Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book VI: On the Sacrifice of the Mass (Second)
Chapter 14: That the Ceremonies Which Precede the Mass Are Ancient and Pious
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).
Now, that we may more easily defend the ceremonies of the Mass, we shall reduce all to certain heads. For some are taken from the person, some from the place, others from the time, and these consist in things, and are prerequired to the sacrifice. Others consist in action, and are employed during the sacrificing, partly toward God, partly toward the people, partly toward the sacrifice itself. On the part of the person are required sacred vestments; on the part of the place are required temples, altars, sacred vessels, as the chalice, the paten, the corporals, likewise lights. On the part of the time it is required that it be done chiefly on the Lord's days, before midday, before all food. Of these several things, therefore, let us speak most briefly.
On sacred vestments.
And first, of sacred vestments we have the example of the Old Testament, in which the priest, about to offer the sacrifice, was clothed in certain vestments prescribed by God: and that those vestments were types and figures of the sacred vestments in which the Christian priests are now clothed, the authors whom I shall presently cite show, who severally demonstrate which of our vestments corresponds to which of the Jewish.
Then we have the most ancient usage of the Church: for all the garments which we now use in the Mass, and the significations of them, many ancient writers enumerate and explain, as Innocent III, Book 1 on the mysteries of the Mass; Rupert, Book 1 on the divine offices; Bonaventure in his book on the explanation of the Mass; Walafrid Strabo in his book on ecclesiastical things, chapter 24; Hugh of Saint Victor, Book 2 on the Sacraments, part 4; Amalarius, Book 2 on the ecclesiastical offices; Rabanus, Book 1 on the institution of clerics; and Alcuin in his book on the ecclesiastical offices, chapter on sacred vestments. And these authors flourished, some more than 300 years ago, as Innocent and Bonaventure; others more than 400 years ago, as Rupert and Hugh; others more than 700 years ago, as Walafrid and Rabanus; finally Amalarius and Alcuin more than 800 years ago.
Besides these authors, who enumerate all the garments in order, and do not say that they began in their time, but deliver what they had received from their forefathers, there are not lacking others more ancient, who briefly touch something of vestments of this kind. For Julian Pomerius, who flourished more than 900 years ago, in the life of Saint Ildephonsus, which is extant in Surius, volume 1, writes that a priestly vestment was brought from heaven by the most holy Virgin herself, and given to Saint Ildephonsus, that he might use it in the Mass.
Pope Gregory, about 1000 years ago, sent into Britain, to that new church, besides sacred vessels and relics of the saints and ornaments of altars, also priestly and clerical vestments, as John the Deacon writes, Book 2 of the life of blessed Gregory, chapter 37, and Bede, Book 1 of the History, chapter 29.
Jerome, Book 1 against the Pelagians, beyond the middle, writes that the bishops, presbyters, and all the clergy use white vestments in the administration of the sacrifice. Which same Chrysostom has, homily 83 on Matthew, who also at the beginning of the Liturgy describes the prayers which are said while the priest puts on the sacred vestments. The same Jerome too, in the letter to Heliodorus on the death of Nepotian, writes that a tunic which Nepotian used in the ministry of Christ was left to him by the dying presbyter: but each flourished more than 1100 years ago.
The Fourth Council of Carthage, celebrated in the time of Augustine, forbids, canon 41, that deacons use the alb, except in the sacred ministry.
The author of the Questions of the Old and New Testament, which are had in volume 4 of the works of Augustine, question 46, writes that deacons were wont to use dalmatics: but this author lived before Augustine, as is clear from question 44.
Sylvester, more than 1200 years ago, as Damasus relates in his life, decreed that deacons in the church should use dalmatics, and cover the left arm with a linen pall.
Finally hither can be referred what Polycrates writes, more than 1400 years ago, in Eusebius, Book 5 of the History, chapter 24, that Saint John himself too wore the priestly plate.
There is added also a manifest reason. For as kings and magistrates in public actions use not a common dress, but another more august and with certain insignia, whereby both reverence is conciliated to them, and at the same time their command and power is represented: so also it was altogether fitting that in this public action of the whole Church the priest should use a sacred and peculiar habit; fit both for the reverence of the mystery and for representing the very passion of Christ.
On temples and altars.
Now of temples and altars we have disputed much in Book 3 on the Church triumphant, chapter 1 and following; and the writings of the ancients, both of the Fathers and of the Councils, are full, where mention is made of the temple and the altar; and we in the preceding book, chapter 16, brought forward not a few testimonies. And because the adversaries do not so much reject temples and altars as the mystic consecrations both of the temple and of the altar; see the most ancient testimonies of consecration of this kind in the Fifth Council of Carthage, canon 6, and of Agde, canon 14, and in the writings of the Fathers, of Eusebius, Book 4 on the life of Constantine; of Athanasius in his Apology to Constantius; of Basil on Psalm 114; of Gregory of Nyssa in his book on Baptism; of Ambrose, Book 1, letter 5 to Felix; of Gaudentius in his treatise on the dedication; of Augustine, sermons 251 and following, on the season; of Gelasius in letter 1, and of Felix IV in his decretal letter on the consecration of churches and altars, which Pontiff was the ancestor of Saint Gregory, and not only confirms that churches and altars ought to be consecrated, but also, which is proper to this place, testifies that it was forbidden by the ancient Canons that anyone presume to celebrate the sacred solemnities of the Masses elsewhere than in places consecrated to God, great necessity excepted.
On sacred vessels.
