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 5: That John 6 Treats of the Eucharist
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, that we may come to the second argument from the Scriptures, the same truth must be proved from the promise of the Lord, which is found in John, chapter 6. Three things must be treated concerning this argument. First, it must be disputed whether in John 6 the Lord speaks of the Eucharist. Secondly, the argument for the truth of the body of the Lord must be deduced thence. Thirdly, the arguments of the adversaries must be answered, who think that in John 6 the Eucharist is not treated of.
As to the first, it is no controversy whether in the whole chapter the Eucharist is treated of; for it is agreed that it is not so. For both the miracle of the loaves, and faith, and the Incarnation are treated of in a great part of the chapter. The question, then, is only concerning those words: The bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world; and concerning what follows, nearly to the end of the chapter.
And nearly all the heretics of this time deny that these words pertain to the Sacrament of the Eucharist. Luther, in the book On the Babylonian Captivity, chapter 1, says that chapter 6 of John is wholly to be set aside, as pertaining nothing to this matter. The same has Zwingli in the book On True and False Religion, in the chapter on the Eucharist; the same Oecolampadius in the book On the Words of the Lord: This is my body; the same Martin Kemnitz in part 2 of the Examen, page 657, on chapter 1 of session 21 of the Council of Trent. John Calvin indeed seems to some to be of another opinion. For in Book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 17, sections 1 and 5 and following, treating of this Sacrament, he cites chapter 6 of John; yet in section 33 he openly opens his opinion. For when he had cited those words, Whosoever shall eat my flesh and drink my blood abideth in me, and I in him, he thus subjoins: “They object that there it is not a question of sacramental eating, which I confess.” Calvin therefore did not wish the sixth chapter of John to be understood of sacramental eating; yet he cited the words of this chapter when he was treating of the Sacrament, because he thinks that in this chapter the spiritual eating of Christ is treated of, to which the Lord afterward added the external symbols. Which Peter Martyr most clearly expounded in his book against Gardiner, part 1, at the solution of the 32nd objection: “Concerning the sixth chapter of John, whether it pertains to the Eucharist, we thus answer: that there discourse is not instituted about the Sacrament of the supper.” And below: “Since, however, the thing itself, that is, the spiritual eating and drinking of the body and blood of Christ, is there clearly delivered, to which the Evangelists afterward, at the end of their history, declare that Christ joined the external symbols of bread and wine, therefore we do not think that chapter alien from the Sacrament of the Eucharist.” And so much for the opinion of the heretics.
Now nearly all the Catholics will have the words of this chapter understood of the Sacrament of the Eucharist itself, or of the sacramental eating of the body of the Lord in the Eucharist. There are, however, a few certain ones who, in order to answer the Hussites or Lutherans more easily, who from this chapter prove communion under both species, taught that in this chapter the sacramental eating and drinking of the body and blood of the Lord is not treated of. In this number are Gabriel, lecture 84 on the canon of the Mass; Nicholas of Cusa, epistle 7 to the Bohemians; Thomas Cajetan in part 3, question 80, last article; Ruard Tapper in his explication of article 13 of the Louvain divines; John Hessels in the book On Communion under one species; and Cornelius Jansen, chapter 59 of the Concord. But there is a great difference between the Catholics and the heretics, although they seem to agree in the same opinion: that the Catholics held this with the best intention, namely that they might more easily defend the truth; but the heretics, that they might more easily assail it. Then the Catholics submit themselves and their opinions to the censure of Councils and Pontiffs, which the heretics do not.
Now the rest of the Catholic writers, whom Nicholas Sander cites in very great number in his book On the Sixth Chapter of John, teach with the highest consent that in this chapter sacramental eating is treated of; which without doubt is most true, and can be proved by four arguments. First, from this very passage of Scripture. Secondly, from the testimony of the Church. Thirdly, from the Fathers. Fourthly, from the absurdities which follow from the opinion of the adversaries.
