Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book VI: On the Sacrifice of the Mass (Second)
Chapter 24: On the Truth of the Fourth 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).
The fourth prayer is that which is had immediately after the consecration in those words: “Wherefore also, O Lord, being mindful, etc.,” and it extends as far as that: “Remember also, O Lord”; for before "Remember" is set the conclusion: “Through Christ our Lord.”
The first objection against this prayer is of Luther, who again objects wordiness, on account of that multiplication of adjuncts: “A pure host, a holy host, an immaculate host.”
But like words are had in Ambrose, Book 4 on the Sacraments, chapter 6, and by altogether the same spirit the Apostle wrote, Romans 12: A living host, holy, pleasing to God, a reasonable service.
The second objection of the same Luther, and of all the others who calumniate those words: “Upon which vouchsafe to look with a propitious and serene countenance”; for they say that here we pray for Christ, and wish to reconcile the Son to the Father. Some of them also suspect that these words were formerly before the consecration, but now were placed after the consecration by the unlearned collector of the Canon.
But the answer is easy; for first these are had also in Ambrose after the consecration, Book 4 on the Sacraments, chapter 6. All the Greek Liturgies likewise set after the words of consecration a prayer for the precious and sanctified gifts. Wherefore it is not a new, but a most ancient rite to pray for the oblation already consecrated. Nor is this to pray for the reconciliation of Christ with the Father, but rather for our own infirmity: for although the consecrated oblation, on the part of the thing which is offered, and on the part of Christ the principal offerer, always pleases God, yet on the part of the Minister or of the people standing by, who also at the same time offer, it can fail to please. This, therefore, is what we ask, that God kindly regard this gift, as it is offered by us. Something like can be discerned in the sacrifices of the ancient Hebrews: for they suppliantly asked that God clemently regard their sacrifices of sheep and oxen, and yet did not pray properly for the sheep and oxen; nor did they constitute themselves mediators between the sheep and God, nor wish to reconcile those cattle to God: but they prayed for themselves, and desired their service in offering those things to be pleasing to God.
The third objection of Luther in the same place, where he reprehends that: “As Thou didst vouchsafe to hold accepted the gifts of Thy just servant Abel, and the sacrifice of our Patriarch Abraham.” For we seem to attribute here no more efficacy to Christ Himself immolated for us than to irrational cattle.
I answer: These too are had in Ambrose, Book 4 on the Sacraments, chapter 6. Further, the comparison is not made between our sacrifice and the sacrifice of Abel and Abraham absolutely, but only by reason of the faith and devotion of the offerers. For this we desire, that God grant us to offer the sacrifice with as great faith and devotion as Abel and Abraham offered: and accordingly, that on the part of the offering Minister our sacrifice may please God no less than theirs pleased. But that the comparison is made between their sacrifice and ours by reason of faith and devotion, not absolutely, is clear from this, that the sacrifices of sheep and oxen absolutely and of themselves have nothing whereby they can please God or appease Him. Wherefore blessed Paul, Hebrews 11, does not say that the sacrifice of Abel pleased absolutely, but on account of faith: By faith, he says, Abel offered a greater host than Cain. And Genesis 4, Moses: God had respect, he says, to Abel and to his gifts.
The fourth objection of Luther, against that which follows: “And that which Thy high priest Melchisedech offered to Thee.” Here Luther accuses the Canon of a lie: “They lie,” he says, “in that they assert that Melchisedech sacrificed bread and wine.”
I answer: The Canon of the Mass does not have that Melchisedech sacrificed bread and wine, but only that he offered some sacrifice: which indeed he who says is a lie makes the Holy Spirit a liar, who through the mouth of Paul, Hebrews 5, 6, and 7, testifies that Melchisedech was a priest; and through the same Paul, Hebrews 5 and 8, teaches that every priest ought to have something to offer. Add that Melchisedech sacrificed bread and wine was sufficiently demonstrated by us in the preceding book. Add lastly that this part of the Canon, where Melchisedech is called high priest, not only Ambrose acknowledges, Book 4, chapter 6 on the Sacraments, but also the author of the Questions of the New and Old Testament in Augustine, volume 4, question 109. But that author is contemporary with Ambrose, as is manifestly gathered from the same questions.
The fifth objection of the same, against that: “Command these to be borne by the hands of Thy holy Angel to Thy sublime altar”; for it seems absurd that the priest ask to be carried into heaven that which he himself is presently to consume. Nor does it seem less absurd that some altar be thought to be in heaven.