Of sacred vessels many most ancient testimonies are extant. Damasus in the life of Saint Urban, Pope and Martyr, makes mention of silver vessels which were then already in the Church for the use of the Sacraments. But Urban sat about the year of the Lord 230. Prudentius in his hymn on Saint Laurence makes mention of golden vessels which were in the time of Saint Laurence, that is, about the year of the Lord 260: “That the prelates freely serve with gold.” But that in the time of Sylvester, about the year of the Lord 300, there were very many golden and silver chalices, patens, candlesticks, thuribles, the same Damasus is witness. Athanasius in his second Apology against the Arians writes many things about the mystic cup, which the Arians calumniated as broken by him: from which place it is established that the chalices of the Eucharist were sacred, and could not be touched except by the initiated, nor be defiled without sacrilege. Gregory Nazianzen in his oration about himself against the Arians writes that the sacred vessels plundered by the Arians were forbidden to laymen to touch: and therefore he compares them to Nabuzardan and Balthasar, of whom the one carried off, the other profaned, the sacred vessels of the temple of Jerusalem. Optatus of Milevis, Book 6 against Parmenian, complains of the Donatists, that they plundered, melted down, and sold the sacred and precious vessels of the Church, in which the blood of Christ is contained, and likewise the palls and veils. Ambrose, Book 2 on the offices, chapter 28, writes much of the sacred vessels of the Church, and demonstrates that they were golden and consecrated. Augustine on Psalm 113: “And we,” he says, “have very many instruments and vessels of gold and silver for the use of celebrating the Sacraments, which, consecrated by that very ministry, are called holy.” Finally Chrysostom, homily 4 on Matthew, and more fully in his book on Saint Babylas against the Gentiles, writes that Julian, the uncle of the Emperor Julian, and another who performed the office of quaestor, plundered and profaned the sacred vessels of the Church, but forthwith felt the avenging hand of the Lord, so that Julian, gnawed by worms, perished, and the quaestor suddenly burst asunder in the middle. Like examples Gregory of Tours relates, on the glory of the Martyrs, chapter 85; which sufficiently show that this ceremony of the sacred vessels is most ancient, and pleasing to God.
But Calvin in the preface of the Institutes objects two passages of the Fathers. One is of Ambrose, Book 2 on the offices, chapter 28, where we read thus: “The Sacraments do not seek gold, nor please by gold, which are not bought with gold.” The other is of Acacius, whom Socrates relates, Book 7 of the History, chapter 21, to have once spoken thus, when he was accused of having sold the sacred vessels for the poor: “Our God needs neither dishes nor chalices, because He neither eats nor drinks.”
I answer: Each passage favors us; for in each passage we read that the Church abounded in precious and sacred vessels, and that they ought to have been diligently preserved, unless the utmost necessity of the poor pressed. But in such necessity those holy Fathers will have it lawful to melt and sell the sacred vessels, and give the reason, because those precious vessels are not absolutely necessary for ministering the Sacraments. And this is what Ambrose says: “The Sacraments do not seek gold,” that is, do not necessarily exact it; and what he subjoins: “Nor please by gold.” This does not signify that they displease in gold, or in no way please more in gold than in glass: but that they do not therefore principally please because they are ministered in gold. For if they displeased in gold, or did not please more than in another material, Ambrose would not have kept them until that necessity, but would never have used them.
The words of Acacius have the same sense: for they signify that golden vessels bring no usefulness to God, but are in the Church for the honor of God and our usefulness; and therefore when an occasion offers itself in which they can be more useful to us if they be sold, they ought to be sold, because this too will be more pleasing to God, who wishes mercy rather than sacrifice. See what we said in Book 3 on the Church triumphant, chapter 6.
On candles.
Of the candles which we use in the Mass, and especially while we read the Gospel, there are not lacking ancient testimonies. Athanasius in his letter to all the Orthodox, not far from the beginning, writes that among the other sacrileges of the Arians one was that they burned the candles of the Church to idols. Jerome in his book against Vigilantius writes that in the Catholic Church, the sun being bright, candles are lit while the Gospel is read, to show a sign of joy. Chrysostom in the Liturgy writes that the priest proceeds to the altar, a minister going before with a light. The Roman Order too makes mention of the candles which are lit both at the Gospel and at the oblation of the body of the Lord. The Fourth Council of Carthage, canon 6, teaches that to the acolyte in his ordination a candle is delivered by the archdeacon, that he may know it to pertain to his ministry to light the lights in the church. But at what time the lights should be lit by the acolytes, Isidore explains, Book 7 of the Etymologies, chapter 12, where he writes that when the Gospel is read, and when the body of Christ is offered, the acolytes ought to light the candle in the church. Finally Micrologus, chapter 11, asserts that Mass is never celebrated without a light, even if it be celebrated at midday.
On the day of celebrating.
Further, as regards the time of celebrating the sacrifice, the Catholics think that it is to be done chiefly on the Lord's day; nor do the heretics oppose. We have first the testimony of Scripture, Acts 20: On the first day of the week, when we were assembled to break bread. For by "the first day of the week" the Lord's day is understood, as Chrysostom and Bede expound: and it is clear from other like passages. For that which is written, 1 Corinthians 16: On the first day of the week let every one put apart with himself, etc., all the interpreters, Greek and Latin, expound of the Lord's day, on which the Christians were wont to assemble in the church. Mark last chapter, Christ is said to have risen on the first day of the week: in which place that by "the first day of the week" the Lord's day is understood, no one ever denied. But the Lord's day is called "the first of the sabbath," because it is the first day of the week, for in the Hebrew phrase "one" is taken for "first," and "sabbath" for "week."
Then Justin Martyr in his second Apology, at the end, openly writes that on the day of the sun, that is, the Lord's day, the Christians were wont to assemble for the sacrifice of the Eucharist. Augustine in letter 118 writes that in some places the sacrifice was wont to be offered every day, elsewhere only on the Lord's day and the Sabbath, elsewhere only on the Lord's day. From which we understand that no one ever doubted that the Lord's day was most apt for celebrating this sacrifice.
On the hour of celebrating, and on the fast necessary for celebrating the sacrifice.
