Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book VI: On the Sacrifice of the Mass (Second)
Chapter 7: The Sacrifice of the Mass Is Rightly Offered for the Dead Who Are in Purgatory
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. IV, De Sacramento Eucharistiae, Book VI: On the Sacrifice of the Mass (Second 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).
Concerning the dead there are two controversies with the heretics of this time. One concerning those who are in purgatory. The other concerning the Blessed.
As regards the former, all the heretics named in the preceding controversy, and in the same places, most detest sacrifices for the dead; nor yet have they any but a most trifling argument, namely that Christ said: Take and eat, when He spoke of the use of the Eucharist; but the dead can neither take nor eat. For this argument both Calvin in the Antidote to the Articles of Paris, and Kemnitz in the second part of the Examination of the Council of Trent in his last argument, and others passim object; which yet concludes nothing. For that the dead do not eat proves that they cannot partake of the flesh of the sacrifice, but does not prove that they cannot partake of the fruit of the sacrifice: since Job for his absent sons, and the Jews for the king of Babylon likewise absent, sacrificed not uselessly. And the Lord when He said: Take and eat, spoke to those to whom He held forth the Sacrament, but not to all those for whom He offered the sacrifice: for in the same place we have that the blood of the Lord was offered for them and for many.
Let us therefore undertake to confirm this most certain truth. First from the custom of the Old Testament, and from the authority of Scripture itself. For in the second book of Machabees, chapter 12, Judas Machabeus commanded a sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead: and Scripture, praising this deed, openly says: It is a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.
I know what the adversaries are wont to answer, that the book is not canonical; but this is an old song, and refuted by us in two places, Book 1 on the word of God, and Book 1 on Purgatory. But be it that the book were not canonical, who yet would deny that it is a most ancient historian, and of good faith, no less than Josephus or Sallust? What it narrates, therefore, of the deed of Judas and of the custom of the Hebrews in offering sacrifices for the dead, there is no cause why it should be thought not true; for if the same Josephus narrated it, or any other author of good faith, everyone would believe. We have, therefore, at least, that this was the custom of the ancient Church, which that it was good and laudable is proved even from this, that it was reprehended neither by Christ, nor by the Apostles, nor by any Council, nor by any doctors, but by the enemies of the Church. Add that Augustine, whom certainly we more safely follow than Calvin, in his book on the care for the dead, chapter 1, and in his book on the origin of the soul, chapter 11, proves from this passage that sacrifices offered for the dead profit them.
The second argument we take from the custom of the whole Catholic Church. For, as Epiphanius writes in the compendious doctrine, and Augustine in his book on the care for the dead, chapters 1 and last, and sermon 34 on the words of the Apostle, the whole Church in the sacrifice of the Mass prays for the dead. Which is also clear from all the Liturgies, of James, Clement, Basil, Chrysostom, Ambrose, and the rest. And finally it is clear from the Councils of all provinces, in which mention is made of the sacrifice for the dead as received and in use. See for Africa the Third Council of Carthage, chapter 29, and the Fourth, chapter 79; for Spain the First of Braga, chapters 34 and 39; for Gaul the Council of Chalon, as the canon Visum est has it, on consecration, distinction 1; for Germany the Council of Worms, chapter 10; for Italy the sixth Council under Symmachus; for Greece, chapter 69 of the chapters collected from the Greek Synods by Martin, Bishop of Braga. From which is refuted the lie of Kemnitz; for Kemnitz, in the third part of the Examination of the Council of Trent, in the treatise on purgatory, writes that the custom of sacrificing for the dead was indeed in some places, but not in the whole Church.
The third argument is taken from Apostolic tradition. For it is established that this rite of sacrificing for the sins of the dead flowed from the Apostles to us: for this Rabanus openly teaches, Book 2 on the Institution of Clerics, chapter 44, and before him Isidore, Book 1 on the divine offices, chapter 18, and before Isidore Chrysostom, homily 69 to the people of Antioch: “Not rashly,” he says, “were these things ordained by the Apostles, that in the tremendous mysteries commemoration should be made of the departed: for they know that much gain, much profit, comes to them thence.” The same he has homily 3 on the Epistle to the Philippians. The same teach Gregory of Nyssa and others, whom Damascene cites in his oration for the dead. The same is openly gathered from the Liturgy of James, who was an Apostle, and of Clement, who wrote those things which he received from the mouth of the Apostles.
