#1 - Justin Martyr
The first, and perhaps also the most common, testimony cited by the Romanists out of the fathers for their view on this text from Malachi 1:11, is that of Justin Martyr:
“And the offering of fine flour, sirs, which was prescribed to be presented on behalf of those purified from leprosy, was a type of the bread of the Eucharist, the celebration of which our Lord Jesus Christ prescribed, in remembrance of the suffering which He endured on behalf of those who are purified in soul from all iniquity, in order that we may at the same time thank God for having created the world, with all things therein, for the sake of man, and for delivering us from the evil in which we were, and for utterly overthrowing principalities and powers by Him who suffered according to His will. Hence God speaks by the mouth of Malachi, one of the twelve [prophets], as I said before, about the sacrifices at that time presented by you: 'I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord; and I will not accept your sacrifices at your hands: for, from the rising of the sun unto the going down of the same, My name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to My name, and a pure offering: for My name is great among the Gentiles, says the Lord: but you profane it.' Malachi 1:10-12 [So] He then speaks of those Gentiles, namely us, who in every place offer sacrifices to Him, i.e., the bread of the Eucharist, and also the cup of the Eucharist, affirming both that we glorify His name, and that you profane [it]. ” (Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 41)
We reply, with Chemnitz, that when Justin speaks of the Eucharist as “a sacrifice” in this text, it is in reference to a sacrifice of thanksgiving and remembrance. But Bellarmine objects to all of this, so let us hear his words:
“For by these words, Justin explains the final cause of the sacrifice foretold by Malachi, not the sacrifice itself. For he says the sacrifice is the oblation of the Eucharist confected from bread and wine, moreover, he says the cause of the sacrifice is the memory of the Lord’s passion, and thanksgiving. And rightly, if one were allowed to use sophistry in this manner, we could prove that there were never any sacrifices, properly speaking not even among the Jews, for all were done in representation of the passion of the Lord, and thanksgiving, or for some similar reason.” (Bellarmine)
I answer, Justin in this text says that “we may at the same thank God for having created the world….” indicating that the offering of the Eucharist was something done not just by the priests, but by the whole people (contrary to Bellarmine’s erroneous point he made in his fifth argument, which I responded to above).
Not only that, but this text goes against transubstantiation, in that Justin speaks of the elements as bread and wine after their consecration.
#2 - Irenaeus
The next testimony Bellarmine produces against us is from Irenaeus, who says “He took that created thing, bread, and gave thanks, and said, ‘This is my body.’ And the cup likewise, which is part of that creation to which we belong, he confessed to be his blood, and taught the new oblation of the new covenant; which the Church, receiving from the apostles, offers to God throughout all the world, to Him who gives us as the means of subsistence the first fruits of his own gifts in the New Testament, concerning which Malachi, among the twelve prophets, foretold: ‘I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord of hosts, etc” (Against Heresies, Book 4, Chapter 17).
I answer that if we pay very close attention to Irenaeus’ language, he does not actually say that the body and blood of Christ are offered up by us as a sacrifice. In the sentence “...which the Church, receiving from the apostles, offers to God throughout all the world…”, the question is what does the pronoun “which” refer to? It refers to the previous sentence “the new oblation of the new covenant”. But in this specific sentence, Irenaeus does not tell us what that new oblation is. He does tell us what it is later however.
Later on in this same chapter, Irenaeus says two things which militate against Bellarmine’s argument:
“Since, therefore, the name of the Son belongs to the Father, and since in the omnipotent God the Church makes offerings through Jesus Christ, He says well on both these grounds, And in every place incense is offered to My name, and a pure sacrifice. Now John, in the Apocalypse, declares that the incense is the prayers of the saints.” (Against Heresies, 4.17.6)
[1]. Irenaeus says we offer sacrifices “through Jesus Christ”, not that Christ Himself is the sacrifice we repeatedly offer (in an unbloody manner, according to the Council of Trent). This seems to teach against Bellarmine’s view, because it makes no sense how one could offer the one through whom they are offering a sacrifice in the first place.
