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 9: That the Words This Is My Body Must Be Explained Properly, Not Figuratively
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, to establish the true opinion, we shall first demonstrate in general that it is not probable that the Lord wished to speak figuratively. Then we shall weigh the several words of the institution, and at the same time refute the opinions of the heretics. First, then, that it is not probable that the Lord wished to speak figuratively, we prove by arguments drawn from the matter of which it is treated. Then from the persons with whom the Lord was speaking, from the place and the time in which He spoke. Thirdly, from the consent of the Fathers. Fourthly, from the rule of interpreting the Scriptures.
The first argument, then, is taken from the matter. Now the matter of which it is here treated is a covenant, a Sacrament, a Testament, a law, and a dogma; all of which require proper, not figurative, speech. That it is a Sacrament of which it is here treated no one denies. And that Sacraments are wont to be instituted by God in proper words, that no error be made in their use, is evident from the institution of all the Sacraments of the old and new law. Certainly in Genesis 17, where circumcision is instituted, and in Exodus 12, where the paschal lamb is instituted, and in the whole of Leviticus, where so many sacrifices and expiations are instituted, scarcely ever occurs any one figurative word; so also in Matthew, the last chapter, Mark, the last chapter, and John 3, where the institution, or rather promulgation and precept, of Baptism is treated of, all things are explained in proper words. Nor does it stand in the way that in John 3 the Lord uses the word ‘to be reborn’, which seems metaphorical; for in the same place that word is explained by the adjuncts: Of water and the Holy Spirit. And besides, that word pertains not to the essence of the sacrament, but to signifying the effect. Who then would believe that Christ, in instituting the primary sacrament of our religion, wished to speak so figuratively and ambiguously that not even the doctors of the divine law can agree among themselves what this sacrament is, whether bread or the body of the Lord?
Then that the new Testament was at the same time instituted by the Lord is clear from those words: This is my blood of the new testament, Matthew 26; or, as Luke 22 has it, This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood. Now nothing is wont to be explained more properly, simply, and exactly than a Testament, lest occasion be given for litigating about the will of the testator. So we see in Exodus 24, where the old Testament is instituted, that all things are explained in the most proper and most plain words; for thus the Apostle relates that institution, Hebrews 9: For when every commandment of the law had been read by Moses to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying: This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you. So too we see done in the testaments of men; for in Genesis 49 Jacob, when in prophesying he had used various figures, coming to the testament itself uses the clearest words: I am now going to be gathered to my people; bury me with my fathers, in the double cave which is in the field of Ephron the Hethite, over against Mambre in the land of Chanaan, which Abraham bought. So too King David, 3 Kings 2, and Tobias chapter 4, and Mattathias, 1 Maccabees chapter 2, composed their testaments in the simplest words. Why then should not Christ too have composed His testament, of so great moment, in which it is a question of the eternal inheritance, in proper and plain words? Unless perhaps it is fitting that the old Testament, which was a figure and shadow, be set forth in proper and clear words, but the new Testament be obscured with figurative and typical expressions? It is confirmed from human custom, from which the Apostle too took an argument, Galatians 3, where he says that a man’s testament is so ratified that no one dares add anything or take away. Now human laws command that human testaments be understood in the proper sense of the words (Digest, On Legacies 3, law Non aliter); and therefore, if by a testament a house or a field be left, and someone wished to cavil that a true house was not left but a painted one, and were to expound, ‘I leave the house’, that is, an image of a house, he would prevail before no judge. How much less then ought the adversaries to prevail, who dare to wrest the very Testament of Christ, against the custom of all testaments, to metonymies?
Now covenants or leagues too are of that kind of things which are explained in the most exact and proper words, lest any place be left for cavils. But the Testament of Christ was at once a Testament and a covenant; for it is a conditioned Testament. Which is clear from the old Testament, to which the new corresponds as the thing figured to its figure. For on that account it is called by Moses a covenant, Exodus 24, and by Paul a Testament, Hebrews 9, because it was both at once; for it contained the donation of the inheritance, but with this covenant and condition, if they should persevere in the worship and religion of the one true God.
There follows the law, or precept. For that in this institution there is some divine precept no one denies; and it is clear from those words: Take ye, eat, likewise, do this. For although, as I said above, there is not in these words a precept by which all are obliged to receive the Eucharist, yet there is at least a precept by which the Apostles were then bidden to receive it, and also a precept that when we receive, we receive in this manner or that. Now the words of laws ought to be plain and proper, lest occasion be given for prevarication; whence all the precepts, not only of the Decalogue, but also others by which certain rites are instituted, are explained in the old law in proper words. Someone will say: The words in which the law is placed are proper, namely, Take, eat, do. I answer: It is not enough, unless it be also properly and plainly signified what it is that is to be taken, eaten, done; for a morsel of bread is to be taken far otherwise than the body of Christ.
