Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book V: On the Sacrifice of the Mass (First)
Chapter 17: The Same Is Proved from the Name of Priest
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. IV, De Sacramento Eucharistiae, Book V: On the Sacrifice of the Mass (First Book). The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
The third head is taken from the word Priest. For Calvin and Martyr, in the place noted above, confess that priests are properly ordained for sacrifice; and therefore they contend that Christ did not give priests to the Church, but only ministers of the word and of the Sacraments.
Now the ancient Fathers use this word so frequently that Kemnitz was compelled to confess, in the second part of the Examination, page 1140, where he disputes on the Sacrament of Order, that the usage prevailed among the ancients of calling the ministers of the Church priests, and their ministry a priesthood, although in the Scripture of the New Testament such a word is not found in this signification: which indeed is most true. For not only Augustine, Book 20 of the City of God, chapter 10, and Chrysostom in his six books on the priesthood, which Kemnitz cites, and all later writers passim use this word, but even those more ancient than these, as Gaudentius, treatise 2 on Exodus: “The Lord,” he says, “commands His faithful disciples, whom He constituted the first priests of His Church, that they should unceasingly exercise these mysteries of eternal life, which must needs be celebrated by all priests through the several Churches of the whole world.” Likewise Jerome in the Dialogue against the Luciferians near the end. Ambrose on Psalm 38. Eusebius, Book 5 of the Demonstration of the Gospel, chapter 3. Cyprian in almost every one of his letters. Tertullian on Prescription, and on the veiling of virgins. Dionysius, chapters 1, 3, and 5 of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, and all others use this word. And what is more, that Saint John the Apostle himself performed the priesthood and wore the pontifical plate, Polycrates writes in Eusebius, Book 5 of the History, chapter 22.
Nor does it stand in the way that in the New Testament the ecclesiastical ministers are not called priests; for the cause is at hand. For because in the time of the Apostles the Jewish priesthood still flourished, and bloody sacrifices were offered in the temple of Jerusalem, the Apostles (the Lord inspiring) did not use the names of priesthood, sacrifice, temple, altar, and like things, that they might more easily distinguish the Christian rites from the Jewish, and lest, if they used the same words, they should be thought to renew or confirm those same rites. But a little after, the temple of Jerusalem being overthrown, and the sacrifices of the Hebrews altogether ceasing, the most ancient Fathers freely began to use the names of temple, altar, priest, and sacrifice, as the thing itself required.
Wherefore Calvin is manifestly deceived, or rather lies, Book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 18, § 10, when he says that the ancients so vindicated the honor of the priesthood to Christ alone that Augustine, Book 2 against Parmenian, chapter 8, affirms it would be the voice of Antichrist if anyone should make a bishop an intercessor between God and man. For Augustine against Parmenian does not speak of a priest, but of a mediator, and not of any mediator whatever, but of a mediator by way of redemption, which is proper to Christ alone. For that there are many intercessors and mediators by way of intercession the Fathers confess passim. For thus Basil calls the holy Martyrs in his oration on the Forty Martyrs, and Jerome in the letter to Fabiola on the priestly vestment calls the bishops sequesters, that is, mediators between God and the people, by the oblation of the sacrifice of the altar: which is also in Chrysostom, in the sixth book on the priesthood. And not only intercessors, but by name priests, Augustine calls the bishops and presbyters, Book 20 of the City of God, chapter 10: “Bishops,” he says, “and presbyters are properly called priests.”
