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 4: The Solution of the Adversaries to Our Argument Is Refuted
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).
To this argument Peter Martyr replies in his Defence concerning the Eucharist, part 3, page 692, and teaches two things. First, he lays a certain foundation, namely that in the old Sacraments there was an external symbol and the thing itself, just as in ours; and that although our symbols and theirs are diverse, nevertheless the thing is the same. And he proves it from the Apostle, 1 Corinthians 11 [10], who says that the Hebrews ate the same food with us; and that we may doubt nothing about the matter, he says in express words that this food was Christ.
But in this proof Martyr errs twice. First, because Paul nowhere says that the Hebrews ate the same food with us. For that particle (with us), which Martyr so often inculcates, and in which he places his whole defense, is not found in the Apostle; and we demonstrated above, in the disputation on the Sacraments in general, that the Apostle’s meaning is that the Hebrews ate the same food among themselves, not with us. Secondly, because Paul nowhere says that that food or drink of the Hebrews, or the thing of those Sacraments, was Christ; which nevertheless Martyr, with his wonted confidence, wrote that he says in express words. For the words of the Apostle are these: And they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them; and the rock was Christ. Where the Apostle does not say that Christ was the water which they drank, but the rock whence that water flowed; and not that material rock from which the water visibly and in a manner materially flowed, but the invisible rock which accompanied the Hebrews everywhere, that is, the divine providence and power of Christ, which was the efficient cause of that water and of all good things. But of this matter we have disputed enough in the place cited.
One scruple alone remains, because in Paul (as Martyr there noted) it is the same thing to eat and drink something, and to eat and drink of something. For in 1 Corinthians 11 he says: to drink the chalice, and to drink of the chalice; and likewise, to eat bread, and to eat of bread. But that is true when the matter is of a thing eatable or drinkable, as in the examples given. But because we are not rightly said to drink a rock, therefore when we read ‘to drink of the rock’, it cannot be expounded as though it were the same as to drink the rock, but (as we have said) as to drink the water flowing from the rock. Wherefore, however Martyr turn himself to every side, he will not bring it about that Paul says the Hebrews drank Christ.
Secondly, then, Peter Martyr, that rotten foundation being laid, adds: that our Sacraments, as regards the external symbols, excel the ancient Sacraments, because they are more firm and no longer to be changed, even to the end of the age; and because they show a thing done, not, like those, a thing to come; and because they are simpler, and pertain to a more numerous people; and because they are clearer, not on account of the external representation, but from the clarity of the words which are there uttered; whence it also follows that they excite a greater faith, and so bring forth a more abundant fruit. And by these prerogatives he thinks the argument of the Catholics is satisfied.
But it is by no means satisfied. For as regards the Sacraments as signs, those prerogatives are extrinsic—that ours are more durable, and that they signify a past thing, and that they pertain to more; for all that depends on the will of the one instituting, and therefore adds either no dignity, or almost none, to the signs as signs. For example, the immolation of a lamb could of itself be no less durable, and pertain to many, and signify a past thing, than the breaking of bread; wherefore it is by accident that the Hebrews used the immolation of a lamb to signify a thing to come, we the breaking of bread to signify a thing past, as is known. And the same can be said of the rest. Add that, when the Lord instituted the Eucharist, His own death, which is signified by that Sacrament, was to come, not past; therefore that Eucharist which the Lord Himself celebrated had nothing beyond the typical supper of the paschal lamb. To what purpose then did the Lord repeat the supper, and then give the Eucharist? The comparison must be made in the signification itself, if the proper and intrinsic dignity of the signs is sought; for those are better which better signify. That the old signs signified better, as regards the external representation, the adversary does not deny, and we in our argument made most plain.