Finally, the chief dogmas are wont to be delivered in the divine writings only in proper words. For tropes have place either in prophecies to obscure the matter, or in praises to adorn the matter, or finally in exhortations to amplify the matter, but not in dogmas, which must be precisely believed or observed. But that one of the chief dogmas of the Christian religion is contained in those words, This is my body, no one has hitherto denied.
To this argument Peter Martyr answers, at the end of the third part of his defense against Gardiner, that there are not wanting in Scripture sacraments, dogmas, and precepts explained by tropes. And indeed he sets down as examples of precepts those in Matthew 7: Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep. And Matthew 16: Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees. And Ephesians 4: Grieve not the Holy Spirit. And Matthew 6: Be not solicitous for tomorrow, for the morrow will be solicitous for itself; sufficient for the day is its own evil. As examples of dogmas he sets down that one: Our God is a consuming fire. And that: We are all one bread; and those where Christ is called a stone, a lion, a vine, and so forth. Finally, as examples of sacraments he sets down: The rock was Christ, and The lamb was the Phase, and Circumcision is the covenant; and finally, the chalice is the new Testament.
I answer: the adversary has said nothing to our argument drawn from the words of Testament and covenant. Then, as regards precepts, peculiar and properly-so-called precepts must be distinguished from exhortations, although the latter too seem to contain certain precepts. For peculiar and properly-so-called precepts must be uttered in proper words, lest there be place for evasion; but in exhortations, which do not contain peculiar precepts, but only persuade to do or not to do things which are otherwise most well known, tropes are most aptly mixed in; and of this kind are the examples adduced. For that one must beware of false prophets all know, even though it be not commanded; therefore the Lord does not so much command it as exhort to do it, using the similitude of sheep and wolves. So too, who knows not that one must beware of hypocrisy and false doctrine? Therefore the Lord, to not so much command it as rouse to the doing of it, uses the trope of leaven. That one must not do anything which displeases God no one is ignorant; therefore the Apostle did not write this simply, but, to move the more, willed to use the trope of grieving the Holy Spirit. Finally, that superfluous cares and solicitudes are to be avoided all know; therefore the Lord used tropes.
As regards dogmas, it must be observed that not any opinions whatever about God are called dogmas, but only those which have a peculiar difficulty, whether for believing or for doing, such as are the articles of faith and the canons of Councils; but the rest, which follow most plainly from them, are not called dogmas. For example, God is one, God is triune, God is infinite; Christ is God and man, and the like, are dogmas. But God is a consuming fire, Christ is a vine, a stone, a lion, and so forth, are not called dogmas, but explanations of the most well-known properties of God and Christ.
Again, both concerning precepts and concerning dogmas, it must be noted that when we say that dogmas and precepts ought to be uttered in proper words, it is so to be understood that they be uttered either only in proper words, or, if in one place in tropical, in another in proper; for nothing forbids that what is had expressly and properly in one place be had more obscurely elsewhere. Which Augustine noted, Book 2 On Christian Doctrine, chapters 6 and 9: “Nothing,” he says, “is said obscurely in the Scriptures which regards faith or morals, which is not said most plainly in other places.” So we see that what the Lord had said more obscurely of leaven He explained clearly a little after. For in Matthew 16 He added that He had spoken of doctrine, not of the leaven of loaves; and in Luke 12: Beware, He says, of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. So too that, Christ is the corner stone, is had without a trope in countless places in Paul; and that, We are one bread, is had properly most frequently, where we are said to be one people, one Church, one family of God. So that saying, John 2, Destroy this temple, the Evangelist explained to be understood of the body of the Lord; and that saying, John 7, Out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water, he explained to be understood of the Holy Spirit; and John, the last chapter, that saying, Another shall gird thee, and lead thee whither thou wouldst not, he explained to be taken of the death of Peter. But this dogma and peculiar and chief precept concerning the Eucharist is nowhere had in other words in Scripture; for nowhere do we read that the bread of the Eucharist signifies, or is a figure of, the body of the Lord. Wherefore we are compelled to take properly that which we read: This is my body.