Nor is the answer of Kemnitz valid, in the place noted, where he confesses that the name of priesthood is among the ancients, but will not have it taken for the ministry of sacrificing, but for the ministry of the word and of the Sacraments: for he contends that this ministry alone is attributed in the Scripture of the New Testament to those men who were wont to be called priests by the Fathers. This solution, I say, is not sufficient. For first it would follow that all the Fathers, Greek and Latin, either were ignorant of the force of this word, or of set purpose wished to abuse it. For, as the Apostle says to the Hebrews 5: Every high priest is appointed in the things that appertain to God, that he may offer up gifts and sacrifices. And chapter 8: Every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and hosts. And thence the same Apostle proves that Christ would not be a priest if He had nothing to offer. Who therefore would believe that the most learned Fathers attributed the name of priest to those who only teach the peoples and minister the Sacraments to them, but offer no sacrifice to God? Moreover to teach and to minister the Sacraments befits not only bishops and presbyters, but also deacons, and yet deacons are not called priests by the ancients; as is clear from Augustine in the cited place, Book 20 of the City of God, chapter 10, where he says that bishops and presbyters are properly named priests: and from the Fourth Council of Carthage, canon 4, where it is openly said that deacons are ordained not to the priesthood, but to the ministry.
You will say: Deacons could not minister all the Sacraments, and therefore perhaps were not called priests. But neither could presbyters minister all the Sacraments, as is clear of the Sacrament of Order and of Confirmation, and yet they were called priests. That therefore alone is the true cause which the Council of Nicaea gives, canon 14, namely because deacons have not the power of offering sacrifices, but only of ministering to the priests in the sacrifice.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XVII. Idem 'probatur ex nomine Sacerdotis. Tertium caput sumitur ex vocabulo, Sacer¬ dos. Fatentur enim Calvinus, et Martyr lo¬ co supra notato, sacerdotes proprie ordina¬ ri ad sacrificium; et ideo contendunt non de¬ disse Christum Ecclesia? sacerdotes, sed mi¬ nistros tantum verbi, et Sacramentorum. Porro veteres Patres adeo frequenter hac voce utuntur, ut coactus sitKemnentius con¬ fiteri in secunda parte Examinis pag. 1140, ubi de Sacramento ordinis disputat, invaluis¬ se apud veteres usum vocandi ministros Ec¬ clesiae sacerdotes, et eorum ministerium sa¬ cerdotium, licet in Scriptura Testamenti no¬ vi, ejusmodi vocabulum in hac significatio¬ ne non inveniatur : quod quidem verissimum est. Nam non solum Augustinus lib. xx de Ci¬ vit. Dei cap. 10. et Chrysostomus in libris sex de sacerdotio, quos Kemnitius citat, et omnes posteriores passim utuntur hac voce, sed etiam his antiquiores, ut Gaudentius tract. 2. de Exodo : « Dominus, inquit, discipulis fi¬ delibus mandat, quos primos Ecclesia? sua? constituit sacerdotes, ut indesinenter ista vi¬ ta? aeterna? mysteria exercerent, quae necesse est a cunctis sacerdotibus per singulas to¬ tius orbis Ecclesias celebrari. » Item Hiero¬ nymus in Dialogo contra Luciferianos prope finem. Ambrosius in Psal. 38. Eusebius lib. v. demonstr. Evangcl. cap. 3. Cyprianus in singulis ferme epistolis. Tertullianus de prae¬ scriptione, et de velandis virginibus. Diony¬ sius cap. i. 3. et 5. Ecclesiastica? hierarcjiiae et alii omnes hac voce utuntur. Et quod am¬ plius est, ipsum S. Joannem Apostolum sa¬ cerdotio functum, et laminam Pontificalem gestasse