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 7: The Objections of the Adversaries Are Answered
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).
Against this our second argument from chapter 6 of John they have nothing to object, except that that chapter does not pertain to the Sacrament. Their arguments therefore must be answered.
The first argument of Luther, which Kemnitz and others also use: The supper of the Lord was instituted the day before the passion of Christ. But that discourse which is described in John 6 was delivered a whole year before the passion of Christ; therefore in it the supper is not treated of. Kemnitz confirms it, because if the Papists will for this reason reform the Communion, that in John 6 it is said, He that eateth this bread shall live for ever, then it will be necessary also to say that in the supper only water is to be used, because in John 4 it is said, He that shall drink of this water shall not thirst for ever.
I answer: We do not deny that the supper of the Lord was instituted the day before the passion, and not a year before; yet we say that a year before it was promised by Christ, and that the exceptional fruits of His future supper were disputed by Him. Which the Lord did also in many other matters. For He promised the keys of the kingdom of heaven to Peter, Matthew 16, and explained what power they would have; which nevertheless He did not deliver until after the resurrection, John 21. To the confirmation I answer that the Catholics do not reform the Communion delivered in Matthew 26 and chapter 6 of John, as Kemnitz falsely says; for the Communion in Matthew 26 is not deformed, that it should need reformation. Yet we say that one passage is rightly explained by another; and because in John 6 it is said, He that eateth this bread shall live for ever, we rightly gather that the Sacrament received under one species so suffices that two are not necessarily required to receive the fruit of Communion. But there is a great dissimilarity between the water of which the Lord speaks in John 4 and the bread of which the same Lord speaks in John 6. For all interpreters expound the latter passage of the Eucharist, as we demonstrated above, but the former none at all. Then John himself expounded by the water the grace of the Holy Spirit, John 7: Now this he said, he says, of the Spirit which they should receive who believed in him; but the bread, John 6, Christ Himself said was His flesh, when He said: The bread that I will give is my flesh.
The second argument of the same Luther: In John 6 the Lord discourses of that eating of the heavenly bread which gives life. But spiritual eating by faith alone gives life; therefore of that alone is it treated.
I answer: a false thing is assumed; for sacramental eating too gives life, just as in Baptism not the internal washing alone, but also the external, cleanses souls—the former formally, the latter efficiently and instrumentally; and just as it is written, Acts 15, purifying their hearts by faith, so it is written, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life, Ephesians 5. Nor does it stand in the way that sacramental eating does not give life without faith; for that comes about from the indisposition of the one approaching, not from the Sacrament itself, which of itself is always efficacious.
The third argument of the same Luther, and of Martyr in his defense against Gardiner, part 1, to the 13th objection, page 91. The Lord, John 6, not only says that the eating of this bread gives life, but also says that without this eating no one can live: Except you eat, and so forth. But this precept, so strict, cannot be understood of sacramental eating; otherwise all infants would perish, who can eat nothing but only suck milk; all would perish too who did not communicate, being hindered by some necessary cause, even though they were otherwise baptized and justified.
I answer that the difficulty is common, howsoever this passage be understood. For if the adversaries will have it understood of spiritual eating by faith, how, I ask, will infants eat, who have no use of spirit, nor any actual end? Nay, it would be easier to instill something of the Sacrament into infants than to bring it about that they believe. I say therefore that this passage pertains only to adults, who indeed, either in fact if they can, or at least by desire, are bound to receive this Sacrament at some time. That this is so is clear, because this Sacrament was not instituted to give life to those who have it not, as Baptism, but to preserve it in those who have it. And so that saying is understood, You shall not have life in you, that is, you shall not be able to retain it, but shall lose it; as is said in 1 John 3: No murderer hath eternal life abiding in himself. For the sense is not, he does not acquire life, but he does not retain it, he loses it, he dies; for hence it is called not regeneration, but eating. Now that preservation is not necessary except to those in whom the life already acquired can be lessened or lost, such as infants are not. Whence the Lord does not say, Except a man eat, as He said of Baptism, Unless a man be born again, but Except you eat; where He addresses the bystanders, and those like them, who are capable of this precept. And besides, when He speaks of the eating of bread, that is, when He calls His flesh bread, He indicates plainly enough that He does not speak of infants, who feed not on bread, but on milk. Finally, those words, Except you eat, sound either a precept or a means necessary to salvation. If a precept, either it does not pertain to infants, since they are not capable of it, or certainly they are excused since they cannot fulfill it; for that is common to every precept. If a means necessary to salvation, certainly it is a means only to those who can lose life, such as are not those who lack the use of reason.