Of the hour it is agreed among the Catholics that the sacrifice is to be celebrated in the morning hours, and before all food; and indeed the ancients made the sacred rites from the third hour to the ninth, because at that time the fast was protracted to the ninth hour: sometimes also they celebrated toward evening, as on Holy Thursday, and on Holy Saturday; sometimes at midnight, as on the Nativity of the Lord. See Walafrid, chapter 23. Now, excepting the Mass which is still sung at midnight on the Nativity of the Lord, the sacred rites are ordinarily celebrated from the first hour, or from dawn, until the sixth, that is, until midday, and the fasts are by custom protracted.
The Lutherans and Calvinists plainly contemn these things: for Luther writes, in his book against the King of England, published in the year 1522, that it is an article of the Pope that Communion is to be received only in the morning and before all food, and adds: “But we call these men merely fatuous and stupid, and have free Communion, whether by day or by night, whether in the morning or in the evening. Among us he does not sin who eats and drinks moderately before Communion.” And in his book on the form of the Mass he permits the fast before Communion to be free, and only necessarily requires that one approach soberly, that is, as he himself explains, that no one belch from surfeit or grow sluggish with a distended belly. He has like things in his book on abrogating private Mass: where yet he falsely attributes to the Catholics that they teach that he is unworthy of Communion who has imprudently sipped one little drop of water. For the Catholics do not so rigidly expound this fast: nay in the case of necessity they permit even to receive Communion after food, as when some sick man is in danger of life, and has not yet received the viaticum, and there is danger in delay, for then Communion is wont to be given at any hour: and outside this case, one who while washing has passed some drops of water with saliva by chance to the stomach is not reckoned to have broken the fast, nor is forbidden to make the sacrifice or receive Communion; of which matter see Saint Thomas, third part, question 80, article 8.
But that our custom is without doubt most ancient and Apostolic, and necessarily to be observed, except in the case of necessity, can easily be demonstrated. Tertullian in the second book to his wife: “Thy husband will not know,” he says, “what thou takest before all food, etc.”, and he speaks, by the consent of all, of the Eucharist. Cyprian, Book 2, letter 3, near the end, objects to himself the argument which Luther afterward made, namely from the example of Christ, who after supper offered the sacrifice, and answers that Christ for a certain cause offered toward evening, and after supper, because so it had been foretold by the prophets; but that we ought to offer in the morning, because we celebrate the resurrection of the Lord: and in the same place he infers, as a thing very absurd: “Ought we then to celebrate after supper?” John Chrysostom, homily 7 on First Corinthians, not far from the end: “Thou,” he says, “before thou receivest, fastest, that thou mayest seem in some way worthy of the Communication.” The same Chrysostom in letter 3 to Cyriacus the bishop writes that he was accused of having given Communion to those not fasting, and swears that he did not do this: “If I did this,” he says, “let Christ cast me from His kingdom.”
Augustine in letter 118, chapter 6, proposes the argument which we said above was resolved by Cyprian: “And it clearly appears,” he says, “that when the disciples first received the body and blood of Christ, they did not receive it fasting; is the whole Church therefore to be calumniated, because it is always received by those fasting? For from this it pleased the Holy Spirit that, in honor of so great a Sacrament, the body of the Lord should enter the mouth of the Christian before other foods: for therefore this custom is observed throughout the whole world. Nor because the Lord gave it after food, ought the brethren therefore to assemble to receive that Sacrament after dinner or supper, or to mix these things with their meals, as those did whom the Apostle reproves and corrects. For the Saviour, that He might the more vehemently commend the sublimity of that mystery, willed this to be the last thing fixed in the hearts and memory of the disciples, from whom He was about to depart to the passion: and therefore He did not command in what order it should thenceforth be received, that He might reserve this place to the Apostles, through whom He was about to dispose the churches.” From this testimony we have many things. First, that the Lord commanded nothing about this matter. Secondly, that the Apostles, inspired by the Holy Spirit, instituted that the Eucharist should be received by those fasting. Thirdly, that this is observed throughout the whole world by the whole Church of Christ. Fourthly, that the reason of this thing was for the honor of so great a Sacrament: which same reason later authors also touch, as Isidore, Book 1 on the divine offices, chapter 18, and Amalarius, Book 3 on the ecclesiastical offices, chapter 34, and Walafrid Strabo, book on ecclesiastical things, chapter 19.
But Luther, as he was the most impudent of all men, derides the testimony of so great a Doctor in his book on abrogating the Mass, part 2, in these words: “It is unworthy,” they say, “that anything else enter the mouth of the Christian before the body of the Lord has entered. O festive reason! perhaps neither mist nor air may enter the mouth of the Christian before the body of the Lord has entered, so that priests are forbidden breathing and life until after the Mass and Communion.”
Horrible truly, and plainly diabolical audacity, to insult the whole Church, not by any solid reason, but by a depraved passage of Augustine. For Augustine does not say that it is unworthy that anything else enter the mouth of the Christian before the body of Christ: but that another food enter before the most sacred food of the Lord's flesh. We are not, therefore, forbidden to breathe the air, as Luther trifles, but to take some food.
Besides these testimonies of the Fathers, we have also the decrees of the ancient Councils celebrated in various parts of the world. The Third Council of Carthage, celebrated in Africa more than 1100 years ago, canon 29, thus decreed: “That the Sacraments of the altar be not celebrated except by fasting men.” The same is repeated, canon 48, and again in the African Council, canon 8. The Second Council of Macon, celebrated in Gaul more than 1000 years ago, canon 6, renews the canon of the Council of Carthage, and adds the penalty of deposition from one's own dignity. In the same place it also decrees that the remains of the body of the Lord be given to children to eat, a fast being enjoined on them: which usage was of old in Greece, Evagrius testifies, Book 4 of the History, chapter 35. The First Council of Braga, celebrated in Lusitania more than 900 years ago, canon 16, decrees that even on Holy Thursday the Masses be celebrated by those fasting. The Seventh Council of Toledo, celebrated in Spain likewise more than 900 years ago, canon 2, decrees the penalty of excommunication against those who dare to make Mass after taking any food, however small. The Council of Constance, celebrated in Germany a hundred years before the heresy of Luther arose, session 13, condemns the error or abuse of certain ones who dared to celebrate the Sacrament of the altar after taking food.
