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 10: The Words of Institution Are Explained, and the Depravations of the Heretics Refuted
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. IV, De Sacramento Eucharistiae, Book I: On the Real Presence of Christ the Lord in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, from the Word of God. The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
Let us now come to the words of institution. And first the Evangelists narrate that the Lord, having taken bread, gave thanks to God and blessed the bread. Here it must be observed that the Evangelists variously used these words [eulogein], that is, to bless, and [eucharistein], that is, to give thanks. For Mark, when he speaks of the bread, uses the word [eulogēsas]; when of the chalice, [eucharistēsas]; Luke and Paul use in either place the word [eucharistēsas]. Matthew, in the Latin codices, and in the Greek Complutensian, and in the Syriac, has ‘He blessed’; yet in many Greek copies he has ‘giving thanks.’
Hence some of the Catholics contend that either word in Scripture signifies the same, and that its signification is to bless something, not to give thanks to someone. The heretics, on the contrary, will have either word put for giving thanks, or blessing God, so that the blessing of which it is here treated is not referred to the bread. But Jansen, in his commentary on this passage in his Concord, seems best to observe that either word keeps its signification, but that in the one action the other too is understood, because at once there come about the giving of thanks and the prayer. This is sufficiently proved from this, that one Evangelist says ‘He blessed’, another ‘He gave thanks’; for hence we gather that both were done, but that the Evangelists wished from the one to have the other also understood. The same Jansen illustrates by an apt example; for the Apostle says, 1 Timothy 4: Nothing is to be rejected that is received with thanksgiving; for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer. Where by thanksgiving he understands also the prayer sanctifying the foods; for he clearly says: [hagiazetai gar dia logou Theou kai enteuxeōs]. It is necessary, therefore, either that [eucharistein] does not signify to give thanks, but only to bless—which is very harsh—or that it signifies indeed to give thanks, but that in that action the other too is understood, which is ordinarily wont to be joined with it, namely prayer or blessing. Wherefore the Church rightly, in the Canon of the Mass, expresses both: “He took bread, and lifting up His eyes to Thee, God His almighty Father, giving thanks to Thee, He blessed, broke,” and so forth.
Now that the Lord blessed the bread itself is evidently proved against the adversaries. For in 1 Corinthians 10 Paul says: The chalice which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? Where in the Greek it is, [ho eulogoumen], that is, which we bless. Nor can there be any doubt that the Apostle observed the rite which he had before known to have been observed by Christ Himself. Likewise Luke 9, narrating the miracle of the loaves, says, [eulogēsen autous], that is, He blessed them. Finally, the manner of speaking of the Evangelists, and especially of Mark, chapter 14, plainly indicates the same. For when he says, Having taken bread, He blessed, broke, and gave to the disciples, it cannot be doubted that, just as ‘He broke’ and ‘He gave’ are referred to the matter which was in His hands, so also ‘He blessed’ is referred to the same. Add that Justin, in his second Apology, referred the word [eucharistō] to the bread, which he called [trophēn eucharistētheisan], Eucharistized food (so to speak), that is, bread sanctified and blessed. Finally, all the Liturgies of James, Basil, Chrysostom, and others have, both in the consecration of the bread and of the wine, ‘and giving thanks’ and ‘He sanctified’ or ‘blessed’; and Cyprian, Book 2, epistle 3 to Caecilius, says that the chalice was blessed by the Lord, which nevertheless no Evangelist had expressly set down.
Hence, then, an argument is taken for the truth of the body of the Lord in the Sacrament. For the Lord was not wont to give thanks except when He was about to do something great and marvelous; for He is read to have given thanks only when He wished to multiply the five loaves, John 6; again, the seven loaves, Matthew 15; and when He was about to raise Lazarus from the dead, John 11; and finally in the institution of this sacrament. By like reasoning He was not wont to bless insensible things except when He was about to work something marvelous in them; for He is read to have done this only when He blessed the loaves to be multiplied, Luke 9 and Mark 8, and in the Eucharist; just as, on the contrary, when He cursed the fig tree, He immediately withered it. For to bless, in God, is to do good; for the blessing of God is not an imprecation (as ours is), but an effecting, as is clear in Genesis 1, when He blessed the living creatures; for by that blessing He bestowed on them fecundity. Add too that Christ is nowhere read to have blessed the water which He willed to be the symbol of Baptism, as He blessed the bread in which He instituted the Eucharist, because, namely, no change was made in the substance of the water. Add finally that the Fathers gather from this passage an argument to prove the same which we strive to prove. Ambrose (to bring forward one for example), in the book On those who are initiated into the mysteries, chapter 9: “By how many examples,” he says, “do we prove that this is not what nature formed, but what the blessing consecrated; and that the force of the blessing is greater than that of nature, since by the blessing even nature itself is changed?” Let us now weigh the several words of the institution, and refute the nine opinions of the heretics cited above.
THIS
The first word is the pronoun This, which indeed is expounded in four ways by the adversaries. Some will have it signify Here, as Karlstadt, which was the first opinion. Others, this whole action, which was the second opinion. Others will have it a demonstrative of the bread, but so that the bread is the predicate, in this manner: This is my body, that is, my body is this, namely the bread; which we said above was the third opinion. Others finally will have the bread demonstrated by that particle, but so that the bread is the subject, in this manner: This, that is, this bread; and this is the more common opinion of the adversaries, and less absurd than the rest.
But the first explanation is ridiculous, and is laughed at even by the heretics themselves. For in vain would the Lord say, Here sits my body, since the Apostles saw it with their eyes and needed no admonition. Then those words cohere ill with the preceding. For that saying, For this is, and so forth, renders the reason why they ought to receive and eat; but what reason is it, Eat, because here I sit?
The second explanation is refuted just as easily. For (to omit that it is an unheard-of trope), This, that is, this action, when the Lord showed the bread as He said, This is my body—the words which are said by Luke and Paul in the consecration of the chalice most plainly convince this error; for they say, This chalice. But certainly This chalice cannot signify the whole action; for a chalice is a certain one and definite thing.
Further, the fourth explanation too can easily be refuted. For that This is taken either adjectively or substantively; if adjectively, it ought to agree with the substantive; wherefore it cannot demonstrate the bread, but the body. For ‘bread’ is of the masculine gender both in Latin and in Greek; but in the neuter gender we have [touto] in Greek, and Hoc in Latin, which agrees with ‘body’, which in Latin and Greek is of the neuter gender. Likewise in the other species, ‘wine’ in Greek is of the masculine gender, and ‘blood’ of the neuter; but the Lord did not say [houtos], this, but [touto]. In Latin, on the contrary, ‘wine’ is neuter and ‘blood’ masculine, and yet all read: This is my blood (Hic), not This (Hoc), namely the wine, is the blood. If it is taken substantively, then the sense will be: This, that is, this thing is my body. But if that This, or This thing, be said of the bread, the proposition will be most absurd; for one cannot say This (Hoc) of a thing which is seen and openly known, unless that thing be of the neuter gender. For no one, pointing to his brother, would say, This (Hoc) is my brother; or, pointing to an image of Caesar, would say, This (Hoc) is Caesar; therefore neither of the bread, which the disciples saw, could it rightly be said: This (Hoc) is my body. The reason is that, since the subject ought always to be better known than the predicate, when the subject is known to the hearers in particular, it ought not to be uttered by a universal name, but only then ought it to be uttered by a universal name, when it is not known except in the universal. For example, some see far off I know not what, but do not discern what it is, whether a tree, or a stone, or a man, but I see it to be a man; wherefore I shall say to the others, That (illud) is a man; but not, That man (ille) is a man. But if they see it to be a man, but do not discern who it is, whether Peter, or Paul, or someone else, I shall not say, That (illud) is Peter, since they now know it to be a man, but I shall say, That man (ille) is Peter. Since therefore the disciples saw the bread, and were not ignorant that it was bread, it would have been a most absurd expression if of that bread the Lord had said, This (Hoc) is my body, when He ought to have said, This bread is my body. It cannot therefore be that that This demonstrates the bread as the subject of the proposition.