It remains, then, only that ours seem to excel by reason of the words. But this helps the adversaries nothing; for they themselves will not have the words to be of the essence of the signs, as the Catholics say. For there are three kinds of words in the sacraments. First, there are the words of institution; and these are common to the old sacraments and the new, and are not properly of the essence, since they pertain to the efficient cause. Secondly, there are the words of promise; and these too are common, and are not of the essence: for by the adversaries the words and the sacraments are distinguished as a charter and a seal, or as a covenant and the sign of a covenant. Whence Calvin, Book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 14, section 1, says that the Sacraments are an appendage of the promises, and all the adversaries say that the sacraments are signs confirming the promises. Although, therefore, the words of promise are clearer in the New Testament than in the old, it does not follow that the sacraments are also clearer; for it can happen that a clearer charter is sealed with a coarser seal, and an obscurer charter with a clearer and better seal. And this the adversaries are compelled to admit in the matter of the sacraments, since they confess that the old signs were clearer as regards the external representation. Wherefore if a greater faith is excited in the reception of the new sacraments than of the old, as Martyr says, that is not from the power of the signs, but from the power of the words alone, which are distinguished from the signs essentially, as we have said. Thirdly, there are the consecratory words; and these are of the essence among the Catholics, and by reason of them our Sacraments are clearer signs; but this kind of words the adversaries hiss off the stage as an incantation and magic. Nothing therefore remains to them whereby to prove that our signs are clearer than the old.
But even though they could prove that too, still our argument from the comparison of the things among themselves, the signification set aside, remains unsolved; and this is the comparison which is made in the Scriptures and among the Fathers. For the Scriptures and the Fathers do not say that our Sacraments excel the old because they signify better, but because those were figures, and these the thing figured, and therefore the things themselves are to be considered. But if the things themselves be considered, who would doubt that the lamb is better than bread, and the manna, from heaven too, than bread from the oven? And this is the comparison which Christ makes, John 6, where He makes no mention of signification, but says that the manna was not truly bread from heaven, if it be compared with the bread of the Eucharist. By like reasoning the Fathers do not say that the Eucharist is more excellent than the manna because it signifies better, but because it contains the body of Christ, which is incomparably nobler than the manna; whence they never compare the manna with bread, as they ought to have done if it were a question of signification, but with the very body of the Lord. Many passages of the Fathers to this purpose were adduced by Gardiner in that book to which Martyr replies: as Origen, homily 7 on Numbers; Cyprian, sermon On the Supper of the Lord; Ambrose, On those who are initiated into the mysteries, chapter 9; Jerome on chapter 1 to Titus; Chrysostom, homily 83 on Matthew; Cyril, Book 4 on John, chapter 16; Hesychius, Book 6 on Leviticus, chapter 22.
Now the explanations which Martyr applies to those passages are so absurd that they rather confirm our argument. There are three of his solutions. The first is to the passage of Cyprian; for Cyprian speaks thus in his sermon On the Supper of the Lord: “The supper being arranged, amid the sacramental feasts the old and new institutions met one another, and, the lamb which the ancient tradition set forth being consumed, the Master sets before the disciples an inconsumable food.” In this passage Cyprian openly compares the paschal lamb, not with bread, which is no less consumed in the supper than the lamb, but with the body of Christ, which is so received in the supper that it always remains whole. Martyr answers that the lamb is called consumable because that ceremony had to cease; the bread of the Eucharist is called an inconsumable food because the Sacrament of the Eucharist will last to the end of the age. What, I ask, could be more wrested than this explanation? For Cyprian does not speak of the ceremony itself in general, which was then to be abrogated, but of that particular lamb which the Apostles had then eaten with the Lord: “The lamb,” he says, “being consumed, which the ancient tradition set forth.” As therefore that lamb was properly consumed by eating, so on the contrary, if the antithesis holds, the inconsumable food is not the ceremony of the new Sacrament in general, but is some particular thing which, while it is eaten, is not consumed; which certainly is not bread, but the body of Christ. Besides, even though the Sacrament of the Eucharist will last to the end of the world, yet it will at length cease; wherefore it cannot rightly be called an inconsumable food, except by reason of the thing contained, which is absolutely inconsumable; otherwise all bread, and any other food, could be called inconsumable, because it will last in its species to the end of the world.
He then applies another solution, which also suits the testimony of Ambrose, and says that the inconsumable food can be called the very body of the Lord; but because the ancients received in the lamb the same body, and in the same manner (that is, by faith), which we receive in the bread according to the adversaries, therefore Martyr says that Cyprian opposes that irrational lamb, not to the bread, as would have been fitting, but to the body of the Lord, because that lamb signified the body of the Lord more obscurely than our bread, and the thing was then to come, which is now done. For the ancients, on account of that obscurity, could by a certain trope be said not to have had the body of Christ.