The fourth argument of the same. Augustine, Book 1 Against Julian, teaches that infants eat the flesh of Christ inasmuch as they communicate in the faith; therefore this passage is understood of eating by faith. Here may be added other passages of the Fathers, which are adduced by Martyr and by others. For the same Augustine, tract 25 on John chapter 6, expounds John so spiritually that he says: “Believe, and thou hast eaten”; and tract 26: “To believe in Him, this is to eat the living bread.” The same too, On Christian Doctrine, Book 3, chapter 16, says that those words, “Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man,” signify nothing else than that we must communicate in the passion of the Lord, and sweetly think in mind that the flesh of Christ was crucified for us. Besides, Clement of Alexandria, Book 1 of the Paedagogus, chapter 6, expounds in this place by the flesh and blood of Christ the word of God, by which we are spiritually nourished and inebriated. Likewise Basil, epistle 141, expounds by the flesh and blood the doctrine of Christ and His mystical coming. Jerome too, on Psalm 147, understands by the flesh and blood of the Lord the Scriptures. Finally, Saint Bernard, on the third verse of Psalm 90, Qui habitat, says that to eat the flesh of Christ is to communicate in the passion of the Lord and to imitate His life.
I answer to the passage of Augustine adduced by Luther, which is found in Book 1 Against Julian, not Book 2 as he cites. And first it must be observed that Augustine not rarely says that infants ought to eat the body of the Lord if they are to be saved; but he does not understand that this must be done necessarily in fact. For the same Augustine in the same place, and Book 3 On the Merits and Remission of Sins, chapter 4, and in the sermon to infants which Bede cites in his commentary on 1 Corinthians 10, writes that infants in Baptism itself communicate in the body of Christ, and by the reception of Baptism fulfill also the precept concerning the reception of the Eucharist.
It must be noted secondly that infants are not only not obliged to Communion in fact, but this not by an explicit vow, of which they are in no way capable, but only by an implicit vow, which vow infants have when they are baptized; for then infants receive the right to receive the Eucharist. And because everyone who is born naturally desires food, therefore they too, by this very fact that they are reborn in Christ, desire the food of the reborn, to be received nevertheless in its place and time. And so infants communicate neither spiritually, nor sacramentally in fact, but sacramentally in implicit vow; from which it follows that for them to be baptized and to communicate is not altogether the same, although they come about together, since one follows from the other. And so Saint Augustine, although in the places noted he says that infants eat the flesh of the Lord in Baptism, yet elsewhere openly distinguishes to be baptized and to eat the flesh of Christ: “One thing,” he says, sermon 11 On the Words of the Lord, “is to be born of the spirit, another to be fed of the spirit; just as one thing is to be born of the flesh, which happens when the mother gives birth, and another to be fed of the flesh, which happens when she suckles the infant”; and Book 1 On the Merits and Remission of Sins, chapter 20, he openly demonstrates that this precept, Except you eat, is distinguished from the precept of Baptism, even in infants.
To the argument, then, we answer that Augustine expounds this passage of John 6 of sacramental eating, but attributes that eating to infants not in fact, but in implicit vow, which is had through Baptism, as we said.
To the other two passages of Augustine from tracts 25 and 26 on John, I answer that that saying, “Why dost thou prepare tooth and belly? Believe, and thou hast eaten”; and that, “To believe in Him, this is to eat His flesh”: were said by Augustine not of the Sacrament, but of the faith of the Incarnation; for he had not yet come to the passage of the Gospel where the Sacrament is treated of. But that saying, “He who eats with the heart, not he who presses with the tooth,” Augustine said when he was speaking of the Sacrament, not to exclude sacramental eating, but to signify that the end of this Sacrament is to nourish the soul, not the body, although it is received through the instrument of the body. For truly he is refreshed by this food who eats with the heart, not he who presses with the tooth only; for he does not exclude bodily eating, since in the same place he says that Judas ate with the body only; but he only prefers spiritual eating to bodily, because the former profits without the latter, the latter without the former does not profit, but harms. A similar passage is Hosea 6: I desire mercy and not sacrifice; for the Lord does not reject sacrifices, but does not will them if they be without mercy.
To the other Fathers I answer that they expounded mystically, not to the letter; but nowhere denied that those words ought to be taken to the letter of sacramental eating. Nay, on the contrary, we cited above for our opinion Basil, Jerome, and Bernard; for the literal and the mystical sense do not conflict.
