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 11: The Arguments by Which the Adversaries Prove the Words of Institution Should Be Taken Figuratively Are Solved
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 see by what arguments the adversaries prove that the words of institution are to be taken figuratively. They object, first, an argument which Berengarius of old objected, Guitmund being witness, Book 2. The particle This is demonstrative. But the Lord, when He said This is my body, had bread alone in His hands, which He demonstrated; for in the opinion of the Catholics the body of the Lord was not in the Sacrament when This was said, but only when the consecration was accomplished. Secondly, the difficulty is increased from those words of Matthew 26: Drink ye all of this; for that phrase (of this) cannot be referred except to the wine. Wherefore the Lord bade them drink wine, and consequently they drank wine, not blood, except figuratively; or, if He suddenly changed the wine into blood, He will seem to have used sleights, since He offered wine and, while they were about to drink, took it away in the midst. Thirdly, Luke and Paul said [touto to potērion], this chalice; therefore the pronoun demonstrates the chalice, not the blood. But the case of the bread and the chalice is the same; therefore that saying, This is my body, signifies: Say that the bread is the body. Fourthly, there is the argument of Luther, chapter 1 On the Babylonian Captivity. The Hebrews have not the neuter gender; therefore the Lord did not say This (Hoc) is my body, but This (Hic) is my body; therefore He demonstrated the bread, not the body. Fifthly, there is the argument of Calvin and others. What the Lord took and blessed and broke, that He gave to the disciples; for all the words, He took, He blessed, He broke, He gave, govern the same accusative. But He took and blessed and broke bread; therefore He gave bread too; therefore that This demonstrates bread.
That the objections may be solved and the whole matter opened, it must be noted that, according to the Greek codices, the pronoun [touto] can be taken substantively and adjectively—except in Luke 22 and 1 Corinthians 11, where it is said [touto to potērion], this chalice; yet in the Latin codices it cannot be taken substantively, except in those words, This is my body. For in the consecration of the chalice all have, This is my blood, or This chalice, which cannot be expounded substantively. There is indeed in certain codices of Cyprian, Book 2, epistle 3, This is the blood (Hoc); but the more correct editions of Manutius, Morel, and Pamelius have, This is the blood (Hic), as it is had also in all the Latin liturgies. Wherefore, that all may agree, it is best to expound that pronoun everywhere adjectively, so that this be the sense: This is my body, that is, This food is my body; This is the blood, that is, This drink is my blood; This is the chalice of my blood, that is, This chalice is the chalice of my blood.
Note secondly that the Catholics, although they agree in this, yet do not agree in the manner of explaining what that pronoun This properly demonstrates. There are two more celebrated opinions. One, that the pronoun This (Hoc) demonstrates the body, and the pronoun This (Hic) demonstrates the blood. And to the argument of the adversaries they answer that in propositions of this kind, which signify that which is being done when they are spoken, the demonstrative pronouns demonstrate not that which is, but that which will be; and they give examples, as if someone, while he draws a line or a circle, should say, This is a line, this is a circle; in which manner too the pronoun ought to be expounded in those words of the Lord, John 15: This is my commandment. And again: These things I command you. And Luke 24: These are the words which I spoke to you, for all things must be fulfilled, and so forth. And so are taken those exordia of the Prophets: Thus saith the Lord.
This explanation does not seem fully to satisfy, for two causes. First, because although a demonstrative pronoun demonstrates a future thing when nothing is present that may be demonstrated, as in the examples adduced, yet if someone points to something with the finger while he utters the pronoun, it seems very absurd to say that by that pronoun a present thing is not demonstrated. But the Lord took bread, and offering it said, Take ye, eat, this is my body; He seems therefore to have demonstrated the bread. Nor does it stand in the way that the proposition does not signify except at the end of the whole utterance. For although this is so of a proposition, which is a certain discourse, yet demonstrative pronouns at once indicate something definite, even before the other words follow. And truly in those words, Drink ye all of this, it is very hard that that which was is not demonstrated, but only that which was to be.
Secondly, the sacramental words, according to the Catholics, are not speculative but practical; for they effect what they signify; whence also they are called by the Fathers operative, as we shall see later. But if the pronoun demonstrates only the body, the words will be speculative, not practical. For it is always true, the body of Christ being demonstrated, to say, This is the body of Christ, whether it be said before consecration or after, whether by a layman or by a priest. But the sacramental words, because they are operative, are not true unless they be said by him who is the legitimate minister; nor are they true before the sacrament is effected.
There is therefore the other opinion, of Saint Thomas, part 3, question 78, articles 2 and 5, and on chapter 11 of the first to the Corinthians, and of many others who follow him: that the pronoun This demonstrates neither the bread precisely nor the body, but in common the substance which is under those species; yet so that the demonstration properly pertains to the species; not indeed so that the sense is, This, that is, these species are my body, but obliquely, in this manner: This is my body, that is, under these species is my body. In which manner too Guitmund of old expounded, Book 2, who will have this to be the sense of those words, This is my body, that is, this, hitherto bread, is now my body; and in this manner all things cohere excellently. For because the Sacraments signify what they effect, and it is not effected in this Sacrament that the body of Christ be the body of Christ (for that always was, nor is it effected that the bread be the body of Christ, for that cannot be done), but it is effected that under those species be the body of Christ, under which before was the substance of bread—therefore that This demonstrates neither the bread nor the body of Christ, but what is contained under the species.
Hence the argument is excellently solved. For when they say, This demonstrates bread; therefore the bread is the body of Christ; but this cannot be properly, therefore figuratively—I answer that that This demonstrates not the bread precisely, but what is contained under those species; which, although it was bread before consecration, yet by the force of those words begins to be the body of the Lord.
The same I say to that, Drink ye all of this; for that phrase, of this, does not signify of this wine, but of that which is contained in the chalice under the species of wine; which, although it was wine before consecration, yet, the words of consecration being finished, was not wine but blood, as the Lord testifies, subjoining: For this is my blood. Wherefore the Lord did not bid (as the adversaries falsely say) that the Apostles in the sacred supper drink wine; nor were there any sleights; for that was truly what the Lord said, namely His blood. For sleight-workers promise one thing and present another; nay, the Lord did the contrary of what sleight-workers do; for they say that they give something, and give it not truly but apparently; but the Lord gave truly what He said He was giving, although it did not appear to be so.
That which was objected from the words of Luke and Paul, This chalice, makes for us. For by the name of chalice is understood, by the common usage of speaking, not the vessel itself, but what is contained in the vessel; most rightly therefore is it expounded, This chalice, that is, what is contained in this chalice. Nor is the case of the bread and the chalice the same; for bread cannot signify anything but bread, but the chalice signifies in general whatever is contained in the chalice, whether it be wine, or blood, or something else.
To the argument of Luther I answer, first, that just as the Hebrews have not the neuter gender in the pronoun, so neither have they in the nouns; wherefore ‘body’ too in Hebrew is of the masculine gender, and could be demonstrated by a masculine pronoun. Secondly, I say that the Hebrew words of the Lord are more rightly expounded by Mark and Luke, and by him who made the Greek Matthew, who without doubt was a most ancient author, than they can be expounded by any other; and these authors, when they had named the bread [arton], of the masculine gender, put the pronoun in the neuter gender, [touto].
To the last I answer: the Lord took and blessed bread, but gave bread not common, as He had taken it, but blessed and changed by the blessing. For between ‘He took’ and ‘He gave’ there intervenes the word ‘He blessed’, which brings it about that not all the words govern the same accusative in the same state. Nor is this unusual; for if someone says, A certain man struck Peter, killed and buried him, he will not understand that Peter was buried alive, although he was struck alive. Add that they too are compelled to solve this argument in this manner; for they will have the Lord to have taken common bread, and yet to have given sacramental bread.
Against this solution Calvin and Peter Martyr object. Calvin, Book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 17, section 20: “Nothing more absurd,” he says, “than to transfer to the species what is predicated of the bread.” Calvin, namely, had regard to the words of Saint Thomas, part 3, question 78, article 2, where he says that the pronoun This demonstrates the sensible species of bread, which alone remain in that change of the bread into the body of Christ.
But Saint Thomas explained himself in article 5, reply to the second, where he says that the pronoun This does not demonstrate the accidents, as if the sense were, This, that is, these accidents are the body of Christ (for that would be truly most absurd, as Calvin says, who seems to have taken the words of Saint Thomas in this sense), but demonstrates the substance contained under those accidents, which before was bread and now is the body of Christ; so that this is the sense: This, that is, the substance contained under these accidents, is the body of Christ. And this sense is not only not absurd, but is necessary; since (as we showed above) that This cannot demonstrate the bread, nor either the body of Christ precisely. There would be an apt example if the Lord, when He changed the water into wine, had shown the waterpots of water and said, This is wine, and by those words had changed the water into wine. For we could not so expound that sentence, This is wine, that is, this water is wine, for that would be false; nor thus, This, that is, this wine, or this thing (demonstrating the wine), is wine, for the demonstration would have been false, since wine was not present when This was said; but this would be the sense, This is wine, that is, in this vessel is wine.
Peter Martyr, in his book against Gardiner, part 1, objections 13 and 14, laughs at this solution; and because we say that the substance contained under the species is demonstrated, which seems to be a certain vague individual, he says that a vague individual can be conceived in the mind, but plainly cannot be demonstrated; but that the Lord demonstrated what He had in His hands, that is, a certain and determinate thing. And, to show himself versed in scholastic matters, he adds that Scotus was the parent of this vague individual in the explanation of these words.
But in both he is deceived. For, in the first place, Scotus, in Book 4, distinction 8, question 2, where he treats of this matter at length, neither names a vague individual, nor so expounds this passage that the pronoun This demonstrates something uncertain or vague, but says that This signifies ‘This being’, and that ‘This being’ supposits for the body of Christ, and that consequently that proposition is singular and determinate; which opinion we refuted above. Now the vague individual is mentioned by Dominic de Soto in his explanation of the opinion of Saint Thomas, on Book 4, distinction 11, question 1, article 5. And although the substance contained under the species of bread is like a vague individual, and of itself can no more supposit for the bread than for the body of Christ, and for any other thing which remains under the same species, yet in this proposition, This is my body, that substance is determined, by the force of the word Is, to supposit for the body of Christ; and so the proposition is singular and determinate.