But I add a most robust argument from Scripture. For if This demonstrated the bread, so also in the consecration of the wine, This (Hic, or Hoc in Greek) would demonstrate the wine; which indeed they concede, but Luke openly resists, chapter 22, who says thus: [touto to potērion hē kainē diathēkē en tō haimati mou to hyper hymōn ekchynomenon], that is, This chalice is the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you; where ‘which is shed’ is joined not with those words, in my blood, but with those, This chalice, as is clear from the Greek words. Luke therefore says that the chalice is shed for us; but neither the vessel nor the wine was shed for us, but true blood; the chalice therefore signifies not the chalice of wine, but the chalice of blood. To this argument Beza could not answer except by denying that the text of the Gospel is entire. For when he writes on this passage, he confesses that it is so read in all books, even the most ancient; yet, because this passage destroys his opinion, he dares to say that the passage is corrupted in all codices, or crept into the text from the margin. But if this is admitted, there is no cause why it should not be lawful to deny the whole Scripture.
The third explanation, which also has its authors, as we showed above, is refuted by this reasoning. The Lord, in the opinion of the adversaries, did not give the Apostles His body, but bread, when He said, Take ye and eat; therefore He ought to have explained the force and efficacy of that bread, not of His body; therefore He ought not to have said, My body is this, namely the bread, because it refreshes after the manner of bread; but He ought to have said, Bread is this, that is, my body, because it refreshes by signifying or representing my body. Just as, if someone gave bread to be eaten, he would ineptly say, Take, eat this bread; for chestnuts are bread, that is, they refresh after the manner of bread; but he would speak rightly if he gave chestnuts and said, Eat these chestnuts, for they too are a certain bread.
They will say that the Lord gave the Apostles His body to be eaten spiritually by faith, and could say of it: My body is this, that is, the bread. On the contrary; for our dispute is about the words of the Lord. But when the Lord said, Take ye and eat, He did not by those words offer His body to faith, but bread to the hands and bodily mouth of the Apostles, as is clear from those words: He took bread, and when He had given thanks, He broke and gave to them, saying, and so forth. And so He offered bread to be eaten, whether (as the adversaries will) true and natural bread, or, as the Catholics will, bread converted into His flesh, the accidents nevertheless and the external species of bread remaining. Since therefore He gave bread, that reasoning is most inept: Take, eat this bread, because my body nourishes after the manner of bread.
Besides, this opinion leans on a reed staff; for Lang proves it because so his teacher of the Greek tongue, Valentine Crautwald, delivered it; and because among the Greeks the article is the sign of the subject in a proposition; but in this sentence [touto esti to sōma mou] the article is adjoined to the body, not to the pronoun. But it is foolish, in so great a matter, dismissing all the holy Fathers and so many Councils of the Catholic Church, to listen to what one schoolmaster mutters in his corner. Nor is that grammatical Greek rule about the article universal; for very often the article is put in the predicate to demonstrate and define the thing, or for emphasis, as Matthew 5: You are the salt of the earth, [hymeis este to halas]; and in the same place, You are the light of the world, [to phōs]; and chapter 21, This is the heir; and elsewhere. What of this, that Paul, 1 Corinthians 11, does not say [touto esti to sōma mou], but, to confound the heretic, said [touto mou esti to sōma]?
It remains, then, that the opinion of the Catholics is true, who will have that This demonstrate not the bread, but the thing contained under the species of bread; which, although it was before bread, yet was then already the body of Christ. From which it follows that from this particle too the truth of the body of the Lord in the Eucharist is proved.
IS
Secondly, the particle Is must be considered, concerning which two opinions of the heretics must be refuted, the fifth and the sixth. That particle, then, Zwingli contends must be taken for Signifies, which Calvin too, and Peter Martyr, and Beza in the book On the Supper of the Lord, chapter 3, sometimes say; although they think it more apt if the trope be placed in the noun Body than in the verb Is. But the Catholics will have it taken properly, so that Is signifies nothing but Is. Now that Calvin writes, Book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 17, section 20, that the Catholics take Is for Is transubstantiated, which is a trope unheard-of to all nations, is a mere calumny. For the Catholics say indeed that from this word transubstantiation is gathered, as we shall demonstrate below against Luther, but they do not say that Is is put for ‘is transubstantiated’; and not only do they not say this, but it cannot even plausibly be feigned of them, since they themselves contend that the pronoun This does not demonstrate the bread, which alone (in their opinion) is changed into the body of Christ.
That the word Is in this place signifies Is is proved, first, because this word cannot in any way be taken in another signification than in its proper one. For in the first place it has the simplest and most common signification, so that all other verbs are resolved into it and something else; for so we resolve, A man walks, that is, is walking; he laughs, that is, is laughing, and so forth. Therefore this word cannot be drawn to the signification of another verb; because then it could and ought to be resolved into itself and another, which can in no way be done, since it is the simplest of all. Besides, this word is the copula of all propositions, joining the predicate with the subject; therefore it is necessary in every proposition; therefore it can never dismiss its signification to put on another. Besides, tropes are not placed in verbs except by reason of some peculiar thing or nature which is implied in one verb and not in another; as, for example, ‘to laugh’ is taken tropically on account of the laughter which it signifies, and so of the rest. But this word Is signifies nothing but the conjunction of one thing with another, or being itself, common to all things; whence it is called substantive, and others adjective. Wherefore it cannot be that there is any trope in it. Finally, no rhetor ever wrote that a trope can be feigned in the word Is. The opinion, therefore, of Zwingli and his followers was born of mere ignorance; and on that account the more prudent Sacramentarians placed the trope not in the word Is, but in the noun Body.
You will say: in the explanation of words, Is is ordinarily taken for Signifies, as, To love is to esteem, that is, signifies to esteem. I answer: That is true, and yet there is here no trope. For because in such sentences a sign is predicated of a sign, therefore Is is explained by Signifies; for the essence of a sign is signification. And so even in these sentences Is signifies ‘to be’, but because in words ‘to be’ itself is ‘to signify’, therefore Is is explained by Signifies; but in other sentences, where what is predicated is not formally a sign, Is cannot be explained by Signifies.
There follows the explanation of Boquin, which was the sixth opinion. He, as we said, will have that Is signify the communication of idioms arising from the sacramental union of the bread and the body of Christ; but he wanders by the whole heaven, although he much pleases himself with that his new figment. For the communication of idioms does not arise from any union whatever, but only from the hypostatic, where there is one supposit in two natures. This is clear from the example of the natural union which is between soul and body in man. For although from this union Boquin thinks the communication of idioms is born, because the same man is called corporeal and mortal by reason of the body, and spiritual and immortal by reason of the soul, yet he is plainly deceived. For in strictness, that is, truly and properly, a man is not called spiritual and immortal, as he is truly and properly called corporeal and mortal. For after death a man is no longer a man, and consequently is not an immortal man, but only his spirit; therefore much less from a sacramental union, which is less than the natural, will a communication of idioms arise.
Secondly, the communication of idioms is not between the united natures, but in the common supposit alone; for we do not say, the deity is the humanity, or the contrary; but the Word is called God and man; and in the example of man, the man is called, according to Boquin, corporeal and spiritual, but not the body to be spirit, or on the contrary the spirit body. Therefore it cannot be said, by the force of that communication, This bread is the body, but only, This sacrament is bread and body. For, as Boquin himself explains, the sacrament is that in which the sacramental union comes about, just as Christ is that in which the natural union comes about.
Thirdly, the communication of idioms is mutual; but from the sacramental union no mutual communication arises. For although the sign sometimes takes the name of the thing signified, yet not the contrary; the image of Caesar is called Caesar, but Caesar is not called an image; ivy is a sign of wine, and could in some manner be called wine, namely representatively; but wine is in no way called ivy; so therefore, although the bread could be called sacramentally the body, because it signifies it, yet Christ cannot be called sacramentally bread. The sacramental words of the Lord cannot therefore be expounded by a communication of idioms.