As to the first, from the text itself these arguments are taken. First, the Lord speaks of the future, when He says: The bread that I will give is my flesh. But if bread in that place signified Christ as He is received by faith, without any relation to the sacramental species, He would not speak in the future. For that eating by faith is a thing of all times; for even the Fathers of the Old Testament so ate Christ. And it is confirmed from the Greek text, which the heretics are wont to prefer to the Latin; for it stands thus: The bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. Where that second ‘I will give’ cannot be expounded except of a thing truly and properly future; therefore the first ‘I will give’ too must be so expounded. The Lord therefore promised His flesh, not absolutely, but to be received in the Sacrament, which promise He fulfilled in the last supper. It is confirmed secondly by the distinction which the Lord makes between the gift of the Father and His own gift. For of the Father He says in the present: My Father giveth you the true bread from heaven; but of Himself in the future: The bread that I will give; because, namely, the gift of the Father was already present, that is, His incarnate Son; the gift of the Son, that is, the flesh in the Sacrament, was to come.
The second argument is taken from the comparison of these words with the words of the supper; for so great is the similitude that the divine Scripture seems plainly to cry out that there is rendered what here was promised. For here it is said: The bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. But there: Take ye and eat, for this is my body, which is given for you unto the remission of sins.
The third argument, from the following words: The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? and from those of the disciples a little below: This saying is hard, and who can hear it? For from these it is gathered that both the other Jews and the disciples themselves understood that something new and marvelous was proposed by Christ. But the Lord did not correct their understanding, but again inculcated: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and so forth. Who would believe that a most easy thing, such as is to believe in Christ, the Lord willed to wrap up, with so great a stumbling-block to the disciples, in so many most obscure metaphors, when He could have declared the whole matter in one word? And it is confirmed, because the Lord was wont, if He proposed anything obscurely by parables, afterward to explain it to the disciples, as is clear in Matthew 13 concerning the parables of the sower and of the cockle; and in John 3, when He had said, You must be born again, and Nicodemus had not understood, He explained a little after that this comes about of water and the Holy Spirit; and in John 10 He explained the parable of the shepherd, the sheep, the door, and so forth. The same He did in John 16 concerning those words: A little while, and you shall see me; and again a little while, and you shall not see me. But here He did not explain otherwise, but said to those who had not withdrawn: Will you also go away? as if He said: I have nothing else to do; I have intimated the mystery; here there is need of faith; whoever will not acquiesce, let him go.
The fourth argument, from those words: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you; he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life, and so forth; my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed, and so forth. For that so frequent distinction of flesh and blood, and of meat and drink, openly indicates that Christ speaks of the communication of Himself under the species of bread and wine; for otherwise, to what purpose is that distinction so often, and especially so repeated? For the spiritual perception of Christ by faith needs not that distinction, since it comes about in one manner; for it is the same to eat and to drink in a reception by faith alone. Add that that expression, My flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed, signifies a diverse manner of receiving the flesh and blood of Christ, which plainly perishes if you take away the sacramental species.
The fifth is in those words: Not as your fathers did eat manna, and so forth. Since the comparison is made not between the manna and the body of Christ as it is received by faith alone, but as it is received in the Sacrament; which is evident both from the Apostle, 1 Corinthians 10, where he compares the passage of the Red Sea with Baptism, and the manna with the Eucharist; and also because the body of the Lord, as it is received by faith alone, was not wanting to the ancients; nay, they so received it in the manna, in the opinion of the adversaries, as we receive it in the Eucharist.
The sixth, from the miracle of the loaves. For the Lord joined this discourse to that miracle, because that multiplication of the loaves was a signal figure of this Sacrament.
The seventh, from the words of eating the flesh and drinking the blood, so often repeated and confirmed with an oath: Amen, amen. For those words cannot be taken figuratively, but properly: both because the proper signification is always to be followed, unless the contrary be evidently proved; and because it would be very absurd that the Lord confirmed with an oath not once but often that His flesh must be eaten, if this were to be done only figuratively. For it is not lawful to confirm with an oath except opinions most plain and most certain, and which cannot be wrested to another sense, lest occasion be given for perjuries. But properly flesh signifies flesh, and to eat signifies the bodily action by which food is passed from the mouth to the stomach. But this is not done when one believes in Christ, but only when He is received in the Eucharist; the Lord therefore speaks of the Sacrament of the Eucharist.