But who would not pity this man placed in such straits? For it is both false, as we showed, that Christ was signified more obscurely by that lamb than by bread, since rather He was signified much more clearly by it; and it is false too, at least concerning that Eucharist which the Lord Himself distributed to the disciples, that it signified a past thing. It signified the death of Christ, which was to come, not past. And besides, who would tolerate that trope, by which the ancients are said not to have had Christ, and we are said to have Him, since we have the same Christ and in the same manner, that is, by faith alone? For, according to this manner of having, it matters little or nothing whether Christ was to come or had come, just as the memory of a past food refreshes no more than the expectation of a future one. Nor does it matter either whether we have Him through clearer or obscurer signs. And, to illustrate the matter by a similitude: If someone were to remit to a debtor a debt of a hundred gold pieces for the sake of a friend who is to give him a thousand gold pieces after a year, and were to make him a written deed of the gift, and seal it with a somewhat coarser seal; and then after two years were to remit to another a debt, likewise of a hundred gold pieces, for the sake of the same friend who gave him a thousand gold pieces a year before, and were to give this man too a written deed of the gift, and seal it with a most beautiful seal: I ask, could it be said, on account of the diversity of the seal and the time, that to the former debtor a sealed deed was given, but to the latter the debt was truly remitted? No man certainly of sound mind would speak so; and yet in this manner Martyr speaks.
The other passage was of Ambrose, who speaks of the manna as Cyprian of the paschal lamb; for he says thus, On those who are initiated into the mysteries, chapter 9: “Consider now which is more excellent, the bread of Angels or the flesh of Christ, which indeed is the body of life. That manna was from heaven, this above heaven; that of heaven, this of the Lord of the heavens; that liable to corruption if it were kept to the next day, this a stranger to all corruption.” To this passage Martyr does not respond, but refers us to the solution already given to the passage of Cyprian; and let us refer him to the refutation above.
To the other testimonies of Jerome, Origen, Chrysostom, Hesychius (for from Cyril he confesses that he dissents) he answers that they attribute to the Hebrews only the symbols, but to us the thing itself; because many of the Hebrews did not understand what the symbols signified, and therefore had nothing but the external symbols. But the solution does not satisfy, both because Jerome and the others compare the things themselves, not those having them; and because even Christians, who do not understand what the symbols signify, have nothing but the symbols according to the adversaries.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT IV. Refellitur solutio adversariorum ad argumen¬ tum nostrum. Ad hoc argumentum respondet Petrus martyr in sua defensione de Eucharistia part. 3. pagina 692. ac duo docet. Primo jacit fundamentum quoddam, videlicet in Sacra¬ mentis veteribus fuisse symbolum externum, et rem ipsam, sicut in nostris ; et licet sym¬ bola nostra, et illorum sint diversa, tamen rem esse eamdem. Et probat ex Apostolo 1. Corinth. xi. qui dicit, Hebraeos eamdem nobiscum escam manducasse ; et ne quid¬ quam de re dubitemus, eam ait disertis ver¬ bis fuisse Christum. At in hac probatione bis peccat Martyr. Primo, quickPaulus nusquam dicit Hebraios eamdem nobiscum escam manducasse. Illa enim particula ( nobiscum ) quam saipe incul¬ cat Martyr, et in qua totum praisidium ponit, non habetur in Apostolo, et nos supra in disputatione