Finally the same is proved from the rule of Saint Augustine, Book 4 on Baptism, chapter 24, which is, that that is most certainly to be believed to descend from Apostolic tradition which is observed in the whole Church, and was instituted in no Council, but always observed and retained. But that this rite is such cannot be denied. For that it is observed in the whole Church we showed above; and that it was instituted in no Council, but always observed, is clear from the most ancient testimonies of those Fathers who preceded all Councils, where mention is made of the sacrifices for the dead. For the first Council in which mention of this thing is had is the Third of Carthage, which was celebrated about the year of the Lord 417. But of the sacrifice for the dead Eusebius of Caesarea makes mention, Book 4 on the life of Constantine, who was a hundred years earlier than the Council of Carthage; Tertullian too makes mention, in his book on the soldier's crown, who was two hundred years earlier than that Council; and finally Clement makes mention, Book 8 of the Constitutions, chapter 19, who preceded the same Council by three hundred years.
To this argument Kemnitz labors much to answer in the cited place. And first he confesses that Chrysostom says this rite was instituted by the Apostles. Then he tries to show that the opinion of Chrysostom is false. First, because in no divine Scripture is this Apostolic constitution found. Secondly, because Jerome and Gregory say that the Apostles used only the Lord's prayer at the consecration. Thirdly, because Tertullian, on the soldier's crown, writes that this rite flowed from custom.
But we, even if we had only Chrysostom, would rather believe him than Kemnitz: for his authority avails much more than all the arguments of this man. For as to his saying that this is not found in the Scriptures, who denies it? For we refer this constitution of theirs not to Scripture, but to the unwritten tradition of the Apostles: and for certainly investigating traditions of this kind the rule of Saint Augustine avails.
What is alleged from Jerome and Gregory is partly true, partly false, and wholly impertinent: it is true that Gregory says this, but false that the same is said by Jerome. Jerome, Book 3 against the Pelagians, says that Christ taught the Apostles to recite the Lord's prayer in the Eucharistic sacrifice, but does not say that alone. But it is wholly impertinent, both because the Apostles could at the first time use only the Lord's prayer after the consecration, and then at another time add other prayers; and also because without any certain prayer they could offer the sacrifice for the dead; for this the interior intention of the mind alone abundantly suffices.
What Kemnitz finally adds about Tertullian is refuted from the same author. For Tertullian does not say that this rite of sacrificing for the dead first flowed from custom, but was retained and confirmed by custom, which had descended from Apostolic tradition: “Tradition,” he says, “is the author, custom the confirmer, and faith the observer.” Add that Tertullian does not speak of the sacrifice for the dead absolutely, but of the annual sacrifice. Wherefore it could be that that annual one flowed from the custom of some: but this very thing is an argument that it was already then received in use that sacrifice should be offered for the dead. And although Tertullian does not openly say that this tradition is Apostolic, yet neither does he deny it: and from the rule of Augustine it is necessarily gathered to be Apostolic.
The fourth argument is taken from the heresy of Aerius, which was publicly condemned in the Church. For Aerius taught that the sacrifice ought not to be offered for the dead; which heresy when the ancient Church, which even by the testimony of the adversaries was the true Church, condemned, it at the same time condemned all the Lutherans and Calvinists.
This argument stung Philip greatly, and therefore in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, in the disputation on the words of the Mass near the end, he took care to apply the medicine of a lie to the wound: “Falsely,” he says, “the adversaries cite against us the condemnation of Aerius, whom they say was condemned for this, that he denied that in the Mass an oblation is made for the living and the dead.” And below: “Epiphanius testifies that Aerius held that prayers for the dead are useless, this he reprehends; nor do we patronize Aerius.” Here are two notable lies.
One, that the Lutherans do not patronize Aerius denying that prayers for the dead are useful. For who, I ask, of the Lutherans does not attack purgatory? who does not deride prayer for the dead?