To that which he says, that a vague individual cannot be demonstrated, I answer that formally in this proposition the species are demonstrated, which are certain and determinate, although, as I said, obliquely, not directly. Wherefore we do not say, This, that is, this substance, or this being, with Scotus, but, This, that is, the substance under these species, so that the demonstrative pronoun holds itself on the side of the species, not on the side of the substance. Now there is a difference between those two: This, that is, this substance, and This, that is, the substance under these species. For if you say, This, that is, this substance, it is necessary that that substance be then present when This is said; and yet then the substance of the body of Christ is not present, and the demonstration is rendered false. But if you say, This, that is, the substance under these species, it is not necessary that that substance be then present, but it is enough if the species be present, which are demonstrated by the pronoun These. Which will be clearer if, the substance being unspoken, you say: This is my body, that is, under these species is my body. But of these things enough.
The second argument is taken from the particle Is. Peter Martyr teaches, in his book against Gardiner, section 3, page 658, that the papists are compelled to take the word Is tropically for Becomes or Is transubstantiated. For otherwise the proposition This is my body would be false; for a thing must first be before it is pronounced to be; for a proposition is true if the thing is so, not the contrary; and especially according to the Catholics, who will have these words to be the cause of the conversion of the bread into the body of Christ; for the cause is always prior to its effect. But the body of the Lord is not in the Eucharist before Is is said; therefore Is is falsely said, unless it be taken for Becomes. Besides, that utterance is operative in the opinion of the papists, like that, Let there be light; therefore the word Is must be taken for Becomes.
I answer, with Saint Thomas, part 3, question 78, articles 2 and 3 (whence Peter Martyr seems to have taken these arguments), though holding somewhat another opinion, that those consecratory words have not their perfect signification except in the last instant in which the last word is uttered; for the understanding hangs suspended until the end be reached; and in that same last instant the effect of the words is placed in being, that is, the conversion of the bread into the body of Christ. Nor does it stand in the way that the words seem not to have a positive last instant, since they end by motion. For although there is no last part of the motion, and consequently of the words, yet there is a last ‘having-been-changed’, and consequently a last terminative instant of the words, in the manner in which in a line there is no last part, yet there is a last point. Wherefore at the same time are the complete signification of the words and the conversion of the bread into the body of Christ; yet in the order of nature these two precede and follow one another. For those words, inasmuch as they are the cause of that conversion, precede the conversion; and on the contrary, inasmuch as the truth of the proposition depends on the essence of the thing, the conversion precedes the signification.
To that confirmation I answer that the words are operative, even though Is be not put for Let it be; because when God, who cannot lie, says that something is, it is necessary that it be; and therefore if it was not before, it is necessary that it then be made. But why God of old said, Let there be light, and Christ did not say, Let there be a body, but It is a body, Saint Thomas renders the reason: because the words of God in the beginning of creation worked only efficiently, but not sacramentally; but the words of Christ work in both ways, and therefore ought to signify their effect as accomplished, which is done by the substantive verb of the indicative mood and present tense. But even if this cause were not, who laid a law on Christ that He should always speak in the same manner when He did something? Do we not read in the Gospel that it was said, Luke 13: Woman, thou art loosed from thy infirmity? and John 4: Go, thy son liveth? And certainly He no less by these words cured these sick ones than another by those words: Take up thy bed and walk, John 5.
The Zwinglians object certain examples of Scripture in which Is seems to be taken for Signifies, as: The seed is the word of God; The rock was Christ. But of these we shall speak in the following disputation; for they are common also to Oecolampadius and Calvin and others. For it is the same whether you say, The seed is, that is, signifies, the word; and, The seed is the word of God, that is, is a sign of the word of God; in which manner too all similar expressions can be expounded.
The third argument, like the four next following, is drawn from the particle Body. Calvin and Martyr and the rest often repeat this argument. That sentence, This is my body, is sacramental; therefore it must be expounded sacramentally; therefore it signifies that the bread is the body of Christ sacramentally, or significatively. Calvin made so much of this argument that in his last admonition to Westphal he said of it: “Let this be a wall of brass.”
I answer that a sacramental proposition can be taken in two ways. First, that it be called sacramental because it explains the sacrament or its signification, such as is Apocalypse 17: The seven heads are seven hills, and so forth. For God had shown to John in a vision a woman sitting upon a beast of seven heads, which signified Rome, which is situated on mountains; the Angel therefore says: I will tell thee the mystery of the woman; the seven heads are seven mountains upon which the woman sitteth. Such too are those, Matthew 13: The seed is the word of God. And Genesis 41: The seven kine are seven years. And in this kind of propositions the predicates are always taken tropically, not properly.
Secondly, a proposition can be called sacramental because by it the sacrament is instituted, or declared, or confected; as when of the matter of Baptism it is said, John 3: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit; and when of the form it is said, Matthew, the last chapter: Baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit; or when we, baptizing, say: “I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” And in this kind the words which designate the matter and form of the sacrament are taken properly. For it is not lawful to say that water properly so called ought not to be assumed in Baptism, but something signified by it; or that the Trinity ought not to be invoked in proper words, but that some trope underlies those words; otherwise we should have nothing certain concerning the Sacraments.
The whole question, then, is whether those words, This is my body, are said to explain the sacrament, or to institute or confect it; or rather it is no question, but it is certain that they are said to institute and confect the sacrament. For among the Catholics these words are of the essence of the sacrament, and are operative, as Ambrose testifies, Book 4 On the Sacraments, chapter 4. But among the heretics, even though these words are not properly called the form of the sacrament, nor reckoned operative, yet they are necessary for the confection of the sacrament, because they contain the promise, without which no sacrament can consist. And because the sacrament, according to Calvin, is posterior to the word of promise, as its seal and appendage, as he himself speaks, Book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 14, section 2, hence it comes about that the bread was not a Sacrament except after those words were recited. It was not therefore an explanation of the sacrament, since the sacrament did not yet exist, but the institution and confection. Then, why do all the heretics premise those words in the celebration of their supper, except because they think that without those words there is no Sacrament? Finally, wherever in the Scriptures there is an explanation of a mystery, the mystery itself precedes, and the Scripture indicates that it is to be declared by the following words. This is clear in all the parables, dreams, and visions which are declared in Scripture. But in this place no mystery is narrated, nor is any declaration indicated as to follow; it is established, then, that those words pertain to the institution and confection of the sacrament, not to the declaration of its signification. Thus the wall of brass is found to be of clay.
The fourth argument of the same Calvin, Book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 17, section 23. Unless it had come into the minds of the Apostles that Body must be taken figuratively, they would have been troubled at so prodigious a thing. But they are read to have partaken of that sacred flesh tranquilly and quietly.
I answer: There is a twofold cause why the Apostles were not astonished and troubled. One, because they had been already before instructed and forewarned, John 6, as Chrysostom teaches, homily 83 on Matthew. The other, because the same Christ, who delivered the mysteries, illumined their minds with faith, that they might simply believe. For they had heard and believed many other more marvelous things without trouble; such as, in the first place, that that man whom they saw eat, drink, sleep, grow weary, was the true God; and was even then in heaven when He spoke on earth, John 3: No man hath ascended into heaven, but he that descended from heaven, the Son of man who is in heaven. Finally, why are so many thousands of simple Catholics today not troubled when they first hear that in the Eucharist is the whole and entire Christ? Except because, faith illumining, they are persuaded that Christ, who said this, is God, who cannot lie.
The fifth argument, of Klebitz in his book On the Victory of Truth, part 1, argument 8, and of others. Christ says of His body, Take ye and eat. But the body of Christ cannot properly be eaten, since it cannot be ground by the teeth; therefore either ‘body’ is taken figuratively, or certainly ‘to eat’ itself, so that the sense is either: Eat the bread, which is a sign of my body; or, eat with the heart, not with the body; by faith, not by the mouth, my very true body.
I answer that the body of Christ is truly and properly eaten even by the body in the Eucharist. For to the notion of eating attrition is not necessary, but it is enough that there be reception and transmission from the mouth to the stomach through the human and natural instruments, that is, the tongue and the palate. Otherwise old men and toothless children would never eat anything; and we, when we swallow whole certain foods, or the unconsecrated hosts themselves, would not be said to eat. I add besides that, if attrition made by the teeth belonged to the notion of eating, the body of Christ is properly eaten in the Eucharist, not tropically. For we do not say that the body of Christ is eaten absolutely, but is eaten under the species of bread; which sentence signifies that the species themselves are eaten visibly and sensibly, and consequently that they are ground by the teeth; but that under them the body of Christ too is invisibly received and transmitted to the stomach. For even the true bread itself is not ground by the teeth except by reason of its accidents; for the substance of any thing is not of itself divisible. Yet this is the difference between the substance of bread and the body of Christ under the species of bread: that the former is extended to the extension of the quantity by which it is truly informed, but the latter is whole under any particle. Therefore the bread is eaten absolutely, the body of Christ not absolutely, but under the species of bread.
The sixth argument they take from various passages of Scripture where either Is is taken for Signifies, or at least the predicate is taken figuratively. Calvin, Book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 17, sections 21 and 22, brings forward examples: Genesis 17, Circumcision is the covenant; Exodus 12, the Angel is called God; The lamb is the Phase, that is, the passage; Leviticus 16, the sacrifices are expiations; Psalm 84, the ark is God; Matthew 3, the dove is called the Holy Spirit; John 7, The Spirit was not yet, where Was cannot be taken substantively, otherwise the Holy Spirit would not be eternal; 1 Corinthians 10, The rock was Christ, and in the same place, The bread is the communion of the body of Christ; 1 Corinthians 12, the Church is Christ; Titus 3, Baptism is the laver of regeneration. If that Is were taken substantively, all who are baptized would be regenerated, yet we know that to many Baptism is useless. Others bring forward others, as: The seven kine are seven years, Genesis 41; The seed is the word of God, Luke 8; I am the door, John 10, and other things of the sort. They confirm the argument, because heresies have arisen from Scripture understood properly and freely, as those of the Anthropomorphites and others. Many examples Calvin enumerates, Book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 17, section 23, and Klebitz, On the Victory of Truth, part 1, argument 16.