I answer: These are not to be understood so grossly that we think some corporeal and sensible altar to be erected in heaven, and that to it really and corporeally the Sacrament of the body of the Lord ought to be carried by the hands of the Angels: yet that there is in heaven some altar, namely spiritual, as also a tabernacle, throne, incense, trumpets, crowns, palms, and other things of the kind, no one can deny who has not wished to deny the Scriptures. Since Apocalypse 6, 8, 9, and 14, we often read of a golden altar in heaven before the eyes of God: Apocalypse 4 we read of thrones, trumpets, and crowns in heaven: Apocalypse 7 we read also of palms in the hands of the Saints: Apocalypse 8 we read of a censer and incense: Apocalypse 21 we read of a tabernacle; of which heavenly tabernacle also Christ makes mention, Luke 16, and Paul, Hebrews 8 and 9. Of the same altar set in heaven Irenaeus makes mention, Book 4, chapter 34, and Augustine on Psalm 25, on that: I will wash my hands among the innocent; not, therefore, does the dream of the Catholics, but the very divine Scripture, constitute an altar in heaven.
Further, that heavenly altar either signifies Christ Himself, through whom our prayers and oblations ascend to God: or certainly the altar is said to be in heaven, because in heaven are received the sacrifices which are immolated to the true God on earth. But that our sacrifices are borne to God by the hands of the Angel is nothing else than that our service and worship, which we desire to exhibit to Him by immolating, is helped and commended to God by the intercession of the Angels. Nor is it unlike what we read, Tobias 12, and Apocalypse 8, that our prayers are borne by the Angels to God: for the Angels do not bear up our voices and corporeal words, but commend our vows and desires to God by their intercession. And so Luther argues in vain and ineptly that the sacrifice cannot be borne into heaven, since the whole is consumed on earth.
The sixth objection of the same, against that: “That as many of us as shall receive of this participation of the altar”; for Luther reprehends that the priest speaks as of many communicants, when he alone is to communicate.
I answer: He does not speak absolutely of many, nor of one: but prays that as many as shall receive, whether they be one or many, may receive usefully. But of this matter we said something also above, when we treated of the private Mass.
The seventh objection is of George Major, who reprehends that: “The holy bread of eternal life, and the chalice of everlasting salvation”; which words he suspects to have been added by some unlearned and superstitious man, who had persuaded himself that Christ is offered in the Mass to God the Father. And this he proves, because, since a little before in the same prayer it is said: “We offer of Thy gifts and presents,” which without doubt are to be referred to the almsdeeds which are offered by the people: none but some unlearned man could straightway transfer to Christ a discourse begun about almsdeeds.
I answer: The words which Major suspects to have been added by some unlearned man are had also in Ambrose, Book 4 on the Sacraments, chapter 6, as used and received in the whole Church; and certain like things are had also in the Greek Liturgies of James, Basil, and Chrysostom, and in Clement, Book 8 of the Apostolic Constitutions, chapter 17. Nor do these ill cohere with those: “Of Thy gifts and presents”; for those can be referred to the bread and wine, of which the Eucharist is made, so that the sense is: We offer to Thee a pure host, the holy bread, and the chalice of salvation, which we have from Thy creatures, given and bestowed by Thee, namely from bread and wine by the consecration: so Innocent expounds, Book 5, chapter 3 on the mysteries of the Mass. All can also be referred to the Eucharist itself, or to Christ as existing in the Eucharist: for Christ is most rightly called God's gift and present. For thus Isaiah speaks, chapter 9: A Son is given to us; and Christ Himself, John 3: So God loved the world, as to give His only-begotten Son; and the very Sacrament and Sacrifice, is it not most truly God's gift and present?
The eighth objection is of Kemnitz, who confesses that, “Wherefore also, being mindful,” is taken from the ancients; but says that among them it was wont to be recited in a loud voice, since Cyril says there was an announcing, and Dionysius uses the word [to praise]: but in the Pontifical Canon it was provided that it be read in a low voice.