Hither let there finally be added the horrible vengeance which God exercised on a certain presbyter, who on the Nativity of the Lord presumed to celebrate Masses not fasting: of which matter see Gregory of Tours, chapter 86 of the book on the glory of the Martyrs.
But let us see the arguments of Luther. First he objects the example of Christ, who instituted and ministered the Sacrament after supper. But this is already resolved by Cyprian and Augustine, to whom we can add that Christ instituted and ministered the Eucharist not after any supper whatever, but after the supper of the Paschal lamb, to indicate that the one supper was the shadow and figure of the other; but for us it is now not lawful to premise that Jewish supper, since it is abrogated, just as also Christ, after receiving Circumcision, took Baptism, and yet Christians ought not now to receive Circumcision before they are baptized.
Secondly he objects the testimony of the Apostle, 1 Corinthians 11: If any man be hungry, let him eat at home; where the Apostle seems to permit that those who cannot or will not bear the fast should approach the church to communicate, after taking food at home.
I answer: In two ways this passage is wont to be expounded. First, so that the sense is: if anyone cannot remain fasting so long in the church, let him first take food at home, and so come to the church: so Anselm expounds, who yet adds that he who comes to the church after taking food ought not to receive the Eucharist. Secondly, so that the sense is: if anyone, being in the church, cannot tolerate hunger, let him go out and return home, and there eat, not in the church. Which yet are not said by the Apostle that it should be so done, but that men of this kind, addicted to gluttony, may be confounded, as being unworthy of the sacred communion, that they be expelled from the church and sent away to their homes: so Chrysostom and Theophylact and others expound; which exposition seems altogether truer, but neither makes for Luther.
Thirdly he objects that, moderate food being taken, a man is fitter for Communion than one fasting, because after taking food the head is wont to be more purged, the mouth cleaner, the breath more uncorrupt, etc. I answer: Apostolic tradition and the custom of the whole Church ought to move us more than this Philosophy of Luther. Moreover Luther assumes what is false, for even though food profits for the works of the body, yet not for the works of the spirit. And that fasting especially conduces much to prayer is clear from the divine Scripture, which almost everywhere joins prayer with fasting. Tobias 12: Prayer is good with fasting. Judith 4: In fastings and prayers. Luke 2: Serving God with fastings and prayers. Matthew 17: This kind is not cast out but by prayer and fasting.
Lastly he objects that Christ left this free, and accordingly it ought to be free. I answer: Many things Christ did not command by Himself, which yet He would not have free, since He commanded them through the Apostles or their successors, and of them said, Luke 10: He that heareth you, heareth me.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XIV. Civrcmonias, qux Missam praecedunt, esse an tiquas , et pias. Nunc ut facilius Missae caeremonias defen¬ damus, ad quaedam capita omnes revocabi¬ mus. Quaedam enim sumuntur a persona, quaedam a loco, aliae a tempore, et hae in re¬ bus consistunt, et praerequiruntur ad sacri¬ ficium. Aliae consistunt in actione, et adhi¬ bentur inter sacrificandum, partim erga Deum, partim erga populum, partim erga ipsum sacrificium. Ex parte pei sonte requi¬ runtur vestes sacrae, ex parte loci requirun¬ tur templa, altaria, vasa sacra, ut calix, di¬ scus, corporalia, item' lumina. Ex parte tem¬ poris requiritur, ut fiat praecipue Dominicis CAPUT XVI. diebus, ut uj ite meridiem, ut ante omnem cibum. De his igitur singulis brevissime dica¬ mus. 1)E VESTIBUS SACRIS. Ac primum de vestibus sacris habemus exemplum Testamenti veteris, in quo sacer¬ dos sacrificium oblaturus, certis vestibus a Deo praescriptis induebatur : fuisse autem eas vestes, typos ac figuras vestium sacra¬ rum, quibus nunc induuntur sacerdotes Christiani, ostendunt auctores quos jam ci¬ tabo, qui singilatim demonstrant, quie ex nostris vestibus cui ex Judaicis respondeant. Habemus deinde usum Ecclesiae antiquis¬ simum : nam omnia indumenta, quibus nunc utimur in Missa, enumerant, et significatio¬ nes, eorum explicant, multi antiqui scripto¬ res, ut Innocentius III. lib. i. de mysteriis Missae. Rupertus lib. i. de divinis officiis. Bonaventurain libro de explicatione Missae. Walfridus Strabo in lib. de rebus Ecclesia¬ sticis cap. 24. Hugo de S. Victore lib. ii. de Sacramentis par. 4. Amadarius lib. n. de of¬ ficiis Ecclesiasticis. Rabamus libro i. de in¬ stitutione Clericorum, et Alcuinusin libro de officiis Ecclesiasticis cap. de vestibus sacris. Floruerunt autem hi auctores alii ante 'an¬ nos 300, ut Innocentius, et Bonaventura : alii ante annos 400, ut Rupertus, et