The eighth, from the comparison of this chapter with chapter 3 of the same Gospel. For just as in chapter 3 the Lord, to intimate Baptism, said to Nicodemus, and repeated several times: You must be born again, and so forth; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit: so in this place, to intimate the other Sacrament, namely of the Eucharist, He said and repeated often: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and: He that eateth my flesh, and so forth. And just as in that place Nicodemus marveled, nor could grasp how that regeneration ought to come about, so also in this place the disciples marvel how this eating can come about.
It is proved secondly from the testimony of the Church. For the Council of Alexandria, which was approved in the third general Synod, in its epistle to Nestorius expounds that saying, Except you eat, of the reception of this Sacrament. The same does the seventh Synod, act 6, at the end of the third volume. Likewise the Council of Trent, session 13, chapter 2, expounds of this same Sacrament those words: He that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. And so, although those Councils did not frame any decree on this matter, yet it sufficiently appears what all the Bishops of three general Councils thought, and therefore the whole Church, which they represented. Add that on the feast day of the venerable Sacrament the Gospel reading is proposed by the Church from chapter 6 of John. Add finally that the Roman Catechism, which ought to be common to all pastors, adduces testimonies from this chapter when it treats of the Sacrament of the Eucharist; which arguments from the testimony of the present Church, although they are despised by the heretics, yet ought to be very great to Catholics.
It is proved thirdly from the Fathers. And first, those who wrote commentaries on John, with the highest consent expound these passages of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, namely Chrysostom, Augustine, Cyril, Theophylact, Euthymius, Rupert, Saint Thomas, Nicholas of Lyra, and Denis the Carthusian. Besides these interpreters, who of set purpose explain the Gospel: Origen, homily 7 on Numbers; Athanasius, homily on that text, Whoso shall speak a word against the Son of man, and in the Synopsis; Basil, Book 1 On Baptism, chapter 3, and in the Moral Rules, chapter 21; Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechesis 4 Mystagogical; Theophilus of Alexandria, Book 2, Paschal; Epiphanius, heresy 55; Theodoret, Book 4 History, chapter 11; Damascene, Book 4 On the Faith, chapter 14. Among the Latins: Cyprian, sermon On the Lord’s Prayer, and Book 1 against the Jews, chapter 21, and in the sermon On the Supper of the Lord; Hilary, Book 8 On the Trinity; Ambrose, Book 6 On the Sacraments, chapter 1, and On those who are initiated into the mysteries, chapter 8, and Book 4 On Elijah, chapter 5 [On Cain]; Hesychius, Book 6 on Leviticus, chapter 22; Eusebius, homily 5 On the Pasch. For although Hesychius and Eusebius seem to have been Greek men, yet they wrote in Latin. Jerome, in the epistle to Hedibia, question 2, and on chapter 1 to the Ephesians; Augustine, sermon 2 On the Words of the Apostle, question 57 on Leviticus, on Psalm 33, first discourse, On the Agreement of the Evangelists, Book 3, chapter 1, and elsewhere; Leo, sermon 6 On the Fast of the Seventh Month; Cassiodorus on Psalm 109; Haymo, Sedulius, and Primasius on chapters 10 and 11 to the Corinthians; Gregory, Book 7 Morals, chapter 4; Isidore, Book 1 On the Divine Offices, chapter 18; Bernard, sermon 1 on the vigil of the Nativity, and sermon 1 On the Pasch.
To these passages Ruard and Jansen answer that the Fathers, especially in homilies to the people, accommodated the words of John 6 to the Sacrament of the Eucharist. But the greater part of the authors alleged wrote commentaries or disputations, in which the literal sense ought to be expressed, not mystical senses and accommodations. And truly if it is lawful to say this of that chapter, why will it not be lawful to say the same of chapter 3 of John, namely that the Fathers accommodated that passage to Baptism? Add that the adversaries cannot bring forward even one who taught that this passage of John ought to be understood only of spiritual eating, and in no way of sacramental.