To the last passage of Augustine from Book 3 On Christian Doctrine, we answer that Augustine places a figure in these words by reason of the manner of receiving the flesh of Christ, not by reason of the substance of the thing itself. For he does not mean to say that the flesh of Christ tropically so called is eaten, that is, the bread by which the flesh is signified; nor that true flesh is tropically eaten, if we regard the essence of eating, which only requires that true food be passed from the mouth to the stomach through the vital instruments; but he means to say that it is tropically eaten as to the manner. For the ordinary and proper manner of eating flesh is that it be visibly cut into parts, and taken piecemeal, and cooked, not raw, and so forth. But the flesh of Christ is received whole, and invisibly, and without any injury to itself; wherefore not properly, but only figuratively, is the flesh of Christ slain and torn in this eating; for we represent the passion of Christ. That Augustine meant this is evident from two things. First, because he says that it is to be expounded tropically, lest some crime or wickedness seem to be commanded. Now it would be a crime to slay the flesh of Christ and cut it into parts; but not, in a certain spiritual manner, to receive that very true flesh, without any injury to itself, in the Sacrament. Secondly, because he himself explains what is the literal sense which seems to sound a crime, namely that in which the Capharnaites took the words of Christ, who thought that the flesh of Christ was to be torn, as we see done in the shambles, and a piece given to each. See tract 27 on John, and on Psalm 98. Since therefore Augustine says that by this precept, Except you eat, it is commanded that we communicate in the passion of Christ, and recall it, and turn it over in mind, he signifies that very thing which the Apostle says, 1 Corinthians 11, that the flesh of Christ is to be received in the Sacrament in memory of the passion and death of the Lord.
The fifth argument, of Zwingli, in the book On True and False Religion: The food of which discourse is made in chapter 6 of John is faith; for when the Lord had said, Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth, the Jews said, What shall we do that we may work the works of God? The Lord answered: This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he hath sent.
I answer: in that chapter many things are treated; for mention is made of a threefold bread, and from one there is a passage to another as occasion is given in the course of speaking. First it is narrated of that material bread which the Lord multiplied. Then, because the Jews sought that bread only, the Lord admonished them to work for another bread, that is, to strive to prepare and have it. And this second bread He says is Himself, who descended from heaven by the Incarnation. Of this bread He says: I am the living bread which came down from heaven; and, My Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. But this bread, that is, Christ incarnate, we must apprehend by faith, that it may refresh us; and this is what the Lord says: This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he hath sent. Where the food which is to be prepared is not faith, as Zwingli says, but Christ Himself; but faith is the work by which that bread is acquired. Finally, thirdly, thence the Lord made a passage to the Eucharistic bread, when He said: The bread that I will give is my flesh, and so forth.
The sixth argument of the same Zwingli. Christ says: He that eateth this bread shall live for ever. But that is not true, except of spiritual eating; for many, by eating sacramentally, not only do not live, but by eating die: For he that eateth unworthily, eateth judgment to himself, 1 Corinthians 11.
I answer: the words of the Lord are understood with a condition, if it be eaten rightly. For that bread, as regards itself, always gives life, and this the words of the Lord signify; yet the effect can be hindered from elsewhere, namely from the indisposition of the one approaching. Which is common to nearly all similar promises. Luke 11: Everyone that asketh receiveth; and yet many do not receive, because (as James expounded, chapter 4) they ask not well. Joel 2: Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. And yet it is said, Proverbs 1: Then shall they call upon me, and I will not hear, because they have hated instruction. Mark, the last chapter: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. And, Acts 8, Simon after faith and Baptism perished. Finally the Apostle, 1 Corinthians 10: We being many are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread, speaks by the consent of all of the Sacrament; and yet many partake of one bread who are not with us one bread and one body, as all heretics and schismatics who celebrate the rite of this Sacrament entire.
The seventh argument of Peter Martyr in his defense against Gardiner, part 1, objection 13. If those words, The bread that I will give, pertain to the symbols of the supper of the Lord, why do the Papists cast away the bread? For the accidents of bread alone cannot be called bread.
I answer: the word ‘bread’ in those words, The bread that I will give, does not signify wheaten bread, nor either the body of Christ absolutely and without respect to the symbols, as Martyr thinks, but signifies food in general. For this is frequent among the Hebrews, that by the name of bread all food is understood; whence in that very chapter 6 of John the manna is called bread; and in Psalm 77: He gave them the bread of heaven; man ate the bread of angels. The sense therefore is: The bread, that is, the food, which I will give, is the very flesh which is to be crucified and slain for the salvation of the human race.
The eighth of the same Martyr, objection 32. The Lord in John 6 makes no mention of material bread, nor of the chalice, nor of the giving of thanks, nor of the breaking, nor of the distribution, nor of the Testament, nor of memory, nor of the announcing of the death of Christ; therefore He does not speak of the Sacrament of the supper, which cannot be without those symbols.
I answer: this argument rightly proves that this Sacrament was not instituted in John 6, but it does not prove that it was not promised; for it is enough for a promise that the Lord expressed that which is chief, that is, His flesh and blood. Add that He also intimated the future symbols, since He so often distinguished the flesh from the blood, and called the former food, the latter drink; and perhaps for this reason He several times called His flesh bread, to indicate that it was to be eaten by us under the species of bread.
The ninth argument is of certain Catholics. The Lord says, John 6: I am the bread of life; he that cometh to me shall not hunger, and he that believeth in me shall never thirst; therefore the bread of which it is treated in John 6 is eaten and drunk by believing. For the Lord expressed that to believe is to drink; and without doubt it is the same to come to Christ and to believe in Christ. For He speaks of faith when He says in the same place: No man can come to me, except the Father draw him; therefore that saying, He that cometh to me shall not hunger, signifies: He that cometh to me by faith, or he that eateth me by faith, shall not hunger.