The other, that Aerius denied prayers, but not oblations for the dead; which lie will be confuted by the express words of Epiphanius, Augustine, and Damascene, three most holy witnesses. Epiphanius, heresy 75, somewhat obscurely indicates that Aerius denied the commemoration of the dead among the sacred mysteries, but in another book which is entitled Anacephalaeosis, that is, the recapitulation of all heresies, he says thus: “Aerius taught many things against the Church, being indeed in faith a most perfect Arian, but he teaches further that one ought not to offer for those who have fallen asleep.” Augustine in his book on heresies, chapter 53, says that Aerius added his own dogmas, and among them numbers in the first place, that one ought not to pray, or offer an oblation, for the dead. Damascene in his book on the hundred heresies: “Aerius denies,” he says, “that anything is to be offered for the dead.”
The fifth argument is taken from the testimonies of the most approved Fathers, Greek and Latin. Tertullian in his book on the soldier's crown: “We make oblations for the dead, for birthdays on the annual day.” He has like things in his book on Monogamy, and in the exhortation to chastity, and in the second book to his wife.
Cyprian, Book 1, letter 9: “Our predecessor bishops, religiously considering and wholesomely providing, decreed that no brother, departing, should name a cleric for guardianship or care, and if anyone did this, that offering should not be made for him, nor a sacrifice celebrated for his repose.”
Eusebius of Caesarea, Book 4 on the life of Constantine, chapter 71, in the version of Christophorson, writes that Constantine obtained what he had desired, to be buried in the Basilica of the Apostles, and now to enjoy the communion of the prayers which are poured out there, and of the mystic sacrifice.
Cyril of Jerusalem, catechesis 5, mystagogical: “We believe it to be the greatest help of the souls for whom is offered the supplication of that holy and tremendous sacrifice which is set upon the altar.”
Ambrose, Book 2, letter 8 to Faustinus, on the death of his sister: “And so I think she is not so much to be deplored as to be followed with prayers, nor to be made sorrowful with thy tears, but her soul is to be commended to the Lord by oblations.” See the orations on the death of Theodosius, Valentinian, and Satyrus, in all of which he promises that he will sacrifice for their souls.
Ephrem in his testament, which is extant in the first volume of Surius, asked that the sacrifice of the altar be offered for his soul. Epiphanius in the compendious doctrine sets among the dogmas of the Church, to pray for the dead, and for them to perform the divine worship and the dispensation of the mysteries. Chrysostom has already been cited above, whose most open testimonies are homily 69 to the people, and homily 3 on the Epistle to the Philippians.
Augustine in almost every volume of his works makes mention of this rite: volume 1, Book 9 of the Confessions, chapters 12 and 14; volume 2, letter 64 to Aurelius; volume 3, in the Enchiridion, chapter 110; volume 4, book on the care for the dead, chapter 18; volume 5, Book 20 of the City of God, chapter 9; volume 6, book on holy Virginity, chapter 45; volume 7, book on the origin of the soul, first, chapters 9 and 11; volume 9, treatise 84 on John; volume 10, sermons 17 and 34 on the words of the Apostle.
Possidius in the life of Augustine writes that for his death the sacrifice was offered to God. See Gregory, Book 4 of the Dialogues, chapter 33, and Theophylact on chapter 12 of Luke, and Damascene in his oration for the dead, and Bede, Book 4 of the History, chapter 22, and Book 5, chapter 13.
From these testimonies it can be known how trifling and inept are the things which the adversaries are wont to answer to the testimonies of the Fathers. For some contend that we have only the testimonies of Gregory and of more recent writers to prove the sacrifice for the dead: so Melanchthon in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, in the article on the Mass.
Others grant that we have the testimonies also of Augustine and Epiphanius, but none more ancient: so Kemnitz in the third part of the Examination, in the cited place. But we cited very many Fathers, not only more ancient than Gregory, but also than Augustine and Epiphanius, as Ambrose, Ephrem, Nyssa, Cyril, Eusebius, Cyprian, Tertullian.