Now as regards Sacraments, we shall show a little later that there is no trope in the examples adduced. Only this must now be noted in passing, that in the example The rock was Christ, 1 Corinthians 10, there are three errors of Peter Martyr. For first he says that that rock, from which the water flowed in the desert, was a Sacrament. But this can in no way be true, since it was a temporary thing, and not a ceremony of religion which was to be frequented among the people of God. Secondly he says that that rock, like the manna too, is compared with Baptism, 1 Corinthians 10. But the Apostle compares the passage of the sea with Baptism; but the manna and the water from the rock with the Eucharist, as all expound; nor yet does he so compare, as it were Sacraments with Sacraments, but as figures of Sacraments with the Sacraments themselves. Thirdly he says that an example of a trope in Sacraments is in those words: The rock was Christ. But the Sacrament was (by the adversary) that material rock; but Paul does not speak of it, but of another invisible one, which in truth was Christ as God. For thus he says: They drank of the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ. Where there is indeed a trope in that Christ is called a rock; but this is nothing to the purpose; for Christ was not the Sacrament, but that visible rock, by the adversaries. But here not the visible rock is called Christ, but Christ is called a rock, as elsewhere He is called a lion, or a lamb, or a vine; whence no example of a trope in Sacraments is drawn.
The second argument is taken from the persons with whom the Lord was speaking when He said, This is my body; for He was speaking with the Apostles alone. For the Lord, although He said many things obscurely to the Pharisees, because they were unworthy of the knowledge of such sublime mysteries, yet to the Apostles, who were rude and simple, and were being trained as future masters of the whole human race, either proposed all things most clearly, or immediately expounded what was said more obscurely. Besides, He was speaking in that place and time in which it least behooved Him to speak obscurely, namely when the Apostles were to be the first partakers of so great a Sacrament. For that they might receive the Sacrament with due reverence, it was necessary that they should plainly understand what was given to them.
Now that the Lord did not in the supper explain a trope is manifestly gathered from two things. First, from this, that no trace of explanation exists, as in all other places. For example, Matthew 13, the Lord, about to speak in a parable, says: The kingdom of heaven is like; and John 13 [15], where He had said, I am the vine, and you the branches, He subjoins, explaining: If any one abide not in me, as a branch, and so forth. But here nothing of the sort.
Secondly, from this, that all the writers of this history use the same words. For the Evangelists are wont to supply or explain one another, so that what one said more obscurely, another says more clearly. But here all use the same words, although there are four writers—Matthew, Mark, Luke, Paul—and they wrote in diverse places and times; which is an argument that the Lord said nothing else.
Thirdly, it is proved from the consent of the interpreters. For no one ever so expounded as to say that this passage must be understood tropically, although on Matthew there wrote Hilary, Jerome, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Bede, Anselm; on Luke, Ambrose, Theophylact, Bede; on Paul, innumerable. Nay, on the contrary many expressly warn that it must not be taken tropically, but properly. See Chrysostom and Theophylact on this passage; Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechesis 4 Mystagogical; Ambrose, Book 4 On the Sacraments, chapter 5; Cyril of Alexandria, epistle to Calosyrius; Eusebius of Emesa, homily 5 On the Pasch; Epiphanius in the Ancoratus; who all teach that here there is need of faith, that the thing may be believed which seems most absurd to the senses. But certainly, if this passage were to be understood tropically, there would be no difficulty of faith. For what difficulty is there, if it is only to be believed that by the bread the body of Christ is signified?
Lastly, it is proved from the common rule of explaining Scripture, which is that we never dismiss the proper sense of the words, unless we be compelled by some other Scripture, or by some article of faith, or certainly by the common explanation of the whole Church; for otherwise faith will perish, and there will remain only opinion about divine things, and the gate will be opened to infinite errors. This can be proved by the example of the adversaries, who have not faith, but mere opinion about this sacrament; for their opinion rests not on an express word of God, since the express words are not This signifies, but This is my body. Nor do they rest on another word of God; for nowhere will they find in the Scriptures that This is my body ought to be expounded tropically. For although they bring forward certain passages where they think the word is ought to be expounded by signifies, yet they confess that is ought not everywhere to be expounded by signifies. Accordingly they cannot solidly conclude from the word of God that these words are to be taken tropically, unless they bring forward a passage where it is expressly said in particular that these words are to be expounded tropically; which passage they will nowhere find.
