Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book VI: On the Sacrifice of the Mass (Second)
Chapter 21: On the Truth of the First Prayer of the Canon
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 at last the truth of the Canon must be demonstrated, which will easily be done, if we answer those things which the adversaries object against the several prayers of the Canon.
The first prayer of the Canon, therefore, which begins: “Thee therefore, most merciful Father,” extends as far as that: “This oblation therefore”; for that, “Remember, O Lord,” and that, “Communicating and venerating the memory,” are not diverse prayers, but are parts of the first prayer, as is gathered both from the conclusion, “Through the same our Lord,” which is set at the end of all these prayers; and also because that, “Communicating,” would have no sense unless it were continued with the preceding words. And so the first prayer of the Canon contains the names of those for whom, and in whose honor, the sacrifice is offered, that is, of the mortals who are in the Church militant, and also of the Saints who reign with Christ in heaven. And first the Church is named. Secondly, the Pope. Thirdly, the bishop of the place. Fourthly, the king, in certain churches. Fifthly, all the orthodox in general. Sixthly, particular persons, but in secret. Seventhly and lastly, the holy Apostles and Martyrs.
Where it is to be observed that the prayer for the Church is had in all the Liturgies, and, as we showed above, this is noted by name by Optatus of Milevis, Book 2 against Parmenian: so also for the bishop of the place it is had in all the Liturgies.
The name of the Pope is not had in the ancient Greek Liturgies, but in the Liturgy of Chrysostom rendered into Latin by Leo Tuscus, the name of Pope Nicholas is found: from which we understand that the Greeks too in later times were wont to add it. Among the Latins it seems to be a most ancient custom: for not only Alcuin, more than 800 years ago, in his book on the offices, explaining the Canon, makes mention of this thing, and gives the causes why after the Church the name of the Pope is subjoined; but also the Council of Vaison, celebrated more than 1100 years ago, canon 4, otherwise 6, decreed that in the Gallican churches the name of the Pope of the City of Rome be recited in all the Masses.
The name of the king is also rightly added in those places which are subject to kings: for both Innocent III and Bonaventure in their explanation of the Canon acknowledge this word; and all the ancient Liturgies keep it, and from the Apostle, 1 Timothy 2, Ambrose gathers it, Book 4 on the Sacraments, chapter 4, and Augustine, letter 59 to Paulinus.
What follows, “For all the orthodox,” Micrologus, chapter 13, writes to be superfluous, and not had in the more emended books: yet it is had in Alcuin in the noted place, who lived 300 years before Micrologus, and in Innocent III and all others; wherefore it obtained authority by usage itself, and ought not to be omitted. But we here understand by "all the orthodox," as Saint Bonaventure expounds, not all the faithful whatever; for then this clause would truly be superfluous, since it is the same to offer for the whole Church and for all the orthodox: but all the others besides the Pope, the proper bishop, and the proper king, as if we said: We offer first for the whole Church in general, then in particular for the Pope, for the bishop, for the king, and for all the other faithful, whether princes or private persons.
Against this first prayer, the first objection is of Luther in his book on abrogating the Mass: “Who does not see,” he says, “that the Canon was composed by some wordy and little spiritual man? for what need is there so to overflow with words: These gifts, these presents, these holy sacrifices?” A like objection is in his book against the abomination of the Canon, where he reprehends that: “All the orthodox and worshippers of the Catholic and Apostolic faith”; for it seems to be the same, "for the orthodox" and "for the worshippers of the Catholic faith."
I answer: It sufficiently appears that Luther objected these things only from a lust of calumniating; for otherwise he could not be ignorant that for explaining an effect the repetition of the same thing conduces much, especially in diverse words. Certainly the Liturgies of Basil and Chrysostom are full of repetitions of this kind. The Confessions of Augustine likewise, which are chiefly directed to exciting affection, everywhere inculcate the same things in many words. The canticles of the Scriptures and the Psalms scarcely pronounce anything once which they do not again repeat in other words. Psalm 92: For behold Thy enemies, O Lord, for behold Thy enemies shall perish. Psalm 115: I am Thy servant, I am Thy servant, and the son of Thy handmaid; nay that Psalm 118, which is the longest of all, repeats almost the same in all its versicles. Luke chapter 18, when he had narrated that the Lord foretold to the Apostles that His death was approaching, subjoins: And they understood none of these things; and this word was hid from them; and they understood not the things that were said. If we consult Luther, he will call Luke wordy and little spiritual: but he, the Holy Spirit dictating, multiplied those words, that we might understand that the Apostles at that time were most far from the thought of thinking that Christ would die. The Apostle too, 2 Corinthians 11, when he says: They are Hebrews, so am I; they are Israelites, so am I; they are the seed of Abraham, so am I: certainly he repeats the same three times, and yet not in vain, because that repetition has great emphasis.
The second objection of the same Luther in the same place. Before the consecration the bread and wine are called holy and unspotted sacrifices, which seems absurd, because if they are holy, why is it asked of God in the same prayer that He bless them? If they are sacrifices, then we sacrifice bread and wine to God.
I answer: The bread and wine can rightly be called, a little before the consecration, holy and unspotted sacrifices. Sacrifices indeed, because they are the matter of the sacrifice, and now dedicated and prepared that of them a sacrifice may be made; for in the old law the sheep still living were passim called sacrifices, when namely they were led forth to be immolated; whence is that of Cyprian in his sermon on almsgiving: “Rich and wealthy, dost thou come into the Lord's house without a sacrifice?” But they are deservedly called holy and unspotted, because they are now dedicated and consecrated to the divine use by the former oblation: and also because they are offered by the Church with a pure and holy intention. But although in that manner they are holy, yet they ought to be made more holy by the change into the body and blood of Christ, and therefore we rightly ask that God bless them and sanctify them, namely that they may so become for us the body and blood of Christ, as we ask below in another prayer.