I answer: Neither does this objection demonstrate that any error or vice is in the words of the Canon, which alone was the adversary's purpose; nor does it bring anything solid. For that, “Wherefore also, being mindful,” is read after the words of consecration in secret, not only among the Latins, but also among the Greeks: for in the Mass of Basil it is noted that this is to be said in secret, and that prayer being ended, to be pronounced in a loud voice, “Thine of Thine own.” Which likewise, of this change of voice at the end of the prayer, we read in the Mass of Chrysostom. Further, Cyril, catechesis 5, mystagogical, where he explains the Liturgy, does not make mention of this prayer, for he does not expound all things: wherefore let Kemnitz see where he read what he cited from Cyril. But neither do we deny that in the Mass the death of the Lord is announced, according to the Apostle, 1 Corinthians 11; but, as we have said above more than once from Augustine, Book 20 against Faustus, chapter 18, this is to be done not so much by words as by the oblation and participation of the body of the Lord. But Dionysius, on the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, chapter 3, where he describes the rite of the Liturgy, makes mention indeed of the hymns by which the works of Christ are praised, but sets them before the words of consecration, and also at the end, when thanks are given to God after Communion; accordingly Dionysius does not speak of that prayer: “Wherefore also, being mindful.” But it is lawful for Kemnitz to play with the Fathers, and from any word to conclude anything.
The ninth objection of the same Kemnitz: “Of old,” he says, “of the gifts and presents offered by the people was taken that which was sanctified by the word of Christ, that it might become the Eucharist of the body and blood of the Lord, and this reception and sanctification was called the oblation. Now, since that custom is not observed, the words are transferred to the representation of the little priest.”
I answer: And what does this too make against the words of the Canon, which the adversary undertook to impugn? and is it not a most open lie, that the words are transferred by the Catholics to the representation of the little priest? For all the Catholics refer those words, “We offer to Thy glorious Majesty,” of which the adversary speaks, to the very pure and holy host, confected by the consecration from God's gifts and presents, as the very words of the Canon sound, not to any representation. But it is impertinent whether the bread and wine of which the Eucharist is made are given by the people, or offered by the priest: for whencesoever they came, they are most rightly named God's gifts and presents, and can be the matter of the Eucharist.
The tenth objection of the same. He reprehends those words: “Upon which vouchsafe to look with a propitious and serene countenance, etc.,” where he says a horrible comparison is made between Christ and the brute animals which were immolated by the ancients. And he adds that this prayer is extant in Basil before the consecration, where the comparison is made of the sacrifice of Abel, Noe, Abraham, and the other ancients with the oblations of bread and wine which are brought by the people: but that by the unskilfulness of the author of the Canon it was set after the consecration, and thence it came to pass that it contains an intolerable error.
I answer: As regards the comparison of Christ with the brute animals, the argument was already resolved before in the third objection of Luther. But as regards the transposition, it is false that this prayer was transposed; for it is established from Ambrose, Book 4 on the Sacraments, chapter 6, that it was after the consecration even in the time of Basil; for Ambrose, who reads it after the consecration, was contemporary with Basil. Nor does it stand in the way that in Basil some other like prayer is had before the consecration, for in each place that prayer can rightly be inserted. Whence in our Missal a certain like prayer is had before the consecration, as the same Kemnitz noted, in the secret Collect of the seventh Sunday after Pentecost: and yet again it is had after the consecration in the place of which we now treat.
The eleventh objection of the same is against those words: “Command these to be borne, etc.” For first Kemnitz demonstrates it to be most absurd that we ask the body of Christ now first to be borne into heaven by the Angels, since the Apostle, Hebrews 9, says that Christ long ago entered into heaven. Then he affirms that these words ought to be read before the consecration, and are to be referred to prayers and almsdeeds. This he proves both from Irenaeus, who, Book 4, chapter 34, says that prayers and almsdeeds are borne to the altar which is in heaven; and from Augustine, canon Utrum, on consecration, distinction 2; and from Tobias, chapter 12, and Apocalypse, chapter 8, where prayers are said to be borne by the angels into heaven.
I answer: We confess that it is most absurd to say that the body of Christ ought now first to be borne corporeally into heaven by the Angels. But no Catholic so thinks or speaks. For only, as we explained a little before, we teach that the oblation of the body of Christ is borne into heaven by the Angels, inasmuch as the Angels by their prayer commend our service to God: which same Kemnitz is compelled to say of prayers and almsdeeds, which a little before he taught to be borne by the Angels into heaven, from Tobias, John, and Irenaeus. For he will not say that almsdeeds are really and corporeally borne into heaven: for what would almsdeeds profit the poor, if they were really borne into heaven? or how could they be borne into heaven, if they are consumed by the poor? Not, therefore, is it absurd, or, as he says, horrible, that the sacrifice of the Eucharist be borne into heaven by the Angels, if this be understood spiritually, as is fitting.