de Sacramentis in genere de¬ monstravimus, Apostoli sensum esse, quod Hebraii eamdem escam inter se comederint, non autem nobiscum. Secundo, quia Paulus nusquam dicit, escam, vel potum illum Hebraeorum, seu rem Sacramentorum illo¬ rum fuisse Christum, quod tamen disertis verbis eum dicere, Martyr solita confidentia scripsit. Verba enim Apostoli haec sunt : Bibebant autem de spirituali, consequente eos petra; petra autem erat Christus (4). Ubi Apo¬ stolus non dicit Christum fuisse aquam, quam (1) Joan. VI, 49. - (2) Psal. LXXVII, 20 ; Num. XXI, 5. — (3) Joan. VI. 32. — (4) I Cor. X. 4. CAPUT IV. 13 illi bibebant, sed petram, unde illa aqua flue¬ bat; et petram non illam materialem, ex qua visibiliter, et quodammodo materialiter aqua fluebat, sed petram invisibilem, qua) He¬ braeos ubique comitabatur, id est, divinam Christi providentiam, et virtutem, quae erat causa efficiens illius aqua), et omnium bono¬ rum. Sed de hac re satis multa loco citato disputavimus. Unicus restat scrupulus, quia apud Paulum (ut Martyr ibidem annotavit) idem est edere, et bibere aliquid, et de aliquo : Nam i. Co- rinth. xi. dicit : Bibere calicem, et, bibere (le calice; et similiter, edere panem , et de pane (1). At id verum est, cum agitur de re comestibili, vel potabili, ut in exemplis positis. Quia vero non recte dicimur bibere petram ; ideo cum legimus, bibere de petra, non potest exponi, quasi idem sit, quod bibere petram, sed ( ut nos diximus) quod bibere aquam ex petra manantem. Quare quantumlibet se vertat in omnem partem Martyr, non efficiet, ut Pau¬ lus dicat Hebra?os bibisse Christum. Secundo igitur Petrus Martyr jacto illo putrido fundamento , addit : Sacramenta nostra, quantum ad symbola externa, pra)- stare antiquis Sacramentis, quia sunt magi? firma, nec amplius mutanda, usque ad finem saiculi ; et quia ostendunt rem factam, non, ut illa, futuram ; et quia sunt simpliciora, et pertinent ad populum numerosiorem, et quia sunt clariora, non propter externam repra)- sentationem, sed ex claritate verborum, qua) ibi proferuntur ; unde etiam sequitur, quod majorem fidem excitant, et sic uberiorem fructum afferunt. Ac per istas pra)rogativas satisfieri putat argumento Catholicorum. Sed minime satisfit. Nam quod attinet ad Sacramenta, ut signa, extrinseca) sunt illa) pramogativa), quod nostra sint durabiliora, et quod significent rem prseteritam, et quod ad plurcs pertineant ; id enim totum pendet ex voluntate instituentis ; et idcirco, aut nullam, aut fere nullam dignitatem addunt signis, ut signa sunt. Exempli gratia, immo¬ latio agni ex se non minus durabilis esse posset, et ad multos pertinere, et rem pra)- teritam significare, quam fractio panis : quare per accidens est, quod Hebraei adhibe¬ rent immolationem agni ad rem futuram significandam, nos fractionem panis ad rem prseteritam, ut notum est. Et idem de coeteris dici potest. Adde, cum Dominus Eucharistiam instituit, mors ipsius, qua) eo sacramento significatur, futura erat, non praeterita : igitur Eucharistia illa, quam Dominus ipse celebravit, nihil habuit pne coena typica agni paschalis. Quorsum ergo Dominus iteravit camam, et Eucharistiam tunc didit? Com- facienda est in ipsa significatione, si pro¬ pria, et intrinseca dignitas signorum qua)- ritur : illa enim sunt meliora, quae melius significant. Signa vetera melius significare, quantum ad externam repraesentationem, adversarius non negat, et nos in nostro argu¬ mento planissimum fecimus. Solum ergo restat, quod nostra videantur excellere ratione verborum. Sed hoc adver¬ sarios nihil juvat : nam ipsi nolunt verba esse de essentia signorum, ut Catholici dicunt. Tria sunt enim genera verborum in sacra¬ mentis. Primo, sunt verba institutionis ; et haec communia sunt sacramentis veteribus, et novis, et non sunt proprie de essentia, cum ad causam efficientem