Besides these Fathers, other later doctors are to be noted, lest anyone think that the more recent Catholics held the contrary, except those very few whom I named above. Thus, then, expounded those who wrote of old against John Scotus or Berengarius: as Paschasius, in the book On the Sacraments, chapter 14; Adelmann in his epistle to Berengarius; Guitmund, Book 3; Alger, Book 1, chapters 10, 12, and 17. Thus also the Scholastics who afterward followed, with the Master, Book 4, distinction 10. Thus too Thomas Waldensis against Wyclif, volume 2 On the Sacraments, chapters 92 and 94; and John Gerson against the Hussites, in the book On the Communion of the Laity. Finally, in our time against the Lutherans very many, but beyond others Nicholas Sander, wrote an entire book on this matter.
This same truth is proved fourthly from the absurdities which would follow. First, it would follow that John wrote plainly nothing of this Sacrament; for he nowhere touched this matter except in this place. But it is certainly very absurd that the chief and most diligent Evangelist in explaining the highest mysteries left nothing written of this highest Sacrament, especially since he wrote so many things of Baptism. Wherefore Augustine, Book 3 On the Agreement of the Evangelists, chapter 1, warns that John wrote nothing of the supper of the Lord in its proper place, as the others did, because he had before written very much of that matter. Secondly, it would follow that Christ never explained the fruit or excellence of this Sacrament, though He did this so often of Baptism; for in the last supper He only instituted it, but added nothing to its explanation. And it is confirmed, because (as Chrysostom noted in his commentary on chapter 26 of Matthew) the Apostles without doubt would have been moved and troubled when they heard, Take ye and eat, for this is my body, unless they had been instructed before. Thirdly, it would follow that no divine precept exists concerning the reception of this Sacrament. For in the other Evangelists there exists only the institution, and that as often as the Sacrament is received, it be done in memory of the Lord’s passion. The arguments to the contrary will be answered below, chapter 7.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT V. Quod Joan. vi. agatur de Eucharistia. Jam ut ad secundum argumentum ex Scripturis veniamus, probanda est eadem veritas ex promissione Domini, quae habetur apud Joannem cap. vi. Tria autem de hoc argumento tractanda erunt. Primo dispu¬ tandum est, an Joan. vr. loquatur Dominus de Eucharistia. Secundo, deducendum inde argumentum pro veritate corporis Domini. Tertio, solvenda argumenta adversariorum, qui putant Joan. vi. non agi de Eucha¬ ristia. Quantum ad primum, non est controversia, an in toto capite agatur de Eucharistia : constat enim non ita esse. Nam et de mira¬ culo panum, et de fide, et de Incarnatione agitur in magna parte capitis. Solum igitur quaestio est de illis verbis : Panis quem ego dabo , caro mea est pro mundi vita (1) ; et de sequentibus fere ad finem capitis. Ac haeretici quidem hujus temporis fere omnes negant haec verba ad Sacramentum Eucharistiae pertinere. Lutherus in libro de Captivitate Babylonica cap. i. dicit cap. vi. Joannis in totum seponendum esse, ut quod nihil ad hanc rem pertineat. Idem habet Zwnglius inlib. deVer a et falsa religione, cap. de Eucharistia , idem OEcolampadius in lib. de Verbis Domini : Hoc est corpus meum. Idem Martin usKemnitius in 2. par. Examinis , pag. G57. ad cap. i. sess.