Fourthly, the communication of idioms communicates not only the names of the natures, but also of their properties. For of Christ we say: This man is eternal, almighty, and so forth; and this God hungered, thirsted, died, and so forth. But it is not lawful to attribute to the bread the properties of the body of the Lord, nor on the contrary the properties of the bread to the body; for no one would tolerate it if someone wished to say: The bread is animate, united to the divinity, and so forth; and much less if someone said: The body of the Lord is round, wheaten, devoid of life and sense. Wherefore Boquin’s figment is inept.
BODY
There follows the other particle, namely Body, which the adversaries expound in three ways. For some will have signified by that word the mystical body of Christ; others a sign of the body of Christ; others a sign indeed, but efficacious; which are three of those opinions which we recited above, namely the seventh, eighth, and ninth.
But the first exposition is most inept, and leans on no foundation, and openly repugns the following words: Which is given for you; for the mystical body was not given for us, but the true body. And it repugns still more the words which are said in the consecration of the chalice; for the Church, or the mystical body of Christ, cannot be called a chalice of blood or of the Testament, nor is it shed for us unto the remission of sins.
The second exposition is refuted by these arguments. First, because nowhere in Scripture is the body of Christ taken except either for His true and natural body, or for the mystical body; for a sign or figure of the body, nowhere; therefore that exposition is plainly rash, and introduced without any example of Scripture. And it is confirmed, because Scripture, when it takes the body of Christ improperly, that is, for the Church, immediately explains it; as Colossians 1: I fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ for His body, which is the Church. But in this place no Evangelist, nor Paul, explained that ‘body’ is taken improperly; it remains, then, that it ought to be taken properly.
Secondly, the same is proved from what was said of the pronoun This. For if the pronoun This does not demonstrate the bread, as we most clearly showed before, certainly the foundation of the adversaries falls; for they have not of what to predicate ‘a sign of the body’, unless they will have the very true and natural body be a sign of itself.
Thirdly, it is proved from the following words: Which is given for you. Now it must be observed that it is read a little otherwise in the Greek and Latin codices. In Matthew 26, Mark 14, and Luke 22, of the blood it is had in Greek [ekchynomenon], that is, is shed, in Latin ‘shall be shed’; of the bread, Luke 22, it is said [didomenon], and in Latin ‘is given’; 1 Corinthians 11, [klōmenon], that is, is broken, in Latin ‘shall be delivered.’
These words can be expounded in two ways. In one way, so that all these are said of the body and blood as they are in the Eucharist, but not as they were afterward on the cross, so that the sense is: This is my body, which is given for you, that is, is offered and given to God the Father in sacrifice. Nor does the word ‘is broken’ stand in the way; for according to the custom of Scripture to break is to give; Isaiah 58: Break thy bread to the hungry. Whence Luke put ‘which is given’ for that which Paul has, ‘is broken.’ And they will have this to be the sense of the words of the chalice: This is my blood, which is shed for you, that is, which is poured out and offered to God in sacrifice for your salvation. Now this explanation, if it be received, plainly overturns the opinion of the heretics about the body of the Lord being understood tropically. For neither was the body taken tropically, that is, the bread, given for us, but given to us; nor was the wine signifying the blood shed in the institution of the supper, but rather poured in; nor that for us, but to us; nor unto the remission of sins, which all confess properly belongs to the true blood.
The other exposition, however, which refers all these to the passion and cross of the Lord, and which Peter Martyr receives in his commentary on chapter 11 of the first to the Corinthians, and Calvin and others on chapter 27 of Matthew, is also true, and does not fight with the former, as we demonstrate in Book 1 On the Sacrifice, chapter 10. Now that this exposition too, which the adversaries receive, shows that the body must be taken properly, not tropically, is proved in this manner. That addition, Which is given for you, seems not to be added for any other cause than to distinguish the body of Christ, which was given to the disciples, from another which was not given to them. For just as He added My, to distinguish His body from bodies not His, so He added ‘which shall be delivered for you’, to distinguish His true and natural body from another body of His, but not natural, such as is the mystical body of the Church. Which the article too, added to the noun in Greek, [touto esti to sōma], and so forth, sufficiently plainly indicates. For, as Cyril teaches, Book 1 on John, chapter 4, the article makes the noun be taken in one certain, determinate, and proper signification. And so, just as when we say, This is that Peter who received the keys of the kingdom, we distinguish him from others of the same name, so when the Lord says, This is that body (for the article has this force) which shall be delivered for you, we understand that the Lord distinguishes His true body from every other, and speaks determinately of it alone. Now, then, if the Lord delivered to the Apostles His true body properly so called, that addition is most fitting; for He gave them to eat His natural body, not the mystical; but if (as the adversaries will) He gave them bread, which was a sign of the body, the addition is false. For the bread, as a symbol of the Lord’s body, signifies either body, both the mystical and the natural; wherefore that distinction would have been ill added. For that the bread of the Eucharist ought to signify either body of Christ, both the true and the mystical, cannot be doubted; for thence in 1 Corinthians 10 it is said: We being many are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread; and Augustine, tract 26 on John, says that the Eucharist is consecrated in the species of bread and wine for this reason, that the unity of the mystical body may be signified. For as bread is made from many grains, and wine flows together from many clusters, so the body of the Church is composed of many faithful. Besides, the body delivered on the cross, and the blood shed on the cross, are truly the body and blood of Christ properly, not significatively.
They will say: The bread is a sign or figure of the true body and blood delivered and shed for us. On the contrary; for those words placed in the nominative, [didomenon] and [ekchynomenon], ought to be joined with the substantive in the nominative, not in the oblique; therefore they are joined with that which is called body and blood, not with the words placed in the oblique, that is, of the body and of the blood. Therefore either the true body and blood are in the Eucharist, or the body and blood significatively, that is, the bread and wine, were delivered for us to the cross and death; than which nothing more absurd can be feigned.
There follows the third explanation, which, as we said, is Calvin’s, who thinks that the bread of the Eucharist is called not a sign of the body, but the body itself, because it is a most efficacious sign. Which same thing Peter Martyr admits in his book against Gardiner at the end of the third part, where he says that Christ did not say, This signifies, or, this is my very body, to distinguish this sign from other empty and sterile signs; for while we receive that bread of the Eucharist with the mouth, we truly at the same time eat the very body of Christ with the spirit.
Here it must be recalled to memory what we said above, in chapter 1, that Calvin does not think that the very body of Christ is given us in fact with the bread, so that the body of Christ could be said to be then both in heaven and with us, but only to be given through a certain communication of Himself and of all His goods, which does not require local presence, in the manner in which kingdoms and cities, or estates, are sometimes given to the absent. And he thinks this comes about through the instrument of faith; for while we believe in Christ, He is made ours with all His goods. See what we said above in the place cited.
This opinion, or rather figment, can be refuted by a twofold argument. First, from a certain principle of Calvin himself. To believe in Christ is not truly to eat Christ; nor would the bread of the Eucharist be called the body of Christ, if to believe were to eat. But from the opinion of Calvin it openly follows that to eat Christ is nothing else than to believe in Him; therefore from the opinion of Calvin the body of Christ is not truly eaten in the Eucharist, nor can that bread be called the body of Christ. The major proposition is Calvin’s own, Book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 17, section 10: “There are,” he says, “who define in one word that to eat the flesh of Christ and to drink His blood is nothing else than to believe in Christ Himself; but to me Christ seems to have wished something more express and sublime in that noble discourse where He commends to us the eating of His flesh.” And below: “For just as not the sight, but the eating of bread suffices for the nourishment of the body, so it is fitting that the soul be truly and thoroughly made a partaker of Christ, that by His power it may be quickened unto spiritual life.” Where he compares the act of believing with the act of seeing food, to signify that so to believe is not to eat, just as to see food is not to eat; which things he also repeats in section 11.