The third objection of the same in the same place. In the Canon it is said: “Which we offer to Thee first for Thy Church.” But those sacrifices consist of mere bread and wine; therefore we offer bread and wine to God for the Church. Nor can it be answered that that, “we offer,” is taken for the future and to be referred to the consecrated host, as if the sense were, We offer, that is, presently we shall offer: for the demonstrative particle fights with this solution: “These gifts, these presents, etc.”; for we say that we offer those gifts which are then shown to the sense.
I answer: Wonderful is the levity of the heretics. For the same Luther who in this book on the abomination of the Canon gathers from the Canon, as a thing very absurd, that we seem to offer bread to God, not Christ: the same in his book on the Babylonian Captivity, chapter on the Eucharist, says that the Catholics think they offer Christ to the Father; and in the same place warns the priests to direct their intention to offering the bread, not to the Eucharist: “Let the priests observe,” he says, “in this lost and most dangerous age, who sacrifice, that they direct the words of the greater and lesser Canon, with the Collects, which too openly sound of a sacrifice, not to the Sacrament, but to the very bread and wine to be consecrated: for the bread and wine are offered before to be blessed, but after it is blessed and consecrated, it ought not now to be offered.”
But to the argument I answer that the bread is rightly said to be offered for the Church, not that this oblation is properly a propitiatory sacrifice, but because it is the dedication of the thing of which the propitiatory sacrifice is to be made: as a little before we said of the name of sacrifice, which is attributed to the bread because it is the matter of the sacrifice. Wherefore when we say that we offer bread to God for the Church, the sense is that we offer to God bread to be consecrated, and of which, by the consecration, a true sacrifice is to be immolated to God for the Church. Nor is this foreign to the manner of speaking of divine Scripture, since Leviticus 4, 5, 6, and elsewhere, each of the people is bidden to offer a lamb or something of the kind in sacrifice for sin, and yet not anyone of the people properly sacrificed: for that was the office of the priest alone, but they were said to offer the sacrifice for sin, because they offered the matter of which the sacrifice for sin was to be made.
The fourth objection of Luther in the same place. In the first prayer of the Canon it is said: “Which we offer to Thee, or who offer to Thee for the redemption of their souls.” And in the same place of the same offerers it is said: “Whose faith is known to Thee, and their devotion noted.” If therefore these are faithful and devout, certainly they are redeemed; if they are redeemed, to what purpose do they offer for the redemption of their souls? is it not the same as if it were said that those redeemed by the blood of Christ are not truly redeemed, but need again to be redeemed by one little morsel of bread?
I answer: As regards the morsel of bread, we have already said that the bread is not offered to be a propitiatory sacrifice, but to be the matter of the propitiatory sacrifice. As to the redemption of the faithful and devout, among the Lutherans indeed none are thought to be faithful and devout who are not at the same time just, and accordingly redeemed as to the soul: yet among the Catholics, who hold that faith can be without charity, it is not doubted that there are many faithful, and even devout with a certain imperfect devotion, who yet are not yet justified, and by this neither redeemed, in the way which we shall presently explain; such as are those who begin to do penance, and indeed desire to be converted to God, and pray for this, and devoutly ask for Masses, though they have not yet come to perfect contrition. Of these, therefore, the words of the Canon can conveniently be taken.
But moreover, that the Lutherans may understand that it is not absurd if the redeemed are said to need another redemption, it is to be noted that in Scripture redemption is taken in five ways, and accordingly those who are redeemed in one way can have need to be redeemed in other ways. The first is called redemption from all the evil of guilt and punishment, by the payment of a sufficient price: and in this way absolutely all men are redeemed by the cross of Christ, according to that of the Apostle, 1 Timothy 2: Who gave Himself a redemption for all.
The second is redemption from the evil of guilt by the application of that price paid on the cross: and this redemption is justification itself. Romans 3: Justified freely by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; and of this redemption very many have need, even if they are redeemed by the first redemption.
The third redemption is from the debt of punishment, which often remains after the guilt is forgiven, according to that of Proverbs 13: The redemption of a man's soul is his riches: for riches, when they are spent on the poor, free men from punishment; and of this redemption often even those have need who are redeemed in the first and second way.
The fourth redemption is from future sin; for God is said to redeem those whom He preserves from the sin into which they would otherwise have fallen. Psalm 33: The Lord will redeem the souls of His servants, and none of them that trust in Him shall offend.
The fifth redemption is from the corruption and all the miseries of this life, which will at last be made in the final resurrection. Luke 21: Lift up your heads, because your redemption is at hand; and of this last, as also of the preceding redemption, all have need, however holy they are. Further, the first redemption is not obtained through the Mass, because it was accomplished on the cross, yet in the Mass it is represented and applied: for obtaining all the rest the Mass conduces not a little, and therefore it is no wonder if it is said to be offered for the redemption of the faithful and devout.
The fifth objection is of the same Luther in the same place, who reprehends that: “Communicating and venerating the memory.” For Christ instituted the Supper that it should be a Communion of the living; but the author of the Canon makes the dead also communicants.
I answer: That, “Communicating,” is expounded by the ancients in two ways. Some, as Alcuin, Amalarius, and others, refer it to Communion with the Saints, so that the sense is: We offer this sacrifice communicating with the memorials of the Saints, and venerating the same Saints: where no mention is made of Communion by the eating of the Eucharist, which does not befit the dead: but of Communion by society and conjunction in the mystic body of Christ. Others, among whom is Micrologus, chapter 12, and Hugh of Saint Victor, Book 2 on the offices, chapter 29, will have that, “Communicating,” referred to the offerers among themselves, not with the Saints, so that the sense is: We offer communicating, that is, united and joined among ourselves, as befits the members of the same body; and moreover venerating the memory of the Saints. This Micrologus proves by an excellent reason; for on the Nativity, Epiphany, Easter, Ascension, and Pentecost, after that, “Communicating,” is added, “and celebrating the most sacred day, etc.,” and a little after, “but also venerating the memory, etc.” Where we openly see that that, “Communicating,” is not joined with the memory of the Saints, but remains by itself, and is to be referred to the offerers alone.