Nor have they an article of faith to which the proper acceptation of these words expressly repugns. They are wont to urge the article of the Ascension; but that this truth does not repugn to it is clear, because we believe both—that Christ truly ascended and is in heaven, and that at the same time He is in the Eucharist. Nor is it probable that among so many Catholics as there are and have been for so many centuries of years, there was not one who saw that repugnance; especially since the scholastic doctors know far better the rules of contradictions than all the Lutherans, who despise the subtlety of disputations. The same is most plainly clear from this, that the Lord, when He first gave this sacrament to the disciples, was not in heaven, but on earth, for He had not yet ascended into heaven; then therefore this truth did not repugn to the article of the Ascension. We are not therefore compelled to take these words tropically. Finally, this truth repugns to the article of the Ascension no more than the truth of the Trinity repugns to the article of the divine unity. Just as they conclude, Christ is in heaven, therefore not on earth, so they could conclude, God is one, therefore not triune; for we understand neither, yet we confess both, because we read both in the divine writings, and there is no evident repugnance.
But neither can they even bring forward any common Ecclesiastical exposition, since they do not agree among themselves. They rest, then, only on the authority of one or another doctor, and on light conjectures, which certainly make not divine faith, but opinion. Besides, we also experience how many sects have been born in these few years, and are born daily, for this sole cause, that, the proper sense of Scripture being abandoned, they rashly hunt after tropes.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT IX.
Proprie, non figurate explicanda esse illa
verita : Hoc est corpus meum.
Nunc, ut veram sententiam comprobemus.
Primo in universum demonstrabimus, non
esse probabile, Dominum figurate loqui vo¬
luisse. Deinde expendemus singula verba ins¬
titutionis, ac simul refellemus haereticorum
opiniones. Primum igitur non esse probabile,
Dominum loqui voluisse figurate, probamus
argumentis ductis a materia, de qua agitur.
Deinde a personis, cum quibus Dominus lo¬
quebatur, a loco, et tempore, in quo loque¬
batur. Tertio ex consensu Patrum. Quarto
ex regula interpretandi Scripturas.
Primum igitur argumentum sumitur a ma¬
teria. Est autem materia de qua hic agitur,
pactum, Sacramentum, Testamentum, lex et
dogma ; qua} omnia requirunt propriam, non
figuratam locutionem. Sacramentum esse, de
quo hic agitur, nemo negat. Sacramenta
autem solere a Deo institui propriis verbis,
ut in eorum usu non erretur, perspicuum est
ex institutione Sacramentorum omnium ve¬
teris, et novae legis. Certe Genes, xvn. ubi
instituitur circumcisio, etExod. xn. ubi insti¬
tuitur agnus paschalis, et in totoLetivico, ubi
tot sacrificia, et expiationes instituuntur, vix
unquam occurrit una aliqua vox figurata :
^ic etiam Matth, ult. Marci ultim. et Joan.
iii. ubi de Baptismi institutione, vel potius
promulgatione, et praecepto agitur, omnia
propriis vocibus explicantur. Neque obstat,
quod Joan. iii. Dominus utitur voce rena¬
scendi, qua} videtur metaphorica : nam ibi¬
dem explicatur vox illa per adjuncta : Ex
aqua et Spiritu sancto. Et praeterea non per¬
tinet vox illa ad sacramenti essentiam, sed
ad effectum significandum. Quis ergo credat
Christum in instituendo sacramento primario
nostra} religionis, ita figurate, et ambigue
loqui voluisse, ut ne ipsi quidem Doctores
legis divinae inter se convenire possint, quid
sit hoc sacramentum, panisne an corpus Do¬
mini.
Deinde Testamentum novum fuisse simul
a Domino institutum, patet ex illis verbis :
Hic est sanguis meus novi Testamenti. Matth.
xxyi. vel ut habet Luc. xxn. Hic est calix
2G
LIBER I.
novum Testamentum in meo sanguine (1). Jam
vero nihil solet magis proprie, simpliciter et
exquisite explicari, quam Testamentum ; ne
videlicet detur occasio litigandi de voluntate
testatoris. Ita videmus Exod. xxiv, ubi Tes¬
tamentum vetus instituitur, omnia propriis-
simis et apertissimis vocibus, explicari; sic
enim refert illam institutionem Apostolus,
Hebr. ix. Lecto , inquit, omni mandato legis
a Moyse universo populo, accipiens sanguinem
vitulorum, et hircorum cum aqua, et lana coc¬
cinea, et hyssopo; ipsum quoque librum , et
omnem populum aspersit, dicens : Hic est san¬
guis Testamenti, quem misit ad vos Deus. Sic
etiam in testamentis hominum fieri videmus;
nam Genes, xlix. Jacob, ubi inter vaticinan¬
dum variis figuris usus fuisset, ad ipsum
Testamentum veniens, clarissimis verbis uti¬
tur : Ego congregor ad populum meum, sepe¬
lite me cum patribus meis, in spelunca duplici,
quae est in agro E phron Hethcei contra Mambre
in terra Chanaan, quam emit Abrciham (2),
Ita quoque et rex David in. Regum n. et
Tobias cap. iv. etMattathias lib. i. Macchab.