-, xxi Concilii Tri- dentini. Joannes Calvinus videtur quidem nonnullis in alia esse sententia. Nam lib. iv. Institui, cap. 17. §. I. et 5. et deinceps tra- tans de hoc Sacramento, citat, cap. vi. Joan¬ nis : tamen §. 33. aperte sententiam suam aperit. Nam cum citasset illa verba, Quisquis ederit carnem meam , et liberit sanguinem meum , in me manet , et ego in eo (2), ita sub¬ jungit : « Excipiunt, illic non agi de sacra- mentali esu, quod ego fateor. » Non igitur voluit Calvinus intelligi debere sextum caput Joannis de sacramentali manducatione : ci¬ tavit tamen verba hujus capitis, cum de Sa¬ cramento ageret, quia existimat in hoc ca¬ pite tractari de spirituali Christi manduca¬ tione, cui postea Dominus addidit externa symbola. Id quod clarissime exposuit Petrus Martyr in lib. contra Gardinerum par. i. ad solutionem 32. objecti : « De sexto capite, inquit, Joannis an ad Eucharistiam perti¬ neat nos ita respondemus, sermonem ibi de Sacramento coense non institui. » Et infra : «Quoniam tamen res ipsa, id est, corporis et sanguinis Christi, spiritualis manducatio, et potus ibi luculenter traditur, ad quam po¬ stea Evangelistee ad finem historiae suar de¬ clarant, Christum adjunxisse symbola ex¬ terna panis, et vini, idcirco nos caput illud a (1) Joan. VI, 52. - (2) Joan. VI, 57. ifi LIBER I. Sacramento Eucharistia) non putamus esse alienum. » Atque haec cie haereticorum sententia. Porro Catholici fere omnes intelligi volunt hujus capitis verba de Sacramento ipso Eu¬ charistiae, sive de sacramcntali manduca¬ tione corporis Domini in Eucharistia. Sunt tamen pauci quidam, qui ut facilius respon¬ derent Hussitis, vel Lutheranis ex hoc capite probantibus communionem sub utraque specie, docuerunt non agi in hoc capite de sacramentali manducatione et potu, corpo¬ ris, et sanguinis Domini. In hoc numero sunt Gabriel lect. 84. super canon. Missae. Nicolaus Cusanus epist. 7. ad Bohemos. Thomas Cajctanus in 3. part. quaest. lxxx. art. ult. Ruardus Tappcr in explic. artic. 13. Lovaniensium. Joannes Ilesselius in lib. de Communione sub una specie , et Cornelius Jansenius cap. 59. Concordiae. Multum au¬ tem interest inter Catholicos, et haereticos, licet in sententia eadem convenire videantur; quod Catholici id senserunt optima inten¬ tione, ut videlicet facilius defenderunt veri¬ tatem : haeretici autem, ut camdem facilius oppugnarent. Deinde catholici subjiciunt se, ac sua censurae Conciliorum, ac Pontifi¬ cum; quod haeretici non faciunt. Porro cueteri scriptores Catholici, quos in maximo numero citat Nicolaus Sandcrus in libro do Sexto capite Joannis , summo con¬ sensu docent in hoc capite agi de mandu¬ catione sacramentali : quod sine dubio ve¬ rissimum est ; et probari potest quatuor ar¬ gumentis. Primo ex hoc ipso loco Scripturae. Secundo ex testimonio Ecclesiae. Tertio ex Patribus. Quarto ex absurdis, quae sequun¬ tur ex adversariorum sententia. Quantum ad primum, ex ipso textu su¬ muntur haec argumenta. Primum, Dominus loquitur de futuro, cum ait : Panis, quem ego dabo, caro mea est. At si panis eo loco signi¬ ficaret Christum ut fide percipitur sine ulla relatione ad species sacramentales, non di¬ ceret in futuro. Manducatio enim illa per fi¬ dem res est omnium temporum : nam etiam Patres veteris Testamenti ita Christum man¬ ducaverant, Et confirmatur ex textu graeco, quem haeretici latino anteponere solent ; sic enim habetur : Panis , quem ego dabo, caro mea est , quam ego dabo pro mundi, vita. Ubi illud secundum, Dabo , non potest exponi, ni¬ si pro re vere et proprie futura ; ergo et