I answer that this argument fails in many ways. For, in the first place, it cannot be gathered from some examples that the word Is, or the predicate of a proposition, is everywhere so taken; for we can bring forward many more passages in which Is signifies Is, and the predicate is taken properly.
Klebitz refutes this solution in his book On the Victory of Truth, part 1, argument 16. For he says that his adversaries argue in a like manner, who thence prove that the passage of the Gospel, This is my body, is to be taken without a trope, because many passages in the Scriptures are taken without a trope. But he lies against his own head; for we use a general rule, and say that everywhere the propriety of the words must be kept, unless it be evidently taught that somewhere there is a trope; from that universal rule we prove that this passage is to be taken without a trope. Likewise I say to the confirmation: it is not rightly proved that the literal sense is everywhere to be avoided, because some took thence occasion of erring. For in this manner we should prove also that the mystical sense is never to be followed, because thence the Chiliasts, Origenists, Donatists, and others took occasion of erring; nay, the whole Scripture itself would have to be avoided, because many errors, and nearly all, have arisen from it ill understood.
Secondly, the argument of the adversaries errs because they brought forward no like example. For in the examples adduced, always a disparate is predicated of a disparate, as is clear from those: The kine are years, The seed is the word, Christ is the vine, and so forth; for in these, since it can in no way be that they are properly true, we are necessarily compelled to have recourse to tropes. But in this sentence, This is the body, a disparate is not predicated of a disparate, at least in express words. For what that This refers to is in question, and ought not to be assumed as certain that it refers to bread, since the Scripture does not expressly have this. They ought therefore to bring forward an example where of the pronoun This something is predicated tropically.
Klebitz sets down two examples. One, argument 16, Exodus 24: This is the Testament, where This refers to the blood. The other, at the end of his book, from the Confession of the Duke of Wurtemberg, Ezekiel 5: This is Jerusalem, where an image of Jerusalem painted on a tile is demonstrated, as is clear from chapter 4. But that, This is the Testament, is not read in Exodus 24, but, This is the blood of the Testament; and that, This is Jerusalem, is not understood of an image of Jerusalem, but of the true Jerusalem itself, as is clear from the text itself and from Jerome’s commentary. For although in chapter 4 Ezekiel was bidden to paint that city, yet in chapter 5 he no longer speaks of that image. I add that Ezekiel does not say, This is Jerusalem, an image being shown, but, This is Jerusalem. But the Lord said, This is the body (Hoc), not, This is the body (Iste), which He ought to have said if He wished to show the bread. And so those are not alike.
Thirdly, the argument errs because it mixes in many false things. For some are falsely cited; as, for example, The sacrifices are expiations, which Calvin and Klebitz cite from Leviticus 16, and yet no such sentence is had in that place, or elsewhere. Likewise Calvin cites Psalm 84, verse 8, to prove that the ark is called God. But this is not had there; for those words to which Calvin had regard, The God of gods shall be seen in Sion, are expounded by Augustine, Jerome, Theodoret, and others, not of the ark, but of the true God Himself, who in the heavenly Sion shall be seen in Himself, and in the earthly Sion was seen when He had put on flesh. Add that even if this passage were understood of the ark, it could not therefore be said, This ark is God, but, through this ark God is seen, as through a place sacred to God, in which responses were given. So too Calvin cites, and greatly urges, from 1 Corinthians 12, The Church is Christ. But Paul does not say this, but this: So also is Christ. Where he calls Christ the Lord Himself with His mystical body; but it is not therefore lawful to say, The Church is Christ; just as neither do we say, The body is the head, or the kingdom is the King, although sometimes by the name of King we understand the King himself with his kingdom. That saying too, The Spirit was not yet, John 7, is read otherwise in the more correct texts, namely: The Spirit was not yet given. For so read Didymus, Book 2 On the Holy Spirit; Augustine, tract 52 on John; Leo, sermon 2 On Pentecost; and others. And besides, even if it were read, The Spirit was not yet, there is not therefore any trope there, but we should understand that the Spirit was not in the Apostles, as Jerome reads, question 9 to Hedibia.
Some are cited rightly, but ill expounded, as that: The lamb is the Pasch, that is, the passage. For the paschal lamb was not called Pasch tropically, because it signified the passage; for there was no similitude between the killing of the lamb and the passage of the Lord; but it was called properly Pasch, just as the feast day too was called Pasch, the name being derived from that passage of the Lord, because the lamb was immolated and the feast day kept in memory and honor of that passage. Whence in the Gospel the paschal lamb is absolutely called Pasch: Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the Pasch? and: The Pasch had to be killed, Mark 14, Luke 22.
That too, 1 Corinthians 10, The rock was Christ: according to the truer and literal exposition of Chrysostom, Theophylact, Theodoret, and Ambrose, is not taken of the material rock which signified Christ—for that did not follow the Hebrews—but of the invisible and spiritual rock which provided the Jews with all necessaries; which rock truly and properly was Christ, as God. For although there is a trope in that Christ is called a rock, yet by the addition ‘spiritual’ the trope is explained, and that word is derived to signify Christ; and consequently the very proposition, “The spiritual rock was Christ,” is taken properly, not figuratively.
Calvin, although in the institution, in the place noted, understands by the rock a stone, yet in his last admonition to Westphal understands by the name of rock the water, by metonymy; for the water could easily follow the Hebrews, flowing in streams. But this fiction Theodoret of old refuted on this passage, and Peter Martyr too did not spare it in his commentary on this passage. For that exposition repugns the Scripture; since a little after they again lacked water, as is clear from Numbers 20 and 21, which certainly they would not have lacked if the water from the rock had followed them.
Martyr brings forward two expositions. One, that that phrase, the rock that followed them, signifies, the rock obeying and ministering to them. But because the Greek Fathers, who best knew the force of the Greek word, constantly explain it ‘accompanying’, not ‘obeying’, as also Erasmus, to whom the adversaries attribute much, therefore he sets down the other, that that word ‘accompanying’ be referred to Christ, not to the rock, as we said. But he does not observe that by this his exposition, which he seems to approve above the rest, he destroys what he had said above. For in this manner he cannot have a trope in the Sacraments. For if the accompanying rock was not the material rock, but Christ the invisible rock, certainly he cannot expound: The rock was Christ, that is, the rock signified Christ; which nevertheless he especially contends.
Yet here it must be observed that it is not denied by us that that material rock was a figure of Christ, and the water flowing thence a figure of the blood of Christ; just as we do not deny that the species of bread are signs of the body of Christ; but we deny that by those words, The rock was Christ, that figure is explained, just as we deny that by those words, This is my body, the signification of the species of bread is explained.
That too, The bread is the communion, 1 Corinthians 10, is not rightly expounded when they say, “The bread is the communion, that is, signifies the communion”; but the sense is: The communion of the consecrated bread in the supper of the Lord, is it not the communion of the body of the Lord? Where there is no trope taking away the truth of the thing or obscuring the sentence; for ‘bread’ is usually taken for the use and communion of bread. Nor is there a trope in the word ‘bread’, because he speaks of consecrated bread, which is truly the body of the Lord, as we shall show in the following chapter.
Finally, that, Baptism is the laver of regeneration, is ill expounded by those words, Baptism signifies a laver; for it does not only signify, but truly also washes souls from sins, as regards itself, although the effect can be hindered by our indisposition.
Fourthly, the argument errs because in all the passages adduced, where there is either a trope or something obscure, an explanation is always added; as Genesis 17, where circumcision is called the covenant, in the same place it is also called the sign of the covenant. Exodus 12, where the lamb is called the Phase, in the same place it is called the victim of the passage of the Lord. 1 Corinthians 10, The rock was Christ: in the same place it is explained of the spiritual rock that followed them; finally, in all parables and visions or dreams, it is always indicated that it is a parable, or a mystical vision.
Where moreover it must be noted that in passages of this kind—parables, similitudes, visions, and so forth—Is can be taken for Signifies without any trope, because the whole essence of such things is placed in signifying, as we said above of the explanation of words. For example, when it is said, Genesis 41, The seven kine are seven years, the sense is not that the kine signify years, but that the kine were shown in the vision to signify the years. But this sentence, This is my body, as we have often said, is not an explanation of a sign or parable, but an assertion of a thing. Wherefore Calvin, Book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 17, section 21, about to bring forward examples of tropes, betrays that he is unwilling to bring forward examples from parables; namely, he observed that they were not to the point.
The seventh argument is of Calvin, Book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 17, section 23. If ‘body’ in that sentence, This is my body, is taken properly, it signifies either the body alone, or the whole Christ. If the body alone, then somewhere there will be the body of the Lord without soul, blood, and deity. If the whole Christ, then there will be a confused battology: This is the body, and, This is the blood; for these will signify the same, and it will be possible to say of the bread, This is the blood, and of the chalice, This is the body. It is confirmed, because if the word Body signifies the whole Christ, there will be the trope which is called synecdoche; therefore we cannot flee tropes in this sentence, unless we impiously tear the body of the Lord from His blood.
I answer that the words signify properly, and that by the name of body the body alone is understood, by the name of blood the blood alone; nor yet is the body torn from the blood, because they are conjoined on account of the necessary concomitance, although this conjunction is not signified by those words, just as neither is it denied. Just as, if someone, the body of Peter being demonstrated, should say, This is the body of Peter, he properly signifies the body alone, and yet it does not follow that that body lacks a soul, because he does not say, This is a body without a soul, but simply, This is the body, which is true whether the soul be there or not be there; wherefore there is here neither any battology nor synecdoche. Although, if we were compelled to admit synecdoche, we should not do it grudgingly, because there is a great difference between synecdoche and metaphor or metonymy; for the former does not take away the truth of the thing, the latter take it away. Whence in those words, The Word was made flesh, all Catholics admit the synecdoche by which we understand the whole by a part, but the metonymy none, just as neither the metaphor, except the heretics who deny true flesh in Christ.