Others contend that the Fathers speak of the sacrifice of prayers or of almsdeeds, not of the sacrifice of the body of the Lord, when they say that the sacrifice is offered for the dead: so Kemnitz expounds the passages of Tertullian and Cyprian in the cited place, and the passages of Augustine George Major in the refutation of the profanation of the Supper. But they are most openly deceived; for Cyprian, Book 1, letter 9 cited, says that the sacrifice is celebrated for the dead on the altar. But Augustine distinguishes three things which are offered for the dead, and says all profit, almsdeeds, prayers, and sacrifices, as in the Enchiridion, chapter 110, and sermon 34 on the words of the Apostle, and the book on the care for the dead, chapter 18. Likewise he says that there is offered for the dead the sacrifice of our price, Book 9 of the Confessions, chapter 12, and the sacrifice of the body and blood of the Lord, Book 1 on the origin of the soul, chapters 9 and 11, and the sacrifice of the mediator, question 1 to Dulcitius; and the sacrifice of the altar, book on the care for the dead, chapter 18.
But Kemnitz meets this, and says that in the celebration of the Eucharist it was indeed customary to commemorate the dead, but not to this end, that the oblation of the Eucharist should be a propitiation for the sins of the dead; but that at that time confession and testification of that article, “the Communion of Saints,” should be employed, namely that we may profess that to the body of Christ and of the Church belong both the living and the dead.
But this is a mere fiction. For Cyril, Chrysostom, Ambrose, Augustine, and the others cited, clearly say that the sacrifice of the Eucharist much profits the souls of the departed for refreshment: and Augustine in the Enchiridion, chapter 110, uses the word of propitiation, when he says: “For those not very evil, it is a propitiation.” And finally the same Augustine, wherever he treats of this matter, always distinguishes the saints, especially the Martyrs, from the other faithful departed, and says that both are commemorated in the sacrifice of the altar, but the Saints, that they may pray for us, the others, that we may pray for them. But if that commemoration were only a testification of communion and society, all would be commemorated in the same way. See the passages of Augustine, treatise 84 on John, the book on holy Virginity, chapter 45, and sermon 17 on the words of the Apostle.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT VII. Sacrificium Missae pro defunctis in purgatorio degentibus , rite offertur. De mortuis duae sunt cum haereticis hujus temporis controversiae. Una de iis, qui sunt in purgatorio. Altera de Beatis. Quod attinet ad priorem, haeretici omnes in superiore controversia nominati, et iisdem in locis, maxime detestantur sacrificia pro defunctis ; nec tamen habent nisi levissimum argumentum, quod videlicet Christus dixe¬ rit : Accipite et manducate , cum de usu Eu¬ charistiae loqueretur ; mortui autem neque accipere, neque edero valeant. Hoc enim argumentum, et Calvinus in Antidoto articu¬ lorum Parisiensium, et Kemnitius iu ii. par. Examinis Concilii Tridentini in ultimo argu¬ mento, et adii passim objiciunt ; quod tamen nihil concludit. Nam quod mortui non man¬ ducent, probat eos non posse participare de carnibus sacrificii, non autem probat non posse cos participare fructum sacrificii : si- CAPUT VII. 379 quidem Job, pro absentibus filiis, et Judaei pro rege Babylonis similiter absente, non inutiliter