Now the minor proposition is proved. For to eat is a certain action, and the action of the one eating, not of the food eaten, as is most well known. But in the eating of the body of the Lord, according to the Calvinists, there is no action of the man eating except the very believing; therefore the very believing is eating, according to Calvin. The minor is proved. For that union of the body of the Lord with us, which follows after the act of faith, is not an action, but a relation following the apprehension of faith; or if it is an action, it is not ours, but Christ’s; for so they themselves teach, that from this, that one believes, it follows that Christ gives and communicates Himself wholly to him; or let them explain, after the act of faith, what other action the man exercises in bringing about the conjunction with Christ. And it is confirmed by the example of bodily eating; for in this to eat is to apprehend the food, and to pass it from the mouth to the stomach, but not the union of the food and the man; therefore in the same manner in spiritual eating, to eat will be to apprehend Christ, which is the act of faith, but not the union of Christ with us, which is not an action, but the effect of the action. It is confirmed also from the passage of Paul which Calvin adduces to illustrate his opinion. When Paul says, Ephesians 3, that Christ dwells in us through faith, we do not understand that to believe and to have Christ dwell in us is the same, but that one follows from the other; so also when we say that the body of the Lord is eaten through faith. But for Christ to dwell in a man is not any action of the man distinct from the action of faith; therefore in the same manner the union of Christ with us, through the spiritual eating of the Eucharist, is not an action distinct from the action of faith; therefore to eat is nothing else than to believe.
Secondly, that inept metaphysics of Calvin being set aside, I prove that the bread cannot be called the body because it is an efficacious sign. For the same efficacy have the old Sacraments of the new law, Baptism, the word of God, and a painted or sculptured image of the Crucified. But he would be inept who should say: The image of the Crucified is not a bare image, but is truly Christ Himself, who suffered for us; and in the same manner he would be inept who should say: The old sacrifices and Sacraments, or our Baptism, or the word of God, are Christ Himself, not only His symbols; therefore he too is inept who says: The bread of the Eucharist is the very body of the Lord, not a bare symbol; if nevertheless Calvin’s opinion is true. The major proposition is proved. For (as we showed above in chapter 1) Calvin attributes nothing else to the Eucharist than that it be a symbol recalling to memory the passion of Christ, and by that reason exciting faith, as is clear from Book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 17, section 2 and section 5, and elsewhere. But this same thing is done by the old Sacraments, and Baptism, and the word of God, and the image of the Crucified. For all these represent the death of Christ, and consequently excite faith; nay, a painted or sculptured image of the Crucified represents the death of Christ much better than the breaking of bread. And the same can be said of the sacrifices of calves and lambs among the ancients; and most of all of the word of God expressly setting forth the death of Christ.
To this argument Peter Martyr attempts to answer in some part, in his book against Gardiner, part 1, objection 94. For he says that the old Sacraments were not called the body of Christ, as the bread of the Eucharist is called, although they were efficacious signs of this thing, because the passion of Christ was not yet accomplished; but now it is accomplished.
But the solution is most vain. For when Christ said, This is my body, the passion was not yet accomplished. And besides, that signs represent a past or future thing is, for their being able to take the name of the thing signified, altogether by accident and irrelevant. For if, when God revealed that someone was to be born—as He revealed of Cyrus, John the Baptist, and others—an image of him had been painted, that image could have been called Cyrus or John no less than those which are now painted.
Then, granted the solution be worth something as regards the old sacraments, certainly nothing can be answered to the instance of Baptism, in which we represent the death of Christ already past, Paul being witness, Romans 6; and of the image of the Crucified, and of the word of God; and yet he would be laughed at who should say that the word or Baptism is the very body of Christ, and that the painted image is not a bare sign, but Christ Himself, who died for us.
MY
There follows the last particle, My, to which pertains the last opinion of the heretics, and that indeed most inept, namely of those who say that the bread is called the body of Christ because it was created by Him. For this is most easily refuted from the following words: Which is given for you; and more clearly of the blood: Which shall be shed for you unto the remission of sins. For the bread and wine, although they are things created by Christ, yet were not given or shed for us unto the remission of sins.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT X. Explicantur verba institutionis , et refelluntur haereticorum depravationes. Veniamus nunc ad verba institutionis. Ac primum narrant Evangelistae, Dominum ac¬ cepto pane gratias egisse Deo, et pamem be¬ nedixisse. Ubi observandum est, Evangelistas varie usurpasse has voces euXoyetv, id est, be¬ nedicere; et Eu/2pic?itv, id est, gratias agere. Nam Marcus, cum de pane loquitur, utitur verbo suXoyvfca; ; cum de calice, suyapi<7r/,ca; ; Lucas et Paulus utuntur inutroqueloco voce iu/api-jT-z-oa;. Matthaeus in laitinis codicibus, et in Graeco Complutensi, et in Syriaco habet : Benedixit, in multis tamen Graecis habet : Gratios agens Hinc nonnulli Catholicorum contendunt, utrumque verbum in Scriptura idem siguifi- carc, et ejus significationem esse, Benedicere aliquid, non Gratias agere alicui. Haeretici contra volu d, utrumque verbum poni pro gratias agere, seu Benedicere Deo, ita ut non referatur ad panem benedictio, de qua hic agitur. Optime autem videtur Jansenius in commentario hujus loci in sua Concordia ob¬ servare, utrumque verbum servare suam si- gnificationem, sed in una actione intelligi etiam alteram, quia simul fiunt gratiarum actio, et oratio. Id satis probatur ex eo, quod unus evangelista dicat : Benedixit ; alius : Gratias egit ; hinc enim colligimus utrumque esse factum, sed evangelistas ex uno intelligi voluisse etiam alterum. Idem illustrat Janse¬ nius apposito exemplo : ait enim Apostolus, I Timoth. iv. Nihil* rejiciendum , quod eum gratiarum actione percipitur ; sanctificatur enim per verbum Dei et orationem (1). Ubi per gratiarum actionem intelligit etiam orationem sanctificantem cibos ; clare enim dicit : aytctfc- TKi yap oii Xoyou 0eoo, xai EVTEuijst»?. Oportet igitur, vel euyasip rslv, non significare Gratias agere, sed solum Benedicere, quod est valde durum, vel significare quidem Gratias agere, sed in ea actione intelligi etiam aliam, quai ordinarie conjungi solet, nimirum orationem, seu benedictionem. Quocirca recte Ecclesia in Canone Missae, utrumque exprimit : «Ac¬ cepit panem, et elevatis oculis ad te Deum Patrem suum omnipotentem, tibi gratias agens, benedixit, fregit etc. » Quod autem Dominus ipsum panem bene¬ dixerit, evidenter probatur contra adversa¬ rios. Nam I Corint. x. Paulus ait : Calix, cui benedicimus , nonne communicatio sanguinis Christi est ? ubi in Graico est, 8 suXoyou gev, id est, quem benedicimus ? (2)Neque dubium esso potest, quin Apostolus ritum servaverit, quem antea noverat a Christo ipso fuisse servatum. Item Luc ix. narrans miraculum de panibus, dicit, suXoyTjdsv autooc, id est, Benedixit eos. Denique modus loquendi Evangelistarum, ac praecipue Marci cap. xiv, idem aperte indi¬ cat. Nam cum dicit : Accepto pane, benedixit , fregit , deditque discipulis, dubitari non po¬ test, quin sicut fregit, et dedit (3), refertur ad materiam, qme erat in manibus, ita etiam, benedixit , adeamdem referatur. Adde, quod Justinus in 2. Apologia verbum ipsum Eu/apicTEO) retulit aql panem, quem vocavit (1) ITim. IV, 4. — (2) I Cor. X, 10. - (3) Luc. IX, 10; Mare. XIV, 22. 