The sixth objection is of George Major, who reprehends the order of those words: “That Thou hold accepted, and bless, these gifts”; for they ought to be blessed before they are accepted by God.
But the solution is easy. For as there is a twofold oblation, as we said above, one of the thing to be consecrated, the other of the thing consecrated; so there is a twofold acceptation; and the blessing and sanctification follows one of those oblations and acceptations, and precedes the other. Whence, as in this place, where it treats of the first acceptation, the blessing is postponed: so a little after in that prayer: “Which oblation do Thou, O God, vouchsafe in all things to make blessed, approved, ratified, acceptable”; where it treats of the latter acceptation, the blessing is set before.
The seventh objection is of Zwingli, who does not approve that: “Remember, O Lord, Thy servants, etc.” “For we seem,” he says, “to fear lest God be forgetful, and therefore to wish to admonish Him as one unmindful.”
But he himself seems rather to have committed to oblivion the locutions of the Scriptures, or certainly, if he remembered them, to have wished to correct the Holy Spirit: for what occurs more frequently in Scripture than "Remember, or be mindful, O Lord"? See Exodus 32, verse 13; Deuteronomy 9, verse 27; Judges 16, verse 28; 4 Kings 20, verse 3; 2 Esdras 5, verse 19; Psalm 131, verse 1; Luke 23, verse 42, and elsewhere. Nor only do we read passim in Scripture, Remember, O Lord, but also, what seems more wonderful, Forget not, or Why forgettest Thou, as Psalm 9, verse 32; Psalm 12, verse 2; Psalm 41, verse 10, and elsewhere in the Psalms chiefly. Further, God is said by metaphor to forget when He does not help, and on the contrary to remember when He begins to help.
The eighth objection is of the same Major, who presses those words: “For whom we offer to Thee, or who offer to Thee,” and says that that correction, “or who offer to Thee,” openly shows that the Canon speaks of the almsdeeds which the people offered at the altar for the poor: accordingly that these things are now wrongly wrested to the sacrifice of the Eucharist.
Hither also pertains the first objection of Kemnitz, of those seventeen which he makes against the Canon in the second part of the Examination, page 839 and following. For the first objection only has this, that of old the words of the Canon were wont to be directed to blessing and commending the almsdeeds; but now are wrongly drawn to the mimic representation of the little priest: and moreover that bread is not rightly offered to God for the Church. Of which objection the former part is taken from the argument of Major, which we have already refuted: the latter part from the argument of Luther, which was a little before resolved.
I answer: That is not a correction, but a disjunctive sentence on account of the two orders of those whom the priest had commended to God: for some are absent, for whom it is offered, but they do not actually offer; others are present, who together with the priest offer by standing by and consenting. This, therefore, is the sense of those words: Remember, O Lord, such and such absent ones, and also all who stand around and are present, for all of whom we offer; namely for those who are now absent from this church, or also who together with us offer by desire and consent. But that no prayers of the Canon pertain to commending almsdeeds, which Major and Kemnitz falsely assume, can be known from the whole context of the Canon. For first, these gifts which are named in the Canon are said to be offered to God for the Church, for the Pope, for the king, for all the orthodox; but almsdeeds are not wont to be offered except for those who gave them. Then of the same oblation which was named at the beginning of the Canon, which these will have to pertain to almsdeeds, it is subjoined a little below: “This oblation therefore of our servitude, etc.,” where it is openly shown that that oblation is properly a sacrifice, since it is offered to the Lord through the ministry of the priests: and a little after of the same it is said: “Which oblation do Thou, O God, in all things, we beseech Thee, vouchsafe to make blessed, etc., that it may become for us the body and blood of Thy most beloved Son, etc.,” where we manifestly see that in the whole Canon mention is made of that oblation which by the consecration is made the body and blood of the Lord. Finally all the expositors of the Liturgy, both Greek, as Germanus and Cabasilas, and Latin, as Alcuin, Amalarius, and the rest, explain the whole Canon of the Eucharist.
The ninth objection is of Kemnitz, which he sets in the second place; for he presses that word: “For whom we offer to Thee, or who offer to Thee this sacrifice of praise”; and will have the Canon, according to the ancient rite, treat in this place of the spiritual sacrifice, which consists in the praise of God and thanksgiving for the redemption acquired on the cross. Then this foundation being laid, he reprehends the Catholics, both because they changed the sacrifice of praise into the silent murmur of the priest, and because they wrested the sacrifice of praise for the redemption acquired on the cross to the representation of the little priest for obtaining and meriting the redemption of souls.
I answer: This objection, as also the former and some following, are not against the Canon, but against the intention of the priests who recite the Canon: since he himself says that the words of the Canon can be taken of the sacrifice of praise, or of almsdeeds, etc. Accordingly these objections do not much make to the point; since Kemnitz's purpose was to demonstrate that many errors are found in the Canon itself, as is clear from page 839, where he thus speaks: “As on a tablet we shall propose to be viewed what errors and vices the Pontifical Canon contains.” But when he began to enumerate these errors, he does not so much reprehend the words of the Canon as the priests who either recite them in a low voice, or wrest them to a representation.