sacrificabant. Et Dominus cum ait : Accipite et manducate, loquebatur iis, quibus Sacramentum porrigebat, non autem iis omnibus, pro quibus sacrificium offerebat : nam ibidem habemus , sanguinem Domini oblatum pro illis, et pro multis. Nos igitur certissimam veritatem confir¬ mare aggrediamur. Primo ex Testamenti veteris consuetudine, et ex ipsa Scriptura auctoritate. Nam in II lib. Machab. cap. xn. Judas Machabaeus jussit offerri sacrificium pro peccatis mortuorum : et Scriptura hoc factum laudans, aperte dicit : Sancta , et sa¬ lubris est cogitatio pro defunctis exorare , ut a peccatis solvantur (I). Scio quid adversarii respondere soleant, librum non esse canonicum, sed haec est antiqua cantilena, et a nobis duobus in locis refutata, lib. i. de verbo Dei, et lib. i. de Purgatorio. Sed esto, non esset liber cano¬ nicus, quis tamen negaverit historicum esse antiquissimum, et bonae fidei, non minus quam Josephum aut Sallustium? Quod igitur narrat, de facto Judae, et Hebraorum con¬ suetudine in sacrificiis pro mortuis offeren¬ dis, nulla causa est, cur putetur non esse verum ; nam si idem Josephus narraret, aut quivis alius bona) fidei auctor, nemo non crederet. Habemus igitur, ut minimum, illam fuisse Ecclesia) antiquse consuetudi¬ nem, quam bonam, et laudabilem fuisse vel ex eo probatur, quod neque a Christo, neque ab Apostolis, neque ab ullo Concilio, ullisve doctoribus , nisi Ecclesiae hostibus , fuerit reprehensa. Adde, quod Augustinus, quem sane tutius sequimur, quam Calvinum, libro de cura pro mortuis, cap. i. et lib. de ori¬ gine animae, cap. xi. ex hoc loco probat, de¬ functis prodesse sacrificia pro eis oblata. Secundum argumentum sumimus ex con¬ suetudine Ecclesia) Catholica) universa). Nam ut scribit Epiphanius in compendiaria do¬ ctrina, et Augustinus lib. de cura pro mor¬ tuis, cap. 1. et ult. et serm. xxxiv. de verbis Apostoli ; Ecclesia universa in sacrificio Missa) pro defunctis orat. Id quod etiam pa¬ tet ex omnibus Liturgiis, Jacobi, Clementis, Basilii, Chrysostomi, Ambrosii, et caderis. Ac denique patet ex Conciliis omnium pro¬ vinciarum, in quibus fit mentio sacrificii pro defunctis, tamquam recepti, et usitati. Vide pro Africa Concilium IIT. Carthaginense, cap. 29. et IV. cap. 79. pro Hispania Bracarense I. cap. 34. et 39. pro Gallia Cabilonense, ut habet canon. Visum est, de consecrat, dist. i. pro Germania, Worma- tiense cap. 10. pro Italia Concilium vi. sub Symmacho, pro Graecia, cap. 69. capitu¬ lorum ex Gracis Synodis collectorum a Mar- tino Bracarensi Episcopo. Ex quo refellitur mendacium Kemnitii; Kemnitiusenim in m. par. Examinis Tridentini Concilii in tractatu de purgatorio, scribit consuetudinem sacri¬ ficandi pro mortuis, fuisse quidem alicubi, sed non in tota Ecclesia. Tertium argumentum sumitur ab Aposto- lica traditione. Nam constat hunc ritum sa¬ crificandi pro peccatis mortuorum, ab Apo¬ stolis ad nos manasse : id enim aperte docet Itabanus lib n. de Institut. Clericorum, cap. 44. et ante cum Isidoruslib. i. de officiis di¬ vinis, cap. 18. et ante Isidorum Chrysosto- mus homil. 69. ad populum Antiochenum : « Non temere, inquit, ha)c ab Apostolis san¬ cita fuerunt, ut in tremendis mysteriis de¬ functorum agatur commemoratio : sciunt enim illis inde multum contingere lucrum, multam utilitatem. » Idem habet homil. 