30 LIBER I. xpotpV eu^aptuTTiOeicav, cibum Eucharistizatum (ut sic loquamur) id est, panem sanctificatum, et benedictum. Denique omnes Liturgi te Ja- cobi, Basilii, Chrysostomi et aliorum habent tum in consecratione panis, tum vini, et gra¬ tias agens , et sancti ficavit , seu benedixit ; et Cyprianus lib. n. epist. 3. ad Csecilium, dicit a Domino calicem benedictum, quod tamen expresse nullus Evangelista posuerat. Hinc igitur argumentum sumitur pro veri¬ tate corporis Domini in Sacramento. Nam Dominus non consueverat gratias agere, nisi cum aliquid magnum, et mirabile faci urus esset : solum enim legitur gratias egisse, cum quinque panes multiplicare vellet, Joan. vi. rursus cum septem panes, Matth. xv. et cum Lazarum excitaturus esset ab inferis, Joan. xi. et denique in institutione hujus sa¬ cramenti. Pari ratione gon consuevit bene¬ dicere res insensibiles, nisi cum in cis aliquid mirabile operaturus esset : tantum enim legi¬ tur hoc fecisse, cum benedixit panes multi¬ plicandos, Luc. ix. et Mare. vm. et in Eucha¬ ristia ; sicut contra cum maledixit ficui, eam continuo arefecit. Nam benedicere Dei, est benefacere : benedictio enim Dei non est imprecatio (ut nostra) sed effectio, ut patet Genes, i. cum 'benedixit animantibus : tribuit enim eis ea benedictione fcecunditatem. Adde etiam, quod nusquam legitur Christus bene¬ dixisse aquam, quam symbolum Baptismi esse volebat, sicut benedixit panem, in quo Eucharistiam instituebat, quia nimirum nulla mutatio fiebat in substantia aquse. Adde ul¬ timo, quod Patres ex hoc loco colligunt ar¬ gumentum ad probandum idem, quod nos probare contendimus. Ambrosius (ut unum exempli gratia proferamus) libro clc his, qui initiantur mysteriis, cap. 9 : « Quantis, in¬ quit, utimur exemplis, ut probemus hoc non esse, quod natura formavit, sed quod bene¬ dictio consecravit ; majoremque esse vim be- dictionis, quam naturee ? quia benedic¬ tione, et ipsa natura mutatur. » Expendamus nunc singula verba institutionis, et refutemus novem supra citatas opiniones haereticorum. HOC. Prima vox est prono men Hoc, quod qui¬ dem quadrupliciter exponitur ab adversariis, Alii volunt significare, Hic , ut Carolstadius, quae fuit prima opinio. Alii, hxc tota actio , quae fuit secunda opinio. Alii volunt esse demonstrativum panis, sed ita ut panis sit praedicatum, hoc modo : Hoc est corpus meum, id est, corpus meum est hoc, nimi¬ rum panis : quam supra diximus esse ter¬ tiam opinionem. Alii denique volunt ea par¬ ticula demonstrari panem, sed ita ut panis sit subjectum hoc modo, IIoc, id est, hic pa¬ nis : et est communior sententia adversario¬ rum, et minus absurda, quam coeterac. Sed prima explicatio ridicula est, et ride¬ tur ab ipsis etiam haereticis. Nam frustra Dominus diceret, Hic sedet corpus meum, cum id Apostoli oculis cernerent, neque ad¬ monitione egerent. Deinde male cohaerent ista verba cum superioribus. Illud enim : IIoc enim est etc. reddit rationem, cur de¬ beant accipere et edere : quae autem ratio est, Edite, quia hic sedeor. Secunda explicatio refellitur .aeque facile. Nam (ut omittam, quod est inauditus tropus), Hoc, id est, haec actio, cum Dominus panem ostenderet, cum ait : Hoc est corpus , verba quae dicuntur a Luca, et Paulo in consecra¬ tione calicis, convincunt apertissime hunc errorem ; aiunt enim : Hic calix. Certe autem, Hic calix • non potest totam actionem signifi¬ care : est enim calix res quaedam una, et certa. Porro quarta explicatio facile etiam refelli potest. Nam, vel illud Hoc , accipitur adjec¬ tive, vel substantive; si adjective, debet con¬ cordare cum substantivo ; quare non potest demonstrare panem, sed corpus. Nam panis est generis masculini tam latine, quam graece ; at in neutro genere habetur touto graece, et latine Hoc, quod convenit cum cor¬ pore, quod latine et graece est neutri gene¬ ris. Similiter in altera specie, vinum graece est generis masculini, et sanguis neutri; Do¬ minus autem non dixit o&tq; hic, sed Toti-ro Latine autem e contrario, vinum est neutri, et sanguis masculini, et tamen omnes legunt: Hic est sanguis, non Hoc, vinum scilicet, est sanguis. Si accipitur substantive, tunc sen¬ sus erit : IIoc, id est, haec res est corpus meum. Si autem illud IIoc, sive Haec res, de pane dicatur, absurdissima propositio erit : non enim potest dici, Hoc, de re quae cerni¬ tur, et aperte cognoscitur, nisi sit generis neutri res illa. Nemo enim demonstrato fra¬ tre suo diceret, Hoc est frater meus ; vel de¬ monstrata imagine Caesaris, diceret, Hoc est Caesar ; ergo nec de pane, quem discipuli videbant, dici recte potuit : Hoc est corpus meum. Ratio est, quia cum semper subjec¬ tum debeat esse notius praedicato ; cum sub- CAPUT X. 31 jectuin est notum audientibus in 'particulari, non debet efferri per nomen universale, sed tunc solum efferri debet per nomen univer¬ sale, cum non est notum, nisi in universali. Verbi gratia, vident aliqui longe nescio quid, sccl non discernunt quid sit, arborne, an la¬ pis, an homo, ego autem video esse homi¬ nem; quare dicam cceteris, illud est homo ; non autem, ille est homo ; at si videant esse hominem, sed non discernant quis sit, Petrus, an Paulus, an quis alius; non dicam, Illud est Petrus, quia jam sciunt esse hominem, sed dicam, Ille est Petrus. Cum ergo disci¬ puli panem viderent, et panem esse non igno¬ rarent, absurdissima fuisset locutio, si de il¬ lo pane Dominus dixisset : Hoc est corpus meum , cum debuisset dicere : Hic panis est corpus meum. Non igitur potest fieri, ut illud Hoc , demonstret panem tamquam subjectum propositionis. Sed addo argumentum robustissimum ex Scriptura. Nam si Hoc, demonstraret panem ; ita etiam in consecratione vini, Hic , sive Hoc, grsece, demonstraret vinum : quod quidem illi concedunt, sed aperte repugnat Lucas cap. xxii, quid sic ait : touto to -ott(- piov ^ XOClV^i GtCC0-/;XY] £V TW OUUttTt [ACU TO UTT£p U|XWV £x/uvou.