I answer: the words which are cited pertain not to the Sacrament properly, but to the faith of the Incarnation, as we said above; but those which follow afterward pertain to the Sacrament.
The tenth argument, and almost the only one by which certain Catholics have been persuaded, is that it seems hard to defend the use of the Church concerning Communion under one species, if we understand to the letter, of the Sacrament, those words: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.
I answer, first, that on account of the difficulty of the matter one ought not to desert a known truth. Secondly, that this knot can easily be loosed, if we say (which is the common solution) that the force of the precept consists not in the manner of receiving, but in the very thing which is to be received. The words indeed of the precept sound that I should receive the flesh under the species of bread after the manner of food, and the blood under the species of wine after the manner of drink; yet the mind of the lawgiver, from which the law itself is to be explained, was not to oblige except to receive the things themselves, that is, the true flesh and the true blood; which things are received as entirely under one species as under two. And that this is the mind of the lawgiver is proved, both because the fruit of this reception arises from the very things received, not from the manner of receiving—just as bodily medicine profits not because it is received after the manner of food or drink, but because it itself has the power of healing—and also because the same Christ, explaining what He had said, says in the same place: He that eateth me, the same also shall live by me; where we see that to eat the flesh and drink the blood is the same as to eat the whole Christ Himself.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT VII.
Solvuntur objectiones adversariorum.
Ad hoc nostrum secundum argumentum
ex cap. vi. Joan. nihil habent, quod objiciant,
nisi caput illud ad Sacramentum non per¬
tinere. Solvenda igitur sunt eorum argu¬
menta.
Primum argumentum Lutheri est, quo uti¬
tur etiam Kemnitius, et alii. Coena Domini
instituta fuit pridie passionis Christi. Sermo
autem ille, qui describitur Joan. vi. habitus
est integro anno ante Christi passionem ; non
igitur in eo de ccena agitur. Confirmat Kem¬
nitius, quia si ideo Papistie reformaro vo¬
lunt Communionem, quia Joan. vi. dicitur :
Qui manducat hunc panem , vivet in aeternum ;
oportebit etiam dicere in coena solam aquam
20
LIBER I.
adhibendum, quia Joau iv. dicitur : Qui bi¬
berit ex aqua hae , non sitiet in veternum (1).
Respondeo : Non negamus ctenam Domini
i nstitutam fuisse pridie passionis, et non uno
anno ante; dicimus tamen uno anno ante pro-
amissam a Christo, et de ejus coeme fu time exi¬
miis fructibus ab eodem disputatum. Id quod
in aliis etiam multis rebus Dominus feci f .
Nam claves regni cadorum Petro promisit,
Mattii, xvi, et explicuit quam vim essent ha¬
bitura? ; quas tamen non tradidit, nisi post
resurrectionem, Joan. xxr. Ad confirma¬
tionem respondeo, Catholicos non reformare
Communionem traditam, Matth. xxvr eteap.
vr Joan., ut Kemnitius mentitur : non enim
deformatur Communio, Matth. xxvi, ut re-
formationc indigeat. Dicimus tamen recte
explicari unum locum per alium et quia
Joan vi, dicitur: Qui. manducat hunc panem,
viret in veternum , recte colligimus, sub una,
specie sumptum Sacramentum ita sufficere,
ut non necessario requirantur duae ad fru¬
ctum Communionis percipiendum. Magna est
autem dissimilitudo inter aquam, de qua lo¬
quitur Dominus. Joan. iv, et panem de quo
loquitur idem Domidus Joan. vi. Nam omnes
interpretes posteriorem locum exponunt de
Eucharistia, ut supra demonstravimus, prio¬
rem autem nullus omnino. Deinde Joaunes
ipse exposuit per aquam gratiam Spiritus
sancti, Joan. yii : IIoc autem dicit, inquit, de
Spiritu , quem accepturi erant credentes in
eum ; panem autem, Joan. vi, Christus ipse
dixit, esse carnem suam, cum ait : Panis
quem ego dabo, caro mea est (2).
Secundum argumentum ejusdem Lutheri:
Joan. vi, disserit Dominus de illa manduca¬
tione coelestis panis, qua? dat vitam. Sed sola
manducatio spiritualis per fidem dat vitam ;
ergo de illa sola agitur.
Respondeo, falsum assumi ; nam etiam sa-
cramentalis manducatio dat vitam ; sicut in
Baptismo non sola interna ablutio, sed etiam
externa mundat animas, illa formaliter, ista
efficienter, atque instrumentaliter : et sicut
scriptum est Actor, xv. Fide purificans corda
eorum ; ita scriptum est : Mundans eam la¬
vacro aquxin verbo vita > (3L Ephes. v. Neque
obstat, quod manducatio sacramentalis non
det vitam sine fide : nam id provenit ex iu-
dispositionc accedentis, non ex ipso Sacra¬
mento, quod ex se semper est efficax.