3. in epist. ad Philipp. Idem docent Gregorius Nyssenus, et alii, quos citat Damascenus in oratione pro defunctis. Idem aperte colligi¬ tur ex Liturgia Jacobi, qui Apostolus fuit, et Clementis, qui ea scripsit, qua) -ab ore Apo¬ stolorum accepit. Denique idem probatur ex regula sancti Augustini lib. iv. de Baptismo, cap. 24. qua) est, ut id certissime credatur ex Apo- stolica traditione descendere, quod in omni Ecclesia servatur, nec in aliquo Concilio institutum, sed semper servatum, et reten¬ tum est. Talem autem esse hunc ritum, ne¬ gari non potest. Nam in omni Ecclesia ser¬ vari, jam supra ostendimus, in nullo autem Concilio institutum, sed semper servatum fuisse, patet ex testimoniis antiquissimis Pa¬ trum eorum, qui omnia Concilia pracesse- runt, ubi fit mentio de sacripciis pro defun¬ ctis. Primum enim Concilium, in quo mentio hujus rei habetur , est Carthaginense III. quod celebratum est circa annum Domini 417. At sacrificii pro defunctis meminit Eu- sebius Caesariensis lib iv. de vita Constan¬ tini, qui fuit centum annis antiquior Concilio Carthaginensi ; meminit etiam Tertullianus (1) II Macch. XII, 46. .380 LIBER VI. in lib. de corona militum, qui fuit ducentis annis eo Concilio antiquior ; meminit deni¬ que Clemens lib. 8. constit. cap. 19. qui tre¬ centis annis idem Concilium praecessit. Ad hoc argumentum multum laborat, ut respondeat Kemnitius loco cit. ac primum fatetur Chrvsostomum dicere, hunc ritum ab Apostolis esse institutum. Deinde falsam esse Chrysostnmi sententiam conatur ostendere. Primo, quia in nulla divina Scriptura repe- litur ista Apostolica constitutio. Secundo, quia Hieronymus, et Gregorius dicunt solam orationem Dominicam adhibuisse Apostolos ad consecrationem. Tertio, quia Tertullianus de corora militis, scribit hunc ritum ex con¬ suetudine fluxisse. At nos etiamsi solum Chrysostomum ha¬ beremus, mallemus illi, quam lvemnitio cre¬ dere : plus enim multo valet illius auctoritas, quam omnia hujus argumenta. Nam quod dicit in scripturis id non rcperiri, quis ne¬ gat? Neque enim nos ad Scripturam, sed ad traditionem non scriptam Apostolorum re¬ ferimus hanc eorum constitutionem : et ad ejusmodi traditiones certo investigandas , valet regula S. Augustini. Quod ex Hieronymo, et Gregorio allega¬ tur, partim est verum, partim falsum, et totum impertinens : verum est Gregorium id dicere, sed falsum quod a Hieronymo idem dicatur. Hieronymus lib. .3. cont. Pelagianos, dicit Christum Apostolos docuisse, ut in sa¬ crificio Eucharistico recitarent orationem Do¬ minicam sed non dicit eam solam. Est autem totum impertinens, tum quia poterant Apo¬ stoli primo tempore solam orationem Do¬ minicam adhi bere post consecrationem , deinde alio tempore addere alias preces ; tum etiam quia sine ulla certa prece po¬ terant offerre sacrificium pro defunctis ; ad hoc enim sola interior mentis intentio a- bunde sufficit. Quod denique addit Kemnitius de Ter¬ tulliano, ex eodem auctore refellitur. Ter¬ tullianus enim non dicit hunc ritum sacri¬ ficandi pro mortuis ex consuetudine pri¬ mum fluxisse, sed ex consuetudine retentum, et confirmatum, quod ex Apostolica tradi¬ tione descenderat : « Traditio , inquit, est auctrix, consuetudo confirmatrix, et fides observatrix. » Adde, quod Tertullianus non loquitur de sacrificio pro defunctis absolute, sed de sacrificio annuo. Quare potuit fieri, ut illud annuum ex aliquorum consuetudine manarit : sed hoc ipsum est argumentum, jam tunc usu receptum, ut pro defunctis sa¬ crificaretur. Et quamvis non aperte dicat Tertullianus, traditionem hanc esse Aposto- licam, tamen neque id negat : et ex regula Augustini colligitur necessario esse Aposto- licam. Quartum argumentum sumitur ab lueresi Aerii, quas publice in Ecclesia damnata fuit. Acrius enim docebat non esse pro mortuis