Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book I: On the Real Presence of Christ the Lord, from the Word of God
Chapter 2: The Teaching of the Catholic Church Is Explained
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. IV, De Sacramento Eucharistiae, Book I: On the Real Presence of Christ the Lord in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, from the Word of God. 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 it must be explained what the Catholic Church of Christ holds and has held concerning this matter. The sum of the Catholic teaching is expressed in these words in the Council of Trent, session 13, chapter 1: “First of all, the holy Synod teaches, and openly and simply professes, that in the nourishing Sacrament of the holy Eucharist, after the consecration of the bread and wine, our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and man, is truly, really, and substantially contained under the species of those sensible things.”
Each single word of this decree contains something whereby the opinions of the heretics are condemned. First, the Council teaches that, after the confecting of this Sacrament, the body of Christ is present; which is against the Lutheran ubiquitarians, who will have the body of the Lord present even before consecration; and it is also against the Calvinists, who say that the Eucharist is a sign of a conjunction with Christ already made before through faith.
Secondly, the Council says that the confecting of the Sacrament is the consecration of the bread and wine, by whose power the body of Christ is exhibited to us. Which is against the same ubiquitarians, who contend that this comes about not by the power of consecration, but by the power of the omnipresence of the body of Christ; and it is also against the Calvinists, who will have the Sacrament effected not from the consecration, but from the promise of the Gospel explained in the sermon.
Thirdly, the Council teaches that the whole Christ is in this Sacrament; which is explained more clearly in the first canon of the same session, where we have it that in the Sacrament are the body and blood of Christ, together with the soul and divinity. By which words it is indicated that, by the power of the Sacrament, only the body is present under the species of bread, and the blood under the species of wine (for that alone is expressed in the form of the words); and that by natural concomitance the whole Christ is under either species. For these things are so conjoined in Christ that they cannot be separated without His dissolution; and He can now, after the resurrection, in no way be dissolved. This, moreover, is against Luther, who calls this concomitance into doubt, in his book to the Waldenses, on the Eucharist.
Fourthly, the Council says that Christ is truly in the Sacrament. Which is asserted against all the Sacramentarians, who will have Christ present as in a sign and figure. For figure is opposed to truth, as is gathered from the first canon of the same session, where, after the Council had said that Christ is truly in the Eucharist, it explains this by a negative particle: “But not only in a sign or figure.”
Fifthly, it says Really, which is opposed to the Calvinistic fiction, which (as we showed above) will have Him present as He is apprehended by faith. This too Zwingli teaches in express words, in the Confession to Charles, which Beza cites in the book On the Supper of the Lord against Westphal, chapter 9; for Zwingli says that he believes the true body of Christ to be present in the supper of the Lord, so far indeed that it is as it were present to the contemplation of faith, which is bodily in the heavens. And so the Sacramentarians often say that the real body of Christ is present in the supper, but that it is really present they never say, so far as I have read; unless perhaps they speak of the supper which is celebrated in heaven, as I shall shortly say. And from this follow two other differences between us and the Sacramentarians: that they deny that Christ is to be adored in the Eucharist, or that He can be received by those who do not believe; both of which we concede.
Sixthly, the Council adds: Substantially—both against the Calvinists, who say that the body of Christ, as to substance, is only in heaven, but that I know not what power or vigor flows thence to us (whence the same Council, canon 1, opposes that word substantially to power); and also to explain the manner of Christ’s existence in the Sacrament. For, as the same Council says a little below, the body of Christ has in heaven a natural manner of existing, but in the Sacrament a manner not natural, but sacramental. Now a sacramental manner of existing, and yet at the same time a true and real one, could not be better explained than by that adverb substantially. For it signifies that the whole Christ exists in the Sacrament after the manner of substance, not of quantity; and this for the reason that the substance of bread is converted into the substance of the body of Christ, while the rest accompany the substance, and therefore ought to have the manner of existing of substance. Now substance, in itself, has neither order to place, nor to surrounding bodies. Wherefore in Christ (as He is in the Sacrament) there is indeed the due magnitude besides the substance; but by it He does not occupy a place, nor is He extended to the extension of magnitude, but is after the manner of substance. In like manner there is in Christ His figure, His color, and yet He is invisible as He is contained in the Sacrament, since figure and color, as they are in the Sacrament, have not the manner of quality, but of substance. Finally, Christ also has, as He is in the Sacrament, certain qualities by which He could be touched; and yet of Himself and properly He cannot be touched, because those qualities have (as we have often said) the manner of existing of substance, not of quality. See Saint Thomas, Book 4 Against the Gentiles, chapter 64, and part 3, question 76, article 5.