pri¬ mum, Dabo , ita exponi debet. Promisit igi¬ tur Dominus carnem suam, non absolute, sed in Sacramento sumendam, quod promis¬ sum implevit in ultima ccena. Confirmatur se¬ cundo ex distinctione, quam facit Dominus inter donum Patris, et donum suum. Nam de Patre dicit in praesenti : Pater meus dat vobis panem de caelo verum ; de se autem in futuro : Panis , quem ego dabo , quia nimirum donum Patris jam aderat, id est, Filius ejus incarna¬ tus : donum Filii, id est, caro in Sacramento, futurum erat. Secundum argumentum sumitur ex colla¬ tione horum verborum, cum verbis ccenae : tanta enim est similitudo, ut plane clamare videatur divina Scriptura, ibi reddi, quod hic fuit promissum : Hic enim dicitur : Panis , quem ego dabo, caro mea est, quam dabo pro mundi vita. Ibi autem : Accipite et manducate , hoc est enim corpus meum , quod pro vobis datur in remissionem peccatorum. Tertium argumentum ex sequentibus ver¬ bis : Litigabant ergo Judaei ad invicem , dicen¬ tes : Quomodo potest hic nobis carnem suam da¬ re ad manducandum ? et exiliis discipulorum paulo infra : Durus est hic sermo et equis potest eum audire ? Ex his enim colligitur tam Ju- deeos cceteros, quam discipulos ipsos intelle¬ xisse aliquid novum, et mirandum proponi a Christo. Dominus autem non correxit eo¬ rum sententiam, sed iterum inculcavit : Nisi manducaveritis carnem Filii hominis etc. Quis credat rem facillimam, qualis est crede¬ re in Christum, voluisse Dominum cum tan¬ to offendiculo discipulorum involvere tot obs¬ curissimis metaphoris, cum potuisset uno verbo rem totam declarare ? Et confirmatur, quia solebat Dominus, si quid per parabolas obscure proponeret, postea discipulis expli¬ care, ut patet Matth. xin.de parabolis semi¬ nantis, et zizaniorum, et Joan. m. cum dixis¬ set : Oportet vos nasci denuo, et Nicodemus non intellexisset, explicuit paulo postid fieri ex aqua, et Spiritu Sancto, et Joan. x expli¬ cuit parabolam de pastore, ovibus, ostio etc. Idem fecit et Joan. xvi de illis verbis : Mo¬ dicum, et videbitis me, et iterum modicum et non videbitis me. Hic autem non explicuit aliter, sed dixit iis, qui non recesserant : Vultis et, vos abire? quasi diceret, Non habeo aliud quod faciam, insinuavi mysterium, fide hic opus est, qui non vult acquiescere, abeat. Quartum argumentum, ex illis verbis : Nisi manducaveritis carnem Filii hominis , et biberi¬ tis ejus sanguinem, non habebitis vitam in vobis,' equi manducat meam carnem, et bibit meum sanguinem, habet vitam externam, etc.; Caro 17 CAPUT V. mea vere est cibus, et sanguis meus vere est po¬ tus , etc. Ista enim distinctio tam frequens carnis et sanguinis, et cibi ac potus, aperte indicat Christum loqui de communicatione sui sub speciebus panis, et vini : alioqui enim quorsum ista distinctio toties praesertim repetita? Spiritualis enim perceptio Christi per fidem, non eget ista distinctione, cum uno modo fiat : idem enim est manducare, et bi¬ bere in sumptione per solam fidem. Adde, quod illa expressio : Caro mea vere est cibus, et sanguis meus vere est potus, significat diver¬ sum modum sumendi carnem, et sanguinem Christi, qui plane perit, si tollas species sa- cramentales. Quintum est, in illis verbis : Non sicut man¬ ducaverunt patres vestri manna, etc. Siquidem comparatio non fit inter manna, et corpus Christi, ut sumitur sola fide, sed ut sumitur in Sacramento, id quod perspicuum est tum est Apostolo I Corinth. 