Hugo : alii ante annos 700, ut Walfridus, et Raba- nus : denique Amadarius, et Alcuiuus ante annos 800. Praeter hos auctores, qui omnia indumenta ordine enumerant, nec dicunt suo tempore incepisse, sed quod a majoribus acceperant, tradunt ; non desunt adii antiquiores, qui breviter aliquid attingant de ejusmodi vesti¬ bus. Nam Julianus Pomerius, qui ante an¬ nos 000 floruit, in vita S. Hildcfonsi, quae extait apud Suriuin tom. i. scribit ab ipsa sanctissima Virgine de ceelo allatam vestem sacerdotalem, ac S. Hiklefonso donatam, qua uteretur in Missa. Gregorius Papa ante annos circiter 1000. misit in Britanniam ad novam illaim Eccle- siaun praeter sacra vasa, et reliquias sancto¬ rum, ac altarium ornamenta, etiam vesti¬ menta sacerdotalia, et clericalia, ut scribit Joannes Diaconus lib. n vitae beati Grcgorii, cap. 37. et Beda lib. i. hist. cap. 20. Hieronymus lib. i. contra Pelagianos, ul¬ tra medium, scribit, Episcopos, et Presby¬ teros, et omnem clerum in sacrificii admi- Tom. IV. 401 nistratione candidis vestibus uti. (Juod idem habet Ghrysostomus hoin. 83. in Matth. qui etiam initio Liturgiae describit orationes , quae dicuntur, dum sacerdos induit sacras vestes. Idem etiam Hieronymus in epistola ad Heliodorum de obitu Nepotiani, scribit sibi a Nepotiano presbytero moriente, reli¬ ctam fuisse tunicam, qua utebatur in mini¬ sterio Christi : floruit autem uterque ante annos 1100. Concilium Carthaginense IV. tempore Au¬ gustini celebratum, prohibet canon. 41. ne Diaconi utantur alba, nisi in sacro ministe¬ rio. Auctor quaestionum veteris, ac novi Te- stamenti, quae habentur tom. iv. operum Au¬ gustini quaest. 40.. scribit Diaconos uti solere dalmaticis: vixit auctem hic auctorante Au¬ gustinum, ut patet ex quaest. 44. Sylvester ante annos 1200. ut in ejus \ ita refert Damasus, constituit ut Diaconi in Ec¬ clesia dalmaticis uterentur , et palla lino- stima laevam cooperirent. Denique huc referri potest, quod scribit Polycrates ante annos 1400. apud Eusebium libro v. histor. cap. 24. ipsum etiam san¬ ctum Joannem sacerdotale petalon gestasse. Accedit etiam manifesta ratio. Nam ut re¬ ges, ac magistratus in publicis actionibus non vulgari utuntur vestitu, sed alio angustiore, et certis insignibus, quo et. reverentia ipsis, concilietur, et simul imperium ipsorum, et potestas repraesentetur : sic etiam omnino conveniebat, ut in hac publica totius Eccle¬ sia! actione, sacerdos sacro, ac peculiari ha¬ bitu uteretur ; tum ad reverentiam mysterii, tum ad ipsam Christi passionem repriesen- tandam idoneo. DE TEMPLIS ET AIUS. Jam vero de templis et aris multa dispu¬ tavimus in lib. in. de Ecclesia triumphante cap. i. et sequentibus ; et plena sunt scripta veterum, tum Patrum, tum Conciliorum, ubi fit mentio templi, et altaris ; et nos libro su¬ periore cap. 11. non pauca testimonia ad¬ duximus. Et quia adversarii non tam reji¬ ciunt templa, et altaria, quam mysticas con¬ secrationes cum templi, tum altaris ; vide antiquissima testimonia ejusmodi consecra¬ tionis in Concilio V. Carthaginensi can. 6. et Agatliensi can. 14. et in scriptis Patrum, Eusebii lib. iv. de vita Constantini ; Atha- nasii in Apologia ad Constantium; Basilii 20 402 LIBER VI. in Psalm. 114. Gregorii NySseni in libro de Baptismo Ambrosii lib. i. epistol. 5. ad Fe¬ licem ; Gaudentii in tract. de dedicatione ; Augustini serm. 251. et sequentibus de tem¬ pore ; Gelasiil in epist. 1. et Felicis IY. in epist. decretali de Ecclesiarum, et altarium consecratione, qui Pontifex atavus S. Gre¬ gorii fuit, et non modo Ecclesias, et altaria consecrari debere confirmat, sed etiam, quod est hujus loci proprium, testatur antiquis Canonibus prohibitum, ne sacra Missarum solemnia alibi quam in locis Deo sacratis, magna necessitate excepta, ullus celebrare preesumat. DE VASIS SACRIS. De sacris autem vasis multa exstant anti¬ quissima testimonia. Damasus in vita sancti Urbani Papae et Martyris, meminit argenteo¬ rum vasorum, quas jam tum erant in Eccle¬ sia ad usum Sacramentorum. Sedit autem Urbanus circa annum Domini 230. Pruden¬ tius in hymno de sancto Laurentio, meminit aureorum vasorum, qua; erant tempore san¬ cti Laurentii, id est, circa annum Domini 260. a Libent ut auro antistites». Tempore autem Sylvestri circa annum Domini 300. plurimos fuisse aureos, et argenteos calices, patinas, candelabra, thuribula, testis est idem Dama¬ sus. Athanasius in 2. Apologia contra Aria- nos, multa scribit de mystico poculo, quod ab eo confractum calumniabantur Ariani : ex quo loco constat calices Eucharistiae sa¬ cros fuisse, et non nisi ab initiatis tangi, nec sine sacrilegio pollui potuisse. Gregorius Nazianzenus in oratione seipso contra Aria- nos, scribit ab Arianis direpta sacra vasa .laicis ad tangendum prohibita : et ideo com¬ parat eos Nabuzardano, et Balthasari, quo¬ rum alter sacra vasa templi Hierosolymitani abstulit , alter profanavit. Optatus Milevi- tanus lib. vi. contra Parmenianum, queritur de Donatistis, quod sacra, et pretiosa, vasa Ecclesiae, in quibus Christi sanguis contine¬ tur, diripuerint, conflaverint, et vendiderint, similiter pallas , et velamina. Ambrosius lib. ii. de officiis cap. 28. multa scribit de sacris Ecclesiae vasis, atque ea aurea, et con¬ secrata fuisse demonstrat. Augustinus in Psalm. 