Seventhly, the Council says that the body of the Lord is contained under those sensible species; by which words the manner of Christ’s existence in the Eucharist is explained yet more clearly. For Christ is not in the Eucharist as in a place, or as in a vessel, or as under some veil; but is after that manner in which the substance of bread was under its accidents, with this exception, that those accidents inhered in the substance of the bread, but do not inhere in the substance of Christ. Whence, by the nature of the thing, once the consecration is accomplished, the body of the Lord perseveres in the Eucharist as long as the substance of bread would naturally have remained under those same accidents; and this is what it is for the body of Christ to be contained under the species of bread.
From this teaching is refuted a certain fraudulent confession of Beza. For (as Claude de Sainctes reports in his Reply to the Apology of Beza) in the year 1556 Theodore Beza, in order to draw the Lutherans by guile into Calvinism, wrote a confession in which he asserted that the true and natural body of Christ is truly and really present in the supper, and is truly and really exhibited to the communicants; and he asserted that the Churches of the Swiss and of Geneva consented to that confession. But when from this the Lutherans began to triumph over the Sacramentarians, and the Zurichers began to inveigh gravely against Beza, he answered that he had written the truth, but not well understood by the Lutherans; for he had not spoken of the supper of the Lord which is celebrated on earth, but of that which is celebrated in the heavens, where Christ is truly and really present. But the Council of Trent forestalls such frauds, since it does not say that the body of the Lord is present in the supper, but that it is truly and really contained under the species of bread and wine. And so much for the exposition of the decree. From which exposition can be deduced several rules concerning the manner of speaking in this matter.
First rule.—Substantive nouns which are said of Christ, or of His body, outside the Sacrament, are said also of Him as He is in the Sacrament. The reason is that substantive nouns signify the nature of a thing, abstracting from the manner; and the nature and essence of all the things which are in Christ is truly in the Sacrament. And so we say most truly that in the Sacrament there is a body, flesh, blood, and so forth, and that that flesh is a body, not a spirit.
Second rule.—Adjective nouns which state an order to surrounding bodies are not said of the body of Christ as it is in the Eucharist, although they are said of it as it is in heaven; but others are said. The reason is that the body of Christ, on account of its peculiar manner of existing in the Eucharist, states no order to surrounding bodies, as we have said. And so we shall indeed say that the body of Christ, as it is in the Eucharist, is true, real, natural, animate, quantified, colored, and so forth, and we shall say that that flesh is corporeal, not spiritual—unless the word ‘spiritual’ be taken as in 1 Corinthians 15: It is sown a natural body, it shall rise a spiritual body, that is, obedient to the spirit in all things. But we shall not say that the body of Christ in the Eucharist is sensible, visible, tangible, extended, although it is such in heaven; because those words state an order to surrounding bodies, which the body of Christ in the Eucharist has not. Whence Augustine, as cited by Gratian, On Consecration, distinction 2, canon Nos autem, calls the flesh of Christ in the Sacrament invisible: “We,” he says, “in the species of bread and wine, which we see, honor invisible things, flesh and blood.”
Third rule.—Adverbs which state a corporeal manner of existing are not said of Christ in the Eucharist, although they are said of Him as He resides in heaven; but nothing forbids others to be said. The reason is that (as we have often said) Christ has not in the Eucharist the manner of existing of bodies, but rather of spirits, since He is whole in every part. And so we shall say that Christ is in the Eucharist truly, really, substantially, as the Council rightly speaks, but we shall not say corporeally. On the contrary, it could be said that He is present spiritually, as Bernard says in his sermon on Saint Martin, where he affirms that in the Sacrament the true substance of the flesh is exhibited to us, but spiritually, not carnally; nevertheless this word does not seem to be much to be frequented, because there would be danger lest it be wrested by the adversaries not so much to signify the manner as the nature itself; on account of which same danger it does not seem that the phrase ‘He is not present corporeally’ should be much used, unless an explanation be immediately added.