£vov, id est, Hic calix novum Testa¬ mentum in sanguine meo , qui pro vobis effun¬ ditur (1), ubi, qui effunditur, non conjungitur cum illis verbis, In sanguine meo, sed cum il¬ lis, Hic calix , ut patet ex grsecis verbis. Dicit ergo Lucas calicem effundi pro nobis : non autem vas aut vinum effusum est pro nobis, sed verus sanguis ; calix igitur non significat calicem vini, sed calicem sanguinis. Ad hoc argumentum non potuit Beza respondere, nisi negando textum Evangelii esse integrum. Nam cum in hunc locum scribit, fatetur ita legi in omnibus libris, etiam vetustissimis ; tamen quia destruit hic locus ejus senten¬ tiam ; audet dicere', locum esse corruptum in omnibus codicibus ; aut ex margine irrep¬ sisse in textum. Quod si recipitur nulla causa est, cur non liceat totam Scripturam negare.' Tertia explicatio, qua habet etiam suos auctores, ut supra ostendimus, refellitur hac ratione. Dominus ex sententia adversariorum non dedit Apostolis corpus suum, sed panem, cum ait : Accipite, et manducate ; ergo debuit explicaro vim, et efficaciam illius panis, non corporis sui'; ergo non debuit dicere : Cor¬ pus meum est hoc, nimirum panis, quia refi¬ cit instar panis ; sed dicere debuit : Panis est hoc, id est, corpus meum,, quia reficit signifi¬ cando, vel repraesentando corpus meum. Quemadmodum si quis daret panem eden¬ dum, inepte diceret, Sume, comede istum panem : nam castaneae sunt panis, id est, reficiunt instar panis : recte autem loquere¬ tur, si castaneas daret, ac diceret : Comede has castaneas ; nam sunt et ipsae quidam pa¬ nis. Dicent, Dominum dedisse Apostolis corpus suum spiritualiter manducandum per fidem, ac de illo dicere potuisse : Corpus meum est hoc, id est, panis. Contra ; nani disputatio nostra est de verbis Domini. Cum autem Do¬ minus dixit : Accipite et manducate , non ob¬ tulit per ea verba corpus suum fidei, sed pa¬ nem manibus, et ori corporali Apostolorum, ut patet ex illis verbis : Accepit panem, et cum gratias egisset, fregit , dedilque eis dicens etc. Itaque panem obtulit manducandum, sive (ut adversarii volunt) panem verum, et naturalem ; vel, ut volunt Catholici, panem conversum in suam carnem, manentibus ta¬ men accidentibus, et specie exteriore panis. Cum ergo panem dederit; ineptissima est illa ratio, Accipite, edite hunc panem : quia cor¬ pus meum nutrit instar panis. Praterea nititur hac sententia baculo arun¬ dineo : probat enim eam Langus, quia sic tradidit praceptor lingua, graca, Valentinus Cratoaldus ; et quia apud Gracos articulus est signum subjecti in propositione; in hac autem sententia touto in~i to cwaa uou, articu¬ lus adjungitur corpori, non pronomini. At stultum est in re tanta, dimissis omnibus sanctis Patribus, et tot Conciliis Ecclesia Catholica, audire quid unus ludimagister in suo angulo mussitet. Neque est universalis lex illa grammatica graca de articulo : sa- pissime enim ponitur articulus in pradicato ad rem demonstrandam, et definiendam, sive energia causa, ut Matth. v. Vos estis sed terree, ugeR Iots to a Xa; ; et ibidem : Vos estis lux mundi, to et cap. xxi. Hic est haeres (2) et alibi. Quid, quod Paulus I. Corinth xxi, non ait touto Icti to Gwua uou, sed ad confun¬ dendum hareticum dixit touto gou £<j ti to (v q cojga : Restat igitur, ut vera sit Catholicorum sententia, qui illud, Hoc , demonstrare vo¬ lunt, non panem, sed rem contentam sub (I) Luc. XXII, 20. - (2) Math. V, 13-14 ; XXI, 38. 32 LIBER I. speciebas panis ; qua) etsi antea lucrat panis, tamen tunc jam erat Christi corpus. Ex quo sequitur, ut etiam ex hac particula probetur veritas corporis Domini in Eucharistia. EST Secundo consideranda est particula Lst, circa quam refutandae sunt dua) haeretico¬ rum sententiae, Quinta, et Sexta. Igitur eam particulam Zwinglius contendit accipiendam esse, pro Significat, quod etiam Calvinus, et Petrus Martyr, et Beza in lib. de ccena Do¬ mini, cap. 3. aliquando dicunt ; licet aptius putent, si tropus ponatur in nomine, Corpus , quam in verbo, Est. .\t vero Catholici pro¬ prie accipi volunt, ita ut, Est , nihil significet, nisi Est. Quod autem Calvinus scribit lib. iv. Institutionum, cap. 17. §. 20. Catholicos ac¬ cipere, Est , pro Transubstantiatur, qui est tropus omnibus gentibus inauditus, mera calumnia est. Catholici enim dicunt quidem colligi ex hac voce transubstantiationem, ut infra contra Lutherum demonstrabimus, sed non dicunt, Est , poni pro transubstantiari ; nec solum hoc non dicunt, sed ne verisimili¬ ter quidem id potest eis affingi, cum ipsi contendantpronomcn, Hoc , non demonstrare panem, qui solus (eorum sententia) mutatur in corpus Christi. Quod igitur verbum, Est, hoc loco signifi¬ cet, Est, probatur primo, quia hoc verbum non potest ullo modo accipi in alia signifi¬ catione, quam in sua propria. Nam in primis habet simplicissimam, et communissimam significationem ; ita ut omnia alia verba re¬ solvantur in hoc, et aliquid aliud : sic enim resolvimus, Homo ambulat, id est, est ambu¬ lans ; ridet, id est, est ridens, etc. ergo hoc verbum non potest trahi ad significationem alterius verbi ; quia tunc posset, ac deberet resolvi in se, et aliud, quod nullo modo fieri potest, cum sit omnium simplicissimum. Prae¬ terea hoc verbum est copula omnium pro¬ positionum , conjungens praedicatum cum subjecto ; ergo est in omni propositione ne¬ cessarium ; ergo numquara potest dimittere suam significationem, ut induat aliam. Pra)- terea tropi non ponuntur in verbis, nisi ra¬ tione peculiaris alicujus rei, seu naturae, quae in uno verbo implicatur, et non in altero ; ut verbi gratia, ridere sumitur tropice propter risum, quem significat, et sic de cceteris. At hoc verbum, Est, nihil significat, nisi con¬ junctionem unius cum altero, aut ipsum esse commune cum omnibus rebus : unde dicitur substantivum, et alia adjectiva. Quare fieri non potest, ut in eo sit aliquis tropus. Deni¬ que nullus unquam rhetor scripsit, tropum fingi posse in verbo, Est. Opinio igitur Zwinglii, et sectatorum ejus, ex mera im¬ peritia nata est ; ac propterea prudentiores Sacramentarii, non in verbo, Est, sed in nomine Coipus , tropum posuerunt. Dices, in explicatione vocabulorum, Est , accipitur ordinarie pro Significat, ut, Amare est diligere, id est, significat diligere. Re¬ spondeo : Id verum est, et tamen non est hic ullus tropus. Nam quia in ejusmodi senten¬ tiis praedicatur signum de signo, ideo expli¬ catur, Est, per Significat ; essentia enim signi est significatio. Itaque etiam in his sen¬ tentiis, Est , significat Esse, sed quia ipsum esse, est significare, in vocibus, ideo, Est , explicatur per Significat ; at in aliis senten¬ tiis, ubi quod praedicatur, non est signum formaliter, non potest, Est , explicari per Si¬ gnificat. Sequitur explicatio Boquini , quae erat sexta opinio. Is, ut diximus, vult illud, Est, significare communicationem idiomatum na¬ scentem ex unione sacramentali panis et cor¬ poris Christi : sed toto coelo aberrat, licet multum sibi placeat cum isto suo novo fig¬ mento. Nam communicatio idiomatum non oritur ex qualibet unione, sed solum ex hy¬ postatica, ubi est unum suppositum in dua¬ bus naturis. Id vero patet exemplo unionis naturalis, quee est inter animam, et corpus in homine. Etsi enim ex hac unione putat Boquinus nasci communicationem idioma¬ tum, quia idem homo dicitur corporalis, et mortalis ratione corporis, et spiritualis, et immortalis ratione anima) : tamen aperte fal¬ litur. Nam in rigore, id est, vere, et proprio homo non dicitur spiritualis, et immortalis, sicut vere etproprie dicitur corporalis etmor- talis. Nam post mortem homo non est am- pliushomo, proinde non est homo immortalis, sed solus spiritus ejus : ergo multo minus ex unione sacramentali, qua) est minor quam naturalis, orietur communicatio idiomatum. Secundo, communicatio idiomatum non est inter naturas unitas, sed in solo supposito communi : non enim dicimus, deitas est hu¬ manitas, vel contra; sed