Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book V: On the Sacrifice of the Mass (First)
Chapter 21: The Sacrifice of the Mass Is Proved from the Comparison of the Christian Law to the Mosaic
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 second principal reason is drawn from the comparison of the Church and the synagogue, or of the new law and the old, of the Christian people and the Jewish. And the reason is this: In the Jewish people there were sacrifices properly so called; therefore in the Christian people also there ought to be.
The consequence is proved: for the antecedent is beyond controversy. First, Christ did not altogether take away those things which God had instituted in the old law; for He was not contrary to His Father, or to Himself; but He either perfected them or changed them into better, as is clear in the precepts and the Sacraments. For the precepts He did not take away, but explained, Matthew 5, and added counsels which conduce to the perfect observation of the precepts. By like reason the Sacraments of Circumcision, of the Paschal Lamb, and the like He did not take away, but changed into other truly and properly so-called Sacraments, but, as Augustine says, letter 118, fewer, easier, and more excellent; therefore in the same way He ought not altogether to have taken sacrifices out of the way, but to have changed them.
Secondly, sacrifice is the highest worship which can be attributed to God. For without controversy things excel words; and among things, sacred excel profane; and among sacred, public excel private; and among public, those whose very substance is consumed for the honor of God excel those of which the use alone is. But such is a sacrifice properly so called, as is known. Wherefore if this kind of worship had been in the old law, and not in the new, God would have been affected with far greater honor in the old law than in the new: and accordingly Christ would have procured for His Father not glory, as He said, but ignominy.
Thirdly, the causes why the people of the Hebrews had external sacrifices properly so called are all found also in the Christian people. They had external and visible sacrifices, because they too were an external and visible people, namely consisting not of spirit alone, but of flesh and spirit. But the Christian people too is external and visible, and consists of flesh and spirit. They had sacrifices, that they might often represent and commemorate the death of Christ, which is the sole price and sole salvation of us, since they could not behold it present. But we too cannot behold the death of Christ present; therefore we need a sacrifice by which we may continually commemorate that sacrifice of the cross. They had sacrifices by which they might worship God with the highest honor, and that due to Him alone. But we too ought to worship God with the highest honor, and that due to Him alone. They had, finally, sacrifices to appease God, or to obtain benefits from Him, or to give thanks for benefits obtained. But for the same causes we too need sacrifices; nay the more benefits we have received from God, the more we are obliged to sacrifice. Wherefore Peter of Cluny rightly writes that the heretics who desire to take away the sacrifice from the Church attempt this at the suggestion of the devil, that that nation may be ungrateful to God beyond others, which beyond others is adorned with more and greater benefits from God.
Fourthly, in fact the Christians retain all the other kinds of honor and worship by which the Hebrews worshipped God, namely adoration, invocation, the making of vows, hymns, psalms, canticles, festival days, fasts, almsdeeds, and the like. Who therefore could persuade himself that that one kind of honor which is proper to God is forbidden us by Christ, when all others are permitted by Him; especially since Christ procured nothing more ardently than the glory and honor of God?
Nor do they satisfy who say that internal worship is nobler than external, and that the Christians render internal worship to God. For although internal worship is nobler than external, yet internal joined with external excels each, or internal worship with the external protestation of it. But the sign and protestation of the highest internal worship is the sacrifice itself, as Augustine often teaches, Book 10 of the City of God. Whence the three children, Daniel 3: In a contrite heart, they say, and in the spirit of humility let us be received; as in the holocaust of rams and bullocks, and as in thousands of fat lambs; so let our sacrifice be made in thy sight this day. For the holy children, placed in captivity, wish that their internal affection may so please God as it would please if they could show and protest it by the external sign of sacrifices.