[2]. In the last two sentences, Irenaeus says clearly that the oblation is the prayers of saints.
#3 - Tertullian
Bellarmine in response to the passage from Tertullian’s treatise Against Marcion (book 3, chapter 22): “In every place sacrifice shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering. Such as the ascription of glory, and the blessing, and praise and hymns. Now, inasmuch as these things are also found among you, and the sign upon the forehead, and the sacraments of the Church, and the offerings of the pure sacrifice, etc.”, that the things mentioned such as prayers, “ascription of glory”, blessing, and hymns, etc. are merely a description of the entire rite of the Roman mass. We answer quite simply, that if Tertullian had believed this and interpreted Malachi this way, he would have said so right here in this text. But, alas, he says no such thing, to the disappointment of Bellarmine and the papists.
Note also that in book 4 of Against Marcion, Tertullian says this: “Forasmuch then as he said, that from the Creator there would come other laws, and other words, and new dispensations of covenants, indicating also that the very sacrifices were to receive higher offices, and that among all nations, by Malachi when he says: I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord, neither will I accept your sacrifices at your hands. For from the rising of the sun, even unto the going down of the same, my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place a sacrifice is offered unto my name, even a pure offering Malachi 1:10-11 — meaning simple prayer from a pure conscience”
Bellarmine objects to this by saying that when Tertullian speaks of “prayer from a pure conscience” this is in reference to the “incense” that Malachi speaks of, not of the “pure offering”. But the very wording both of the verse in Malachi and that of Tertullian goes against him in this; for the closest possible antecedent in the text of Malachi here is “pure offering”, not “incense”, thus it more likely, by reason of the syntax, that Terullian is interpreting the “pure offering” in the sense of prayer from a pure conscience.
#4 - Cyprian
“Cyprian (Contra Judaeos, 1, 16), places in the title of the chapter, Let the old sacrifice be purged, and the new celebrated. And then he cites this passage of Malachi. Moreover, there is no new sacrifice except for the sacrifice of the Eucharist; for those spiritual sacrifices, which the heretics call to mind, were always present” (Bellarmine)
I answer that, Bellarmine is sneaky in that he does not give the actual words of Cyprian in that section (since he knows that they are against him), which say:
“In Isaiah: For what purpose to me is the multitude of your sacrifices? Says the Lord: I am full; I will not have the burnt sacrifices of rams, and fat of lambs, and blood of bulls and goats. For who has required these things from your hands? Isaiah 1:11-12 Also in the forty-ninth Psalm: I will not eat the flesh of bulls, nor drink the blood of goats. Offer to God the sacrifice of praise, and pay your vows to the Most High. Call upon me on the day of trouble, and I will deliver you: and you shall glorify me. In the same Psalm, moreover: The sacrifice of praise shall glorify me: therein is the way in which I will show him the salvation of God. In the fourth Psalm too: Sacrifice the sacrifice of righteousness, and hope in the Lord. Likewise in Malachi: I have no pleasure concerning you, says the Lord, and I will not have an accepted offering from your hands. Because from the rising of the sun, even unto the going down of the same, my name is glorified among the Gentiles; and in every place odours of incense are offered to my name, and a pure sacrifice, because great is my name among the nations, says the Lord.”
He clearly he says that the sacrifice of the Christians is not a carnal (i.e. physical) sacrifice, but rather a spiritual one, since he appeals to passages from the Psalms which speak of the “sacrifice of praise” and “the sacrifice of righteousness, and hope in the Lord”.
#5 - Eusebius of Caesarea
The Romanists bring forth against this passage from Eusebius, the great church historian of antiquity: “We sacrifice to God on high the sacrifice of praise; we sacrifice the full and most holy sacrifice to God, bearing the odor of sweetness; we sacrifice in a new fashion, according to the New Testament, a clean host.” (Demonstration of the Gospel, Book 1, Chapter 6)
We respond with the words of Eusebius in this section: “By ‘the incense and offering to be offered to God in every place’, what else can he mean, but that no longer in Jerusalem nor exclusively in that (sacred) place, but in every land and among all nations they will offer to the Supreme God the, incense of prayer and the sacrifice called "pure," because it is not a sacrifice of blood but of good works?’