113 : « Et nos , inquit, pleraque instrumenta, et vasa ex auro, et argento ha¬ bemus in usum celebrandorum Sacramen¬ torum, quae ipso ministerio consecrata, san¬ cta dicuntur». Denique Chrysostomus ho- mil. 4. in Matth. et fusius in libro de S. Ba- byla contra Gentiles, scribit Julianum Ju¬ liani Imperatoris avunculum, et alium quen- dam, qui quaestoris* officio fungebatur, sa¬ cra Ecclesiae vasa diripuisse, ac profanasse, sed continuo ultricem manum Domini sen¬ sisse, ita ut Julianus vermibus corrosus in¬ terierit, quaestor autem subito medius cre¬ puerit. Similia exempla refert Gregorius Tu- ronensis de gloria Martyrum capite 85. ,/juac satis ostendunt caeremoniam istam sacro¬ rum vasorum antiquissimam, et Deo gratam esse. Sed Calvinus in praefatione Institutionis objicit duo loca Patrum. Unus est Ambrosii lib. ii. de officiis cap. 28. ubi sic legimus : « Aurum Sacramenta non quaerunt, neque auro placent, quae auro non emuntur. » Al¬ ter est Aeacii, quem refert Socrates lib. vii. histor. capite 21. sic aliquando locutum, cum accusaretur, quod sacra vasa propter pauperes vendidisset: « Deus noster, neque discis, neque calicibus eget, quia non come¬ dit, neque bibit. » Respondeo : Uterque locus nobis favet , nam in utroque loco legimus Ecclesiam abundasse vasis pretiosis, et sacris ; et ea debuissb diligenter conservari, nisi urgeret summa pauperum necessitas. Iri tali autem necessitate volunt sancti illi Patres licere sacra vasa constare, et vendere, et rationem reddunt, quia vasa illa pretiosa non sunt absolute necessaria ad Sacramenta mini¬ stranda. Et hoc est, quod ait Ambrosius : « Aurum Sacramenta non quierunt », id est, non necessario exigunt ; et quod subdit : « Nec auro placent. » Non significat, in auro displicent, vel nullo modo placent magis in auro, quam in vitro : sed non ideo principa¬ liter placent, quia ministrantur in auro. Nam si displicerent in auro, vel non magis pla¬ cerent, quam in alia materia ; Ambrosius ea non servasset usque ad illam necessitatem, sed nunquam eis usus fuisset. Verba Aeacii eumdem sensum habent : sig¬ nificant enim vasa aurea nullam Deo af¬ ferre utilitatem, sed esse in Ecclesia ad ho¬ norem Dei, et utilitatem nostram ; et ideo quando se offert occasio, quo possint nobis utiliora esse si vendantur, vendi debent, quia id etiam Deo gratius erit, qui mi¬ sericordiam potius vult, quam sacrificium. Vide qua; diximus in 3. lib. de Ecclesia triumphante cap. G. CAPUT XIV. 403 DE CEREIS. l)e cereis autem quibus in Missa utimur, ac praesertim dum legimus Evangelium, non desunt antiqua testimonia. Athanasius in epistola ad omnes Orthodoxos non procul ab initio, scribit inter alia sacrilegia Ariano- rum unum fuisse, quod cereos Ecclesia: ido¬ lis adolerent. Hyeronimus in lib. contra Vi¬ gilantium scribit in Ecclesia Catholica sole rutilante accendi cereos, dum legitur Evan¬ gelium, ad signum laditia: demonstrandum. Chrysostomus in Liturgia scribit, sacerdo¬ tem procedere ad altare, ministro praece¬ dente cum lumine. Ordo etiam Romanus me¬ minit cereorum, qui et ad Evangelium, et ad oblationem corporis Domini accendun¬ tur. Concilium IV. Carthaginense can. 0. docet. Acolytho in sua ordinatione tradi ab Archidiacono cereum, ut sciat ad suum mi¬ nisterium pertinere lumina accendere in Ec¬ clesia. Quo autem tempore lumina ab Aco¬ lythis accendenda essent, explicat Isidorus lib. vii. Etymolog. cap. 12. ubi scribit, cum Evangelium legitur, et cum Christi corpus offertur, debere Acolythos accendere eo- reum in Ecclesia. Denique Micrologus cap. 11. asserit, Missam nunquam sine lumine celebrari, etiamsi in meridie celebretur. DE DIE CELEBRANDI. Porro, quod attinet ad tempus sacrificii celebrandi, Catholici sentiunt die Dominico praecipue id faciendum ; neque haeretici re¬ pugnant. Habemus in primis testimonium Scripturae Actor, xx. : Una Sabbati cum con¬ venissemus ad frangendum panem (1). Nam per unam Sabbati, dies Dominica intelli- gitur, ut Chrysostomus, et Beda exponunt : et perspicuum est ex aliis similibus locis. Quod enim scribitur I, Corinth. 16: Per unam Sabba/i unusquisque apucl se reponat etc. (2) omnes interpretes Graeci, et Latini exponun t de die Dominica, in qua Christiani conve¬ nire solebant in Ecclesiam. Mare, ultim. di¬ citur Christus una Sabbati resurrexisse : quo loco per unam Sabbati intelligi diem Dominicam, nemo unquam negavit. Dicitur autem dies Dominica una Sabbati, quia est prima dies hebdomadae , phrasi enim He¬ braica unum accipitur pro primo, et Sabba¬ tum pro hebdomada. Deinde Justinus Martyr in 2. Apologia ex¬ trema, aperte scribit , die solis, id est, die Dominica Christianos solitos fuisse ad sacri¬ ficium Eucharistiae convenire. Augustinus in epist. 