As regards the other part of the objection, it is false that these words were formerly set in the Canon before the consecration. For both Ambrose reads them after the consecration, Book 4 on the Sacraments, chapter 6, and so also have the Liturgies of James, of Clement, Book 8 of the Constitutions, of Basil, and of Chrysostom, so that plainly the audacity of these innovators is to be wondered at, who for the most trifling little reasons judge of those things which they altogether are ignorant of. For the passage of Tobias and the Apocalypse do nothing against our opinion, but rather explain and confirm it. The passage of Irenaeus is brought forward corruptly: for Irenaeus speaks not of almsdeeds, but of the Eucharist, as we showed above, Book 1 on the sacrifice, chapter 8; and even if Irenaeus spoke of almsdeeds, what would Kemnitz gain thence? Is it that, because Irenaeus somewhere writes of almsdeeds that they were wont to be borne to the heavenly altar, therefore that prayer of the Canon is to be understood of almsdeeds, when Irenaeus does not even name that prayer?
But what is brought from Augustine, as I said above, is not a testimony of Augustine, but a certain rhapsody of fragments from Ambrose, Paschasius, and others: in which rhapsody the order of the Liturgy is not observed. For first that author makes mention of the consecration, by which the bread is turned into flesh, and the wine passes into blood: then he alleges those words: “Command these to be borne, etc.”; then he subjoins those: “This blessed, ratified oblation, etc.” As therefore Kemnitz contends that that, “Command these to be borne,” was formerly before the consecration, because these words are set by the author of that Canon before those, “This blessed, ratified oblation, etc.”: so we on the contrary demonstrate that it was after the consecration, because they are set after the very consecration by the same author: but the truth is that the order of the Liturgy is not observed by that author.
But this is by no means to be passed over in this place, that in that testimony are two things against Kemnitz. First, in this testimony that, “Command these to be borne,” is expounded of the consecrated bread, as we think, or certainly of the bread to be consecrated, as Kemnitz will have it: therefore it is not to be understood of almsdeeds, as the same Kemnitz intends; accordingly Kemnitz brought this testimony against himself. Secondly, in this testimony we openly read that by the power of the Holy Spirit of the bread is made flesh, and the wine passes into blood, which is against all the Lutherans, who deny transubstantiation.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XXIV. De veritate quartae orationis Canonis. Oratio quarta illa est, quae proxime post consecrationem habetur in illis verbis : « Unde et memores Domine etc. » et exten¬ ditur usque ad illud : « Memento etiam Domine » ; nam ante Memento ponitur conclusio : « Per Christum Dominum no¬ strum. » Prima objectio contra hanc orationem, est Lutheri : qui iterum objicit verbositatem, propter illam adjunctorum multiplicatio¬ nem : « Hostiam puram, hostiam sanctam, hostiam immaculatam. » Sed similia verba habentur apud Ambro¬ sium lib. iv. de Sacramentis, cap. 6. et eo¬ dem plane spiritu Apostolus scripsit Itom. xn : Hostiam viventem, sanctam, Deo placen¬ tem, rationabile obsequium (1). Secunda objectio ejusdem Lutheri, et om¬ nium aliorum, qui calumniantur illa verba : « Supra quae propitio, ac sereno vultu re¬ spicere digneris», dicunt enim nos hic orare pro Christo, et reconciliare velle Filium Pa¬ tri. Suspicantur etiam quidam illorum, haec verba fuisse olim ante consecrationem, nunc autem ab indocto Canonis collectore posita esse post consecrationem. Sed facilis responsio est ; nam in primis habentur ista etiam apud Ambrosium post consecrationem libro iv. do Sacramentis, cap. 