The eighth argument, of Calvin, section 20, and of Martyr on chapter 11 of the first to the Corinthians, and of others, from those words: This chalice is the new Testament in my blood. For here a twofold trope must necessarily be admitted. The first in the word ‘chalice’; for it is taken by the consent of all for the container in place of the thing contained, which trope is called metonymy. The second in the word ‘testament’; for neither the wine nor the blood is properly a testament, but a sign of the Testament. Which they prove, first, because otherwise the testament of Christ would be renewed every single day, and the preceding one antiquated. Secondly, it would be necessary for Christ often to die; for a testament is not of force unless he die that made it, Hebrews 9. Besides, thirdly, Matthew says, This is my blood of the new Testament; therefore the blood was not the testament; but what was in the chalice was the testament, Luke being witness; therefore in the chalice was not blood. Fourthly, Luke and Paul say that the chalice is the testament in the blood; therefore what was in the chalice was not blood; for the sense would be, This blood is the testament in blood, which is absurd and impossible. For when one thing is in another, they cannot be one and the same, unless we say that a thing is in itself. From these Calvin gathers that the words of Matthew and Mark must be expounded by the words of Luke and Paul, because those are fewer, these more. And so that, This is my blood, which Matthew and Mark said, must be expounded thus: This is the testament in my blood, that is, a sign of the testament confirmed by my blood; and likewise that, This is my body, must be expounded: This is the testament in my body. For not only the blood, but also the body of Christ established the new testament; therefore the word ‘body’ cannot be taken properly, unless we will have the body and the testament in the body to be the same. And here seems to be the Achilles of Calvin in this matter.
I answer: We do not deny that in the word ‘chalice’ there is a trope; but a trope there most clearly explained; which cannot be said of the trope which the adversaries place in the word ‘body’. For the Lord says: Take, drink, this is the chalice; but certainly the vessel is not drunk, but the liquor contained in it. Likewise (as we said above) Luke adds of the chalice, Which is shed for you; but the vessel is not shed, but the liquor. Finally, what Luke and Paul say, This is the chalice, Matthew and Mark said, This is the blood. Now obscure words must be expounded by clearer, and figurative by proper. Certainly if the same man of the same vessel should say, Drink of this cup, and should add, Drink of this wine, no one would doubt that wine was contained in that cup, and that the man wished to explain what was contained in the cup; since therefore the same Holy Spirit, of the same thing, says through two holy writers, This is the blood, and through two others, This is the chalice, it ought not to be doubted that blood is contained in that chalice. Let the adversaries demonstrate that a trope which they feign in the word ‘body’ is explained so clearly in the Scriptures, and they have conquered. I omit that to take the chalice for the thing contained in the chalice is a trope so usual and vulgar that it is no less plain than the proper words themselves.
As to the other trope, which they place in the word ‘testament’, I say there is no trope there. For it must be observed that there are two things which are wont to be called by the name of Testament. First, the very will of the testator, which disposes concerning the inheritance, whether it be absolute or require a condition, and can also be called a covenant. So it is taken, Exodus 24, This is the blood of the covenant; or (as the Apostle cites, Hebrews 9), This is the blood of the testament; for the sense is: This is the blood by which the will, the covenant, the promise of God is sanctioned and confirmed. So it is taken also, Genesis 17, where circumcision is called the sign of the covenant, and Galatians 4, Hebrews 8, and Jeremiah 31, where the two Testaments are distinguished.
Secondly, the authentic instrument in which the will of the testator is contained, and by which the heir acquires the right to the inheritance, is called a testament. And in this manner we not improperly call the old and new Testament the sacred Bible, in which is contained the will of God concerning the temporal goods to be given to the people of the Hebrews, and concerning the eternal goods to be given to the people of the Christians; as also the sacraments, which are authentic instruments by which the right to the inheritance is applied to us; nay, even the inheritance itself, at least in part. For the inheritance is grace and glory; and there is given to us through the sacraments, in the present, grace, and the right to glory. Whence circumcision, which was the sacrament of the Old Testament, and by which the right to the land of promise was given to the Hebrews, is called a testament, Ecclesiasticus [Sirach] 44: In his flesh he established the testament. The same too is called the sign of the covenant, and the covenant itself, Genesis 17, and both properly. For it was a sign of the covenant, as the covenant is taken for the divine promise; and at the same time it was the covenant, as the covenant is taken for the instrument by which that promise is explained. Now among all the sacraments the Eucharist especially is called the testament, because it is not only the instrument of conferring the inheritance, but also contains the most plain representation of the shedding of the blood of the Lord, from which the new testament has its force.
From these we answer to all the objections. To the first I deny that a new testament is made daily, and the preceding one antiquated. For the celebration of the Eucharist is not a new institution of the testament, but a repetition of the same; as when the same testament is often written out, which repetition is made to apply the inheritance to various heirs who successively arise; just as circumcision too was very often repeated, and yet the preceding one was not antiquated.
To the second I deny that Christ ought to die daily. For His death was not the Testament, but the confirmation of the Testament; and one death of His suffices to confirm His Testament, even though it be repeated an infinite number of times.
To the third I say that in Matthew’s words, This is the blood of the Testament, the word ‘Testament’ is taken in the first manner, that is, for the divine promise; but in the words of Luke, This chalice is the Testament, it is taken in the second manner, that is, for the instrument of that promise. And so both are truly and properly said.
To the fourth I say that the expression is not absurd, This chalice is the Testament in my blood, even though that This chalice signifies, The blood contained in the chalice. For ‘blood’ is taken in a diverse manner in these two places. For when it is said, This chalice, the blood contained in it is taken, as it is under the species of wine, and is a sacrament, and consequently a testament; but when it is said, In my blood, it is taken for the blood itself visibly shed on the cross; so that this is the sense: This chalice, that is, the thing contained in this chalice under the species of wine, is the new testament dedicated and sanctioned in my blood.
To that which they object, that things of which one is in the other are necessarily distinguished, I answer that that word ‘in’ in this place does not signify containment, but the instrumental cause; for ‘in’ is put for ‘through’, so that the sense is that the new testament is sanctioned in the blood of Christ, that is, through the blood of Christ. In the manner in which it is said, Romans 3, Christ a propitiator in His blood. And Romans 5, we are said to be justified in the blood of Christ. And Ephesians 2, We who were afar off are made nigh in His blood.
Finally, to those consequences of Calvin, I say that Matthew must not be expounded by Luke, nor the contrary, because each speaks properly and plainly enough; yet if there were a trope in those words, This chalice is the Testament, it would have to be expounded by the words of Matthew, which are clearer, This is the blood of the new Testament. Yet it can be conceded to Calvin that it is lawful to say, This is the blood of the Testament, that is, This chalice is the Testament in my blood. And also, This is my body, that is, the Testament in my body. Nor does it follow that ‘body’ is taken figuratively; because, as we said, the true body and blood of the Lord under the species of bread and wine are truly and properly a testament.
The ninth argument, from those words: Do this for a commemoration of me. For memory is of things absent; therefore the bread and wine are not the body and blood, nor are they changed into them, but are mere symbols of an absent thing; therefore the body and blood are taken figuratively for a sign of the body and blood. It is confirmed, because the commemoration of the death of the Lord is the proper end of those symbols of the Eucharist; but of the true body itself there is another more sublime end. But the Lord in the institution of the Sacrament mentioned only the commemoration; therefore ‘body’ is taken figuratively for a symbol of the body.
I answer that what ‘for a commemoration of me’ is has been explained by Paul, 1 Corinthians 11, in those words: You shall show the death of the Lord until He come. And so we are bidden to receive the Eucharist in memory of the Lord’s passion and death, which is not present, but absent; nay, is not, but was. To the confirmation I answer that the Lord mentioned either end. For when He says, This is my body, which is given for you, and, This is the blood, which shall be shed for you unto the remission of sins, He openly signifies that the end of this Sacrament is the remission of sins. Add that of the fruit of this sacrament the Lord had said many things, John 6, so that it was not necessary here to add more.
The tenth argument, from those words: I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until I drink it new in the kingdom of God. These are said after the consecration; therefore even after the consecration there was wine, which was in the chalice; therefore there was not blood, except figuratively.
I answer that from Luke it is openly gathered that these words pertain to the chalice of wine which the Lord gave the Apostles after the eating of the paschal lamb, before the consecration of the mysteries; and consequently that the other two Evangelists did not narrate this in its own place. For, in the first place, Luke mentions two chalices, one before the consecration of the bread; and of the former he does not say, This is the blood, or, the Testament in the blood, as he says of the latter; but of the same former he says, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine. Besides, Luke joins those words, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, with those, I will not eat of this, namely the pasch, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. But it is certain that the pasch is there called the paschal lamb, by which name all three Evangelists use in this signification; therefore those words, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, pertain to the wine which they drank when they ate the paschal lamb.
You will say: Matthew, chapter 26, makes mention of only one chalice, namely of the Eucharist; therefore when he says, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine, that this is referred to the chalice of the Eucharist, not to another; for it seems very absurd that he should demonstrate another chalice of which he had said nothing at all. I answer that Matthew did not demonstrate any one chalice of the two, but simply demonstrated the wine which was on the table, or which they had drunk in the supper; yet from Luke we gather that the Lord had regard not only to the wine which they had drunk, but also to a certain cup which He handed the Apostles at the end of the Jewish supper, when He put an end to the legal observances; which Matthew, as many other things, passed over.