Verbum dicitur Deus, et homo : et in exemplo hominis dicitur homo secundum Boquinum corporalis , et spiritualis : at non corpus esse spiritus, vel contra spiritus corpus. Ergo non potest dici CAPUT X. 31 vi istius communicationis : llic punis est cor¬ pus, sed solum : IIoc sacramentum est panis, et corpus. Nam ut ipse Boquinus explicat, sacramentum est id, in quo fit unio sacra- mentalis, sicut Christus est id, in quo fit unio naturalis. Tertio, communicatio idiomatum est mu¬ tua : at ex unione sacramentali non oritur mutua communicatio. Nam tametsi signum accipit interdum nomen signati, tamen non contra ; imago Caesaris dicitur Caesar, sed Caesar non dicitur imago ; hedera est signum vini, et posset aliquo modo dici vinum, ni¬ mirum repraesentati ve : at vinum nullo modo dicitur hedera : ita igitur licet panis posset dici sacramentaliter corpus, quia illud signi¬ ficat, tamen Christus non potest dici sacra¬ mentaliter panis. Non ergo exponi possunt verba Domini sacramentalia, per communi¬ cationem idiomatum. Quarto, communicatio idiomatum non so¬ lum communicat nomina naturarum, sed etiam proprietatum ipsarum. De Christo enim dicimus : Hic homo est aeternus, omni¬ potens, ctc., et hic Deus esuriit, sitiit, mor¬ tuus est, etc., at non licet tribuere pani, cor¬ poris Domini proprietates, neque e contrario proprietates panis corpori ; nemo enim fer¬ ret, si quis dicere vellet : Panis est animatus, unitus divinitati, etc., et multo minus, si quis diceret : Corpus Domini est rotundum, triticeum, expers vitae, et sensus. Quare ineptum est Boquini figmentum. CORPUS. Sequitur alia particula, nimirum, Corpus , quam tribus modis adversarii exponunt. Alii enim significari volunt ea voce corpus Christi mysticum ; alii signum corporis Christi ; alii signum quidem, sed efficax, quae sunt tres opiniones ex illis, quas supra recitavimus ; nimirum, septima, octava et nona. Sed prima expositio ineptissima est, nec ullo nititur fundamento, et aperte repugnat sequentibus verbis : Quod pro vobis datur ; nec enim corpus mysticum datum est pro nobis, sed corpus verum. Magis autem repu¬ gnat verbis, quae dicuntur in consecratione calicis : non enim Ecclesia, seu corpus my¬ sticum Christi, dici potest calix sanguinis, vel Testamenti, nec pro nobis effunditur in re¬ missionem peccatorum. Secunda autem expositio refellitur his ar¬ gumentis. Primo, quia nusquam in Scriptura, accipitur corpus Christi, nisi vel pro corpore vero, et naturali ipsius, vel pro corpore my¬ stico : pro signo, vel figura corporis nusquam ; ergo expositio illa est plane temeraria, et sine exemplo ullo Scripturae introducta. Et confirmatur, quia Scriptura cum accipit im¬ proprie corpus Christi, id est, pro Ecclesia, continuo id ipsum explicat : ut Coloss. i : Adimpleo, quse desunt passionibus Christi pro corpore ejus, quod est Ecclesia (i). At hoc loco nullus E vangelista, neque Paulus, expli¬ cuit corpus accipi improprie : relinquitur igitur, ut proprie accipi debeat. Secundo idem probatur ex dictis de prono¬ mine, Hoc . Nam si pronomen, Hoc , non demonstrat panem, ut clarissime antea os¬ tendimus, certe ruit fundamentum adversa¬ riorum : nec enim habent, clc quo praedicent, signum corporis , nisi velint ipsum verum et naturale corpus esse signum sui ipsius. Tertio probatur ex sequentibus verbis : Quod pro vobis datur. Est autem observandum, paulo aliter legi in graecis et latinis codici¬ bus. Matth. xxvr. et Mare. xiv. et Luo. xxii, gracce habetur, de sanguine Exyuvogevov id est, effunditur, latino effundetur, Luc. xxii. de pa¬ ne dicitur cUduavov, et latino datur ; I Cor. n. xXwgevov, id est, frangitur, latinc tradetur. Quae verba dupliciter exponi possunt. Uno modo, ut haec omnia dicantur de corpore, et sanguine, ut est in Eucharistia, non autem ut fuit postea in cruce, ut sensus sit : Hoc est corpus meum , quod pro vobis clatur , id est, offertur, et donatur Deo Patri in sacrificium. Neque obstat vocabulum frangitur : nam juxta morem Scripturae frangere, est dare; Isaiae lviii : Frange esurienti panem tuum (2). Unde Lucas posuit, quod datur , pro eo, quod habet Paulus, frangitur. Verborum autem calicis hunc esse volunt sensum : Hic est san¬ guis meus, qui pro vobis effunditur, id est, qui libatur, et offertur Deo in sacrificium pro sa¬ lute vestra. Porro haec x plicatio si recipia¬ tur, plane evertit haereticorum sententiam de corpore Domini tropice intelligendo. Ne¬ que enim corpus tropice acceptum, id est, panis, datus est pro nobis, sed datus est no¬ bis ; neque vinum sanguinem significans effusus est in institutione coenae, sed infusus potius; neque id pro nobis, sed nobis; ne¬ que in remissionem peccatorum, quod pro- (1) Coloss. I, 24. — (2) Isai. LVIII, 7. Tome IV. 3 LIBER I. 34 prie convenire vero sanguini omnes fatentur. Altera tamen expositio, quae refert haec omnia ad passionem, et crucem Domini, et quam recipit Petrus Martyr in commentar, cap. xi. primae ad Corinth. et Calvinus atque alii in cap. xxvn. Matth., est etiam vera, et non pugnat cum superiore, ut in i. lib. de Sacrificio , cap. x. demonstramus. Quod au¬ tem haec etiam expositio, quam adversarii recipiunt, ostendat corpus proprie, non tro¬ pice accipiendum, probatur hoc modo. Ista additio : Quod pro vobis datur , non videtur apposita alia de causa, quam ut distinguere¬ tur corpus Christi, quod dabatur discipulis, ab alio, quod eis non dabatur. Sicut enim addidit : Meum, ut distingueret corpus suum a corporibus non suis, ita adjecit quod pro vobis tradetur, ad distinguendum corpus ve¬ rum, et naturale suum ab alio corpore suo, sed non naturali, quale est, corpus mysticum Ecclesiae. Quod etiam satis aperte indicat ar¬ ticulus appositus nomini grsece touto' Isti to ctop.cc, etc. Nam ut Cyrillus docet lib. i. in Joan. cap iv. articulus facit, ut nomen acci¬ piatur in una certa, determinata, et propria significatione. Itaque sicut cum dicimus : Hic est ille Petrus, qui accepit claves regni, dis¬ tinguimus eum ab aliis ejusdem npminis, ita cum Dominus ait : Hoc est illud corpus (hanc enim vim habet articulus) quod pro vobis tradetur, intelligimus Dominum distinguere corpus suum verum ab omni alio, et deter¬ minate loqui de illo solo. Jam igitur si Do¬ minus Apostolis tradidit verum corpus pro¬ prie dictum, optime se habet illa additio : dedit enim eis comedendum corpus suum naturale, non mysticum; si autem (ut adver¬ sarii volunt) dedit eis panem, qui esset si¬ gnum corporis, falsa est additio. Panis enim, ut symbolum corporis Dominici, utrumque corpus significat, et mysticum, et naturale : quocirca male addita fuisset illa distinctio. Quod enim panis Eucharistiae utrumque cor¬ pus Christi significare debeat, et verum, et mysticum, dubitari non potest : inde enim I Corinth. x. dicitur: Unus panis, ct unum cor¬ pus multi sumus, qui de uno pane participa¬ mus (I); et Augustinus tract. xxvi. in Joan. di¬ cit, ideo in specie panis, et vini consecrari Eucharistiam, ut significetur unitas corporis mystici. Ut enim panis ex multis granis effi¬ citur, et vinum ex multis racemis confluit ; ita Ecclesiae corpus, ex multis fidelibus com¬ ponitur. Praeterea corpus in crucem tradi¬ tum, et sanguis in cruce effusus vere sunt corpus, et sanguis Christi proprie, non signi¬ ficative. Dicent : Panis est signum, seu figura veri corporis, et sanguinis pro nobis traditi, et effusi. Contra ; nam illae voces in recto positae 'oioopsvov, et £5c-/yvo[o.