Bellarmine answers this by asserting that by “pious actions”, Eusebius means the ‘mystical consecrations’ through which the Eucharist is offered. But Eusebius says nothing of the kind; he says that “pious actions” are the sacrifice that is being offered, not the means through which the Eucharist is offered.
#6 - John Chrysostom
“Look at how profitably and clearly he has interpreted the mystical table, which is the unbloody host. Moreover, he calls the pure Thymiama (incense) sacred prayers, which are offered after the host.” (On Psalm 95)
I reply with what Matthew Sutcllife, in his tome De Missa Papistica (which refutes many of Bellarmine’s arguments) says namely that Chrysostom speaks in the same passage of multiple types of “sacrifices” being spoken of Malachi 1:11.
#7 - Jerome
“Jerome, in his commentary on Malachi, although he understands incense as prayer (a citation which Chemnitz doubles down on but in vain), nevertheless, he understands the oblation of the Eucharist through sacrifice, for he says a clean host is offered to God in the ceremonies of Christians. ” (Bellarmine)
This passage from Jerome is ambiguous and could mean a number of things. As shown above, “pure offering” does not refer to the Eucharist but things like good works (which is the interpretation of Eusebius), prayers, praise, and thanksgiving, etc., all of which are included in the “ceremonies of Christians”/
#8 - Augustine
The adversaries cite two passages against us from the works of holy Augustine. The first is from his book Contra advers. Legis et Prophet (1.20), which reads “The Church through the successions of the Apostles immolates the sacrifice of praise in the Body of Christ.”
The refutation is in the quote itself. Augustine clearly teaches that it is a “sacrifice of praise”. As for when Augustine speaks of “the church through the successions of the Apostles…” (words which Bellarmine makes much of, but in vain) this is not against in any way, for those who succeed the apostles offer sacrifices of praise just as they did.
The second passage Bellarmine cites is from Augustine’s work City of God, from book 18, chapter 36, which says “This sacrifice is offered to God in every place, from the rising of the sun to its setting, through Christ’s priesthood after the order of Melchisedech, while the Jews, to whom it was said, ‘I have no pleasure in you, neither will I accept a gift at your hand,’ cannot deny that their sacrifice has ceased. Why do they still look for another Christ, when they read this in the prophecy, and see it fulfilled, which could not be fulfilled except through Him?”
[1]. Augustine in this specific passage does not tell us what the sacrifice is, and so it is vain for the Romanists to put forward this passage against us.
[2]. In book 19, chapter 23 of the same book (City of God), Augustine says that the people of God are the sacrifice: “For we ourselves, who are His own city, are His most noble and worthy sacrifice, and it is this mystery we celebrate in our sacrifices, which are well known to the faithful, as we have explained in the preceding books.”
#9 - Theodoret
“Theodoret, in his commentary on Malachi, says with clear words that according to the prophecy of Malachi, no the immaculate lamb is immolated in place of irrational victims, which took place in the law of the Jews.” (Bellarmine)
“Theodoretus in Malach. 1. He does not say that another lamb is now to be sacrificed in the place of sacrifices, just like that of Bellar. We remember, although we do not sacrifice our men, as the papists imagine. Therefore Theodoret does nothing against us among the prayers, and against his adversaries most of all. For in Malachi he understands the incense and sacrifice of God, and the spiritual worship;” (Matthew Sutcliffe, rough translation from the Latin)
Bellarmine cites two other testimonies from John of Damascus and Rupert of Bingen, both of whom are from the 8th century. I am willing to grant that they may have taught the Romanist view, since I think that around the mid-8th century is where many Roman Catholic dogmas began to take form and shape. I say, that John of Damascus said many true things, especially in his criticism of Islam (which at that time was spreading throughout the world by the Islamic conquerors), I do not hold him in super high regard due to his defense of iconography, which , as we will see later is not biblical and was not practiced by the church in the few centuries of its history.