10, ubi comparat transitum maris rubri cum Baptismo, et man¬ na cum Eucharistia, tum etiam quia corpus Domini, ut sumitur sola fide, non defuit ve¬ teribus ; immo illud in manna ita sumebant opinione adversariorum, ut nos sumimus in Eucharistia. Sextum ex miraculo panum. Adjunxit enim Dominus hanc disputationem illi mira¬ culo, quia multiplicatio illa panum fuit insignis figura hujus Sacramenti. Septimum ex verbis manducandi carnem, ct bibendi sanguinem tam saepe repetitis, et cum juramento : Arnen, arnen, confirmatis. Illa enim verba non possunt figurate accipi, sed proprie ; tum quia semper propria signi¬ ficatio sequenda est, nisi evidenter probetur contrarium ; tum quia valde absurdum esset Dominum non semel, sed saepius juramento confirmasse, oportere manducari ipsius car¬ nem, si hoc non nisi figurate faciendum esset: neque enim juramento confirmare licet, nisi sententias apertissimas, et certissimas, et quae non possint in alium sensum torqueri, ne de¬ tur occasio perjuriis. At proprie caro signi¬ ficat carnem, et manducare significat corpo¬ ralem actionem qua cibus trajicitur ab ore ad stomachum. Id autem non fit quando cre¬ ditur in Christum, sed tantum quando sumi¬ tur in Eucharistia ; loquitur ergo Dominus de sacramento Eucharistia?. Octavum ex collatione hujus capitis cum iii cap. ejusdem Evangelii. Sicut enim cap. iii, Dominus, ut Baptismum insinuaret, dixit Ni- codemo,et aliquoties repetivit: Oportet vos na- Tom. IV. / scidenuo, etc. Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua , et Spiritu Sancto : ita hoc loco, ut insinuaret alterum Sacramentum, nimirum Euchari¬ stia?, dixit, et repetivit sa?pius : Nisi manduca¬ veritis carnem Filii hominis, et: Qui manducat meam carnem etc. Et sicut eo loco mirabatur Nicodemus, neque poterat capere, quomodo fieri deberet illa regeneratio : sic etiam hoc loco mirantur discipuli, quomodo possit fieri ista manducatio. Probatur secundo ex testimonio Ecclesia?. Nam Concilium Alexandrinum, quod appro¬ batum fuit in III Synodo generali, in epist. ad Nestorium exponit illud : Nisi manducaveritis, de Sacramenti hujus perceptione. Idem facit VII Synodus act. 6. in fine tertii tomi. Simi¬ liter Concilium Tridentinum sess. 13. cap. 2. exponit de hoc eodem Sacramento illa verba : Qui manducat me, et ipse vivet propter me. Itaque licet ista Concilia non condiderint de¬ cretum aliquod de hac re , tamen satis appa¬ ret, quid senserint omnes Episcopi trium ge¬ neralium Conciliorum, et proinde omnis Ecclesia, quam illi repraesentabant. Adde, quod in die festo venerabilis Sacramenti, Evangelica lectio proponitur ab Ecclesia ex cap. vi Joan. Adde ultimo, quod Romanus Catechismus, qui omnibus pastoribus com¬ munis esse debet, adducit testimonia ex hoc capite, cum de Sacramento Eucharistia? tra¬ ctat ; qua? argumenta ex Ecclesia? pra?sentis testimonio, licet ab haereticis contemnantur, tamen Catholicis maxima esse debent. Probatur tertio ex Patribus. Ac primum, qui commentaria scripserunt in Jo annem, summo consensu haec loca de Sacramento Eucharistia? exponunt, nimirum Chrysosto- mus, Augustinus, Cyrillus, Theophylactus, Euthymius, Rupertus, S. Thomas, Nicolaus Lyranus, et Dionysius Carthusianus. Praeter hos interpretes, qui ex proposito Evange- lium explicant, Origenes homil. 