cap. ii. testamenta sua verbis simplicissimis
composuerunt. Quidni igitur etiam Christus
Testamentum suum tanti momenti, quo de
aiterna haereditate agitur, verbis propriis,
et apertis composuerit? nisi forte deceat, ut
Testamentum vetus, quod figura erat, et
umbra, propriis, ac perspicuis vocibus pro¬
ponatur; Testamentum autem novum figura¬
tis , et typicis locutionibus obscuretur ?
Confirmatur ex humano more, a quo etiam
Apostolus argumentum sumpsit, Galat. m.
ubi dicit, testamentum hominis ita esse ra¬
tum, ut nemo audeat aliquid addere, vel dC-
mere. Jam ergo testamenta humana in pro¬
prio sensu verborum intelligenda esse, ju¬
bent humanae leges, ff. de legat. 3. leg.
non aliter, et ideo si testamento relinquatur
domus, aut ager, et vellet aliquis cavillari,
non esse relictam domum veram, sed depic¬
tam, et exponeret, relinquo domum, id est,
signum domus; apud nullum judicem obti¬
neret. Quanto igitur minus obtinere debent
adversarii, qui Testamentum ipsum Christi
contra morem omnium testamentorum de¬
torquere audent ad metonymias?
Porro, pacta, seu foedera sunt etiam, ex eo
genere rerum, quse exquisitissimis, et pro¬
priis verbis explicantur, ne locus uilus relin-
quatur cavillis. Testamentum autem Christi
simul Testamentum, et pactum fuit; nam est
Testamentum conditionatum. Id quod patet
ex veteri Testamento, cui novum respondet,
ut res figurata suce figurae. Idcirco enim a
Moyse vocatur pactum, Exod. xxiv. et. a
Paulo Testamentum, Hebr. ix. quia utrum¬
que simul erat, continebat enim donationem
liaereditatis, sed cum eo pacto et conditione,
si perseverarent in cultu, et religione unius
veri Dei.
Sequitur lex, seu praeceptum. Esse enim
in hac institutione praeceptum aliquod divi¬
num, nemo negat; et patet ex illis verbis :
Accipite, edite, item, hoc facite. Etsi enim ut
supra dixi, non est in his verbis praeceptum,
quo obligentur omnes ad Eucharistiam su¬
mendam : tamen praeceptum est saltem, quo
jubebantur Apostoli tunc illam accipere,: et
etiam praeceptum est, ut quando sumimus,
hoc modo, aut illo sumamus. Verba autem
legum perspicua, et propria esse debent, ne
detur occasio praevaricationi : unde omnia
praecepta non solum Decalogi, sed etiam alia,
quibus certi ritus instituuntur, in lege veteri
propriis verbis explicantur. Dicet aliquis :
Verba, in quibus lex posita est, propria sunt,
nimirum : Accipite , edite, facite. Respondeo :
Non satis est, nisi etiam proprie, et aperte
significetur quid sit, quod est accipiendum
edendum, faciendum : longe enim aliter
accipiendum est frustum panis, aliter Christi
corpus.
Denique, dogmata praecipua non nisi pro¬
priis verbis tradi solent in divinis litteris.
Tropi enim locum habent, vel in prophetiis
ad rem obscurandam, vel in laudationibus
ad rem ornandam, vel denique in cohorta¬
tionibus ad rem amplificandam, non autem
in dogmatibus, quae praecise credi, aut ser¬
vari debent. Unum autem ex praecipuis dog¬
matibus Christianae religionis in illis verbis :
IIoc est corpus meum, contineri, nemo hacte¬
nus negavit.
Ad hoc argumentum respondet Petrus
Martyr in fine tertiae partis defensionis suae
contra Gardinerum non deesse in Scriptura
sacramenta, dogmata et praecepta tropis
explicata. Et quidem exempla praeceptorum
ponit illa Matth. vn. Attendite a falsis pro¬
phetis, qui veniunt ad vos in vestimentis ovium.