If again you object Augustine, who, Book 3 On the Agreement of the Evangelists, chapter 1, says that Luke did not narrate the history in his own order, but by anticipation narrated that which Matthew and Mark narrated in its place: I answer that Augustine did not weigh this passage diligently, as is clear from this, that he most briefly disengaged himself from this difficulty. Now Jerome on chapter 26 of Matthew, Bede and Theophylact on chapter 22 of Luke, openly distinguish two cups in the supper of the Lord, and of the former, which was Jewish, understand those words, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine. Add that it is much more probable (if there were no other reason) that Matthew and Mark did not narrate in its place a thing of small moment, than that Luke did not narrate in right order the highest mystery. Finally, if we were convinced that those words of the Lord, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine, were said after the consecration of the chalice, still the adversaries would obtain nothing. For those words could and ought to be referred, not to the consecrated chalice, but to the one drunk before; as Anselm refers them on this passage of Matthew; for the Lord did not wish to say that He would no longer celebrate the Eucharist, but that He would not drink after the human manner to restore His strength.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
'CAPUT XI. Solvuntur argumenta , quibus probant adver¬ sarii verba institutionis figurate accipienda. Videamus nunc quibus argumentis probent adversarii verba institutionis figurate acci¬ pienda. Objiciunt illi primo argumentum, quod olim objiciebat Bercngarius teste Guit- mundo lib. 11. Particula (Hoc) est demon¬ strativa. Dominus autem cum ait : Hoc est corpus meum , panem solum in manibus ha¬ buit, quem demonstraret : ex sententia enim Catholicorum, non fuit corpus Domini in Sa¬ cramento, cum diceretur (Hoc), sed peracta demum consecratione. Secundo, augetur dif¬ ficultas ex illis verbis Matth. xxvi : liibite ex hoc omnes (1), illud enim (ex hoc) non potest referri nisi ad vinum. Quare jussit Dominus, ut vinum biberent, proinde vinum, non san¬ guinem biberunt, nisi figurate : vel si repente mutavit vinum in sanguinem, praestigiis usus videbitur, quippe qui vinum obtulerit, et dum essent bibituri, illude medio sustulerit. Tertio Lucas, et Paulus dixerunt touto ro 7roT/'ptov, hic calix ; ergo pronomen demonstrat cali¬ cem, non sanguinem. At eadem ratio est panis, et calicis, ergo illud : Hoc est corpus , significat : Dic panis est corpus. Quarto est argumentum Lutberi cap. i. de Babgl. cap- tiv. Hebraei non habent genus neutrum ; ergo Dominus non dixit : Hoc est corpus meum, sed : Hic est corpus meum : ergo de¬ monstravit panem, non corpus. Quinto est argumentum Calvini, et aliorum. Quod ac¬ cepit Dominus, ac benedixit, et fregit, id dis¬ cipulis dedit; nam omnia verba : Accepit, benedixit , fregit , dedit , regunt eumdem accu¬ sativum. Sed accepit, et benedixit, ac fregit panem ; ergo, et panem dedit ; ergo illud (Hoc) panem demonstrat. Ut solvantur objectiones, et tota res ape¬ riatur, notandum est secundum Graecos co¬ dices, pronomen tooto, aiccipi posse substan¬ tive, et adjective : praeterquam Luc. xxn. et i Cor. vi. ubi dicitur toutotoicotvJoiov, hic calix : tamen in laitinis codicibus, non potest accipi substantive, nisi in illis verbis : Hoc est cor¬ pus. Nam in consecratione cadicis omnes ha¬ bent, Hic est sanguis , aut Hic calix , quae non possunt exponi substantive. Est quidem in quibusdam codicibus Cypriani lib. ii. epist. 3. Hoc est sanguis : sed correctiores Manutii, Morelii, Pamelii habent, Hic est sanguis , ut etiam habetur in omnibus liturgiis laitinis. Quare ut omnia conveniant, praestat expo¬ nere ubique illud pronomen adjective, ut hic sit sensus : Hoc est corpus meum , id est, Hoc edulium est corpus meum: Hic est san¬ guis, id est, Hic potus est sanguis meus: Hic est calix sanguinis mei, id est, Ilie calix est calix sanguinis mei. Nota secundo Catholicos etsi conveniant in io, tamen non convenire in modo explicandi, quid proprie demonstret illud pronomen, Hoc vel hic. Sunt autem dua) celebriores sen¬ tentia). Una, quod pronomen Hoc, demon¬ stret corpus, et pronomen, Hic, demonstret sanguinem. Et ad argumentum adversario¬ rum respondent, in hujusmodi propositio¬ nibus, qua) significant id, quod tunc fit, cum dicitur, pronomina demonstrativa non demonstrare id quod est, sed id quod er» t : et ponunt exempla, ut si quis dum pingit lineam, aut circulum, dicat, ha)c est linea, hic est circulus ; quomodo etiam exponi de¬ bet pronomen in illis verbis Domini Joan xv. Jloc est praeceptum meum. Et rursus : Haec mcindo vobis. Et Luc. xxn. Haec sunt verba, quae locutus sum cui vos : quoniam necesse est impleri omnia etc. (2). Et sic accipiuntur illa exordia Prophetarum : Hxc dicit Dominus. IIa)C explicatio non videtur plene satisfa Luc XXIV, 44. (I) Matth. XXVI, 27. - (2J Joan. XV, 12 et 17 ; CAPUT XI. 37 cere, propter duas causas. Primo, quia etsi pronomen demonstrativum demonstret rem luturam, quando nihil est praesens, quod de¬ monstretur, ut in exemplis allatis ; tamen si quis digito aliquid ostendat, dum prono¬ men effert, valde absurdum videtur dicere pronomine illo non demonstrari rem praesen¬ tem. Atqui Dominus accepit panem, et illum porrigens ait : Accipite , edite, hoc est corpus meum : videtur igitur demonstravisse panem. Neque obstat, quod propositio non significat, nisi in fine tolius prolationis. Nam etsi ita est de propositione, quae est oratio quosdam : tamen demonstrativa pronomina mox indi¬ cant certum aliquid, etiam antequam sequan¬ tur caeteroo voces. Et sane in illis verbis : Bibite ex hoc omnes , valde durum est non de¬ monstrari id, quod erat, sed id tantum, quod futurum erat. Secundo verba sacramentalia secundum Catholicos, non sunt speculativa, sed pra- ctica ; efficiunt enim quod significant : unde etiam a Patribus operatiora dicuntur, ut postea videbimus. At si pronomen demon¬ strat solum corpus, verba erunt speculativa, non practica. Semper enim verum est de¬ monstrato Christi corpore, dicere : Hoc est corpus Christi, sive id dicatur ante conse¬ crationem, sive postea : sive a laico, sive a sacerdote. At verba sacramentalia, quia operatoria non sunt vera, nisi dicantur ab ;eo, qui est legitimus minister; neque sunt vera antequam sacramentum efficiatur. Est igitur altera sententia sancti Thomoe 3. parf. quoest. lxxyiii. art. 2. et 5. etincap. xi. prioris ad Corinth. nec non aliorum mul¬ torum, qui eum sequuntur, quod pronomen, Hoc, non demonstret praecise panem, nec corpus, sed in communi substantiam, quae est sub illis speciebus : sic tamem ut de¬ monstratio proprie ad species pertineat; non quidem, ut sensus sit : Hoc , id est, hae spe¬ cies sunt coipus meum ; sed in obliquo, hoc modo : Hoc est corpus meum , id est, sub his speciebus est corpus meum. Quomodo etiam exposuit olim Guitmundus lib. ir. qui hunc vult esse sensum eorum verborum : Hoc est corpus meum , id est, hoc hactenus panis, nunc est corpus meum : atque hoc modo omnia optime cohaerent. Nam quia Sacra¬ menta significant quod efficiunt, et non effi¬ citur in hoc Sacramento, ut corpus Christi, sit corpus Christi, id enim semper fuit, neque efficitur, ut panis sit corpus Christi, id enim fieri nequit ; sed efficitur, ut sub speciebus illis sit corpus Christi, sub quibus antea erat substantia panis ideo illud, Hoc , demons¬ trat panem, nec corpus Christi, sed conten¬ tum sub speciebus. Hinc argumentum optime solvitur. Nam cum aiunt, Hoc demonstrat panem ; ergo panis est corpus Christi : proprie autem id esse non potest, ergo figurate. Respondeo illud, Hoc , non demonstrate panem praecise, sed contentum sub illis speciebus ; quod quidem licet fuerit panis ante consecratio¬ nem, tamen vi illorum verborum incipit esse corpus Domini. Idem dico ad illud, Bibite ex hoc omnes : illud enim, ex hoc, non significat ex hoc vino sed ex eo quod in calice sub speciebus vini continetur : quod quidem licet vinum fuerit ante consecrationem, tamen finitis verbis consecrationis, non vinum, sed sanguis erat, ut Dominus testatur subjiciens : Hic enim est sanguis meus. Quare non jussit Do¬ minus (sicut adversarii mentiuntur) ut Apo¬ stoli in sacra coena vinum biberent ; nec fue¬ runt ullae praestigiae : id enim fuit vere, quod Dominus dixit, nimirum sanguis ejus. Prae¬ stigiatores enim unum pollicentur, et aliud praestant : imo contrarium Dominus fecit ejus, quod praestigiatores faciunt: illi enim dicunt se aliquid dare, et non dant vere, sed apparenter; Dominus autem dedit vere, quod dicebat se dare, licet non appareret ita esse. Illud quod objiciebatur ex verbis Lucae et Pauli, Hic calix, pro nobis facit. Nam no¬ mine calicis, intclligitur ex communi usu lo¬ quendi non ipsum vas sed quod in vase con¬ tinetur: rectissime igitur exponitur, Hic calix, id est, quod in hoc calice continetur. Neque est eadem ratio panis et calicis ; nam panis non potest significare nisi panem; calix autem significat generatim, quidquid in calice con¬ tinetur, sive sit vinum, sive sanguis, sive quid aliud. Ad argumentum Lutheri respondeo primo, sicut Hebraei non habent genus neutrum in pronomine, ita nec habere in nominibus : quocirca