Fourth rule.—Verbs which signify the presence of the body of the Lord in the Eucharist, abstracting from the manner of existing with an order to other things, can be affirmed simply; the rest not so. Wherefore we shall rightly say: The body of the Lord is, is contained, remains, is found, is received, is perceived in the Eucharist; but we should not rightly say: The body of Christ in the Eucharist is extended, occupies a place, and so forth.
Fifth rule.—Although the body of Christ in the Eucharist is not of itself seen, nor touched, nor moved, nevertheless by reason of the species or accidents to which it is conjoined, it can be said to be seen, touched, moved, and so forth. This is clear, because those species are truly seen, touched, moved; and what belongs to them is also usually attributed to that which is conjoined with them. For in this manner the angels, who are spirits, were said to be seen and touched with bodily eyes, when the bodies assumed by them were seen or touched. Genesis 19, and throughout the book of Tobias, the Scripture everywhere calls them angels, whom it says were seen, heard, touched. Nay, in John 1, John says that he saw the Holy Spirit, when he saw the dove. Hence also the Fathers speak in the same manner of the body of the Lord in the Sacrament. Chrysostom, homily 83 on Matthew: “Him (Christ) thou seest, Him thou touchest, Him thou eatest”; and in homily 24 on the first to the Corinthians he says: The royal body is set before us to be beheld and touched; and Cyril, Book 12 on John, chapter 8: “He offers,” he says, “His flesh to us to be touched.” And Augustine, sermon 2 On the Words of the Apostle: “What is visibly received in the Sacrament is in very truth spiritually eaten.” Finally, in the Roman Council under Nicholas II, Berengarius was compelled to confess that the body of Christ is sensibly touched and broken by the hands of the priests.
But here arises a doubt of certain men: whether the things which are said of Christ by reason of the species are said of Him truly and properly, or by some trope. And indeed some will have them said truly and properly in that manner in which those same things would be said truly and properly of the bread, if it were present; for the bread is truly and properly said to be seen, touched, broken, by reason of its accidents. The reason of these men is that they think the union of Christ with the accidents of bread to be either hypostatic or very like it; and that therefore a communication of idioms comes about between Christ and those accidents. And so, just as God is truly said in Christ to be seen and touched, nay even to suffer and die, by reason of the assumed human nature, so these will have Christ in the Eucharist truly and properly seen and touched by reason of the accidents of bread. But the common opinion of the theologians teaches the contrary.
Therefore let there be a sixth rule, from Peter de Soto, lecture 6 On the Sacrament of the Eucharist.—Verbs which signify local motion are said truly and properly of the body of Christ existing in the Eucharist, by reason of the species, though by accident, not of itself; but the rest, which signify other changes or actions, are said indeed of the body of Christ by reason of the species, but improperly and figuratively.
The first part of this rule is most certain, because the real presence of the body of Christ necessarily requires this, that when the species are moved the body of Christ is truly moved, though by accident; in the manner in which our soul truly changes place when the body changes place. And so we shall say truly and properly that the body of Christ in the Eucharist is lifted up, set down, carried, placed on the altar or in the pyx, transferred from the hand to the mouth, and from the mouth to the stomach.
The other part is proved, because if the things which belong to the species, except local motion, had to belong properly to the body of Christ, it would be necessary either that those changes be received immediately in the body of Christ, which all deny; or by the mediation of the species, and this either because the species inhere in the body of Christ, which also all deny; or by reason of a communication of idioms on account of a hypostatic union or a like one; and this too has no place. For, to omit the things which we shall say below in their place against the opinion or error concerning a hypostatic union, if this were the cause, four absurdities would follow. First, that Christ in the Eucharist would also have to be called white and round by reason of the species; which nevertheless all confess to be absurd. For why should actions and passions rather than the qualities themselves be said of Christ, if there is a communication of idioms? Certainly in the mystery of the Incarnation God is said not only to have walked, eaten, and so forth, but also to have been corporeal, humble, sorrowful, and so forth. Secondly, that just as they say Christ is truly and properly seen and touched, so they could say that He is warmed or cooled, nay even that He becomes moldy or sour, when these things happen in the species before their corruption; just as God is said to suffer, be wounded, and die in the flesh. But those things no one would plainly concede. Thirdly, that it would be necessary also to attribute to the species the attributes of Christ; for the communication of idioms is mutual. But it was never heard that anything of this kind was attributed to the accidents. Fourthly, that it would not be lawful to say that the flesh of Christ is seen or touched, but only Christ Himself; for the communication of idioms attributes to the supposit alone the attributes of both natures, but does not accommodate the attributes of one nature to the other; now flesh is a nature, not a supposit. And yet the Fathers cited above speak of the flesh itself. For Chrysostom, homily 47 on the first to the Corinthians, says that we fix our teeth in the flesh of Christ; and Cyril, in the place noted: “His flesh,” he says, “He offers to be touched.”