Then those things are false which in the argument Kemnitz, after his manner, assumes and does not prove. For first it is false that by "the sacrifice of praise," of which mention is made in the Canon, is to be taken the spiritual sacrifice which consists in praise and thanksgiving: for by that word is signified the sacrifice of the true body of the Lord, which is called a sacrifice of praise, because through it God is greatly praised, and thanks are given to Him for His highest benefits toward us: whence also it is deservedly named the Eucharistic sacrifice. That this is so is clear. First from the Canon itself; for of this sacrifice of praise the Church, speaking a little after, asks of God that He vouchsafe to bless this oblation and make it the body of His most beloved Son. Then the same is clear from Augustine, who more than once calls the very Eucharist a sacrifice of praise, as Book 1 against the adversary of the law and the prophets, chapter 20, where two or three times he calls a sacrifice of praise that which we offer according to the order of Melchisedech, made of bread and wine. But if the sacrifice of praise is not the praises which are recited with the voice, but is the very oblation of the body of the Lord, empty and false is what Kemnitz says, that we have converted the sacrifice of praise into a silent murmur; for this sacrifice consists not in the voice, but in the action. And it is also false, what he lastly adds, that we have wrested the sacrifice of praise to a mimic representation: for not the representation of a past thing, but the true and real oblation of the present body of the Lord, is the sacrifice which we properly immolate in the Church.
The tenth objection, and the third of Kemnitz, is against those words of the Canon: “They render their vows to Thee, the eternal, living, and true God.” For Kemnitz says that of old there was a usage in the Church that, according to those words of Psalm 116, I will pay my vows to the Lord, thanks were given to God for benefits; but now, the ancient rite being taken away, the Canon of the Mass refers those words to votive Masses, which for money given are commanded to be celebrated.
I answer: All these are calumnies and lies: for the Canon by "vows" does not understand votive Masses, but pious desires and the oblation of the people standing by: for these words are said in all Masses, even non-votive, and by those who never receive or received money for the celebration of the Mass. But Kemnitz ought to have proved by some testimony what he so boldly affirms.
The eleventh objection, which is the fourth of Kemnitz, is against that: “And venerating the memory”; for Kemnitz objects that of old there was in the Church a usage of preaching the memorials of the Martyrs, and their combats and victories: but now the Canon of the Mass only prescribes the memory by the recitation of names, and that in a low voice.
But in this objection too, besides calumnies and lies, we find nothing. For the ancients preached the Martyrs not in the Liturgy, but in sermons and lessons, which we too do, both in sermons to the people and in the lessons which are constantly chanted in the Canonical Hours: otherwise let there be produced from the Liturgy of Basil, or Chrysostom, or any other whatever, this usage of preaching the deeds of the Martyrs; certainly nothing is found in them but names, as we discern in our Liturgy.
The twelfth objection, which is the fifth of Kemnitz, fights against the invocation which is annexed to the memory of the Saints: but it brings nothing new besides what we refuted above, when we treated of the Masses in honor of the Saints, chapter 8.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XXL De veritate primae orationis Canonis. Nunc demum veritas Canonis demon¬ stranda est, quod facile fiet, si ad ea respon¬ deamus, quae adversarii contra singulas pre¬ ces Canonis objiciunt. Prima igitur oratio Canonis, quse incipit : « Te igitur, clementissime Pater» , extenditur usque ad illud : « Hanc igitur oblationem » ; illud enim : « Memento, Domine », et illud : « Communicantes, et memoriam veneran¬ tes », non sunt diversse orationes, sed partes sunt prima* orationis, ut colligitur, tum ex conclusione, « Per eumdem Dominum no¬ strum », quse ponitur in fine harum omnium precum; tum etiam, quia illud : «Commu¬ nicantes, » non [haberet ullum sensum, nisi continuaretur cum praecedentibus verbis. Itaque prima oratio Canonis continet nomi¬ na eorum, pro quibus offertur, et in quorum honorem offertur sacrificium, id est, morta¬ lium, qui sunt in Ecclesia militanti, et etiam Sanctorum, qui cum Christo regnant in coe¬ lis. Ac primum nominatur Ecclesia. Secundo, Papa. Tertio, Episcopus loci. Quarto, rex, in quibusdam Ecclesiis, Quinto, omnes Ortho¬ doxi in genere. Sexto, particulares persona*, sed secreto. Septimo et ultimo, S. Apostoli, et Martyres. Ubi est observandum, orationem pro Ec¬ clesia, haberi in omnibus Liturgiis, et ut supra ostendimus, nominatim id notatur ab Optato Milevitano, lib. 2. contra Parmenia- num : sic etiam pro Episcopo loci, habetur in Liturgiis omnibus. Papae nomen non habetur in antiquis Graecis Liturgiis, sed in Liturgia Ghrysostomi a Leone Tusco latine reddita, invenitur no¬ men Nicolai Papae : ex quo intelligimus etiam Graecos posterioribus temporibus illud ad¬ dere solitos. Apud Latinos videtur esse anti¬ quissima consuetudo : nam non solum Al- cuinus ante annos 800. in lib. de officiis, Ca- nonem explicans, meminit hujus rei, et cau¬ sas reddit, cur post Ecclesiam subjungatur nomen Papae ; sed etiam Yasense Concilium ante annos 1100. celebratum, canon. 