6. Omnes item Graecae Liturgise post verba consecrationis ponunt orationem pro donis pretiosis, et sanctificatis. Quare non est novus, sed antiquissimus ritus orandi pro oblatione jam consecrata. Neque hoc est orare pro Christi reconciliatione apud Patrem, sed pro nostra potius infirmitate : etsi enim oblatio consecrata ex parte rei, quae offertur, et ex parte Christi principalis offerentis, semper Deo placeat ; tamen ex parte Ministri, vel populi adstantis, qui si¬ mul etiam offerunt, potest non placere. Id igitur est, quod petimus, ut Deus benigne respiciat hoc munus, ut a nobis offertur. Si mile quid cerni potest in sacrificiis veterum Hebraeorum : illi enim suppliciter postula¬ bant, ut clementer Deus ipsorum sacrificia, ovium, et boum aspiceret, nec tamen ora¬ bant proprie pro ovibus, et bobus ; nec me¬ diatores se constituebant inter oves et Deum, nec reconciliare pecora illa Deo volebant : sed pro se orabant, et obsequium suum in illis rebus offerendis Deo gratum esse cupie¬ bant. Tertia objectio Lutheri ibidem, ubi repre¬ hendit illud : «Sicut accepta habere digna¬ tus es mura pueri tui justi Abel, et sacrifi¬ cium Patriarchae nostri Abrahae. » Videmur enim non plus tribuere hoc loco efficaciae ipsi Christo pro nobis immolato, quam irra¬ tionali pecori. Respondeo : Habentur ista quoque apud Ambrosium lib. iv. de Sacramentis, cap. 6. Porro comparatio non fit inter sacrificium nostrum, et sacrificium Abelis, et Abrahae absolute, sed tantum ratione fidei, et devo¬ tionis offerentium. Id enim optamus, ut det nobis Deus tanta fide, et devotione sacrifi¬ cium offerre, quanta Abel, et Abraham ob¬ tulerunt : et proinde, ut ex parte Ministri of¬ ferentis non minus placeat Deo sacrificium nostrum, quam illorum placuit. Fieri autem comparationem inter sacrificium illorum, et nostrum ratione fidei, et devotionis, non ab¬ solute perspicuum est ex eo, quod sacrificia ovium et boum absolute, et per se nihil ha¬ bent, unde placere Deo, eumque placare possint. Quare B. Paulus Hebr. xi. non ait sacrificium Abelis absolute placuisse, sed propter fidem : Fide, inquit, plurimam ho¬ stiam Abel , quam Cain obtulit. Et Genes, iv. Moses : Respexit , inquit, Deus ad Abel , et ad munera ejus (I). Quarta objectio Lutheri, contra id quod sequitur : « Et quod tibi obtulit summus Sa¬ cerdos tuus Melchisedecb. » Hic mendacii Canonem arguit Lutherus : «Mentiuntur», inquit, « in eo, quod asserunt Melchisedecb sacrificasse panem et vinum. » Respondeo : Non habet Canon Missae, Mel- chisedeh sacrificasse panem et vinum, sed solum sacrificium aliquod obtulisse : quod quidem qui mendacium esse dicit, menda¬ cem facit Spiritum sanctum, qui per os Pauli Hebr. v, vi et vn. Melchisedecb sacerdotem fuisse testatur; et per eumdem Paulum Hebr. (I) Rom. XII, 1. — (2) Heb. XI, 4; Gen. IV, 4, CAPUT XXIV. 427 v et vm, docet, omnem sacerdotem aliquid habere debere, quod offerat. Adde, quod Melchisedech panem et vinum sacrificasse, satis a nobis libro superiori demonstratum est. Adde ultimo, quod hanc partem Canonis, ubi Melchisedech summus Sacerdos appel¬ latur non solum agnoscit Ambrosius lib. iv. cap. 6. de Sacramentis, sed etiam auctor quaestionum novi ac veteris Testamenti apud Augustinum tom. iv quajst. 109. Est autem auctor ille Ambrosii aequalis, ut ex iisdem quaestionibus manifeste colligitur. Quinta objectio ejusdem contra illud : (i Jube hsec perferri per manus sancti Angeli tui in sublime altare tuum ; » absurdum enim videtur, ut sacerdos petat deferri in coelum, quod ipse paulo post consumpturus est. Nec minus videtur absurdum, ut altare aliquod esse cogitetur in coelo. Respondeo : Non tam crasse haec intelli- genda sunt, ut existimemus in coelo altare aliquod corporale, et sensibile erectum esse, atque ad illud reipsa, et corporaliter Sacra¬ mentum corporis Domini manibus Angelo¬ rum oportere deferri : altare tamen aliquod spirituale