Fifthly, sacrifices were not first instituted in the law of Moses, but have their origin from the law of nature, as is clear from the sacrifices of Abel, Noe, Melchisedech, Job, and others: therefore even if Christ had wished to abrogate all the institutions of the Mosaic law, yet He ought not altogether to have abrogated sacrifices.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XXI. Probatur sacrificium Missu; ex comparatione legis Christianae ad Mosa icam. Altera ratio principalis ducitur a collatio¬ ne Ecclesiae, et synagogae, sive legis novae, et veteris : populi Christiani, et judaici. Est autem haec ratio ; in populo judaico fuerunt sacrificia proprie dicta ; ergo et in populo Christiano esse debent. ' Probatur consequentia : Nam antecedens extra controversiam est. Primo, Christus non omnino sustulit ea, quai Deus in veteri lege instituerat ; nec enim contrarius erat Patri suo, aut sibi ipsi ; sed aut perfecit, aut mutavit in meliora; ut patet in praeceptis, et Sacramentis. Nam praecepta non sustulit, sed explicuit Matth. o. et consilia addidit quae ad praeceptorum perfectam observatio¬ nem conducunt. Pari ratione Sacramenta Circumcisionis, Agni Paschalis, et similia non sustulit, sed mutavit in alia vere, et proprio dicta Sacramenta, sed ut Augusti¬ nus dicit epist. 118. pauciora faciliora, et praestanoria; ergo eodem modo sacrificianon debuit omnino tollere de medio, sed mutare. Secundo, sacrificium est summus cultus, qui Deo tribui possit. Nam sine controversia res verbis prmstant ; et inter res, sacrae pro¬ fanis; et inter sacras, publicae privatis; et inter publicas, eae, quarum ipsa substantia in Dei honorem consumitur, quam eae, qua¬ rum solus usus. Tale autem est sacrificium proprie dictum, ut notum est. Quare si hoc genus cultus fuisset in veteri lege, et non in nova, fuisset Deus in veteri lege longe majori honore affectus, quam n rova : et proinde Christus Patris sui, non gloriam, ut dicebat, sed ignominiam procurasset. Tertio, causa cur populus Hebraeorum sa¬ crificia externa, et proprie dicta habuerit, omnes inveniuntur etiam in populo Chri¬ stiano. Habuerunt illi sacrificia externa, et visibilia, quia et ipsi populus erant externus, et visibilis, nempe non ex solo spiritu, sed carne, et spiritu constans. At populus etiam Christianus externus, et visibilis est, et car¬ ne, et spiritu constat. Habuerunt illi sacrifi¬ cia, ut Christi mortem, quae est unicum pre¬ tium, et unica salus nostra, saepe repraesen¬ tarent, et commemorarent, cum eam prae¬ sentem intueri non possent. At nos etiam Christi mortem praesentem intueri nequimus; ergo egemus sacrificio, quo sacrificium illud crucis jugiter comme¬ moremus. Habuerunt illi sacrificia, quibus Deum colerent honore summo, et soli illi debito. At nos etiam debemus Deum colere honore summo, et soli illi debito. Habuerunt denique illi sacrificia ut Deum placarent, vel ab eo beneficia impetrarent, vel pro im¬ petratis gratias agerent. At iisdem de causis, et nos sacrificiis indigemus; imo quo nos plura a Deo beneficia accepimus, eo magis ad sacrificandum obligamur. Quare recte Petrus Cluniacensis scribit haereticos, qui sacrificium de Ecclesia tollere cupiunt, id tenture diabolo suggerente, ut gens illa Deo praeter caeteras sit ingrata, qua; praeter cm- teras pluribus, et majoribus a Deo beneficiis ornata est. Quarto, reipsa Christiani retinent omnia alia genera honoris, et cultus, quibus Hc- brrni Deum colebant, nimirum adorationem, invocationem , votorum nuncupationem , hymnos, psalmos, cantica, dies festos, jeju¬ nia, eleemosynas, et similia. Quis igitur sibi persuadere possit, solum illud genus honoris, quod est proprium Dei, nobis a Christo pro- CAPIT XX1U. liibitura esso, cum omnia alia sint ab eo per¬ missa; praesertim cum Christus nihil arden¬ tius procuraverit, quam Dei gloriam, et ho¬ norem ? Neque satisfaciunt, qui dicunt, cultum in¬ ternum esse nobiliorem externo : Christia¬ nos autem internum cultum Deo praestare. Nam etsi internus cultus nobilior externo sit, tamen utrique praestat internus cum externo conjunctus, sive internus cultus cum externa illius potestatione. Est autem signum, et protestatio summi interni cultus, ipsum sa¬ crificium, ut Augustinus saepe docet lib. 10. dc Civit Unde tres pueri Daniel m : In ani¬ mo , inquiunt, contrito , et in spiritu humilitatis suscipiamur; sicut in holocausto arietum , et taurorum, et sicut in millibus agnorum pin¬ guium; sic jiat sacrificium nostrum in con¬ spectu tuo hodie (1). Optant enim sancti pueri in captivitate positi, ut internus eorum affe¬ ctus sic Deo placeat, quemadmodum placeret si eum ostendere , et protestari possent, externo signo sacrificiorum. Quinto, sacrificia non sunt primum in lege Mosis instituta, sed ex lege naturae ortum habent, ut patet ex sacrificiis Abel, Noe, Melehisedech, Job, et aliorum : ergo etiamsi Christus abrogare voluisset omnia instituta legis Mosaicae, non tamen sacrificia omnino abrogare debuisset.