4. alias 6. constituit, ut in Gallicanis Ecclesiis nomen Papae Urbis ltomai in omnibus Missis reci¬ tetur. Nomen regis recte etiam adjungitur in iis locis, quae regibus subsunt : nam et Innocen¬ tius III. et Bonaventura in explicatione Ca¬ nonis agnoscunt hanc vocem; et omnes anti¬ quae Liturgiae id servant, et ex Apostolo, I Timoth. ii, id colligunt Ambrosius lib. iv. de Sacramentis, cap. 4. et Augustinus epist. o9. ad Paulinum. Quod sequitur : « Pro omnibus Orthodoxis» , Micrologus cap. 13. scripit, esse superfluum et non haberi in emendatioribus libris : tamen habetur apud Alcuinumloco notato, qui vixit 300. annis ante Micrologum, et apud Inno¬ centium III et alios omnes; quocirca usu ipso auctoritatem obtinuit, nec debet omitti. Intelligimus autem hic per omnes Orthodoxos ut sanctus Bonaventura exponit, non omnes omnino fideles ; tunc enim vere esset super¬ flua hacc particula, cum idem sit offerre pro tota Ecclesia, et omnibus Orthodoxis : sed omnes alios praeter Papam, Episcopum pro¬ prium, et regem proprium, ac si diceremus : Offerimus primo pro omni Ecclesia in uni¬ versum, deinde in particulari pro Papa, pro L1BE11 VI. 420 Episcopo, pro rege, et pro omnibus aliis ID delibus, sive principibus, sive privatis. Adversus hanc primam orationem, prima objectio est Lutheri in lib. de abroganda Missa : « Quis non videat, inquit, Cano- nem esse compositum ab aliquo verboso, et parum spirituali? quid enim attinet verbis ita superfluere : IRec dona, haec munera, haec sancta sacrificia ? » Similis objectio est in libro contra abominationem Canonis, ubi reprehendit illud : « Omnibus Orthodoxis, atque Catholicae, et Apostolicre fidei cultori¬ bus » ; idem enim esse videtur pro Ortho¬ doxis et pro Catholicae fidei cultoribus. Respondeo : Satis apparet, Lutherum so¬ lum calumniandi libidine haec objecisse ; nam alioqui non poterat ignorare, ad effectum explicandum, multum facere repetitionem ejusdem rei, praesertim vocibus diversis. Certe Liturgiae Basilii, et Chrysostomi plenae sunt ejusmodi repetitionibus. Confessiones item Augustini, quae ad effectum excitandum potissimum diriguntur, passim inculcant eadem multis vocabulis. Cantica Scriptura¬ rum, et Psalmi, vix aliquid semel pronun- ciant, quod non iterum adiis verbis repetant, Psalm. x : Quoniam ecce inimici tui Domine, quoniam ecce inimici lui peribunt. Pslam. cxv. Ego servus tuus , ego servus tuus, et filius an¬ cillae 'tuae (1) ; imo Psalm. ille cxvm. qui est omnium longissimus, idem fere omnibus versiculis repetit , Lucas cap. xvm. cum narrasset Dominum praedixisse Apostolis mortem suam propinquare, sub jungit : Et ipsi nihil horum intellexerunt ; et erat ver¬ bum istud absconditum ab cis : et non intelli- gebant quae dicebantur (2). Si Lutherum consulamus, verbosum Lucam, et parum spiritualem appellabit : at ipse Spiritu sancto dictante illa verba multiplicavit, ut intel- ligercmus, Apostolos eo tempore longissime abfuisse ab ea cogitatione, ut existimarent, Christum moriturum. Apostolus etiam II Co- linth. xi. cum aiit : Hebraei sunt, et ego ; Israelitx sunt, et ego ; semen Araltae sunt, et ego (3) : certe idem ter repetit, nec tamen frustra, quia repetitio illa magnam emphasim habet. Secunda objectio ejusdem Eutheri in eo¬ dem loco. Ante consecrationem vocantur pai- nis et vinum sacrificia sancta, et illibata, quod videtur absurdum, quia si sancta sunt, cur petitur in eadem oratione a Deo, ut illa be¬ ti) Psal. CXL tO; Plal. CXV, 10. - (2) Luc. nedicat? Si sacrificia; ergo panem, et vinum Deo sacrificamus. Respondeo : Panis, et vinum recte dici possunt paulo ante consecrationem, sacri¬ ficia sancta, et illibata. Sacrificia ; quidem, quia sunt materia sacrificii, et jam dedicata, et parata, ut ex iis fiat sacrificium ; nam et in lege veteri dicebantur passim sacrificia oves adhuc viventes, quando scilicet addu¬ cebantur, ut immolarentur ; unde est illud Gapriani in serm. de eleemos : « Dives, et locuples in Dominicum sine sacrificio venis? » Dicuntur autem merito sancta, et illibata, quia jam dedicata, et consecrata ad usum di¬ vinum per priorem oblationem sunt : et etiam quia pura, et sancta intentione offeruntur ab Ecclesia. Sed quamquam eo modo sanctasint tamen sanctiora fieri debent per mutationem in corpus, et sanguinem Christi, et ideo recte petimus, ut Deus illis benedicat, caque san¬ ctificet, nimirum ut sic fiant nobis corpus, et sanguis Christi, ut infra in alia oratione pe¬ timus. Tertia objectio ejusdem ibidem. In Canone dicitur : « Qum tibi offerimus in primis pro Ecclesia tua. » At illa sacrificia ex mero pane et vino constant ; ergo panem, et vinum Deo offerimus pro Ecclesia. Neque potest respon¬ deri, illud, « offerimus, » accipi pro futuro et referendum ad hostiam consecratam, quasi sensus sit, Offerimus, id est, mox offe¬ remus : nam repugnat huic solutioni domon- strativa particula: « IRec dona, haec numera ctc. » dicimus enim nos offerre illa dona, quae ad sensum tunc ostenduntur. Respondeo : Mira est haereticorum levitas. Nam idem Luth erus qui in hoc libro de abo¬ minatione Canonis, tanquam rem valde ab¬ surdam ex Canone colligit, quod videamur Deo panem offerre, non Christum : idem in libro de captiv. Babyl. cap. de Eucharistia, dicit, Catholicos existimare se Christum Patri offerre ; et ibidem monet sacerdotes, ut intentionem suam dirigant ab panem offe¬ rendum, non ad Eucharistiam : « Obser¬ vent, inquit, se Sacerdotes hoc perdito , et periculosissimo saeculo, qui sacrificant, ut verba Canonis majoris, et minoris, cum Col¬ lectis, quae nimis aperte sonant sacrificium, dirigant non ad Sacramentum, sed ad ipsum panem, et vinum consecrandum : nam panis, et vinum antea offeruntur ad benedicendum SATII, 34. — (3) II Corinth. XI, 2?. CAPUT XXI. 421 sed postquam est benedictus, et consecratus, jam non debet offerri. » Sed ad argumentum respondeo, panem recte dici offerri pro Ecclesia, non quod ista oblatio sit proprie sacrificium propitiatorium sed quia est dedicatio rei, ex qua faciendum est sacrificium propitiatorium : sicut paulo ante dicebamus de nomine sacrificii, quod tribuitur pani, quia est materia sacrificii. Quare cum dicimus, nos offerre panem Deo pro Ecclesia, sensus est, nos offerre Deo pa¬ nem consecrandum, et ex quo per consecra¬ tionem verum sacrificium Deo immolandum est pro Ecclesia. Neque alienum est hoc a modo loquendi Scripturae divinae, siquidem Levit iv. v. vi. et alibi, jubentur singuli qui¬ que de populo offerre agnum, vel aliquid ejusmodi in sacrificium pro peccato, et ta¬ men non quilibet de populo proprie sacrifi¬ cabat : id enim erat solius Sacerdotis mu¬ nus, sed dicebantur illi offerre sacrificium pro peccato, quia offerebant materiam, ex qua sacrificium pro peccato faciendum erat. Quarta objectio Lutheri ibidem. In pruna oratione Canonis dicitur : « Quse tibi offe¬ rimus, vel qui tibi offerunt pro redemptione animarum suarum. » Et ibidem de iisdem offerentibus dicitur : « Quorum tibi fides cog¬ nita est, et nota devotio. » Si igitur isti fi¬ deles et devoti sunt, certe redempti sunt si redempti sunt, quorsum offerunt pro redem¬ ptione animarum suarum ? nonne idem est, ac si diceretur, redemptos Christi sanguine non esse vere redemptos, sed indigere ite¬ rum redimi uno panis frustulo ? Respondeo : Quod attinet ad frustum pa¬ nis, jam diximus panem non offerri, ut sit sacrificium propitiatorium, sed ut sit materia sacrificii propitiatorii. Quantum ad redem¬ ptionem fidelium et devotorum, apud Luthe- ranos quidem nulli putantur esse fideles, et devoti, quin simul justi sint, proinde red¬ empti, quoad animam : apud Catholicos ta¬ men, qui fidem sine charitatc esse posse sen¬ tiunt, non dubitantur esse multi fideles, et etiam devoti imperfecta quadam devotione, qui tamen nondum justificati, et per hoc nec redempti sint, eo modo, quem mox explica¬ bimus, quales sunt, qui poenitentiam agere incipiunt, et cupiunt quidem ad Deum con¬ verti, et pro hac re orant, et Missas devote exposcunt, licet nondum ad perfectam con¬ tritionem pervenerint. De his igitur verba Canonis commode accipi possunt. Sed praeterea, ut Lutherani intelligant non esse absurdum, si redempti redemptione alia indigere dicantur, Animadvertendum est, in Scriptura quinque modis accipi redem¬ ptionem, et proinde posse cos, qui uno modo redempti sunt, opus habere, ut aliis modis redimantur. Prima dicitur redemptio ab omni malo culpae, et preme, per solutionem pretii sufficientis : et hoc modo omnes om¬ nino homines redempti sunt per Christi cru¬ cem, juxta illud Apostoli i. Timotli. ii. Qui declit redemptionem sernetipsum pro omni¬ bus (1). Secunda est redemptio a malo culpae per applicationem illius pretii in cruce soluti : et haec redemptio est ipsa justificactio. Rom. m. Justificati gratis per gratiam ipsius, per red¬ emptionem, quas est in Christo Jcsu (2) ; et hac redemptione plurium egent, etiamsi prima redemptione redempti sint. Tertia redemptio est a debito prense, quod saepe manet dimissa culpa, juxta illud Pro- verb. xtii : Redemptio animae viri , divitiae suae (3) : divitiae enim cum in pauperes ex¬ penduntur, a poena liberant homines; et hac redemptione saepe indigent illi etiam, qui primo et secundo modo redempti sunt. Quarta redemptio est a peccato futuro ; dicitur enim Deus redimere eos, quos prae¬ servat a peccato, in quod alioqui incidissent, psalm. xxxm. Redimet Dominus animas ser¬ vorum suorum , et non delinquent omnes, qui sperant ineo (4). Quinta redemptio est a corruptione, et ae¬ rumnis omnibus hujus vitae, quae fiet tandem in ultima resurrectione. Luc. xxi. Levate ca¬ pita vestra , quoniam appropinquat redemptio vestra (3) ; et hac ultima, ut etiam superiore redemptione, omnes egent quamvis sanctis¬ simi sint. Porro prima redemptio non obti¬ netur per Missam, quia in cruce peracta est, tamen in Missa repraesentatur, et applicatur : ad reliquas omnes obtinendas Missa non pai- rum confert, et ideo nihil est mirum, si di¬ catur offerri pro redemptione fidelium, et devotorum. Quinta objectio est ejusdem Lutheri ibidem qui reprehendit illud : « Communicantes, et memoriam venerantes. » Christus enim in- (l) I Tira. II, 0. - i2) Rom. 111, 24. — (3) Prov. XIII, 8. — (4) Psal. XXXIII, 23. - (5) Luc. XXI, 28. 