sacrificium offerendum; quam haeresim cum Ecclesia antiqua, quae etiam adversariorum testimonio vera Ecclesia erat, damnavit, si¬ mul omnes Lutheranos, et Calvinistas dam¬ navit. Pupugit hoc argumentum valde Philip¬ pum, et ideo in Apologia Confessionis Au- gustamc in disputatione de vocabulis Missa; prope extrema , mendacii medicamentum vulneri adhibendum curavit : «Falso, in¬ quit, citant adversarii contra nos damna¬ tionem Aerii, quem dicunt propterea dam¬ natum esse, quod negaverit in missa obla¬ tionem fieri pro vivis, et mortuis. » Et infra : « Epiphanius testatur Acrium sensisse, quod orationes pro mortuis sint inutiles, id repre¬ hendit ; neque nos Aerio patrocinamur. » Haec ille; ubi duo insignia mendacia sunt. Unum quod Lutherani non patrocinentur Aerio neganti orationes pro mortuis esse utiles. Nam quis, quieso, Luthcranorum non oppugnat purgatorium ? quis non irridet ora¬ tionem pro mortuis ? Alterum, quod Aerius negaverit orationes non autem oblationes pro defunctis; quod’ mendacium disertis verbis Epiphanii, Au¬ gustini , et Damasceni, trium sanctissimo¬ rum testium confutabitur. Epiphanius lueresi 75. subobscure indicat Acrium negasse com¬ memorationem mortuorum inter sacra my¬ steria, sed in alio libro qui inscribitur Ana- csephalceosis , id est, recapitulatio omnium hairesum , sic ait : « Aerius multa contra Ecclesiam docuit, fide quidem existens A- rianus perfectissimus, verum amplius docet, non oportere offerre pro iis, qui obdormie¬ runt. » Augustinus in lib. de hairesibus, cap. 33. dicit Aerium propria dogmata addidisse, et inter ea primo loco numerat, orare, vel offerre pro mortuis oblationem non opor¬ tere. Damascenus in lib. de centum hae- resibus : « Negat, inquit, Aerius quidquam esse pro mortuis offerendum. » Quintum argumentum sumitur a pro¬ batissimorum Patrum testimoniis Graecorum et Latinorum. Tertullianus in lib. de corona CAPUT VII. 381 militum : « Oblationes, inquit, pro defunctis, pro natalitiis annua die facimus. » Similia habet in lib. de Monogamia, ct in exhorta¬ tione castitatis, ct in ii. lib. ad unxorem. Cyprianus lib. i. epist. 9. « Episcopi, inquit, antecessores nostri, religiose consi¬ derantes, et salubriter providentes censue- runt, ne quis frater excedens, ad tutelam vel curam clericum nominaret, ac si quis hoc fecisset, non offerretur pro eo, nec pro dor¬ mitione ejus, sacrificium celebraretur. » Eusebius Caesariensis lib. iv. de vita Con¬ stantini, cap. 71. ex versione Ghrisfcophor- soni, scribit Constantinum consecutum quod optaverat, ut sepeliretur in Basilica Aposto¬ lorum, et jam frui communione orationum, quae ibi funduntur, et mystici sacrificii. Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus catecli. 5. my- stagogica : « Maximum, inquit, esse credi¬ mus animarum juvamen, pro quibus offer¬ tur obsecratio sancti illius, et tremendi, quod ite altari positum est, sacrificii. » Ambrosius in lib. n. epist 8. adFaustinum de obitu sororis : « Itaque, inquit, non tam deplorandam, quam prosequendam oratio¬ nibus reor, nec moestificandam lacrymis tuis, sed oblationibus animam ejus Domino commendandam. Vide orationes de obitu Theodosii, Valentiniani, et Satyri, in quibus omnibus se pro animabus eorum sacrifica¬ turum pollicetur. Ephremin testamento suo, quod exstat in i. tomo Surii, rogavit, sacrificium altaris pro anima sua offerri. Epiphanius in compen¬ diaria doctrina, ponit inter dogmata Eccesia), orare pro defunctis, et pro eisdem perficere divinum cultum, et mysteriorum dispensa¬ tionem. Chrysostomus jam supra citatus est, cujus sunt apertissima testimonia liomil. 