pertineant. Se- cuudo, sunt verba promissionis ; et hacc etiam sunt communia, et non sunt de essentia: distinguuntur enim per adversarios verba, et sacramenta, sicut diploma, et sigillum ; vel sicut foedus, et signum fo)deris. Unde Calvinus lib. iv. Institut. , cap. 14. §. i. dicit Sacramenta esse appendicem promissio¬ num, et omnes adversarii dicunt sacra¬ menta esse signa confirmantia promissiones. Quamvis igitur verba promissionis sint cla¬ riora in novo Testamento, quam in veteri, non tamen sequitur ideo sacramenta etiam esse clariora : potest enim fieri, ut diploma clarius obsignetur sigillo obscuriore, et di¬ ploma obscurius sigillo clariore et meliore. Et hoc admittere coguntur adversarii in ma¬ teria sacramentorum, cum fateantur signa vetera fuisse clariora, quoad externam re¬ praesentationem. Quare si major fides exci¬ tetur in perceptione sacramentorum novo¬ rum, quam veterum, ut Martyr dicit, id non est ex vi signorum, sed ex vi verborum tantum, qua) distinguuntur a signis essen¬ tialiter, ut diximus. Tertio, sunt verba con- secratoria ; et illa sunt de essentia apud Catholicos, et ratione eorum sunt Sacra¬ menta nostra signa clariora : sed hoc genus verborum adversarii explodunt, tanquam incantationem, et magiam. Nihil ergo illis remanet, unde probent, signa nostra esse cla¬ riora veteribus. (1) I Cor. XI. ct 28. 14 LIBER 1. Sed licet etiam id probare possent, adhuc remanet insolutum argumentum nostrum ex comparatione rerum inter se, omissa signi¬ ficatione ; et haec est comparatio, quae fit in Scripturis, et apud Patres. Non enim Scri¬ pturae, et Patres dicunt, nostra Sacramenta excellere veteribus, quia melius significant, sed quia illa erant figurae, et ista res figurata et proinde res ipsae considerandae sunt. Si autem res ipsae considerentur, quis dubitet meliorem esse agnum pane, et manna etiam de coelo, quam panem ex furno ? Et haec est comparatio, quam Christus facit Joan. vi. ubi non meminit significationis, sed dicit, manna non fuisse panem vere de coelo, si cum pane Eucharistiae conferatur. Pari ra¬ tione Patres, non dicunt, Eucharistiam esse praestantiorem, quam Manna, quia melius significat, sed quia continet corpus Christi, quod est incomparabiliter nobilius, quam manna : unde nunquam comparant manna cum pane, ut facere debuissent, si de signi¬ ficatione ageretur, sed cum ipso corpore Domini. Loca Patrum multa ad hoc propo¬ situm attulit Gardinerus in eo libro, cui re¬ spondet Martyr, ut Origenem homil. 7. in Numeros, Cyprianum serm. de caena Domini, Ambrosium de iis, qui init, myster. c. 9. Hie¬ ronymum. in i. cap. ad Tit. Chrysostomum hom. 83. in 'Mattii. Cyrillum lib. iv. in Joan. cap. 16. Hesychium lib. vi. inLevit. cap. 22. Explicationes autem, quas ad ea loca Martyr adhibet, adeo sunt absurdae, ut ma¬ gis confirment argumentum nostrum. Tres autem sunt ejus solutiones. Prima est ad locum Cypriani ; sic autem loquitur Cypria¬ nus in serm. de Caena Domini : «Ccena dispo¬ sita inter sacramentales epulas obviaverunt sibi instituta antiqua, et nova, et comsumpto agno, quem antiqua traditio proponebat, inconsumptibilem cibum Magister apponit discipulis. » Hoc loco Cyprianus aperte comparat agnum paschalem non cum pane, qui non minus consumitur in ccena, quam agnus, sed cum corpore Christi ; quod ita sumitur in ccena, ut semper integrum ma¬ neat. Respondet Martyr, agnum dici con- sumptibilem, quia eseremonia illa cessare debebat ; panem Eucharistiae dici incon¬ sumptibilem cibum, quia Sacramentum Eu¬ charistia: usque ad finem saeculi durabit. Quid magis, queeso, hac explicatione extor¬ tum ? Nam non loquitur Cyprianus de cerae- monia ipsa in genere, quae tunc abroganda erat, sed de illo agno particulari, quem tunc Apostoli cum Domino comederant : « Agno, inquit, consumpto, quem antiqua traditio proponebat. » Sicut igitur ille agnus