scribit Polycrates apud Eusebium lib. v. hist. cap. 22. Neque obstat, quod in novo Testamento ministri Ecclesiastici non dicantur sacerdo¬ tes ; causa enim in promptu est. Quia enim tempore Apostolorum adhuc vigebat sacer¬ dotium Judaicum, et sacrificia cruenta offe¬ rebantur in templo Hierosolymitano, Apostoli (Domino inspirante) non utebantur nomi¬ nibus sacerdotii, sacrificii, templi, altaris, et similium rerum, ut facilius distinguerent Christiana sacra a Judaicis, et ne putarentur, si iisdem uterentur vocibus, eosdem illos ri¬ tus innovare, aut confirmare. Sed paulo post everso templo Hierosolymitano, et cessanti¬ bus omnino sacrificiis Hebraeorum, libere coeperunt antiquissimi Patres uti nominibus templi, altaris, sacerdotis, et sacrificii, ut res ipsa postulabat. Quare manifeste fallitur, vel potius menti¬ tur Calvinus lib. iv. Institut. cap. 18. §. 10. cum dicit, honorem sacerdotii sic uni Chri- CAPUT XVIII. 35 1 sto veteres vendicasse, ut Antichristi vocem fore affirmet Augustinus lib. ii. contra Parme- nianum cap. 8. si quis Episcopum inter Deum et hominem intercessorem faciat. Nam Au¬ gustinus contra Parmenianum non loquitur de sacerdote, sed de mediatore, et non de quocumque mediatore, sed de mediatore per modum redemptionis, quse soli Christo pro¬ pria est. Nam per modum deprecationis mul¬ tos esse intercessores, et mediatores passim fatentur Patres. Nam sic appellat sanctos Mar¬ tyres Basilius in orat, in 40. Martyres, et Hi¬ eronymus in epist. ad Fabiolam de veste sa¬ cerdotali, appellat Episcopos sequestres, id est, mediatores inter Deum et populum, per oblationem sacrificii altaris : quod etiam est apud Chrysostomum in vi. lib. de sacerdotio. Nec solum intercessores, sed nominatim sa¬ cerdotes Augustinus vocat Episcopos, et pres¬ byteros lib. xx. de Civit, cap. 10: «Episcopi, inquit, et presbyteri proprie dicuntur sacer¬ dotes. » Neque .valet responsio Kemnitii loco nota¬ to, ubi fatetur nomen sacerdotii esse apud veteres, sed non vult accipi pro ministerio sacrificandi, sed pro ministerio verbi, et Sa¬ cramentorum : istud enim solum ministerium tribui contendit in Scriptura novi Testamen¬ ti illis hominibus, qui a Patribus sacerdotes appellari consueverunt. Haec, inquam, solu¬ tio non est sufficiens. Nam in primis seque¬ retur omnes Patres Graecos, et Latinos, vel ignorasse vim hujus vocis, vel de industria lia abuti voluisse. Nam, ut ait Apostolus ad Hebr. v : Omnis Pontifex constituitur in iis , quae sunt ad Deum , ut offerat dona, et sacrifi¬ cia. Et cap. viii : Omnis Pontifex ad offeren¬ dum munera et hostias constituitur. Et inde probat idem Apostolus Christum non esse sa¬ cerdotem, si nihil habeat quod offerat. Quis ergo credat doctissimos Patres nomen sacer¬ dotis tribuisse iis, qui solum docent populos, et iis Sacramenta ministrant ; sed Deo nul¬ lum offerunt sacrificium ? Praeterea docere, et Sacramenta ministrare, non solum conve¬ nit Episcopis, et presbyteris, sed etiam Dia¬ conis, et tamen Diaconi a veteribus non di¬ cuntur sacerdotes ; ut patet ex Augustino loco citato lib. xx. de civit, cap. 10. ubi dicit Epi¬ scopos, et presbyteros proprie sacerdotes no¬ minari : et ex Concilio IV Carthag. can. 4. ubi aperte dicitur, Diaconos non ad sacerdo¬ tium, sed ad ministerium ordinari. Dices : Diaconi non poterant omnia Sacra¬ menta ministrare, et ideo fortasse non dice¬ bantur sacerdotes. Ac nec presbyteri omnia sacramenta ministrare poterant, ut patet de Sacramento Ordinis, et Confirmationis, et ta¬ men sacerdotes dicebantur. Illa igitur sola vera causa est, quam reddit Concilium Nicae¬ num canon. 14. quia videlicet diaconi non habent potestatem sacrificia offerendi, sed solum in sacrificio sacerdotibus ministrandi.