Gen- tilium, ut plane sit caecus, qui non videt eam ex Pauli sententia sacrificium esse.