etiam corpus hebraice est generis masculini, et demonstrari potuit per prono¬ men masculinum. Secundo verba Domini hebraica dico rectius exposita a Marco et Luca, et oib eo, qui Matthaeum groecum fecit, qui sine dubio antiquissimus auctor fuit, quam ab ullo alio exponi possint : porro hi auctores cum panem nominassent ap-rov ge¬ neris masculini, pronomen posuerunt in ge¬ nere neutro touto. LIBER i. 38 Aci ultimum respondeo : Dominum acce¬ pisse, ac benedixisse panem; sed dedisse panem non vulgarem, ut acceperat, sed be¬ nedictum, et benedictione mutatum. Inter¬ cedit enim inter accepit et dedit , verbum, benedixit , quod facit, ne omnia verba regant eumdem accusativum eodem modo se haben¬ tem. Neque est hoc inusitatum : nam si quis dicat : Percussit quidam Petrum, occidit, et sepelivit ; non intelliget Petrum fuisse vi¬ vum sepultum, tametsi vivus fuerit percus¬ sus. Adde quod etiam illi hoc modo cogun¬ tur solvere hoc argumentum : nam volunt Dominum accepisse panem vulgarem, et ta¬ men dedisse panem sacramentalem. Objiciunt contra hanc solutionem Calvinus et Petrus Martyr. Calvinus lib. iv. Institui. cap. 17. § 20. «Nihil absurdius, inquit, quam ad speciem transferrre, quod de pane prae- dicatur. » Respexit nimirum Calvinus ad verba S. Thomse 3. par. queest. lxxviii. art. 2. ubi dicit pronomen, Hoc, demonstrare species sensibiles panis, quse solae manent in illa mutatione panis in corpus Christi. Sed S. Thomas explicuit se in art. 5. ad 2. ubi dicit pronomen, Hoc , non demonstrare accidentia, quasi esset sensus, Hoc, id est, haec accidentia sunt corpus Christi (id enim vere absurdissimum esset, ut Calvinus dicit, qui videtur in hoc sensu accepisse verba S. Thomse) sed demonstrare substantiam sub illis accidentibus contentam, quse antea erat panis, et nunc est corpus Christi ; ita ut hic sit sensus : Hoc, id est, substantia sub his accidentibus contenta, est corpus Christi. Et hic sensus non modo non est absurdus, sed est necessarius ; quandoquidem (ut supra ostendimus) illud, Hoc , non potest demon¬ straro panem, neque etiam corpus Christi praecise ; ut esset aptum exemplum, si Do¬ minus quando mutavit aquam in vinum, os¬ tendisset hydrias aqua}, ac dixisset, Hoc est vinum, et illis verbis mutasset aquam in vi¬ num. Neque enim possemus ita exponere il¬ lam sententiam, Hoc est vinum, id est, haec aqua est vinum ; id enim falsum esset ; ne¬ que ita, Hoc, id est, hoc vinum, sive haec res demonstrando vinum, est vinum : nam falsa fuisset demonstratio, non enim aderat vinum, cum diceretur, Hoc ; sed hic esset sensus, Hoc est vinum, id est, in hoc vase est vinum. Petrus Martyr in lib. contra Gardinerum part. i, objecto 13 et 14, ridet hanc solutio¬ nem ; et quia dicimus demonstrari substan¬ tiam sub speciebus contentam, quse videtur esse quoddam individuum vagum ; ait ipse individuum vagum mente posse concipi, de¬ monstrari autem plane non posse : Dominum autem demonstrasse quod in manibus habe¬ bat, id est, rem certam, et determinatam. Et ut se in scholasticis versatum ostenderet; addit Scotum fuisse parentem hujus indi¬ vidui vagi in explicatione horum verborum. Sed in utroque fallitur. Nam in primis Scotus in 4. dist. 8. qusest. 2. ubi fuse de hac re agit, neque nominat individuum va¬ gum, neque ita exponit hunc locum, ut pro¬ nomen, Hoc , demonstret aliquid incertum seu vagum, sed dicit, Hoc significare : Hoc ens ; illud autem, Hoc ens, supponere pro Christi corpore ; proinde esse propositionem illam singularem et determinatam ; quam sententiam supra refutavimus. Porro indi¬ vidui vagi meminit Dominicus a Soto in explicatione sententia) S. Thomse in iv. dis¬ tinet. 11. qusest. 1, art. 5. Quamvis autem simile sit in individuo vago substantia sub speciebus panis contenta ; et ex se non magis possit supponere pro pane, quam pro cor¬ pore' Christi, et pro qualibet alia re, qua) sub iisdem speciebus maneat ; tamen in hac propositione : Hoc est corpus meum, substantia illa determinatur vi verbi, Est , ad supponen¬ dum pro corpore Christi ; atque ita propo¬ sitio est singularis, et determinata. Ad id vero, quod ille ait, individuum va¬ gum non posse demonstrari ; respondeo for- maliter in hac propositione demonstrari spe¬ cies, quae sunt certae, et determinatae, quam¬ vis, ut dixi, in obliquo, non in recto. Quocirca non dicimus, Hoc , id est, ha)c substantia, vel hoc ens cum Scoto, sed, Hoc , id est, substantia sub his speciebus, ut pronomen demonstrativum teneat se ex parte specierum, non ex parte substantia) : interest autem in¬ ter illa duo Hoc , id est, haec substantia, et Hoc, id est, substantia sub his speciebus. Quod si dicas, Hoc , id est, haec substantia, necesse est, ut substantia illa tunc sit prae¬ sens, quando dicitur, Hoc, ettamen tunc non est praesens substantia corporis Christi, et falsa redditur demonstratio. At si dicas, Hoc, id est, substantia sub his speciebus, non est necesse, ut illa substantia tunc sit praesens, sed Scitis est, si praesentes sint species, quae demonstrantur pronomine, His. Id quod clarius erit, si tacita substantia dicas : Hoc est corpus meum, id est, sub his spe¬ ciebus est corpus meum : Sed de his satis. CAPUT XI. 39 Secundum argumentum sumitur ex parti¬ cula, Est. Docet Petrus Martyr in lib. contra Gardinerum , parag. 3. G58, cogi papistas ut verbum, Est, accipiant tropice pro Fit, vel transubstantiatur. Nam alioqui esset falsa propositio : Hoc est corpus meum , prius enim debet esse res, quam pronuntietur eam esse ; vera enim est propositio, si res ita se habeat, non contra, ac praesertim secundum Catho¬ licos, qui volunt hsec verba esse causam con¬ versionis panis in corpus Christi : semper enim causa est prior suo effectu. Sed corpus Domini non est in Eucharistia, antequam dicatur, Est, ergo falso dicitur, Est , nisi su¬ matur pro Fit. Praeterea ista oratio est ope¬ ratoria ex sententia Papistarum, sicut illa, Fiat lux ; ergo verbum, Est , debet sumi pro Fit. Respondeo cum S. Thoma, 3. par. qmest. lxxviii. art. 2. et 3. (unde videtur Petrus Martyr accepisse haec argumenta) verba illa consecratoria (ut quamvis aliam sententiam) non habere perfectam significationem, nisi in ultimo instanti, quo profertur ultima vox : pendet enim intellectus, donec ad finem veniatur : in eodem autem ultimo instanti ponitur effectus verborum in esse, id est, conversio panis in corpus Christi. Neque obstat, quod verba non videantur habere ul¬ timum instans positivum, cum finiantur per motum. Nam etsi non datur ultima pars motus, et proinde verborum ; tamen datur ultimum mutatum esse, et proinde ultimum instans terminativum verborum, quomodo in linea non datur ultima pars, datur tamen ultimum punctum. Quare simul tempore sunt completa significatio verborum, et conversio panis in corpus Christi : ordine tamen na¬ tura) invicem se praecedunt, et sequuntur lieec duo. Nam verba illa, quatenus causa sunt illius conversionis, praecedunt conver¬ sionem : et contra, quatenus veritas propo¬ sitionis pendet a rei essentia, conversio prae¬ cedit significationem. Ad illam confirmationem respondeo, ver¬ ba esse operatoria, etiamsi non ponatur, Est, pro Fiat, quia cum Deus, qui mentiri non potest, dicit aliquid esse, necesse est, ut illud sit ; et ideo si antea non fuerit, nccesse est, ut tunc fiat. Cur autem dixerit olim Deus, Fiat lux, et Christus non dixerit, Fiat cor¬ pus, sed est corpus ; rationem reddit S. (1) Luc. XIII, 12 ; Joan. IV, 50 ; V, 8. — Gen. XLI, 26 et 27. Thomas, quia verba Dei in principio crea¬ tionis operabantur solum efficienter, non au¬ tem sacramentaliter : verba autem Christi operantur utroque modo ; et ideo debent si¬ gnificare suum effectum in facto esse ; quod fit per verbum substantivum indicativi modi, et temporis praesentis. Sed etiamsi ista causa non esset ; quis posuit Christo legem, ut semper eodem modo loqueretur cum aliquid faciebat ? nonne in Evangelio legimus di¬ ctum Lucae xm. Mulier dimissa es ab infirma¬ tote tua ? et Joan. iv. Vade, filius tuus vivit? Et certe non minus his verbis curavit hos aegrotos, quam alium illis verbis : Tolle gra¬ batum tuum , et ambula. Joan. v. (1). Objiciunt Zwingliani quaedam exempla Scripturae, in quibus, Est, accipi videtur pro significat, ut : Semen est verbum Dei, Petra erat Christus. Sed de his dicemus in sequenti disputatione ; nam communia sunt etiam OEcolampadio, et Calvino, et aliis. Perinde enim est si dicas : Semen est, id est, signifi¬ cat verbum, et, Semen est verbum Dei, id est, est signum verbi Dei : quomodo etiam pos¬ sunt exponi omnes similes locutiones. Tertium argumentum, sicut, et quatuor proxime sequentia, ex particula, Corpus, de¬ sumitur. Igitur Calvinus et Martyr, etcceteri saepe hoc argumentum repetunt. Illa senten¬ tia : IIoc est corpus meum, q st sacramentalis ; ergo sacramentaliter exponenda ; ergo signi¬ ficat, panem esse corpus Christi sacramen¬ taliter ; seu significative. Hoc argumentum, tanti fecit Calvinus, ut in ultima admonitione ad Westphalum de hoc argumento dixerit : « Ilie merus aheneus esto. » Respondeo, sacramentalem propositiqnem sumi posse duobus modis. Primo, ut dicatur sacramentalis, quia explicat sacramentum, sive ejus significationem, qualis est Apocal. xyii : Septem capita, septem colles sunt, etc. (2) . Nam ostenderat invisione DeusJoanni mulie¬ rem sedentem