118. scribit in quibusdam locis sa¬ crificium omni die offerri solere, alibi solum die Dominica, et Sabbato, alibi die solum Dominica. Ex quo intelligimus nullos un¬ quam dubitasse, quin dies Dominica aptis¬ sima esset ad hoc sacrificium celebrandum. DE UORA CELEBRANDI, ET DE JEJUNIO NECES¬ SARIO AD SACRIFICIUM CELEBRANDUM. De hora dici convenit apud Catholicos sa¬ crificium celebrandum esse horis antemeri¬ dianis, et ante omnem cibum ; et quidem veteres sacra faciebant ab hora 3. usque ad 9. quia eo tempore ad horam nonam protra¬ hebatur jejunium : aliquando etiam sub ve¬ speram celebrabant, ut feria V. in Ccena Do¬ mini, et in Sabbato sancto ; aliquando me¬ dia nocte, ut in Natali Domini. Vide Wal- fridum cap. 23. Nunc excepta Missa, qua: adhuc media nocte canitur in Natali Domini, ordinarie ab hora prima sive ab aurora, us¬ que ad sextam, id est, ad meridiem sacra celebrantur, et jejunia de more protahun- tur. Lutherani, et Calvinistee ista plane con¬ temnunt : scribit enim Lutherus in lib. con¬ tra Regem Angliee, edito anno 1322. esse articulum Papee, tantum mane, et ante om¬ nem cibum esse communicandum, et addit : « Nos autem istos mere fatuos, et stolidos appellamus, et Communionem liberam ha¬ bemus, sive per diem, sive per noctem, sive mane, sive vesperi. Apud nos non peccat, qui modeste ederit, et biberit ante Commu¬ nionem. » Et in libro de formula Missa:, li¬ berum permittit jejunium ante Communio¬ nem, et solum necessario requirit, ut sobrie accedatur, id est, ut ipse exponit, ne quis crapula ructet, aut distento ventre pigre¬ scat. Similia habet in libro dft abroganda Missa privata : ubi tamen falso Catholicis affingit, quod doceant eum indignum esse Communione, qui guttulam unam aquie im¬ prudens sorbuerit. Neque enim tam rigide Catholici jejunium hoc exponunt : imo (1) Act. XX, 7. —(2) 1 Corinth. XVI, 2. UBER VI. 40 4 in casu necessitatis permittunt etiam post ci- Jjum Communionem sumere, ut quando ae¬ grotus aliquis de vita periclitatur, et non¬ dum viaticum accepit, et periculum est in mora, tunc enim quacumque hora dari solet Communio : et extra hunc casum, qui inter abluendum aliquas aquae guttas trajecerit cum saliva fortuito ad stomachum, non cen¬ setur solvisse jejunium, nec prohibetur a sacro faciendo, vel Communione sumenda, de qua re vide S. Tliomam 3. par. qusest. 80. art, 8. Quod autem nostra consuetudo sine dubio antiquissima, et Apostolica sit, et necessario servanda, excepto casu necessitatis, facile demonstrari potest. Tertullianus in ii. lib. ad uxorem : « Non sciet , inquit maritus quid ante omnem cibum sumas etc. » et lo¬ quitur omnium consensu de Eucharistia. Cyprianus lib. 2. epistol. 3. prope extrema, objicit sibi argumentum quod postea fecit Lutherus, nimirum ab exemplo Christi, qui post comam sacrificium obtulit, et respondet, Christum certa de causa obtulisse ad vespe¬ ram, et post comam, quia sic praedictum fuerat a Prophetis : nos tamen mane offerre debere, quia resurrectionem Domini cele¬ bramus : et ibidem tamquam rem valde ab¬ surdam infert : « Numquid ergo post cue- nain Dominicam celebrare debemus ? » Joannes Chrysostomus hom. 7. in priorem ad Corinthios non procul a line : « Tu, in¬ quit, priusquam accipias, jejunas, ut aliquo modo dignus Communicatione videaris ». Idem Chrysostomus in epistol. 3. ad Cyria- cum Episcopum scribit, se accusatum, quod non jejunis Communionem praebuerit , ac jurat id se non fecisse : « Si id feci, in¬ quit, abjiciat me Christus a regno suo ». Augustinus in epist. 118, cap. 0. proponit argumentum, quod supra a Cypriano solu¬ tum diximus : a Et liquide, inquit, apparet, quando primum acceperunt discipuli cor¬ pus, et sanguinem Christi, non eos accepisse jejunos; numquid tamen propterea calum¬ niandum est universae Ecclesiae, quod a jeju¬ nis sempej; accipitur? Ex hoc enim placuit Spiritui sancto ut in honorem tanti Sacra¬ menti, in os Christiani prius Dominicum cor¬ pus intraret, quam caiteri cibi : nani ideo per universum orbem mos iste servatur. Neque enim quia Dominus post cibos dedit, propterea pransi, aut comati fratres ad illud Sacramentum accipiendum convenire de¬ bent; aut sicut faciebant, quos Apostolus arguit, et emendat, mensis suis ista miscere. Namque Salvator quo vehementius commen¬ daret mysterii illius altitudinem, ultimum hoc voluit infigere cordibus , et memoriae discipulorum, a quibus ad passionem digres¬ surus erat : et ideo non praecepit quo dein¬ ceps ordine sumeretur, ut Apostolis, per quos Ecclesias dispositurus erat, servaret hunc lo¬ cum. » Ex hoc testimonio habemus multa. Primo, Dominum nihil de hac re praecepisse. Secundo, Apostolos Spiritu sancto inspiratos instituisse, ut a jejunis Eucharistia sumere¬ tur. Tertio, id servari in toto orbe terrarum ab omni Christi Ecclesia. Quarto, rationem hujus rei fuisse ob honorem “tanti Sacra¬ menti : quam eamdem rationem attingunt etiam posteriores auctores, ut Isidorus lib. i. de officiis divinis cap. 18. et Amalarius lib. iii. de officiis Ecclesiasticis cap. 34. et Walfridus Strabo, lib. de rebus Ecclesiasticis cap. 10. Sed Lutherus, ut erat omnium hominum impudentissimus, tanti Doctoris testimonium irridet in lib. de abroganda Missa par. 2. his verbis : a Indignum est, inquiunt, ut in os Christiani aliud intret, priusquam corpus Domini intraverit. 