Tertium argumentum ejusdem Lutheri,
et Martyris iti defensione contra Gardinerum
par. i, ad objectum 13, pag. 91. Dominus,
Joan. vi, non solum dicit, manducationem
hujus panis dare vitam, sed etiam dicit sine
hac manducatione neminem posse vivere :
A is i manducaveritis etc. At hoc praeceptum
tam arctum non potest intelligi de manduca¬
tione sacramentali ; alioqui perirent omnes
infantes, qui manducare nihil possunt, sed
solum lac sugere : perirent etiam omnes, qui
non communicarent, impediti aliqua neces¬
saria causa, etiamsi alioqui baptizati et ju¬
stificati essent.
Respondeo, communem esse difficultatem,
quomodocumque hic locus intelligatur. Nam
si velint adversarii intelligi de manducatione
spirituali per fidem ; quomodo, quieso, in¬
fantes manducabunt, qui nullum habent
usum spiritus, nec finem actualem ullam ?
Imo facilius esset infantibus instillare ali¬
quid Sacramenti, quam efficere, ut credant.
Dico igitur hunc locum ad solos adultos per¬
tinere, qui quidem, aut re ipsa si possunt,
aut saltem desiderio, tenentur hoc Sacra¬
mentum aliquando percipere. Id ita esse pa¬
tet, quia hoc Sacramentum non est institu¬
tum ad vitam dandam iis qui non habent,
sicut Baptismus ; sed ad conservandam iis,
qui habent. Et sic intelligitur illud : Xon
habebitis vitam in vobis, id est, non poteri¬
tis retinere, sed eam amittetis, sicut dici¬
tur 1. Joan. m : Omnis homicida non habet
vitam in se manentem (i). Non enim sensus
est, non acquirit vitam ; sed non retinet,
amittit, moritur : hinc enim non regene¬
ratio, sed manducatio dicitur. Porro ista
conservatio non est necessaria, nisi iis, in
quibus vita jam acquisita minui, aut perdi
potest, quales non sunt infantes. Unde Do¬
minus non ait : Nisi quis manducaverit, sicut
dixit de Baptismo : Nisi quis renatus fuerit ;
sed, Xisi manducaveritis ; ubi alloquitur cir-
cumsUmtes, et eorum similes, qui capaces
sunt hujus praecepti. Et praeterea cum lo¬
quitur de manducatione panis, id est, cum
carnem suam panem vocat, satis aperte in¬
dicat, se non loqui de infantibus, qui non
vescuntur pane, sed lacte. Denique vel ht.ee
verba : Xisi manducaveritis, sonant prae¬
ceptum vel medium ad salutem necessa¬
rium. Si praeceptum, aut ad infantes non
{ l) Joan. VI, 55: IV,' |3 — (2) Joan. VII, 59 ; VI, 52. -
111, <5.
(3) Act. up. XV, 9 ; Eph. V,2G. - (4) 1 Joan.
CAPUT VII.
2!
pertinet, cum ejus non sint capaces, aut
certe excusantur cum non possint illud im¬
plere ; id enim est commune omni praecepto.
Si medium ad salutem necessarium ; certe
solum est medium iis qui vitam amittere
possunt, quales non sunt qui usu rationis
carent.
Quartum argumentum ejusdem. Augu¬
stinus lib. ii Contra Julian. docet, infantes
manducare carnem Christi, quatenus fidei com
municant ; igitur hic locus de manducatione
per fidem intelligitur. Huc addi possunt alia
loca Patrum, qua; a Martyre, et ab aliis affe¬
runtur. Nam idem Augustinus tract. 25. in
Joan cap. vi, Joan. adeo spiritualiterexponit;
ut dicat : «Crede et manducasti» et tract. 26.
« Credere in eum, hoc est, manducare panem
vivum. » Idem etiam deDoctr. Christiana lib.
ni. cap. 16, dicit illa verba : « Nisi mandu¬
caveritis carnem filii hominis,» nihil aliud si¬
gnificare, nisi passioni Domini communi¬
candum, et mente suaviter cogitandum,
Christi carnem pro nobis fuisse crucifixam.
Prreterea Clemens Alexandrinus lib. i. Pae¬
dagogi, cap. vi. exponit hoc loco per carnem,
et sanguinem Christi, verbum Dei, quo spi-
ritualiter alimur, et inebriamur. Item Basi¬
bus epist. 141. exponit per carnem et san¬
guinem doctrinam Christi, et mysticum ejus
adventum. Hieronymus quoque in Psalm.
cxlvii. per carnem, et sanguinem Domini
Scripturas intelligit. Denique S. Bernardus
in 3. versiculum Psalm. xc. Qui habitat, di¬
cit. manducare Christi carnem, esse passioni
Domini communicare, ejusque vitam imi-
tari.