super bestiam septem capitum, quae significabat Romam, quae sita est in mon¬ tibus ; ait ergo Angelus : Ego dicam tibi Sa¬ cramentum mulieris ; septem capita, septem montes sunt, super quos mulier sedet. Tales sunt etiam illae Matth. xm. Semen est verbum Dei. Et Genes, xu. Septem boves septem anni sunt (3). Atque in hoc genere propositionum accipiuntur semper praedicata tropice, non proprie. (2) Apoc. XVII, 9. - (3) Apoc. XVII, 7; Luc. VIII, 11 ; 40 LIO ER I. Secundo, potest dici sacramentalis propo¬ sitio, quia per eam sacramentum instituitur, vel declaratur aut conficitur : ut cum de materia Baptismi dicitur Joan. m : Nisi quis renatus fuerit cx aqua et Spiritu sancto; et cum de forma dicitur Matth. ult. : Baptizantes eos in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus san¬ cti (1) ; aut cum nos baptizantes dicimus : «■ Ego te baptizo in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus sancti. » Et in hoc genere proprie accipiuntur vocabula, qufe designant mate¬ riam, et formam sacramenti. Neque enim li¬ cet dicere, non oportere assumere aquam proprie dictam in Baptismo, sed aliquid per eam significatum ; aut non esse invocandam propriis verbis Trinitatem, sed aliquem tro¬ pum in illis verbis subesse : alioqui nihil certi haberemus de Sacramentis. Tota igitur quaestio est, utrum illa verba : Hoc est corpus meum , dicantur ad explicandum sacramentum, an ad instituendum, vel confi¬ ciendum ; vel potius non est quaestio, sed cer¬ tum est dici ad instituendum, et conficiendum sacramentum. Nam apud Catholicos hocc verba sunt de essentia sacramenti, et sunt operatoria, ut Ambrosius testatur lib. iv. de Sacramentis , cap. iv. Apud haereticos autem etiamsi haec verba non proprie dicantur for¬ ma sacramenti, nec censeantur operatoria ; tamen sunt necessaria ad sacramenti confe¬ ctionem, quia continent promissionem, sine qua nullum sacramentum constare potest. Et quia sacramentum secundum Calvinum est posterius verbo promissionis, tanquam sigillum ejus, et appendix, ut ipse loquitur lib. iv. Institui, cap. xiv. § 2. inde fit, ut pa¬ nis non fuerit Sacramentum, nisi post ea verba recitata. Non ergo fuit illa explicatio sacramenti, cum sacramentum nondum es¬ set, sed institutio, et confectio. Deinde, cur omnes haeretici ista verba praemittunt in suae coenae celebratione, nisi quia putant sine his verbis nullum esse Sacramentum ? Denique ubicumque in Scripturis est explicatio my¬ sterii, praecedit ipsum mysterium, et indicat Scriptura esse declarandum per sequentia verba. Id patet in omnibus parabolis, som¬ niis, et visionibus, quae declarantur in Scrip¬ tura. Hoc autem loco nullum narratum est mysterium, nec ulla indicatur secutura de¬ claratio ; constat igitur illa verba ad institu¬ tionem, et confectionem sacramenti, non ad declarationem significationis ejus pertinere. Ita murus aheneus inventus est luteus. (I) Joan. III, 5; Math. NXYITT, 19. Argumentum quartum ejusdem Calvini lib. iv. Institut. cap. xvn. §23. Nisi Apostolis ve¬ nisset in mentem, Corpus , figurate accipi de¬ bere, turbati fuissent de re tam prodigiosa. Atqui tranquille et quiete leguntur partici¬ passe sacram illam carnem. Respondeo: Cur Apostoli mirati, ac turbati non fuerint duplex est causa ; una, quia fue¬ rant jam antea instructi, etprfemoniti, Joan. vi, ut Chrysostomus docet horni! . 83. in Math. Altera, quia idem Christus, qui my¬ steria tradebat, mentem eorum fide illu¬ strabat, ut simpliciter crederent. Nam multa alia mirabiliora sine turbatione audierant, et crediderant; quale erat in primis hominem illum, quem videbant comedere, bibere, dor¬ mire, fatigari, esse verum Deum ; et jam tunc esse in coelo cum loqueretur in terris Joan. m : Nemo ascendit in coelum , nisi qui descendit de Filius hominis, qui est in coelo. De¬ nique cur hodie tot millia simplicium Catho¬ licorum non turbantur, cum primum audiunt in Eucharistia esse totum, et integrum Chri¬ stum? nisi quia fide illustrante persuasi sunt Christum, qui hoc dixit, Deum esse, qui men¬ tiri non potest. Quintum argumentum Klehitii in libro de Victoria veritatis par. i. argum. 8. et aliorum. Christus de corpore suo ait : Accipite et man¬ ducate. At corpus Christi non potest proprie manducari, cum non possit dentibus teri : ergo vel accipitur corpus figurate, vel, certe ipsum manducare, ut vel sensus sit : Mandu¬ cate panem, qui signum est corporis mei ; vel, manducate corde, non corpore ; fide, non ore, ipsum verum corpus meum. Respondeo, corpus Christi vere ac proprie manducari etiam corpore in Eucharistia. Nam ad rationem manducationis non est necessa¬ ria attritio, sed satis est sumptio, et trans¬ missio ab ore ad stomachum, per instrumenta humana, et naturalia, id est, linguam, et palatum. Alioqui senes, et pueri edentuli nihil unquam comederent ; et nos, cum do- glutimus integros aliquos cibos, vel ipsas hostias non consecratas, non diceremur co¬ medere. Addo pneterea, si de ratione man¬ ducationis esset attritio dentibus facta, cor¬ pus Christi proprie manducari in Eucharis¬ tia, non tropice. Non enim dicimus, corpus Christi absolute manducari, sed manducari sub specie panis ; quse sententia significat ipsas species manducari visibiliter, ac sensi¬ biliter, ac proinde ipsas dentibus atteri : sed I CAPUT XI. sub illis invisibiliter sumi etiam, et trans¬ mitti ad stomachum corpus Christi. Nam etiam panis ipse verus non atteritur dentibus, nisi ratione accidentium suorum : substantia enim cujuslibct rei non est per se divisibilis. Hoc tamen interest inter substantiam panis, et corpus Christi sub specicbus panis : quod illa extenditur ad extentionem quantitatis, qua vere informatur, sed est totum sub qualibet particula. Ideo panis absolute man¬ ducatur, corpus Christi non absolute, sed sub specie panis. Sextum argumentum sumunt ex variis lo¬ cis Scripturae, ubi vel, Est, accipitur pro Si¬ gnificat, vel certe praedicatum accipitur figu¬ rate. Calvinus lib. iv. Institut. cap. xvii. § 21 ct§ 22. exempla profert Genes, xvii : Circum¬ cisio est foedus ; Exod. xii : Angelus dicitur Deus. Agnus est Chase, id est transitus ; Levit, xvi : Sacrificia sunt expiationes; Psal. lxxxiy : Arca est Deus; Matth. m : Columba dicitur Spiritus sanctus; Joan. vn : Nondum erat Spi¬ ritus , ubi, Est, non potest accipi substantive, alioqui non esset aeternus Spiritus sanctus ; I Corinth. x: Petra erat Christus; et ibidem : Panis est communicatio corpus Christi; I Co¬ rinth. xn : Ecclesia est Christus; Tit. m: Bap¬ tismus est lavacrum regenerationis (I). Si illud, Est, acciperetur substantive, omnes, qui bap¬ tizantur, regenerarentur, multis tamen sci¬ mus inutilem esse Baptismum. Alii afferunt alia ut : Septem boves sunt septem anni; Gen. xli : Semen est verbum Dei ; Luc. vm : Ego surnastium, Joan. x. (2) et alia id genus. Con¬ firmant argumentum ; quia luereses ortae sunt ex Scriptura proprie, et liberaliter in¬ tellecta, ut Anthromorphitarum, et aliorum. Exempla multa enumerat Calvinus lib. iv. Institut. cap. xvii. § 23. etKlebitius de victo¬ ria veritatis par. i. argum. 16. Respondeo, hoc argumentum multis modis deficere. Nam in primis non potest colligi ex aliquot exemplis, sic ubique accipi verbum, Est, aut praedicatum propositionis ; nos enim proferre possumus multa plura loca in qui¬ bus, Est . significat, Est, et praedicatum pro¬ prie accipitur. Refellit hanc solutionem Klebitius in lib. de Victoria veritatis, par. r. argum. 16. Dicit 41 enim simili modo argumentari adversarios suos, qui indo probant locum Evangelii : lloc est corpus meum , accipiendum sine tropo, quia multa loca in Scripturis accipiuntur sine tropo. At mentitur in caput suum ; nos enim generali regula utimur, ac dicimus ubique servandam esse verborum proprietatem, ni¬ si evidenter doceatur alicubi esse tropum ; ex illa universali regula probamus hunc lo¬ cum accipiendum sine tropo. Item dico ad confirmationem ; non recte probari ubique cavendum sensum litteralem, quia aliqui indo occasionem errandi sumpserunt. Nam hoc modo probaremus etiam numquam sequen¬ dum sensum mysticum, quia inde occasionem errandi sumpserunt Ghiliastse, t) rige ni st te, Donatistar, et alii : imo cavendum esset ab ipsa tota Scriptura, quia errores multi, ac fere omnes ex ipsa male intellecta orti sunt. Secundo peccat argumentum adversario¬ rum, quia nullum exemplum simile attule¬ runt. Nam in exemplis allatis, semper praedi¬ catur de disparato disparatum, ut patet ex illis : Boves sunt anni, Semen est verbum, Christus est vitis etc., in his enim cum nullo modo possit fieri, ut illa proprie sint vera, co¬ gimur necessario recurrere ad tropos. At in hac sententia : Hoc est corpus, non praedica¬ tur disparatum de disparato, saltem verbis disertis. Quid enim illud, Hoc, referat, in quaestione est, et non debet assumi tanquam certum, quod referat panem, cum expresse Scriptura id non habeat. Deberent igitur af¬ ferre exemplum, ubi de pronomine, Hoc , praedicaretur aliquid tropice. Klebitius duo exempla ponit. Unum argum. 