Et Matth. xxvi. Attendite a fermento Phari-
sceorum. Et Eplies. iv. Nolite contristare Spi¬
ritum sanctum. Et Matth. vi. Nolite cogitare
(l)Math. XXVI, 28; Luc. XXII, 22. — (2) Hebr. IX, 19 et 20 ; Gen. XLIX, 29 et 30.
CAPUT IX.
27
de crastino , sufficit enim diei malitia sua ; et
crastinus sollicitus erit sibi ipsi. Exempla dog¬
matum ponit illud : Deus noster ignis consu¬
mens est. Et illud : Nos omnes unus panis su¬
mas; et illa, ubi Christus dicitur lapis, leo,
vitis, etc. Denique exempla sacramentorum
ponit : Petra erat Christus, et Agnus erat
Pesach, et Circumcisio est foedus ; et denique
calix est Testamentum novum (1).
Respondeo, nihil adversarium dixisse ad
argumentum nostrum depromptum ex voci¬
bus Testamenti, et pacti. Deinde, quod ad
praecepta attinet, distinguenda sunt prae¬
cepta peculiaria et proprie dicta a cohorta¬
tionibus, licet etiam ipsae praecepta quaedam
continere videantur. Nam praecepta peculia¬
ria, et proprie dicta sunt efferenda propriis
vocibus, ne sit locus tergiversationi : at in
cohortationibus, quae non continent peculia¬
ria praecepta, sed tantum persuadent fa¬
cienda, vel non lacienda ea, quae alioqui
notissima sunt, aptissime admiscentur tropi;
et ejusmodi sunt allata exempla. Nam esse
cavendum a falsis Prophetis, omnes norunt,
etiamsi non praecipiatur : ideo Dominus, non
tam id praecipit, quam hortatur ad id facien¬
dum adhibita similitudine ovium et luporum.
Sic etiam cavendum ah hypocrisi, et falsa
doctrina, quis nescit? ideo Dominus, ut non
tam id praeciperet, quam excitaret ad facien¬
dum, utitur tropo fermenti. Non esse aliquid
agendum, quod displiceat Deo, nullus igno¬
rat;' idcirco Apostolus non simpliciter id
scripsit, sed ut magis permoveret, uti voluit
tropo contristandi Spiritum sanctum. Deni¬
que esse vitandas supervacaneas curas ,
et sollicitudines, omnes norunt, ideo Domi¬
nus adhibuit tropos.
Quod attinet ad dogmata, observandum
est, non vocari dogmata quaslibet de Deo
sententias, sed solum eas, quae habent pecu¬
liarem difficultatem, sive ad credendum sive
ad operandum, quales sunt articuli fidei, et
canones Conciliorum : coctera autem, quae ex
illis apertissime consequuntur, non dicuntur
dogmata. Yerhi gratia, Deus est unus, Deus est
trinus, Deus est infinitus ; Christus est Deus et
homo, et similia, dogmata sunt. At Deus est
ignis consumens, Christus est vitis, lapis, leo
etc. non dicuntur dogmata, sed explicationes
proprietatum notissimarum Dei, et Christi.
Rursus tum de praeceptis, tum de dog¬
matibus. Notandum est, cum dicimus dog¬
mata; et praecepta debere propriis verbis
efferri, sic esse intelligendum, ut vel tantum
propriis verbis efferantur ; vel si uno in loco
tropicis, in alio propriis : nihil enim prohibet
quod habetur expresse et proprie in uno loco,
alibi obscurius haberi. Quod notavit Augu¬
stinus lib. ii. doctr. Ghrist. cap. 6. et 9. «Nihil
est, inquit, obscure dictum in Scripturis,
quod spectet ad fidem, vel mores, quod non
planissime dictum sit in aliis locis. » Ita vi¬
demus, quod de fermento Dominus dixerat
obscurius, paulo post clare explicuisse. Nam
Mattii. 16. addidit se locutum de doctrina,
non de fermento panum, et Luc. xii. At¬
tendite, inquit, a fermento Pharisxorum ,
quod est hypocrisis (2). Sic etiam illud : Chris¬
tus est lapis angularis ( sine tropo habetur in
infinitis locis apud Paulum ; et illud : Unus
panis sumus , habetur proprie frequentissime,
ubi dicimur unus populus, una Ecclesia, una
familia Dei. Sic illud Joan. n. Solvite tem¬
plum hoc , explicuit Evangelista esse intelli¬
gendum de corpore Domini, et illud Joan.
vii. Flumina de ventre ejus fluent aquae vivae,
explicuit intelligendum de Spiritu sancto, et
Joan. ult. illud : Alius cinget te, et ducet quo
tu non vis (3), explicuit de morte Petri acci¬
piendum. At hoc dogma et .praeceptum pe¬
culiare, et praecipuum de Eucharistia nus¬
quam habetur aliis verbis in Scriptura : nus¬
quam enim legimus panem Eucharistiae
significare, aut esse figuram corporis Domini.