Respondeo ad locum Augustini allatum a
Luthero, qui habetur lib. i. in Julianum , non
lib. ii. ut ipse citat. Ac primo observandum
est, Augustinum non raro dicere infantes
debere edere corpus Domini, si salvi futuri
sint, cceterum non intelligit id fieri debere
necessario reipsa. Nam idem Augustinus ibi¬
dem, et lib. m. de Peccator, meritis et re-
miss. cap. iv, et in serm. ad infantes, quem
citat Beda in Commentar. I. Cor. x. scribit
infantes in ipso Baptismo communicare cor¬
pori Christi, et per susceptionem Baptismi
implere etiam praeceptum de sumptione Eu¬
charistia;.
Notandum secundo, intantes non solum
non obligari ad Communionem reipsa, sed
hrec in voto expl icito, cujus non sunt ullo
modo capaces, sed tantum in voto implicito,
(I) Osece VI. 6.
quod votum infantes habent dum baptizan¬
tur : tunc enim infantes jus accipiunt ad Eu¬
charistiam percipiendam. Et quia omnis qui
nascitur, naturaliter appetit cibum ; ideo
etiam illi hoc ipso, quod renascuntur in Chri¬
sto, appetunt cibum renatorum, suo tamen lo¬
co, et tempore percipiendum. Itaque infantes
non communicant spiritualiter, nec sacra-
mentaliler in re, sed sacramentaliter in voto
implicito ; ex quo sequitur, ut non sit om¬
nino idem illis baptizari, et communicare,
licet simul fiant, cum unum sequatur ex al¬
tero. Itaque S. Augustinus, licet locis no
tatis, dicat infantes manducare Domini car¬
nem in Baptismo, tamen alibi aperte dis¬
tinguit baptizari, et comedere Christi car¬
nem : « Aliud (inquit serm. 11. de Verbis
Domini) est nasci de spiritu ; aliud pasci de
spiritu ; sicut aliud est nasci de carne, quod
fit cum parit mater, et aliud pasci de carne,
quod fit cum lactat infantem, » et lib. i. de
peccator, meritis , et remiss. cap. 20. aperte
demonstrat hoc praiccptum : A’ is i manducar e-
ritiSj distingui a praecepto Baptismi, etiam in
infantibus.
Ad argumentum ergo respondemus, Augu¬
stinum exponere hunc locum Joan. vi, de
manducatione sacramentali, sed eam tamen
manducationem tribuere infantibus, non in
re, sed in voto implicito, quod per Bapti¬
smum habetur, ut diximus.
Ad alia duo loca Augustini ex tract. 25, et
26. in Joan., respondeo, illud : « Ut quid pa¬
ras dentem, et ventrem ? crede, et mandu¬
casti » ; et illud : « Credere in eum ; hoc csl
manducare carnem ejus » : dicta esse ab Au¬
gustino, nou de Sacramento, sed de fide In¬
carnationis : nondum enim pervenerat ad
locum Evangclii, ubi agitur de Sacramento.
Illud autem : « Qui manducat corde, non
qui premit dente », dixit Augustinus cum de
sacramento loqueretur, non ut excluderet
Sacramcntalem esum, sed ut significaret, fi¬
nem Sacramenti hujus esse, alere animam,
non corpus, licet per instrumentum corporis
sumatur. Vere enim reficitur hoc cibo, qui
manducat corde, non qui premit dente, ni¬
mirum solo : non enim excludit corporalem
esum, cum ibidem dicat Judam comedisse
solo corpore ; sed solum anteponit spiritua¬
lem manducationem corporali, quod illa sine
ista prosit, ista sine illa non prosit, sed obsit.
Similis locus est Osore vi : Misericordiam colo,
non sacrificium (1); non enim Dominus respuit
22
LIBER I.
sacrificia, sed non vult illa, si absque mise¬
ricordia Sint.
Ad alios Patres respondeo, eos exposuisse
mystice, non ad litteram : sed non negasse
usquam debere ista verba accipi ad litteram
de sacramentali manducatione. Imo contra
citavimus nos supra pro nostra sententia,
Basilium, Hieronymum, et Bernardum : non
enim pugnant sensus litteralis et mysticus.