69. ad popul. ct liomil. 3. in epist. ad Philip. Augustinus in singulis fere tomis operum suorum hujus ritus meminit, tomo i. lib. ix. Confess. cap. 12. et 14. tomo n. epist. 64. ad Aurelium, tomo 3. in Enchiridio, cap. 110. tomo 4. lib. dc cura pro mortuis, cap. 18. tomo v. lib. 20. de civit. Dei, cap. 9. tomo vi. lib. dc sancta Virginitate, cap. 43. tomo vii. libro de origine ani mse primo, cap. 9. et 11. tomo ix. tract. 84. in Joan. tomo x. senn. 17. et 34. de verbis Apostoli. Possidius in vitali. Augustini scribit, pro ejus morte sacrificium Deo fuisse oblatum. Vide Gregor, lib. iv. Dialog. cap. 33. et Theophylactum in cap. 12. Luca), ct Da¬ mascenum in orat, pro defunctis, et Bedam lib. iv. liistor. cap. 22. et lib. v. cap. 13. Ex his testimoniis cognosci potest, quam sint levia, et inepta, qua) adversarii ad Pa¬ trum testimonia respondere solent. Aliqui enim contendunt nos non habere nisi testi¬ monia Gregorii et recentiorum, ad proban¬ dum sacrificium pro defunctis : ita Melan- chtlion in Apologia Confessionis Augustana), in artic. dc Missa. Alii concedunt nos habere testimonia etiam Augustini ct Epiphanii, sed non an¬ tiquiora : ita Kemnitius in 3. par. Exaui. loco cif. At nos citavimus plurimos Patres, non solum Gregorio, sed etiam Augustino, et Epiphanio antiquiores, ut Ambrosium, Ephrem, Nyssenum, Cyrillum, Eusebium, Cyprianum, Tertullianum . Alii contendunt Patres loqui de sacrificio precum, aut eleemosynarum, non de sacri¬ ficio corporis Domini, cum dicunt offerre sacrificium pro defunctis : ita exponit loca Tertulliani ct Cypriani Kemnitius luco citato, ct loca Augustini Georgius Major in refuta¬ tione profanationis ccena). At falluntur apertissime; nam Cyprianus lib. j. epist. 9. citata, dicit sacrificium celebrari pro de¬ functis in altari. Augustinus autem distin¬ guit tria, qua) offeruntur pro defunctis, et omnia dicit prodesse, eleemosynas, preces et sacrificia, ut in Enchirid. cap. 110. et serm. 34. de verbis Apostoli, et lib. de cura pro mortuis, c. 18. Item dicit offerri pro mortuis sacrificium pretii nostri , lib. ix. Confess. cap. 12. et sacrificium corporis, et sanguinis Domini, lib. i. dc orig. anima), cap. 9. et 11. et sacrificium mediatoris, qusest. 1. ad D.ulcitium ; et sacrificium al¬ taris, lib. dc cura pro mortuis, cap. 18. Sed Kemnitius occurrit, ac dicit, in cele¬ bratione quidem Eucharistia) consuevisse commemorari mortuos, sed non in cum finem, ut oblatio Eucharistia) esset propi¬ tiatio pro peccatis mortuorum; verum ut eo tempore adhiberetur confessio, et testificatio illius articuli : « Communionem Sanctorum», ut nimirum profiteamur ad corpus Christi, ct Ecclesia) pertinere tum viventes, tum mortuos. At hoc est merum figmentum. Nam Cy¬ rillus, Chrysostomus, Ambrosius, Augusti¬ nus, et alii citati, clare dicunt, multum prod¬ esse animabus defunctorum ad refrigerium sacrificium Eucharistiae : et Augustinus in Enchirid. cap. 110. utitur voce propitia- 382 LIBER VI. tionis, cum ait : « Pro non valde malis, pro¬ pitiatio est. )) Et denique idem Augustinus, ubicumque agit de hac re, sempcr distinguit sanctos, praecipue Martyres, ab aliis fide¬ libus defunctis, ac dicit utrosque in sacrificio altaris commemorari, sed Sanctos, ut ipsi pro nobis orent, alios autem ut nos pro illis oremus. At si solum ea commemoratio, te¬ stificatio esset communionis, et societatis, eodem modo omnes commemorarentur. Yide loca Augustini tract. lxxxiv. in Joan. lib. de sancta Virginitate, cap. 45. et serm. 17. de verbis Apostoli.