Quare cogimur proprie accipere id, quod
legimus : Hoc est corpus meum.
Jam quod attinet ad Sacramenta, osten¬
demus paulo post non esse tropum in exem¬
plis allatis. Id solum nunc est obiter adno-
tandum, in exemplo : Petra erat Christus.
i. Corinth. x. tria esse peccata Petri Mar¬
tyris. rimo enim dicit, petram illam, ex qua
fluxit aqua in deserto, Sacramentum fuisse.
At id ‘nullo modo verum esse potest, cum
fuerit res temporaria, et non caeremonia re¬
ligionis, qum frequentanda esset in populo
Dei. Secundo dicit petram illam, ut etiam
manna, conferri cum Baptismo, i. Corinth.
x. At Apostolus transitum maris confert cum
Baptismo ; manna autem, et aquam de petra
cum Eucharistia, ut omnes exponunt: nec
tamen ita confert, quasi Sacramenta cum
Sacramentis, sed quasi figuras Sacramen-
(2) Luc.XIT, 1. -(3) Joan. 11, 19;
(!) Matth. VII, 15 ; XVI, 6 et 1 1 ; Eph. IV, 30 ; Matth. VI, 34. —
VII, 38; XV, 5.
28
UBER T.
torum cum ipsis Sacramentis. Tertio dicit,
exemplum tropi in Sacramentis esse in illis
verbis : Petra erat Christus. At Sacramentum
erat (per adversarium^ petra illa materialis ,
Paulus autem non de illa loquitur, sed de
alia invisibili, quae revera erat Christus, ut
Deus. Sic enim ait : Bibebant de spirituali
consequente eos petra ; petra autem erat
Christus { 1). Ubi est quidem tropus ineo, quod
Christus vocatur petra ; sed hoc nihil ad
propositum : non enim Christus erat Sacra¬
mentum, sed petra illa visibilis per adversa¬
rios. Hic autem non petra visibilis dicitur
Christus : sed Christus dicitur petra ; sicut
alibi dicitur leo, vel agnus, vel vitis ; unde
nullum ducitur exemplum tropi in Sacra¬
mentis.
Argumentum secundum sumitur a per¬
sonis cum quibus Dominus loquebatur, cum
diceret : Hoc est corpus meum ; nam loque¬
batur cum solis Apostolis. Dominus enim,
etiamsi Pharisaeis multa obscure dicebat,
quia indigni erant cognitione tam subli¬
mium mysteriorum ; tamen Apostolis, qui
rudes, ac simplices erant, et instituebantur,
ut magistri futuri totius humani generis, om¬
nia vel clarissime proponebat, vel obscurius
dicta, continuo exponebat. Praeterea loque¬
batur eo loco, et tempore, quo minime opor¬
tebat obscure loqui, nimirum cum Apostoli
essent primi participes tanti Sacramenti fu¬
turi. Nam ut cum debita reverentia Sacra¬
mentum perciperent, necesse erat, ut plane
intelligerent, quid eis daretur. .
Quod autem Dominus in cama non expli¬
cuerit tropum, manifeste colligitur ex duo¬
bus. Primo ex eo, quod nullum exstat vesti¬
gium explicationis, ut in omnibus aliis locis.
Verbi gr. Matt. xm. Dominus, parabolice lo¬
cuturus, ait : Simile est regnum caelorum,
et Joan. xm. ubi dixerat : Ego sum citis , et
vos palmites, subjungit explicans : Si quis in
me non manserit, sicut palmes , e te. (2). At hic
nihil tale.
Secundo ex eo, quod omnes scriptores
hujus historice iisdem verbis utantur. Solent
enim Evangelistae, se invicem supplere, vel
explicare, ut quod unus obscurius dixit, alius
dicat clarius. Hic autem omnes iisdem verbis
utuntur, cum tamen sint scriptores quatuor,
Matthaeus, Marcus, Lucas, Paulus, et scrip¬
serint diversis in locis, et temporibus ; quod
argumentum est, Dominum nihil aliud dixisse.