Ad ultimum Augustini ex. lib. ni de Doc¬
trina Christiana , respondemus, figuram po¬
nere Augustinum in his verbis, ratione modi
sumendi carnem Christi, non ratione sub¬
stantiae ipsius rei. Non enim vult dicere, car¬
nem Christi tropice dictam manducari, id est,
panem, quo significatur caro ; nec veram
carnem tropice manducari, si essentiam man¬
ducationis spectemus, quai solum requirit,
ut verus cibus ab ore trajiciatur ad stoma¬
chum per instrumenta vitalia ; sed vult di¬
cere tropice manducari, quoad modum ; nam
ordinarius, et proprius modus manducandi
carnem est, ut ea visibiliter secetur in par¬
tes, et particulatim sumatur, et cocta, non
cruda etc. Caro autem Christi sumitur inte¬
gra, et invisibiliter, et sine ulla sui leesione :
quare non proprie, sed tantum figurate
Christi caro occiditur, et laceratur in hac
manducatione ; repraesentamus enim Christi
passionem. Augustinum id voluisse, perspi¬
cuum est ex duobus. Primo, quia dicit tro¬
pice id exponendum, ne scelus aliquod, vel
flagitium praecipi videatur. Porro scelus esset,
Christi carnem occidere, et secare in partes ;
non autem spirituali quodammodo ipsam ve¬
ram carnem, sine ulla sui laesione in Sacra¬
mento ; umere. Secundo, quia ipse idem ex¬
plicat, quis sit litteralis sensus, qui scelus so¬
nare videatur, videlicet is, in quo verba
Christi acceperunt Capharnaitae,qui putarunt
Christi carnem laniandam, sicut in macello
fleri videmus, et cuique particulam dandam.
Yide tract. 27. in Joan. et in Psalm.. xcvm.
Cum igitur Augustinus dicit, hoc praecepto :
Nisi manducaveritis, mandari, ut communi¬
cemus Christi passioni, et e un recolamus,
ac mente revolvamus ; id ipsum significat,
quod Apostolus ait I. Corint. xi. sumendam
Christi carnem in Sacramento in memoriam
passionis, et mortis Domini.
Quintum argumentum Zwinglii est, in li¬
bro de Vera et falsa religione : Cibus, de quo
disseritur in cap. vi Joan. est fides ; nam
cum Dominus dixisset : Operamini non cibum
qui perit , sed qui permanet, dixerunt Judaei :
Quid faciemus, ut operemur opera Dei? Re¬
spondit Dominus : Hoc est opus Dei, ut cre¬
datis in eum , quem misit ille (1).
Respondeo : in eo capite multa tractari ;
fit enim mentio triplicis panis, et ab uno
transitur ad alterum occasione data inter lo¬
quendum. Primum narratur de pane illo ma¬
teriali, quem Dominus multiplicavit. Deinde,
quia Judaei eum solum panem quaerebant,
monuit eos Dominus, ut alium panem ope¬
rarentur, id est, parare et habere satagerent.
Atque hunc secundum panem dicit seip-
sum esse, qui de coelo descendit, per Incar¬
nationem . De hoc pane dicit : Ego sum
panis vivus, qui de coelo descendi ; et, Pater
meus dat vobis panem de coelo verum. Hunc
autem panem, id est, Christum incarna¬
tum fide apprehendere debemus, ut nos
reficiat : et hoc est, quod Dominus ait ; Hoc
est opus Dei ut credatis in eum, quem misit
ille. Ubi cibus, qui parandus est, non est fi¬
des, ut Zwinglius dicit, sed Christus ipse ;
fides autem est operatio, qua panis iste ac¬
quiritur. Denique tertio, inde transitum fecit
Dominus ad panem Eucharisticum, cum ait :
Panis, quem ego dabo, caro mea est, etc. (1).
Argumentum sextum ejusdem Zwinglii,
Christus ait : Qui manducat hunc panem,
vivet in aeternum. At id non est verum, nisi
de spirituali manducatione : multi enim sa-
cramentaliter manducando, non solum non
vivunt, sed manducando moriuntur : Qui
enim manducant indigne, judicium sibi man¬
ducant. II Corinth. xi (3).
Respondeo : verba Domini intelligi cum
conditione, si rite manducetur. Panis enim
ille, quod ad se attinet, semper vivificat, et
hoc significant verba Domini : potest tamen
impediri effectus aliunde, nimirum ex indis-
positione accedentis. Id quod commune est
promissionibus similibus, fere omnibus Luc.
xi. Omnis qui petit, accipit, et tamen multi
non accipiunt, quia, (ut exposuit Jacobus cap.
iv.) non bene petunt. Joel. ii. Quicumque
invocaverit nomen Domini, salvus erit. Et
tamen dicitur Proverb. i. Tunc invocabunt
me. et non exaudiam, eo quod exosam habue¬
rint disciplinam. Mare. ult. Qui crediderit, et
baptizatus fuerit, salvus erit. Et. Actor, vm.
Simon post fidem, et Baptismum, periit.
Denique Apostolus I Corinth. x : Unu spanis,
(I) Joan. VI, 27 ct 29. - (2) Joan. VI, 51, 32, 29 et 52. - (3) Joan. VI, 52 et 55; I Cor. NI, 29.
CAPUT VII.
23
et unum corpus multi sumus, qui de uno
pane participamus (1) omnium consensu de
Sacramento loquitur ; et tamen multi de
uno pane participant, qui non sunt nobis-
cum unus panis, et unum corpus, ut omnes
haeretici, et schismatici , qui ritum hujus
Sacramenti integre celebrant.