422 LIBER VI. stituit Ccenarn, ut esset Communio vivorum ; auctor autem Canonis facit etiam mortuos communicantes. Respondeo : Illud, « Communicantes, » du¬ pliciter exponitur a veteribus. Quidam, ut Alcuinus, Amalarius, et alii, referunt illud, ad Communionem cum Sanctis, ut sensus sit : Offerimus hoc sacrificium communi¬ cantes memoriis Sanctorum, et eosdem San¬ ctos venerantes : ubi non fit mentio Commu¬ nionis per manducationem Eucharistiae, quae non convenit mortuis: sed Communionis per societatem, et conjunctionem in corpore Christi mystico. Alii, inter quos est Micro- logus, cap. 12. et Hugo Victorinus lib. n. de officiis, cap. 29. volunt illud (Commuican- tes), referri ad offerentes inter se, non cum Sanctis, ut sensus sit : Offerimus communi¬ cantes, id est, inter nos uniti, et conjuncti, ut decet membra ejusdem corporis ; et prae¬ terea memoriam Sanctorum venerantes. Id probat Micrologus optima ratione ; nam in Natali, Epiphania, Pascha, Ascensione, et Pentecoste, post illud « Communicantes » , additur, « et diem sacratissimum celebrantes etc. » et paulo post, « sed et memoriam ve¬ nerantes etc. » Ubi aperte videmus illud, e Communicantes, » non conjungi cum me¬ moria Sanctorum, sed per se manere,. et ad solos offerentes referendum esse. Sexta objectio est Georgii Majoris, qui or¬ dinem reprehendit illorum verborum : « Ut accepta habeas, et benedicas haec dona » ; prius enim debent esse benedicta, quam ac¬ ceptentur a Deo. Sed facilis est solutio. Nam ut est oblatio duplex, ut supra diximus, una rei conse¬ crandae, altera rei consecratae ; ita est ac¬ ceptatio duplex ; benedictio autem, et san¬ ctificatio unam earum oblationum, et acce¬ ptationum sequitur, alteram praecedit. Undo sicuthoc loco, ubi agitur de prima accepta¬ tione, postponiturbenedictio : fta paulo post in illa oratione : « Quam oblationem tu Deus in omnibus, benedictam, adscriptam, ratam, ac- ceptabilem facere digneris » ; ubi agitur de posteriore acceptatione, praeponitur bene¬ dictio. Septima objectio est Zwinglii, qui non pro- batillud : « Memento Domine famulorum, etc. » « Videmur enim, ut ipse ait, metuere, ne. Deus obliviosus sit, et ideo tanquam im- memorem eum commonefacere velle. » Sed videtur ipse potius oblivioni mandasse Scripturarum locutiones, aut certe si earum meminerat, Spiritum sanctum corrigere, vo¬ luisse : quid enim in Scriptura frequentius occurrit, quam Memento, vel recordare Do¬ mine ? Vide Exod. xxxn. v. 13. Deuter. ix. v. 27. Judic. xvi. v. 28., iv. Reg. xx, v. 3., II Esdrae v. v 19. Psalm. cxxxi. v* 1. Lucae xxm. v. 42. et alibi. Nec solum in Scriptura passim legimus : Memento Domine , sed etiam quod videtur mirabilius : Ne obliviscaris , vel Quare oblivisceris , ut Psal. ix. v. 32. Ps. xii. v. 2. Psalm. xli. v. 50. et alibi in Psal¬ mis potissimum. Porro dicitur Deus per metaphoram oblivisci, quando non juvat, et contra recordari, quando juvare incipit. Octava objectio est ejusdem majoris, qui ponderat illa verba : « Pro quibus tibi offe¬ rimus, vel qui tibi offerunt », ac dicit, illam correctionem : « vel qui tibi offerunt », aper¬ te monstrare Canonem loqui de eleemosy¬ nis , quas populus offerebat ad altare pro pauperibus : proinde non recte nunc ista de¬ torqueri ad sacrificium Eucharistiae. Huc etiam pertinet prima objectio Kem- nitii ex illis septemdecim, quas facit contra Canonem in 2. par. Examinis, pag. 839. et sequentibus. Nam prima objectio solum id habet, olim verba Canonis dirigi consuevisse, ad benedicendas et commendandas eleemo" synas ; nunc autem perperam trahi ad mi¬ micam repraesentationem sacrificuli : et prae¬ terea non recte offerri Deo panem pro Ec¬ clesia. Cujus objectionis pars prior desumpta est ex argumento Majoris, quod jam refel¬ limus : pars posterior ex argumento Lutheri, quod paulo ante solutum est. Respondeo : Non est illa correctio, sed dis¬ junctiva sententia propter duos ordines eo¬ rum, quos sacerdos Deo commendaverat : alii enim sunt absentes, pro quibus offertur, sed ipsi actu non offerunt ; alii sunt praesen¬ tes, qui simul cum sacerdote offerunt astan¬ do, et consentiendo. Hic igitur est sensus eorum verborum : Memento Domine talium, et talium absentium, et omnium etiam cir¬ cumstantium, atque praesentium, pro quibus omnibus offerimus pro iis videlicet, qui adi ista Ecclesia nunc absunt, vel etiam qui si¬ mul nobiscum desiderio, et consensu offe¬ runt. Non pertinere autem preces ullas Ca¬ nonis ad commendandas eleemosynas, quod falso assumunt Major, et Kemnitius, ex toto contextu Canonis cognosci potest. Nam in primis haec dona, quae nominantur in Cano¬ ne, dicuntur offerri Deo pro Ecclesia, pro Papa, pro rege, pro omnibus Orthodoxis; CAPUT XXL 423 at eleemosynae non solent offerri, nisi pro iis, qui eas dederunt. Deinde de eadem obla¬ tione, quse nominata est in principio Cano¬ nis, quam isti volunt ad eleemosynas perti¬ nere, subjungitur paulo infra : « Hanc igitur oblationem servitutis nostra? etc. ubi aperte ostenditur eam oblationem esse proprie sa¬ crificium, quippe qua? per ministerium sa¬ cerdotum Domino offertur : et paulo post de eadem dicitur : « Quam oblationem tu Deus in omnibus, qua?sumus, benedictam, etc. ut nobis corpus et sanguis fiat dilectissimi Filii tui etc. » ubi manifeste videmus in toto Canone de illa oblatione mentionem fieri, qua? per consecrationem efficitur corpus et sanguis Domini. Denique omnes expositores Liturgi se, tum Grseci, ut Germanus, et Ca- basilas, tum Latini, ut Alcuinus, Amalarius, et eseteri, totum Canonem explicant de Eu¬ charistia. Nona objectio est Kemnitii, quam secun¬ do loco ipse ponit ; ponderat enim ipse illud verbum : « Pro quibus tibi offerimus, vel qui tibi offerunt hoc sacrificium laudis » ; ac vult canonem juxta antiquum ritum agere hoc loco de sacrificio spirituali, quod consistit in laude Dei, et gratiarum actione pro redem¬ ptione acquisita in cruce. Deinde hoc funda¬ mento posito, reprehendit Catholicos, tum quod sacrificium laudis mutaverint in silen¬ tiarium murmur sacerdotis, tum quod sacri¬ ficium laudis pro redemptione in cruce ac¬ quisita detorserint ad repraesentationem sacrificuli pro impetranda, et promerenda, redemptione animarum. Respondeo : Ha?c objectio, ut etiam supe¬ rior, et aliquot sequentes, non sunt contra Canonem, sed contra intentionem sacerdo¬ tum, qui Canonem recitant : siquidem verba Canonis ipsemet dicit posse accipi de sacri¬ ficio laudis, vel de eleemosynis etc. Proinde ista? objectiones non multum ad rem faciunt; siquidem propositum Kemnitio erat , de¬ monstrare multos errores in ipso Canone inveniri, ut patet ex pag. 839. ubi sic loqui¬ tur : « Tanquam in tabella spectandum pro¬ ponemus, quos errores, et quae vitia Pontifi¬ cius Canon contineat. >) IIa?c ibi. At ubi in- ccepit istos errores enumerare, non tam verba Canonis reprehendit, quam sacerdo¬ tes, qui ea, vel submissa voce recitant, vel detorquent ad repraesentationem. Deinde falsa sunt ea, quae in argumento Kemnitius more suo assumit, et non probat. Primum enim falsum est, per sacrificium laudis, cujus in canone fit mentio, debere accipi sacrificium spirituale, quod in laude, et gratiarum actione consistit : significatur enim ea voce sacrificium veri corporis Do¬ mini, quod sacrificium'* laudis dicitur, quia per illud Deus magnopere laudatur, et gratiae illi aguntur, pro summis ejus in nos benefi¬ ciis : unde etiam sacrificium Eucharisticum merito nominatur. Id ita esse patet. Primum ex ipso Canone ; nam de hoc sacrificio laudis paulo post loquens Ecclesia, a Deo petit ut hanc oblationem benedicere dignetur, et efficere corpus dilectissimi Filii sui. Deinde idem patet ex Augustino, qui ipsam Eu¬ charistiam non semel appellat sacrificium laudis, ut lib. I. contra advers. leg. et pro- phet. cap. 20. ubi bis, terve sacrificium lau¬ dis vocat id , quod offerimus secundum or¬ dinem Melchisedech, ex pane, vinoque con¬ fectum. Quod si sacrificium laudis, non sunt laudes, qua? recitentur voce, sed est ipsa ob¬ latio corporis Dominici, inane est, et falsum quod Kemnistius dicit, nos convertisse sa¬ crificium laudis in silentiarium murmur; non enim in voce, sed in actione hoc sacrificium consistit. Et falsum est etiam, quod ultimo addit, nos detorsisse sacrificium laudis ad mimicam repra?sentationem : non enim rei praeteritae repraesentatio, sed vera, et realis oblatio praesentis corporis Dominici est sa¬ crificium, quod nos proprie in Ecclesia im¬ molamus. Decima objectio, et Kemnitii tertia est contra illa verba Canonis : « Reddunt tibi vota sua aeterno Deo vivo et vero ». Dicit enim Kemnitius olim in Ecclesia usum fuisse, ut juxta illa verba Psalm. cxvi : Vota mea Domino reddam (1), gratiae agerentur Deo pro beneficiis ; sed nunc sublato antiquo ritu5 Canonem Missa? referre illa verba ad Missas votivas, quae data pecunia celebrari juben¬ tur. Respondeo : Ista omnia calumniae , et mendacia sunt : non enim Canon per vota intelligit Missas votivas, sed pia desideria, et oblationem adstantis populi : dicuntur enim haec verba in omnibus Missis etiam non voti¬ vis, et ab iis, qui pecuniam nunquam acci¬ piunt, vel acceperunt pro Missae celebratione. Sed Kemnitius probare debuisset aliquo te¬ stimonio, quae tam audacter affirmat. (1) Psalm. CXVI, 18. 424 LIBER YI. Undecima objectio, quae estKemnitii quar¬ ta, est contra illud : « Et memoriam vene¬ rantes » ; objicit enim Kemnitius, quod olim in Ecclesia usus fuerit praedicandi memorias Martyrum, et certamina ac victorias ipso¬ rum : nunc autem Canon Missa? solum prae¬ scribat memoriam per nominum recitatio¬ nem, idque submissa voce. Sed et in hac objectione, praeter calum¬ nias, et mendacia invenimus nihil. Veteres enim non in Liturgia, sed in concionibus, et lectionibus Martyres praedicabant, quod et nos facimus tum in concionibus ad populum, tum in lectionibus, quae assidue decantantur in horis Canonicis : alioqui proferatur ex Liturgia Basilii, vel Chrysostomi, vel quali- bct alia, iste usus praedicandi res gestas Martyrum ; certe nihil in cis nisi nomina in¬ veniuntur, ut in nostra Liturgia cernimus. Duodecima objectio, qua; est quinta Kem- nitii, pugnat contra invocationem, quae an¬ nectitur memoriae Sanctorum : sed nihil novi affert praeter ea, quae supra refutavimus, cum ageremus de Missis in honorem Sanc to¬ rum, cap. 8.