0 festiva ratio, forte nec nebulam, nec aerem prius intrare licet os Christiani, quam corpus Domini intraverit, ut sacerdotibus respiratione, et vita inter¬ dicatur, usque post Missam, et Communio¬ nem. » Ilocc ille. Horrenda sane, et plane diabolica auda¬ cia, toti Ecclesia) insultare non solida aliqua ratione, sed depravato loco Augustini. Non enim Augustinus ait, indignum esse, ut aliud prius intret in os Christiani, quam Christi corpus : sed ut alius cibus prius intret, quam sacratissimus cibus carnis Dominica!. Non igitur prohibemur aerem inspirare, ut nuga¬ tur Lutherus, sed cibum aliquem sumere. Piceter haec Patrum testimonia, habemus etiam decreta Conciliorum antiquorum in variis mundi partibus celebratorum. Conci¬ lium III Carthaginensc in Africa celebratum ante annos 1100, can. 29. ita decrevit : « T't Sacramenta altaris non nisi a jejunis homi¬ nibus celebrentur. » Idem repetitur canon. 48. et rursus in Concilio Africano canon. 8. Concilium Matisconense II. in Oallia cele¬ bratum ante annos 1000. canon. 6. renovat eanonem Concilii Cartliaginensis, et addit p cenam depositionis a propria dignitate. Ibi¬ dem etiam statuit, ut reliquiae corporis Do¬ mini dentur pueris manducandae, indicto eis CAPUT XV. 405 jejunio : quem usum fuisse olim in Gnecia testatur Evagrius lib. iv. histor. cap. 35. Concilium Bracarense I. celebratum in Lu¬ sitania ante annos 900. can. 16. statuit, ut etiam feria 5. in crena Domimini, Missa) a je¬ junis celebrentur. Concilium Toletanum VII. celebratum in Hispania ante annos item 900. can. 2. poenam excommunicationis statuit in eos, qui post sumptum cibum quamlibet exi¬ guum , Missam facere audent. Concilium Constantiense in Germania celebratum, an¬ nis centum ante Lutheri hseresim exortam sess. 13. damnat errorem, sive abusum quo¬ rumdam, qui Sacramentum altaris post ci¬ bum sumptum celebrare audebant. Huc demum accedat horribilis vindicta, quam Deus exercuit in presbyterum quem¬ dam, qui in die Natalis Domini Missas cele- brarc prresumpsit non jejunus : de qua re vide Gregorium Turonicum capite 86. libri de gloria Martyrum. Sed argumenta Lutheri videamus. Primo objicit exemplum Christi, qui post ccenam Sacramentum instituit, et ministravit. Sed hoc est jam solutum a Cypriano : et Augu¬ stino, quibus addere possumus, Christum non post quamlibet ccenam sed post ccenam agni Paschalis Eucharistiam instituisse, et ministrasse, ut indicaret unam ccenam alte¬ rius umbram, et figuram fuisse; nobis autem jam non licet ccenam illam Judaicam pra;- mittere, cum sit abrogata, quemadmodum etiam Christus post Circumcisionem acce¬ ptam suscepit Baptismum, nec tamen Chri¬ stiani jam debent Circumcisionem accipere antequam baptizentur. Secundo objicit testimonium Apostoli I Co- rinlh. xi : Si quis esurit, domi manducet (1) ; ubi videtur Apostolus permittere, ut qui je¬ junium ferre non valent, aut non volunt, post cibum domi sumptum ad Ecclesiam communicaturi accedant. Respondeo : Duobus modis hic locus ex¬ poni solet. Primo, ut sensus sit : si quis non potest tamdiu jejunus in Ecclesia perma¬ nere, prius domi sua; cibum sumat, et, sic ad Ecclesiam veniat : ita exponit Anselmus, qui tamen addit, eum qui cibo sumpto ad Eccle¬ siam- venit, non debere Eucharistiam sume¬ re. Secundo, ut sensus sit ; si quis in Eccle¬ sia constitutus, famem tolerare non potest, egrediatur; et domum redeat, atque ibi man¬ ducet, non in Ecclesia. (Jua; tamen non di¬ cuntur ab Apostolo, ut ita fiat, sed ut con¬ fundantur ejusmodi homines, gula; addicti, tanquam qui indigni sacra communione, ab Ecclesia expellantur, et ad suas domos amandentur : ita exponunt Chrysostomus, et Tbcophylactus, et alii ; qua; expositio vide¬ tur omnino verior, sed neutra pro Luthero ''facit. Tertio objicit, moderato cibo sumpto, ho¬ minem esse aptiorem ad Communionem, quam jejunum, quia post cibum sumptum caput solet esse purgatius, os mundius, ha¬ litus incorruptior etc. Respondeo : Magis nos movere debent Apostolica traditio, et totius Ecclesia; consuetudo, quam ista Lutheri Phi¬ losophia. Falsum pra;terea Lutherus assu¬ mit, nam etiamsi ad opera corporis cibus prosit, non tamen ad opera spiritus. Ac prce- cipuc ad orationem multum conferre jeju¬ nium,, ex Scriptura divina perspicuum est, qua; ubique fere conjungit orationem cum jejunio. Tob. xii. Bona est oratio cum jeju¬ nio. Judith. iv. In jejuniis , et orationibus. Lue. n. Jejuniis, et orationibus serviens Deo. Matth. xvii. Hoc genus non. ejicitur, nisi per orationem, et jejunium (2). , Ultimo objicit , Christum id liberum reli¬ quisse, proinde liberum esse debere. Res¬ pondeo : Multa Christus per se nonpixccepit qua; tamen libera esse noluit, siquidem ea per Apostolos, aut eorum successores pra;- eepit, et de illis dixit Luca; x : Qui vos audi/ , me audit (3;.