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT II. Explicatur sententia Catholicae Ecclesiae. Jam vero explicandum erit, quid de hac re sentiat ac senserit catholica Christi Ecclesia. Summa catholica} sententiae his verbis expri¬ mitur in Concilio Tridentino sess. xiii, cap. i. « Principio docet sancta Synodus, et aperte ac simpliciter profitetur in almo Sancta} Eu¬ charistia} Sacramento, post panis et vini consecrationem Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum verum Deum, atque hominem, vere, realiter, ac substantialiter sub specie illarum rerum sensibilium contineri. » Singula verba hujus decreti aliquid con¬ tinent, quo damnentur haereticorum senten¬ tia}. Primo, Concilium docet, post Sacra¬ menti hujus confectionem adesse corpus Christi, quod est contra Lutheranos ubiquis- tas, qui etiam, ante consecrationem adesse volunt corpus Domini : est etiam contra Cal- vinistas, qui dicunt Eucharistiam esse sig¬ num conjunctionis cum Christo jam antea facta; per fidem. Secundo, Concilium dicit, Sacramenti confectionem esse consecrationem panis et vini, cujus vi, exhibetur nobis corpus Christi. Id quod est contra eosdem ubiquistas, qui non vi consecrationis, sed vi omnipraesentise corporis Christi, id fieri contendunt : est etiam contra Calvinistas, qui non ex conse¬ cratione, sed ex promissione Evangelii in concione explicata volunt effici sacramentum. Tertio, Concilium docet, totum Christum esse in hoc sacramento : id quod explicatur clarius in i. canone ejusdem sess. ubi habe¬ mus, in Sacramento esse corpus, et sangui¬ nem Christi, una cum anima, et divinitate. Quibus verbis indicatur, ex vi sacramenti tantum adesse corpus sub specie panis, et sanguinem sub specie vini ; id enim solum exprimitur in forma verborum : ac per natu¬ ralem concomitantium sub utraque specie esse totum Christum. Ita enim ista conjuncta sunt in Christo, ut separari nequeant sine ejus dissolutione : ipse autem dissolvi, jam post resurrectionem, nullo modo potest. Porro est hoc adversus Lutherum, qui in dubium revocat istam concomitantiam, in lib. ad Waldenses, de Eucharistia. Quarto, Concilium dicit, Christum in Sa¬ cramento esse vere. Id quod asseritur contra omnes Sacramentarios, qui volunt Christum adesse, ut in signo, et figura. Figura enim veritati opponitur, ut colligitur ex primo canone ejusdem sessionis, ubi posteaquam Concilium dixerat, Christum esse vere in Eucharistia, explicat per negantem particu¬ lam : « Non autem solum in signo, aut figura. » Quinto : dicit Realiter , quod opponitur fig¬ mento Calvinistico, qui (ut supra ostendi¬ mus) vult adesse , ut fide apprehenditur. Quod etiam disertis verbis Zwinglius docet, in Confess. ad Carolum , quam citat Beza in lib. de Ccena Domini contra Westpbalum cap. ix; ait enim Zwinglius, se credere in ccena Domini verum Christi corpus adesse, hactenus quidem, ut fidei contemplationi sit veluti praesens, quod corporaliter est in coe- lis. Itaque Sacramentarii saepe dicunt, reale corpus Christi in coena adesse, sed realiter adesse nunquam dicunt, quod legerim; nisi forte loquantur de coena, quae fit in coelo, ut mox dicam. Atque hinc sequuntur duae aliae differentiae inter nos, et Sacramenta- rios : quod illi negant Christum in Eucha¬ ristia adorandum; aut sumi posse ab illis, qui non credunt, nos utrumque concedimus. Sexto, Concilium addit : Substantialiter, tum contra Calvinistas, qui dicunt, corpus Christi, quoad substantiam, esse tantum in coelo; sed nescio, quam virtutem, seu vigo¬ rem inde ad nos manare ; unde idem Con¬ cilium can. i. opponit illud, substantialiter , virtuti; tum etiam, ut explicaret modum existendi Christi in sacramento. Nam, ut paulo