Septimum argumentum Petri Martyris in
sua defensione contra Gardinerum par. i.
objecto 13. Si illa verba : Panis, quem ego
dabo, ad symbola ccenm Domini pertinent,
cur panem abjiciunt Papistae ? nec enim
accidentia sola panis dici possunt.
Respondeo : Panis vocabulum in illis ver¬
bis : Panis, quem ego dabo, non significat
panem triticeum, neque etiam corpus Christi
absolute, et sine respectu ad symbola, ut
Martyr existimat, sed significat cibum gene-
ratim. Id enim frequens est apud Hebraeos,
ut nomine panis intelligatur omnis cibus :
unde in isto ipso cap. vi. Joan. manna dici¬
tur panis ; et in Psal. lxxvii. Panem de
coelo dedit eis , panem Angelorum manducavit
homo (2). Est igitur sensus : Panis, id est, ci¬
bus, quem ego dabo, est ipsamet caro, quae
crucifigenda, et occidenda est, pro salute
humani generis.
Octavum ejusdem Martyris, objecto 32.
Dominus Joan. vi. nullam mentionem facit
panis materialis, nec calicis, neque gratia¬
rum actionis, neque fractionis, neque distri¬
butionis, neque Testamenti, neque memoriae,
neque annunciationis mortis Christi : non
igitur loquitur de Sacramento coenae, quod
sine symbolis illis esse non potest.
Respondeo : argumentum hoc recte pro¬
bat, non fuisse hoc Sacramentum institutum,
Joan. vi. sed non fuisse promissum, non
probat : satis enim ad promissionem est,
quod expresserit Dominus id, quo'd est prae¬
cipuum, id est, carnem suam, et sanguinem.
Adde, quod etiam symbola futura insinuavit,
cum tam saepe distinxit carnem a sanguine,
et illam cibum, hunc potum appellavit : et
fortasse ideo carnem suam aliquoties panem
appellavit, ut indicaret sub specie panis nobis
edendam.
Nonum argumentum est quorumdam Ca¬
tholicorum. Dominus ait Joan. vi : Ego sum
panis vitx ; qui venit ad me non esuriet, et
qui credit in me, non sitiet in aeternum ; ergo
panis, de quo agitur Joan. vi. credendo man¬
ducatur, et bibitur. Expressit enim Dominus
credere esse bibere ; et sine dubio idem
est venire ad Christum, et credere in Chri¬
stum. Nam de fide loquitur, cum ait ibidem :
Nemo potest ad me venire , nisi Pater tra¬
xerit eum (3); ergo illud : Qui venit ad me,
non esuriet, significat : Qui venit ad me per
fidem, seu, qui fide manducat me, non esu¬
riet.
Respondeo : verba, quse citantur , non
pertinent ad Sacramentum proprie, sed ad
fidem incarnationis, ut supra diximus ; qua?
vero sequuntur postea, ad Sacramentum per¬
tinent.
Decimum argumentum, et fere solum, quo
persuasi sunt quidam Catholici, est, quoniam
eegre videtur posse defendi usum Ecclesiee de
Gommmunione sub una specie, si ad litteram
de Sacramento intelligamus illa verba : Nisi
manducaveritis carnem Filii hominis, et bibe¬
ritis ejus sanguinem, non habebitis vitam in
vobis (4).
Respondeo primo, non oportere ob rei
difficultatem deserere cognitam veritatem.
Secundo, facile solvi posse hunc nodum, si
dicamus (quse est communis solutio) vim
praecepti non consistere in modo sumendi,
sed in ipsa re, quai sumenda est. Verba qui¬
dem praecepti sonant, ut sumam carnem sub
specie panis per modum cibi, et sanguinem
sub specie yini per modum potus : tamen
mens legislatoris, ex qua lex ipsa explicanda
est, non erat obligare, nisi ad res ipsas su¬
mendas, id est, veram carnem, et verum
sanguinem ; quae res tam sumuntur integre
sub una specie, quam sub duabus. Probatur
autem eam esse mentem legislatoris, tum quia
fructus hujus perceptionis oritur ex ipsis rebus
perceptis, non ex modo sumendi; sicut etiam
medicina corporalis non prodest, quia sumi¬
tur per modum cibi, aut potus, sed quia ipsa
vim habet sanandi : tum etiam quia idem
Christus explicans quod dixerat, ait ibidem:
Qui manducat me, vivet propter me; ubi
videmus idem esse manducare carnem, et
bibere sanguinem, quod Christum ipsum
totum manducare.
(I) Luc.XMO; Joci. 11,32; Prov. 1,28 et 29; Mare. XVI, 16; I Cor. X, 17. — (2) Psal. LXXVIb
24 et 25. — (3) Joan. VI, 35 ct 44. —(4) Joan. VI, 54.
24
LIBER .