videlicet, in coelo esse, ut etiam tabernaculum, thronum, incensum, tubas, coronas, palmas, et alia id genus, nemo ne¬ gare potest qui scripturas negare noluerit. Siquidem Apocal. vi, vm, ix et xiv, saepe legitur, altare aureum in coelo coram oculis Dei : Apocal. iv. leguntur in coelo throni, tubae, et coronae : Apocal. vn. leguntur etiam palmee in manibus Sanctorum : Apo¬ cal. vm. legitur thuribulum, et incensum : Apocal. xxi. legitur tabernaculum ; cujus etiam tabernaculi coelestis meminit Christus, Lucee xvi, et Paulus Bebr. vm et ix. Ejus¬ dem altaris in coelo positi meminerunt Ire- naeus lib. iv. cap. 34. et Augustinus in Psalm. xxv, in illud : Lavabo inter inno¬ centes manus meas (3) ; non igitur somnium Catholicorum, sed ipsa divina Scriptura al¬ tare in coelo constituit. Porro altare istud coeleste, vel Christum ipsum significat, per quem ad Deum ora¬ tiones et oblationes nostrae ascendunt : vel certe altare dicitur esse in coelo, quia in coelo recipiuntur sacrificia, quae Deo vero immo¬ lantur in terris. Deferri autem sacrificia no¬ stra ad Deum per manus Angeli, nihil est aliud, nisi Angelorum intercessione juvari, et commendari Dee nostrum obsequium et cultum, quem illi immolando exhibere desi" deramus. Neque dissimile est, quod legimus Tobise xii, et Apocal. vm. orationes nostras ab Angiis deferri ad Deum : neque enim Angeli voces, et verba nostra corporalia sursum deferunt, sed vota, et desideria no¬ stra intercessione sua Deo commendant. Ita¬ que frustra, et inepte argumentatur Luthe- rus non posse sacrificium deferri in coelum, cum totum consummatur in terris. Sexta objectio ejusdem contra illud : « Ut quotquot ex hac altaris participatione sum¬ pserimus » ; reprehendit enim Lutherus, quod sacerdos loquatur quasi do multis communicantibus, cum solus ipse sit com¬ municaturus. Respondeo : Non loquitur absolute de multis, nec de uno : sed orat, ut quotquot sumpserint, sive unus, sive multi illi sint, utiliter sumant. Sed de hac re supra etiam aliquid diximus, cum ageremus de Missa privata^ Septima objectio est Georgii Majoris, qui reprehendit illud : « Panem sanctum vitae aeternae, et calicem salutis perpetuae ; » quae verba suspicatur adjecta ab aliquo indocto, et supertitioso, qui sibi persuaserat, Chri¬ stum in Missa Deo Patri offerri. Id autem probat, quia cum paulo ante in eadem prece dicatur : « Offerimus de tuis donis, ac da¬ tis ; » quae sine dubio ad eleemosynas, quae a populo offeruntur, referenda sunt : non potuit nisi indoctus aliquis, sermonem de eleemosyna institutum, continuo transferre ad Christum. Respondeo,! Verba quae adjecta ab aliquo indocto suspicatur Major, habentur etiam apud Ambrosium lib. iv. de Sacramentis, cap. 6. tamquam usitata, et recepta in tota Eccl esia ; et quaedam similia habentur etiam in Liturgiis Graecis, Jacobi, Basilii et Chryso- stomi, et apud Clementem lib. vm. Constitu¬ tionum Apostolic. cap. 17. Neque male co¬ haerent ista cum illis : « De tuis donis, ac datis » ; nam illa possunt referri ad panem et vinum, ex quibus fit Eucharistia, ut sen¬ sus sit : Offerimus tibi hostiam puram, pa¬ nem sanctum, et calicem salutis, quem ex creaturis tuis a te datis, et donatis, ex pane scilicet et vino per consecrationem habemus : sic exponit Innocentius lib. v. cap. 3. de mysteriis Missae. Possunt etiam referri om¬ nia ad ipsam Eucharistiam, sive ad Christum (I) Psal. XXV, G. 428 LIBER VI. ut in Eucharistia existentem : rectissime enim dicitur Christus, Dei datum : et donum. Sic enim [loquitur Isaias, cap. ix. Filius da¬ tus est nobis; et ipse Christus Joan. iii : Sic Deus dilexit mundum , ut Filiumisuum uni¬ genitum daret (1) ; et ipsum Sacramentum, et Sacrificium nonne verissimum est Dei do¬ num, et datum ? Octava objectio est Kemnitii, qui fatetur illud: « Unde et memores », sumptum esse ex veteribus ; sed ait apud illos alta voce recitari consuevisse, cum