infra idem Concilium dicit, Christi corpus in coelo habet modum existendi na¬ turalem, in sacramento autem non natu¬ ralem , sed sacramentalem. Porro modus existendi sacramentalis , et tamen simul verus, et realis, non poterat melius explicari, quam illo adverbio, substantialiter. Id enim significat, totum Christum in Sacramento existere ad modum substantiae, non quanti¬ tatis, idque ea ratione, quia substantia panis convertitur in substantiam corporis Christi ; c cetera autem substantiam concomitantur, et ideo modum existendi substantia; habere de¬ bent. Porro substantia secundum se, neque ordinem habet ad locum, neque ad corpora 8 LIBER T. circumstantia. Quare in Christo (ut est in Sacramento) est quidem debita magnitudo praeter- substantiam : sed per eam non occu¬ pat locum, neque extenditur ad extensionem magnitudinis, sed est per modum substantiae. Pari ratione est in Christo sua figura, suus color, et tamen invisibilis est, ut Sacramento continetur, quoniam figura, et color non ha¬ bent modum qualitatis, sed substantiae, ut in Sacramento sunt. Denique habet etiam Christus, ut est in Sacramento, certas quali¬ tates, quibus tangi posset; et tamen per se ac proprie tangi nequit, quia eae qualitates habent (ut saepe diximus) modum existendi substantiae, non qualitatis. Yide S. Thom. lib. iy. contra Gentiles cap. 64. et 3. par. quaest. lxxyi. art. 5. Septimo, Concilium dicit, corpus Domini sub illis speciebus sensibilibus contineri; qui¬ bus verbis explicatur adhuc clarius modus existendi Christi in Eucharistia . Christus enim non est in Eucharistia ut in loco, vel ut in vase, aut quasi sub aliquo velo ; sed est ad eum modum, quo erat substantia pa¬ nis sub suis accidentibus, eo excepto, 'quod accidentia illa inhaerebant panis substantiae, Christi autem substantiae non inhaerent. Unde ex natura rei peracta consecratione tamdiu perseverat corpus Domini in Eucharistia, quamdiu naturaliter mansisset substantia panis sub illis eisdem accidentibus : atque hoc est Christi corpus sub speciebus panis contineri. Ex qua sententia refutatur fraudulenta quaedam confessio Bezae. Nam (ut refert Claudius a Nantes in Respons. ad Apologiam Rezx) anno 1356, Theodorus Beza,ut Luthe- ranos per dolum traheret ad Calvinismum, scripsit confessionem in qua asseruit, Christi corpus verum, et naturale, vere et realiter esse praesens in ccena, et communi¬ cantibus vere et realiter exhiberi; atque in eam confessionem consentire asseruit Eccle¬ sias Helvetiorum et Genevensium. Verum cum inde Lutherani de Sacramentariis trium¬ pharent, et Tigurini graviter in Bezam in¬ vehi coepissent, respondit ille, se vera scri¬ psisse, sed a Luthernnis non bene intellecta; neque enim se locutum de coena Domini, quae celebratur in terris, sed de illa, quae celebratur in coelis, ubi Christus vere, et rea¬ liter praesens est. Sed Concilium Tridenti- num praevenit ejusmodi fraudes, cum non ait in coena corpus Domini praesens esse, sed sub speciebus panis et vini vere, et realiter contineri. Atque haec de expositione decreti. Ex qua expositione deduci possunt aliquot regulae de modo loquendi in hac materia. Prima regula. — Nomina substantiva, qnae dicuntur de Christo, sive ejus corpore, extra Sacramentum dicuntur etiam de ipso, ut est in Sacramento. Ratio est, quia nomina substantiva significant naturam rei, abstra¬ hendo a modo : rei natura autem, et essentia omnium, quae sunt in Christo, vere est in Sacramento. Itaque verissime dicimus, in Sacramento esse corpus, carnem, sangui¬ nem etc. et carnem illam esse corpus, non spiritum. Secunda regula. — Nomina adjectiva, quae dicunt ordinem ad corpora circumstantia, non dicuntur de Christi corpore, ut