Tertio, probatur ex consensu interpretum.
Nullus enim unquam ita exposuit, ut tro¬
pice hunc locum intelligendum esse diceret :
cum tamen scripserint in Matthaeum Hila¬
rius, Hieronymus, Chrysostomus, Theophy-
lactus, Beda, Anselmus ; in Lucam Ambro¬
sius, Theophylactus, Beda ; in Paulum in¬
numerabiles. Imo contra multi expresse
monent, non esse accipiendum tropice, sed
proprie. Vide Chrysostomum, etTheophilac-
tum in hunc locum, Cyrillum Hierosolymita¬
num catech. 4. mystagog. Ambrosium lib.
IV. de Sacramentis, cap 5. Cyrillum Alexan¬
drinum epist. ad Calosiriurn, Eusebium Emis-
senum homil. 5. de Paschate, Epiphanium
in Ancorato , qui omnes docent, hic opus es¬
se fide, ut credatur res, quae absurdissima
sensibus esse videtur. At certe, si tropice hic
locus intelligendus esset, nulla esset diffi¬
cultas fidei. Quai enim difficultas, si solum
credendum pane significari corpus Christi ?
Ultimo, probatur ex communi regula ex-
plicandte Scripturae, quae est ut nunquam
dimittamus proprium verborum sensum, nisi
cogamur ab aliqua alia Scriptui a, vel ab
aliquo articulo fidei, aut certe a communi
totius Ecclesiae explicatione : alioqui enim
peribit fides, et remanebit sola opinio de re¬
bus divinis, et aperietur porta infinitis erro¬
ribus. Id probari potest exemplo adversario¬
rum qui non habent fidem, sed meram opinio¬
nem de hoc sacramento: nam eorum sententia
non nititur expresso verbo Dei, cum verba
expressa non sint, Hoc significat, sed: Hoc
est corpus meum. Neque nituntur alio verbo
Dei : nusquam enim invenient in Scripturis,
Hoc est corpus meum, debere exponi tropice.
Etsi enim proferunt quaedam loca, ubi ver¬
bum, Est, putant debere exponi per, Signi¬
ficat ; tamen fatentur non ubique, Est, ex¬
poni debere per, Significat. Proinde non pos¬
sunt ex verbo Dei solide concludere, haec
verba accipienda esse tropice, nisi proferant
locum, ubi expresse dicatur in particulari,
haec verba exponenda esse tropice ; qualem
locum nusquam invenient.
Nec habent articulum fidei, cui propria ac¬
ceptio horum verborum expresse repugnet.
Solent illi urgere articulum Ascensionis : sed
illi non repugnare hanc veritatem, patet ;
quia nos utrumque credimus, et Christum
vere ascendisse, et esse in ccelo, et simul
esse in Eucharistia. Neque probabile est in-
(1) 1 Cor. X. 4. — (?) Math. XIII. 24 et 33; Joan. XXI, 18.
CAPUT X.
29
ter tot Catholicos, qui sunt, et fuerunt a tot
annorum centuriis, non fuisse ullum, qui vi¬
deret istam repugnantiam : praesertim cum
doctores scholastici longe melius norint re¬
gulas contradictionum, quam omnes Luthe-
rani, qui contemnunt subtilitatem disputa¬
tionum. Idem apertissime patet ex eo, quod
Dominus cum primum hoc sacramentum
praebuit discipulis non in cado erat, sed in
terra, nondum enim ascenderat in coelum :
tunc igitur non repugnavit haec veritas arti¬
culo Ascensionis. Non igitur cogimur acci¬
pere haec verba tropice. Denique non magis
repugnat haec veritas articulo Ascensionis,
quam repugnat veritas Trinitatis, articulo
unitatis divinae. Sicut illi colligunt, Christus
est in cado ; ergo non in terra ; ita possent
colligere, Deus est unus, ergo non trinus :
neutrum enim intelligimus, tamen utrumque
fatemur, quia utrumque legimus in divinis
litteris, nec est evidens repugnantia.
Sed nec saltem possunt proferre commu¬
nem aliquam expositionem Ecclesiasticam,
cum inter se non conveniant. Nituntur igitur
solum auctoritate unius, aut alterius Doctoris,
et levibus conjecturis, quae certe non fidem
divinam, sed opinionem faciunt. Praeterea
experimur etiam, quot sectae natae sint his
paucis annis, et nascantur in dies propter
hanc solam causam, quod relicto sensu pro¬
prio Scripturae, tropos temere consedentur.