7 in Num. Athanasius homil. in illud: Qui dixerit ver¬ bum in Filium hominis, et in synopsi Basi- lius lib. i. de Baptismo cap. 3. ct in Regulis moralibus , cap. 21. Cyrillus Hierosolymita¬ nus catechesi 4. mystagogica. Theophylus Alexandrinus lib. n. Paschali ; Epiphanius haeres, oo. Theodoretus lib. i y.Hist. cap. 11. Damascenus lib iv. de Fide cap. 14. Ex latinis Cyprianus serm. de Orat. Dominica , et lib. i. contra Judseos cap. 21. et in serm. de Ccena Domini. Hilarius lib vih. de Trinit. Ambrosius lib. vi. de Sacramentis, cap. i. et de iis qui ini¬ tiantur mysteriis cap. 8. ctlib.iv. de lude cap. 9 18 LIBER I. 5. Hesychius lib. vi. in Levit, cap. 22. Euse- bius hom. 5. de Paschate. Etsi enim llesy- chius, et Eusebius videntur Graeci homines fuisse, tamen latine scripserunt. Hieronymus in epist. ad Hidibiam , quaest. 2. et in 1. cap. ad Eplics. August. serm.2. de Verbis Apostoli quaest. 57. in Levitic. in Ps. xxxiii. concion. i. de consensu Evangelistarum, lib. m cap. 1. et alibi. Leosermon. 6. de Jejunio 7. men¬ sis. Gassiodorus in Ps. cix. Haymo, Sedulius, et Primasius in cap. x, et xi. ad Connth. Gregorius lib. vii. moral. cap. 4. Isidorus lib. i. de Officiis divinis cap. 18. Bernardus serm. i. m vigilia Nativit. et serm. i. de Pa¬ schate. Ad haec loca respondent Ruardus, et Jan- senius, Patres in homiliis ad populum prae¬ sertim, accommodasse verba Joan. vi. ad sa¬ cramentum Eucharistiae. At major pars au¬ ctorum allegatorum, scripsit commentaria, vel disputationes, in quibus litteralis sensus exprimi debet, non sensus mystici, et accom¬ modationes. Et sane si licet hoc dicere de isto capite, cur non licebitidem dicere de cap. iii. Joan. nimirum Patres accommodasse eum locum ad Baptismum? Adde, quod ad¬ versarii ne unum quidem proferre possunt, qui docuerit hunc locum Joannis intelligi de¬ bere solum de spirituali manducatione, et nullo modo de sacramentali. Praeter hos Patres notandi sunt alii poste¬ riores doctores, ne quis putet recentiores Catholicos contrarium sensisse, exceptis il¬ lis paucissimis, quos supra nominavi. Ita igitur exposuerunt, qui scripserunt olim con¬ tra Joannem Scotum, vel Berengarium, ut Paschasius lib. de Sacramentis cap 14. Adel- mannus in epist. ad Berengarium , Guitmun- dus lib. m. Algerus lib. i. cap, 10. 12. et 17. Ita etiam Scholastici qui postea secuti sunt cum magistro lib. iv. dist. 10. Ita quoque Thomas Waldensis contra Wiclefum tom. n. de Sacramentis cap. 92. et 94. et Joanncs Gerson contra Hussitas in lib. de Communione laicorum. Denique nostro tempore contra Lu- theranos plurimi, sed praeter alios Nicolaus Sanderus, librum integrum scripsit de hac re. Probatur quarto haec eadem veritas ex ab¬ surdis, quae sequerentur. Primo, sequeretur Joannem nihil plane scripsisse de hoc Sacra¬ mento ; nam nusquam attigit hanc materiam nisi hoc loco. At certe valde absurdum est, Evangelistam primarium, et diligentissimum in summis mysteriis explicandis, nihil de hoc summo Sacramento scriptum reliquisse, prae- sertim cum tam multa scripserit de Bapti¬ smo. Quare Augustinus lib. m. de Consensu Evangelistar. cap. i. monet, Joannem nihil scripsisse de coena Domini in proprio loco, ut coeteri facerunt, quia plurima de ea re ante scripserat. Secundo sequeretur, Christum nunquam explicuisse fructum, aut excel¬ lentiam hujus sacramenti, cum id tam ssepe fecerit de Baptismo : nam in ultima coena so¬ lum instituit, sed nihil addidit ad ejus ex¬ plicationem. Et confirmatur, quia (ut Chry- sostomus annotavit in comment. cap. xxvi. Matth.) Apostoli sine dubio commoti fuis¬ sent, et turbati, cum audiebant : Accipite , et comedite , hoc est enim corpus meum (1), nisi antea instructi fuissent. Tertio, sequeretur nullum exstare praeceptum divinum de hoc sacramento percipiendo. Nam apud alios Evangelistas solum exstat institutio , et quo¬ ties Sacramentum sumitur, id fiat in memo¬ riam Dominicae pasc' '•bs. Argumenta in con¬ trarium solventur io ia cap. 7.