est in Eucharistia, licet dicantur de eo, ut est in ccelo ; alia vero dicuntur. Ratio est, quia cor¬ pus Christi propter modum existendi in Eu¬ charistia peculiarem, non dicit ullum ordi¬ nem ad corpora circumstantia, ut diximus. Itaque dicemus quidem corpus Christi, ut est in Eucharistia, esse verum, reale, natu¬ rale, animatum, quantum, coloratum etc. et carnem illam dicemus esse corporalem, non spiritualem : nisi nomen spirituale sumatur, sicut I Cor. xv. Seminatur corpus animale , surget spirituale (1), id est,obediens spiritui in omnibus. At non dicemus corpus Christi in Eucharistia esse sensibile, visibile, tangibile, extensum, licet tale sit in ccelo : quia ista nomina dicunt ordinem ad corpora circum¬ stantia, quem non habet corpus Christi in Eucharistia. Unde Augustinus, ut citatur a Gratiano de Consecrat, dist. 2. can. Nos au¬ tem, invisibilem appellat Christi carnem in Sacramento : « Nos, inquit, in specie panis et vini, quam videmus, res invisibiles, car¬ nem et sanguinem honoramus, n Tertia regula. — Adverbia, quae dicunt modum existendi corporalem, non dicuntur de Christo in Eucharistia, licet dicantur de ipso, ut in ccelo residet : alia vero nihil pro¬ hibet dici. Ratio est, quia (ut saepe diximus) non habet Christus in Eucharistia modum existendi corporum, sed potius spirituum, cum sit totus in qualibet parte. Itaque dice- mus, Christum esse in Eucharistia vere, rea¬ liter, substantialiter, ut Concilium recte loquitur, sed non dicemus, corporaliter, (i) ] Cor. XV. 44. CAPUT II. 9 contra dici posset esse spiritualiter, ut Ber- nardus dicit in sermone de S. Martino, ubi affirmat in Sacramento exhiberi nobis veram carnis substantiam, sed spiritualiter, non carnaliter : tamen non videtur haec vox mul¬ lum frequentanda, quia periculum esset, ne traheretur ab adversariis, non tam ad mo¬ dum, quam ad ipsam naturam significan¬ dam ; propter quod item periculum non vide¬ tur valde usurpandum illud, non esse corpo¬ raliter, nisi addatur continuo explicatio. Quarta regula. — Verba quse significant praesentiam corporis Domini in Eucharistia, abstrahendo a modo existendi cum ordine ad alia, simpliciter affirmari possunt; reliqua non item. Quare recte dicemus : Corpus Do¬ mini est, continetur, manet, reperitur, sumi¬ tur, percipitur in Eucharistia; at non recte diceremus : Corpus Christi in Eucharistia extensum est, occupat locum etc. Quinta regula. — Quamvis corpus Christi in Eucharistia per se non videatur, nec tan¬ gatur, nec moveatur; tamen ratione specie- rum, sive accidentium, quibus conjunctum est, potest dici, videri, tangi, moveri, etc. Id patet, quia species illa) vere videntur, tanguntur, moventur ; et quod eis convenit, usitate etiam tribuitur ei, quod est cum illis conjunctum. Nam hoc modo angeli, qui sunt spiritus, dicebantur videri, et tangi corpo¬ reis oculis, quando videbantur, vel tange¬ bantur corpora ab illis assumpta. Genes, xix, et in toto lib. Tobiae Scriptura passim vocat angelos, quos dicit visos, auditos, tactos. Imo Joan. I . Spiritum sanctum dicit se Joan- ' nes vidisse, cum columbam vidit. Hinc etiam Patres eodem modo loquuntur de corpore Do¬ mini in Sacramento. Chrysostomus hom. 83. in Matth. « Ipsum (Christum) vides, ipsum tangis, ipsum comedis; » et homil. 