Cyrillus dicat fuisse annuntiationem, et Dionysius utatur verbo ugvsiv : in Canone autem Pontificio cautum esse, ut submissa voce legatur. Respondeo : Neque haec objectio ullum in verbis Canonis errorem, aut vitium inesse demonstrat; quod tamen solum adversario propositum erat ; neque aliquid solidi affert. Nam illud : «Unde et memores», legitur post verba consecrationis secreto, non solum apud Latinos, sed etiam apud Giwcos : in Missa enim Basilii notatur secreto id esse dicendum, et ea oratione finita, voce alta pronunciandum, «tua ex tuis». Quod item de mutatione ista vocis in fine orationis, le¬ gimus in Missa Chrysostomi. Porro Cyrillus catechesi 5. mystagogica, ubi Liturgiam ex¬ plicat, non meminit hujus orationis, neque enim omnia exponit : quare viderit Kemni- tius ubi legerit, quod ex Cyrillo citavit. Sed neque negamus, in Missa annuntiari mortem Domini juxta Apostolum I Corint. xi. sed ut supra non semel diximus ex Augustino lib. xx. contra Faustum, cap. 18., id non tam verbis, quam oblatione, et participatione corporis Domini faciendum est. Dionysius vero de Ecclesiastica hierarchia, cap. 3. ubi ritum Liturgi® describit, meminit quidem hymnorum, quibus laudantur Christi opera sed cos ponit ante verba consecrationis, et etiam in fine, cum aguntur gratiae Deo post Communionem ; poinde non loquitur Diony¬ sius de ista oratione : « Unde et memores » . Sed licet Kemnitio in Patribus ludere, et ex qualibet voce, quidlibet concludere. Nona objectio ejusdem Kemnitii : « Anti- . quitus », inquit, « de oblatis a populo donis et datis sumebatur quod sanctificabatur ver¬ bo Christi, ut fieret Eucharistia corporis, et sanguinis Domini, et haec sumptio, et san¬ ctificatio dicebatur oblatio. Nunc cum mos ille non servetur, verba transferuntur ad repraesentationem sacrificuli. » (1) Joan. III, fd. Respondeo : Et hoc quiclfaeit contra verba Cononis, quae adversarius oppugnanda su¬ scepit ? et nonne mendacium est apertissi¬ mum, quod verba transferantur a Catholicis ad repraesentationem sacrificuli ? omnes enim Catholici verba illa : « Offerimus prae¬ clara) Majestati tuae», de quibus adversarius loquitur, referunt ad ipsam hostiam puram et sanctam, confectam per consecrationem ex Dei donis, et datis, ut verba ipsa Canonis sonant, non ad aliquam repraesentationem. Impertinens autem est, utrum panis et vi¬ num, unde fit Eucharistia, sint a populo data, an a sacerdote oblata : undecumque enim venerint, Dei dona et data rectissime nominantur, et Eucharistia) materia esso possunt. Decima objectio ejusdem. Reprehendit illa verba : « Supra qua) propitio, ac sereno vultu etc. » ubi horrendam comparationem fieri dicit inter Christum, et bruta animalia, qua) ab antiquis immolabantur. Et addit hanc orationem apud Basilium extare ante consecrationem, ubi comparatio fit sacrificii Abelis, Noe, Abraham, et aliorum veterum cum oblationibus panis et vini, qua) a populo afferuntur : sed imperitia auctoris Canonis, positam esse post consecrationem, et indo esse factum, ut intolerabilem errorem con¬ tineat. Respondeo : Quod attinet ad compara¬ tionem Christi cum brutis animalibus, jam ante solutum est argumentum in tertia ob¬ jectione Lutheri. Quod vero ad transposi¬ tionem pertinet, falsum est hanc orationem esse transpositam ; constat enim ex Ambro¬ sio lib. iv. dc Sacramentis, cap. 6. eam fuisse post consecrationem, etiam tempore Basilii; Ambrosius enim, qui eam legit post consecrationem, ecqualis Basilii fuit. Neque obstat, quod apud Basilium alia quaedam si¬ milis oratio habeatur ante consecrationem, nam in utroque loco ea oratio recte inseri potest. Unde in nostro Missali habetur qua)- dam similis oratio ante consecrationem, ut idem Kemnitius annotavit, in Collecta secre¬ ta Dominica) septima) post Pentecosten : et tamen rursus habetur post consecrationem in loco, de quo nunc agimus. Undecima objectio ejusdem, est contra illa verba : « Jube lia)c perferri etc. » Nam in primis absurdissimum esse demonstrat Kemnitius, quod petamus Christi corpus nunc primum in coelum ab Angelis deferri, CAPUT XXV. 429 cum Apostolus Hebr. ix. dicat, Christum j an du dum in coelum ingressum esse. Deinde affirmat, ha?c verba debere ante consecra¬ tionem legi, et ad preces, et eleemosynas esse referendas. Id probat tum ex Ireneeo, qui lib. iv. cap. 34, dicit, orationes et elee¬ mosynas deferri ad altare, quod est in coelo tum ex Augustino, can. Utrum, de conse¬ crat. dist. 2. tum ex cap. 12. Tobise, et cap. o. Apocalypsis, ubi preces dicuntur ab an¬ gelis in coelum deferri. Respondeo : Fatemur absurdissime dici Christi corpus nunc primum in coelum ab Angelis corporaliter oportere deferri. Sed nemo Catholicorum ita sentit, aut loquitur. Solum enim, ut paulo ante explicuimus, do¬ cemus oblationem corporis Christi ab Ange¬ lis in coelum deferri, quatenus Angeli sua prece nostrum obsequium Deo commendant : quod idem Kemnitius de precibus, et elee¬ mosynis dicere cogitur, quas ab Angelis in coelum deferri ex Tobia, Joanne, et Irena?o paulo ante docebat. Neque enim dicturus est eleemosynas reipsa, et corporaliter in coelum deferri : quid enim pauperibus eleemosyna) prodessent, si reipsa deferrentur in coelum? aut quomodo deferri possunt in coelum, si a pauperibus consumuntur ? Non igitur est absurdum, vel, ut ipse loquitur, horrendum, sacrificium Eucharistiae in cadum ab Angelis deferri, si id spiritualiter, ut par est, intelli- gatur. Quod attinet ad alteram partem objectio¬ nis, falsum est haec verba fuisse olim posita in Canone ante consecrationem. Nam, et Ani. brosius ea legit post consecrationem, lib. iv. de Sacramentis, cap. 0. et ita etiam habent Liturgia? Jacobi, Clementis lib. vili, constitu¬ tionum, Basilii, et Chrysostomi, ut plane mi¬ randa sit audacia istorum novatorum, qui ob levissimas ratiunculas de iis rebus judicant, rpias omnino ignorant. Locus enim Tobia?, et Apocalypsis nihil faciunt adversus senten¬ tiam nostram, sed eam potius explicant, et confirmant. Locus Irena?i depravate adduci¬ tur : non enim de eleemosyna, sed de Eucha¬ ristia loquitur Irena?us, ut supra osten¬ dimus lib. i. de sacrificio, cap. 8. et etiamsi de eleemosyna Irena?us loqueretur : quid inde Kemnitius lucraretur ? Num quia Ire- na?us de eleemosyna alicubi scribit, eam in coeleste altare deferri solitam, ideo oratio ista Canonis de eleemosyna intelligenda erit, cum eam orationem Ireneeus ne nominet qui¬ dem? Quod autem adducitur est Augustino, ut supra dixi, non est Augustini testimonium, sed rapsodia quaedam fragmentorum ex Am¬ brosio, Paschasio, et aliis : in qua rapsodia non servatur ordo Liturgia?. Nam primo ille auctor meminit consecrationis, qua panis ver¬ titur in carnem, et vinum transit in sangui¬ nem : deinde allegat illa verba : « Jube ha?c perferri etc. » tum subjungit illa : « Hanc oblationem benedictam, ratam etc. » Sicut igitur contendit Kemnitius, illud : « Jube haec perferri » , fuisse olim ante consecratio¬ nem, quia ista verba ponuntur ab auctoro illius Canonis ante illa : « Hanc oblationem benedictam, ratam etc. » ita nos contra de¬ monstramus fuisse post consecrationem, quia ponuntur post ipsam consecrationem ab eo¬ dem auctore : sed veritas est, non servari ab illo auctore ordinem Liturgia?. Sed illud hoc loco minime praetereundum est, esse in isto testimonio duo quaedam con¬ tra Kemnitium. Primo exponitur in hoc testi¬ monio illud: « Jube ha?c perferri», de pane consecrato, ut nos existimamus, aut certe de consecrando, ut vult Kemnitius : ergo non de eleemosyna intelligi debet, ut idem Kem¬ nitius intendit; proinde contra se hoc testi¬ monium Kemnitius attulit. Secundo in hoc testimonio aperte legimus, virtute Spiritus sancti ex pane fieri carnem, et vinum trans¬ ire in sanguinem, quod est contra omnes Lu- theranos, qui negant transubstantiationem.