£vov debent conjungi cum substantivo in recto, non in obliquo ; ergo junguntur cum eo, quod dicitur corpus, et sanguis, non cum vocibus in obliquo positis, id est, corporis, et sanguinis. Ergo aut verum corpus et sanguis sunt in Eucharistia, aut corpus, et sanguis significative, id est panis, et vinum, tradita sunt pro nobis ad crucem, et mortem, quo nihil absurdius fingi potest. Sequitur tertia explicatio, quae, ut diximus, Calvini est, qui existimat panem Eucharistiae non appellari signum corporis, sed ipsum cor¬ pus, quia est signum efficacissimum. Quod idem admittit Petrus Martyr in lib. contra Gardinerum in fine tertiae partis : ubi dicit, Christum non dixisse : Hoc significat, vel hoc est ipsum corpus meum, ut distingueret hoc signum ab aliis signis inanibus et sterilibus; dum enim panem istum Eucharistiae ore su¬ mimus, vere simul ipsum Christi corpus spi¬ ritu manducamus. Est autem hic revocandum ad memoriam, quod supra diximus, in i. cap., non existimare Calvinum nobis cum pane dari reipsa ipsum Christi corpus ita ut Christi corpus dici possit esse tunc, et in coelo, etnobiscum, sed solum dari per quamdam communicationem ipsius, etomnium bonorum ejus, quae non requirit lo¬ calem prsesen fiam, quomodo dantur aliquan¬ do regna, et civitates, vel praedia absentibus. Id autem fieri existimat per instrumentum fidei : dum enim credimus in Christum, lit ipse noster cum omnibus bonis suis. Vide quae supra diximus loco citato. lloec opinio, seu potius figmentum, duplici argumento refutari potest. Primo ex princi¬ pio quodam ipsius Calvini. Credere in Chri¬ stum, non est vere manducare Christum ; nec diceretur panis Eucharistiae corpus Christi, si credere esset manducare. At ex sententia Calvini aperte sequitur, nihil esse aliud man¬ ducare Christum, nisi credere in ipsum ; ergo ex sententia Calvini non vere manduca¬ tur in Eucharistia corpus Christi nec dici potest panis ille corpus Christi. Major pro¬ positio est ipsius Calvini lib. iv. Institut. cap. (1)1 Cor. X, 17. CAPUT X. 33 xyii. § 10.« Suat, inquit, qui manducare Chri¬ sti carnem, et sanguinem ejus bibere, uno verbo definiant, nihil esse aliud, quam in Christum ipsum credere : sed mihi expres¬ sius quiddam, ac sublimius videtur voluisse Christus in praeclara illa concione, ubi car¬ nis suae manducationem nobis commendat.» Et infra : « Quemadmodum enim non aspe¬ ctus, sed esus panis corpori alimentum suffi¬ cit, ita vere ac penitus participem Christi animam fieri convenit, ut ipsius virtute in vitam spiritualem vegetetur. » Ubi comparat actum credenti, cum actu videndi cibum, ut significet ita credere non esse manducare, sicut videre cibum non est manducare, qualia etiam repetit, § n. Probatur nunc minor propositio. Nam manducare est actio quaedam, et actio man¬ ducantis, non cibi manducati, ut notissimum est. At in manducatione corporis Domini secundum Calvinistas, nulla est actio homi¬ nis manducantis, nisi ipsum credere ; ergo ipsum credere est manducare secundum Calvinum. Probatur minor. Nam illa unio corporis Domini nobiscum, quae sequitur post actum fidei, non est aliqua actio, sed relatio sequens apprehensionem fidei, vel si actio est, non est nostra, sed Christi : ita enim ipsi docent, ex hoc quod quis credit, sequi ut Christus se totum ei donet, et com¬ municet ; vel explicent ipsi, post actum fidei, quam aliam actionem exerceat homo in con¬ junctione cum Christo facienda. Et confir¬ matur exemplo corporalis manducationis , in hac enim manducare est apprehendere cibum, et trajicere ab ore ad stomachum non autem unio cibi, et hominis ; ergo eodem modo in spirituali manducatione, manducare erit apprehendere Christum, qui est actus fidei, non autem unio Christi nobiscum, qua) non est actio, sed actionis effectus. Confir¬ matur etiam ex loco Pauli, quem Calvinus adducit ad illustrandum sententiam suam. Cum Paulus ait, Ephes. m, Christum habi¬ tare in nobis per fidem, non intelligimus idem esse credere, et habitare Christum in nobis, sed unum es «Itero sequi ; ita etiam cum dicimus, corpus Domini manducari per fidem. At habitare Christum in homine, non est actio aliqua hominis distincta ab actione fidei : ergo eodem modo unio Christi nobis¬ cum, permanducationem spiritualem Eucha¬ ristiae, non est actio distincta ab actione fidei ; igitur manducare nihil est aliud nisi credere. Secundo omissa ista inepta Calvini meta- physica, probo, non posse panem dici corpus, quia sit signum efficax. Nameamdem effica¬ ciam habent Sacramenta vetera, nova; legis, Baptismus, verbum Dei, et imago depicta, vel sculpta crucifixi. At ineptus esset qui di¬ ceret : Imago crucifixi non est nuda imago, sed est vere ipse Christus, qui pro nobis pas¬ sus est: et eodem modo esset ineptus, qui di¬ ceret : Sacrificia, et Sacramenta vetera, vel Baptismus noster, aut verbum Dei, sunt ipse Christus, non ejus tantum symbola ; ergo ineptus est etiam qui dicit : Panis Euchari¬ stia) est ipsum corpus Domini, non nudum symbolum : si vera est tamen Calvini senten¬ tia. Probatur major propositio. Nam (ut su¬ pra ostendimus in i. cap.) nihil aliud tribuit Calvinus Eucharistia), nisi ut sit symbolum revocans ad memoriam Christi passionem, et ea ratione fidem excitans, ut patet exlib. iv. Inslitut . cap. xvn. §2. et § 5. etjalibi. At hoc idem faciunt Sacramenta vetera;. et Bapti¬ smus, et verbum Dei, et Imago crucifixi. Om¬ nia enim ha)c repraesentant Christi mortem, et proinde fidem excitant : imo multo me¬ lius mortem Christi repraesentat imago de¬ picta, vel sculpta crucifixi, quam panis fra¬ ctio. Et idem dici potest de sacrificiis vitulo¬ rum, et agnorum apud veteres ; et maxime de verbo Dei expresse proponente Christi mortem. Ad hoc argumentum ex parte aliqua re¬ spondere conatur Petrus Martyr, inlib. contra Gardinerum par. i. objecto 94. Dicit enim Sacramenta vetera non fuisse appellata cor¬ pus Christi, sicut appellatur panis Euchari¬ stiae, licet illaffitiam fuerint signa efficacia hujus rei ; quia nondum peracta erat Christi passio ; nunc autem peracta est. At vanissima est solutio. Nam quando Christus dixit: Hoc est corpus meum , nondum peracta erat passio. Et praeterea, quod signa repraesentent rem praeteritam vel futuram, ad hoc, ut accipere possint nomen rei signi¬ ficatae, est omnino per accidens, et imperti- nens. Nam si cum Deus revelavit aliquem nasciturum, sicut revelavit de Cyro, Joanne Baptista, et aliis depicta fuisset imago illius, non minus illa imago dici potuisset Cyrus, vel Joannes, quam illae, qua) modo pinguntur. Deinde esto solutio aliquid valeat quan¬ tum ad sacramenta vetera, certe nihil re¬ sponderi potest ad instantiam de Baptismo, in quo repraesentamus Christi mortem jam praeteritam, teste Paulo Roman. vi. et de 36 LIBER I. t imagine crucifixi, et de verbo Dei, et tamen rideretur qui diceret verbum, aut Baptismum esse ipsum corpus Christi, et imaginem de¬ pictam non esse nudum signum, sed ipsum Christum, qui pro nobis mortuus est. MEUM. Sequitur ultima particula Meton, ad quam pertinet ultima opinio haereticorum, et ea quidem ineptissima, eorum videlicet, qui di¬ cunt vocari panem corpus Christi, quia ab ipso creatus. Id enim facillime refellitur ex sequentibus verbis : Quod pro vobis datur ; et clarius de sanguine : Qui pro vobis effun¬ detur in remissionem peccatorum. Panis enim, et vinum, quamvis sint res a Christo crea Re, tamen non sunt data), aut effusa) pro nobis in remissionem peccatorum.