proprie per comestionem consumptus fuerat, ita e contrario si antithesis valet, cibus incon- sumptibilis, non est caeremonia novi Sacra¬ menti in genere, sed est res aliqua particu¬ laris, quae dum comeditur, non absumitur, quae certe non est panis, sed corpus Christi. Praeterea, etiamsi Sacramentum Eucharistiae durabit usque ad mundi finem, tamen ces¬ sabit tandem : quare non recte dici potest in- consumptibilis cibus, nisi ratione rei con¬ tentae, quae est absolute inconsumptibiiis ; alioqui posset omnis panis, et quilibet alius cibus dici inconsumptibiiis, quia durabit in specie usque ad mundi finem. Adhibet deinde aliam solutionem, quae etiam convenit testimonio Ambrosii, ac dicit posse inconsumptibilem cibum vocari ipsum Domini corpus ; sed quia idem corpus, et eodem modo, (id est, per fidem) percipiebant veteres in agno, quod nos in pane juxta ad¬ versarios, ideo Martyr dicit, Cyprianum opponere agnum illum irrationalem non pa¬ ni, ut par erat, sed corpori Domini, quia agnus ille obscurius significabat corpus Do¬ mini, quam noster panis, et res tunc futura erat, quae jam facta est. Poterant enim ve¬ teres propter illam obscuritatem per quem¬ dam tropum dici non habuisse corpus Christi. At quis non misereatur hujus hominis in tantis angustiis positi ? Nam et falsum est, ut ostendimus, agno illo obscurius significatum esse Christum, quam pane, cum potius multo clarius illo significaretur ; et falsum est etiam saltem de Eucharistia, quam Do¬ minus ipse discipulis distribuit, quod rem praeteritam significaverit. Significabat Christi mortem, quae futura erat, non praeterita. Et praeterea quis ferat tropum illum, quo di¬ cantur non habuisse Christum veteres, et nos dicamur habere, cum eumdem Christum et eodem modo, id est, persolam fidem ha¬ beamus ? Ad hunc enim modum habendi, parum aut nihil interest, utrum Christus venturus fuerit, an venerit, sicut non magis reficit memoria praeteriti cibi, quam e specta¬ tio futuri. Neque refert etiam utrum habea¬ mus per signa clariora, vel obscuriora. Ac, ut similitudine rem illustremus : Si quis dimitteret debitori debitum centum aureorum in gratiam amici, qui donaturus est ei mille aureos post annum, et faceret ei syngrapham Io donationis, et obsignaret sigillo paulo ru¬ diori ; deinde post duos annos dimitteret alteri debitum, item centum aureorum in gratiam ejusdem amici, qui ei donavit mille aureos ante unum annum, et daret huic etiam syngrapham donationis, et obsignaret pulcherrimo sigillo : qusero, nuru propter sigilli, et temporis diversitatem posset dici priori debitori datam obsignatam syngra¬ pham, posteriori autem vere debitum remis¬ sum ? nullus certe sanar mentis homo ita lo¬ queretur, et hoc modo tamen loquitur Mar¬ tyr. Alter locus erat Ambrosii, qui ita loquitur de manna, sicut Cyprianus de agno pascha¬ li : sic enim ait de his, qui initiantur myste¬ riis, cap 9 : « Considera nunc, uter pree- stantior sit, panis Angelorum, an caro Christi, quar utique corpus est vitee. Manna illud de coelo, hoc supra coelum ; illud coeli, hoc Do¬ mini caelorum ; illud corruptioni obnoxium, si in alterum diem servaretur, hoc alienum ab omni corruptione. » Ad hunc locum non respondet Martyr, sed remittit nos ad solu¬ tionem jam datam ad locum Cypriani ; et nos eum remittamus ad superiorem confuta¬ tionem. Ad alia testimonia Hieronymi, Origenis, Chrysostomi, Hesychii (nam a Cyrillo fatetur se dissentire) respondet illos tribuere He¬ braeis tantum symbola, nobis autem rem ipsam ; quia non intelligebant multi Hebrae¬ orum, quid symbola significarent, et proinde non habebant nisi externa symbola. At so¬ lutio non satisfacit, tum quia Hieronymus, et alii comparant inter se res ipsas, non au¬ tem habentes ; tum quia etiam Christiani, qui non intelligunt quid symbola significant, non habent nisi symbola secundum adversa¬ rios.