2i. in priorem ad Corinthios dicit : Regium corpus nobis intuendum, et tangendum proponi, et Cyrilluslib. xn. in Joan. cap. vm. «Prsebet, inquit, nobis carnem suam tangendam. » Et Augustinus serm. 2. de Verbis Apostoli : <( Quod in Sacramento visibiliter sumitur, in ipsa veritate spiritualiter manducatur. » De¬ nique in Concilio romano, sub Nicolao II, compulsus est Berengarius confiteri Christi corpus sensualiter sacerdotum manibus tangi, et frangi. Sed existit hoc loco quorumdam dubitatio; num ea, quai dicuntur de Christo ratione specierum, dicantur de ipso vere, et proprie, an per aliquem tropum. Et quidem aliqui volunt, vere, et proprie dici eo modo, quo dicerentur illa eadem vere, et proprie de pane, si adesset : panis enim vere et proprie dicitur videri, tangi, frangi, ratione acciden¬ tium suorum. Ratio horum est, quia existi¬ mant unidnem Christi cum accidentibus pa¬ nis, vel esse hypostaticam, vel ei valde simi¬ lem; atque idcirco fieri communicationem idiomatum inter Christum, et accidentia illa. Itaque sicut vere dicitur Deus in Christo videri, et tangi, imo etiam pati, et mori, ra¬ tione naturas humanas assumptae : ita isti volunt, Christum in Eucharistia vere, et pre- prie videri, et tangi ratione accidentium panis. At sententia theologorum communis contrarium docet. Ideo sit regula sexta ex Petro de Soto lect. 6. de Sacramento Eucharistiae. — Verba quae significant motum localem, vere et proprie dicuntur de corpore Christi in Eu¬ charistia existente, ratione specierum; licet per accidens, non per se ; castera autem, quas significant alias mutationes, vel actiones, dicuntur quidem de corpore Christi ratione specierum, sed improprie, et figurate. Prima pars hujus regulae certissima est, quia realis praesentia corporis Christi, id necessario requirit, ut motis speciebus vere moveatur corpus Christi, quamvis per acci¬ dens : quomodo anima nostra vere mutat locum, cum corpus mutat locum. Itaque vere et proprie dicemus, Christi corpus in Eucha¬ ristia, attolli, deponi, deferri, collocari in al¬ tari, vel in pyxide, transferri a manu ad os, et ab ore ad stomachum. Altera pars probatur, quia si quse conve¬ niunt speciebus, excepto motu locali, debe¬ rent proprie convenire corpori Christi, opor¬ teret vel recipi eas mutationes immediate in corpore Christi, quod omnes negant; vel mediantibus speciebus, et hoc vel quia spe¬ cies inhsereant corpori Christi, et id etiam omnes negant; vel ratione communicationis idiomatum ob unionem hypostaticam, vel similem : et hoc etiam non habet locum. Nam, ut omittam ea, qua3 suo loco infra di¬ cemus contra opinionem, sive errorem de hypostatica unione, si ista esset causa, qua- tuor absurda sequerentur. Primum, quod Christus in Eucharistia deberet etiam dici albus, et rotundus ratione speci.erum : quod tamen omnes absurdum esse confitentur. Cur enim potius actiones, et passiones, quam ipsse qualitates de Christo dicantur, si est communicatio idiomatum? certe in mysterio 40 LIBER I. incarnationis, non solum dicitur Deus ambu¬ lasse, comedisse etc. sed etiam fuisse cor¬ poreus, humilis, tristis etc. Secundum, quod sicut dicunt Christum vere et proprie videri, et tangi; ita possent dicere eum calefieri, aut frigefieri, imo et mucidum aut acidum fieri, quando ista contingunt in speciebus, ante eorum corruptionem : quemadmodum Deus dictus est pati, vulnerari, et mori in carne. At illa nemo plane concederet. Ter¬ tium, quod oporteret etiam speciebus tri¬ buere Christi attributa; est enim mutua communicatio idiomatum. At nunquam est auditum, ut accidentibus aliquid ejusmodi tribueretur. Quartum, quod non liceret di¬ cere, carnem Christi videri aut tangi, sed solum ipsum Christum; communicatio enim idiomatum tribuit soli supposito attributa utriusque naturae, non autem attributa unius naturae accommodat alteri; caro autem na¬ tura est, non suppositum. Et tamen Patres supra citati de carne ipsa loquuntur. Chry- sostomus enim bomil. 47. in Priorem ad Co¬ rinthios dicit, nos carni Christi dentes infi¬ gere ; et Cyrillus loco notato : « Carnem suam, inquit, tangendam praebet. »