16. Exod. xxiv. Hoc est Testamentum : ubi, Hoc, sanguinem refert. Alterum in fine libri ex- Confessione Ducis Wirtembergensis, Eze- chiel v : Ista est Jerusalem : ubi demonstratur imago Ilierosolymae depicta in latere, ut pa¬ tet ex cap. iv. At illud, Hoc est Testamentum, non legitur. Exod. xxiv. sed, Hic est sanguis Testamenti ; illud autem : Ista est Hierusalem. non intelligitur de imagine Ilierosolymae, sed de ipsa vera Hierosolyma, ut ex ipso textu, et Hieronymi commentario patet. Nam etiam¬ si cap. iv. jussus fuerit Ezechie! depingere (1) Gen. XVII, 13; Exod. XII, 11 et 12; Levit. XVI, 30 etpassim; Psal. LXXXIV, possim; Joan. VII, 39 ; 1 Cor. XII, 4 et 6 ; XII, 27 ; tit. III, 5. — (2) Gen. XLI, 20 et 27 ; Lue, VIII, 1 1 ; Joan. X, 7. Ilfcc varia testimonia, num, 3 et 4 prolata, non optime quadrant, sed cum invocentur tantum ali haereticis, modo accommodat itio, hoc est nullo modo, probant. 42 LIBER I. illam urbem; tamen cap. v, non loquitur amplius de illa imagine. Addo, quod non ait Ezechiel, hoc est Hierusalem, ostensa ima¬ gine, sed, Ista est Hierusalem. Dominus autem dixit : Hoc est corpus , non iste est corpus, quod dicere debuit si panem ostendere vole¬ bat. Itaque non sunt illa similia. Tertio peccat argumentum, quod multa falsa admiscet. Nam, quasdam falso citantur; ut verbi gratia : Sacrificia sunt expiationes ; citant Calvinus, et Klebitius ex Levitic. xvi. nec tamen habetur talis sententia eo loco, aut alibi. Item citat Calvinus Ps. lxxxiv. vers. 8. ut probet arcam dici Deum. At non hoc ibi habetur ; illa enim verba, ad quse Calvinus respexit : Videbitur Deus deorum in Sion ; exponuntur ab Augustino, Hieronymo, Theo- doreto, et aliis, non de arca, sed de ipso Deo vero, qui in coelesti Sion in se videbitur : et in terrena Sion visus est cum carnem induis¬ set. Adde quod etiamsi de arca intelligere- tur hic locus, non propterea dici posset : Hasc arca est Deus, sed per hanc arcam videtur Deus, ut per locum Deo sacrum, in quo re¬ sponsa dabantur. Sic etiam citat, et valde ur¬ get Calvinus ex I Cor. xii. Ecclesia est Chri¬ stus. At non hoc Paulus dicit, sed hoc : Ita et Christus. Ubi vocat Christum, ipsum Domi¬ num cum suo corpore mystico ; sed non propterea licet dicere, Ecclesia est Christus ; sicut nec dicimus, Corpus est caput, vel re¬ gnum est Rex, licet aliquando nomine Regis intelligamus ipsum Regem cum suo regno. Illud etiam : Nondum erat Spiritus sanctus. Joan vii, aliter habetur in textibus corre- ctioribus, nimirum : Nondum erat S piritus da¬ tus. Sic enim legit Didymus lib. n. de Spiritu sancto , Augustinus tractatu 52. in Joan , Leo Sefm. 2 .de Pentecoste , et alii. Et praeterea etsi legeretur : JSondurn erat Spiritus , non propter¬ ea est ibi ullus tropus, sed intelligeremus non fuisse Spiritum in Apostolis, ut legit Hie¬ ronymus quaest. 9. ad Hedibiam. Quaedam citantur recte, sed male expo¬ nuntur, ut illud : Agnus est Pascha , id est, transitus. Nam agnus paschalis non diceba¬ tur pascha tropice, quia significaret transi¬ tum ; nulla enim erat similitudo inter agni occisionem, et transitum Domini ; sed dice¬ batur proprie Pascha, sicut etiam festus dies dicebatur Pascha, nomine derivato ab illo transitu Domini, quia agnus immolabatur, et dies festus agebatur in memoriam et hono¬ rem illius transitus. Unde in Evangelio abso¬ lute agnus paschalis dicitur pascha : Ubi vis tibi paremus comedere Pascha ? et : Necesse erat occidi Pascha, Mare. xiv. Luc. xxn. Illud etiam I Corinth. x, Petra erat Chri¬ stus : secundum Chrysostomi, Theophylacti, Theodoreti, et Ambrosii expositionem verio¬ rem, et litteralem, non accipitur de petra ma¬ teriali, quae significaret Christum; illa enim non sequebatur Hebra?os ; sed de petra invi¬ sibili, et spirituali, quse Judaeis omnia ne¬ cessaria providebat, qu Ee petra vere, et pro¬ prie erat Christus, ut Deus. Etsi enim est tropus in eo, quod Christus vocatur petra, tamen per additionem, spiritualis explicatur tropus, et derivatur illa vox ad Christum si¬ gnificandum ; et proinde ipsa propositio ; « Spiritualis petra erat Christus» , proprie, non figurate accipitur. Calvinus, etsi in institutione loco notato per petram intelligat saxum, tamen in ultima admonitione ad W estphalum, intelligit aquam nomine petra? per metonymiam : aqua enim facile sequi poterat Hebraeos per rivulos flu¬ ens. At hoc commentum refutavit olimTheo- doretus in hunc locum, et Petrus etiam Mar¬ tyr non ei pepercit in commentario hujus loci. Nam repugnat Scriptura?, illaexpositio : siquidem paulo post indiguerunt rursus aqua, ut patet Num. xx. et xxi. qua certe non eguissent, si aqua de petra eos secuta fuis¬ set. Martyr duas expositiones affert. Unam, quod illud : Consequente eos petra, significet, obsequente, et ministrante eis petra. Quia tamen grseci Patres, qui optime noverant vim greeeee vocis , constanter explicant, comitante, non, obsequente, ut etiam Erasinus, cui adversarii multum tri¬ buunt : ideo ponit alteram, quod illud, comi¬ tante , referatur ad Christum, non ad petram, ut nos diximus. Sed non advertit hac sua expositione, quam pra? cieteris probare vide¬ tur, se destruere id, quod supra dixerat. Nam hoc modo non potest habere tropum in Sa¬ cramentis. Nam si petra comitans non erat petra materialis, sed Christus petra invisi¬ bilis ; certe non potest exponere : Petra erat Christus , id est, petra significabat Christum ; quod tamen ille maxime contendit. Est tamen hic observandum, non negari a nobis, quin petra illa materialis figura Christi fuerit, et aqua inde manans figura fuerit san¬ guinis Christi : sicut etiam non negamus spe¬ cies panis signa esse corporis Christi ; sed negamus per illa verba, Petra erat Christus , explicari illam figuram, sicut negamus per CAPUT XI. 43 illa verba : Hoc est corpus meum, explicari significationem specierum panis. Illud etiam : Panis est communicatio, I Co- rint. xi. non recte exponitur, cum aiunt : « Panis est communicatio, id est, significat communicationem » : sed sensus est : com¬ municatio panis consecrati in ccena Domini, nonne communicatio corporis Domini est ? Ubi non est tropus ullus tollens veritatem rei, aut obscurans sententiam : nam accipitur usitate panis, pro panis usu, et communica¬ tione. Neque est tropus in voce panis, quia loquitur de pane consecrato,' qui vere est corpus Domini, ut in sequenti capite osten¬ demus. Denique illud : « Baptismus est lavacrum regenerationis » , male exponitur per illa verba, Baptismus significat lavacrum : nam non significat solum, sed vere etiam lavat animas a peccatis, quod ad se attinet, licet impediri possit effectus per nostram indispo¬ siti o nem. Quarto peccat argumentum, quod in om¬ nibus locis adductis, ubi est vel tropus, vel aliquid obscurum ; semper additur explica¬ tio, ut Genes, xvn. ubi circumcisio vocatur foedus; ibidem dicitur etiam signum foederis. Exod. xii. ubi agnus dicitur Phase ; ibidem dicitur victima transitus Domini. I Cor x. Petra erat Christus : ibidem explicatur de spirituali consequente eos petra : denique in omnibus parabolis, et visionibus, seu som¬ niis, semper indicatur parabolam esse, vel visionem mysticam. Ubi praeterea est adnotandum in ejusmodi locis parabolarum, similitudinum, visionum etc., sine ullo tropo posse accipi, Est, pro Significat; quia essentia talium rerum tota posita est in significando, sicut supra diximus de explicatione vocabulorum. Ut verbi gratia cum dicitur Genes, xli. Septem boves sunt septem anni, non est sensus, quod boves si¬ gnificent annos, sed quod boves in visione ostensi sunt ad significandos annos. Haec au¬ tem sententia, Hoc est corpus meum, ut saepe diximus, non est explicatio signi aut para¬ bolae, sed assertio rei. Quocirca Calvinus lib. iv. Instit. cap. xvii. §21. allaturus exemplum troporum, prodatur se nolle afferre exempla ex parabolis, nimirum advertebat illa non esse ad rem. Septimum argumentum est Calvini lib. iv. Instit. cap. xvii. § 23. Si corpus in illa senten¬ tia : Hoc est corpus meum, accipitur propitie, vel significat solum corpus, vel totum Chri¬ stum.' Si solum corpus ; ergo erit alicubi cor¬ pus domini sine anima, sanguine, et deitate. Si totum Christum ; ergo erit confusa batto- logia : Hoc est 'corpus, et, Hic est sanguis, idem enim ista significabunt, et poterit dici de pane : Hic est sanguis, et de calice : Hoc est coipus. Confirmatur, quia si totum Chri¬ stum significat vox, Corpus, erit tropus, qui dicitur, intellectio : non erge possumus tro¬ pos fugere in hac sententia, nisi impie dis¬ trahamus corpus Domini a sanguine ipsius. Respondeo, verba proprie significare ; et nomine corporis solum corpus intelligi, no¬ mine sanguinis solum sanguinem ; nec ta¬ men distrahitur corpus a sanguine, quia conjuncta sunt illa ob necessariam concomi- tantiam, licet ista conjunctio non significetur illis vocibus : sicut neque negatur. Quemad¬ modum si quis demonstrato corpore Petri, dicat : Hoc est corpus Petri : is proprie solum corpus significat, nec tamen sequitur corpus illud carere anima, quia non ait ille : Hoc est corpus sine anima, sed simpliciter : Hoc est corpus , quod est verum, sive ibi sit anima, sive non sit : quare neque ulla est hic battologia, neque intellectio. Quanquam si cogeremur intellectionem admittere, non gravate id faceremus, quia magnum est dis¬ crimen inter intellectionem, et metaphoram ac metonymiam : illa enim non tollit rei veritatem, istae tollunt. Unde in illis verbis : Verbum caro factum est, catholici intellectio¬ nem, qua exparte intelligimus totum, omnes admBtunt, metonymiam uulli, sicut nec me¬ taphoram, nisi haeretici, qui negant veram carnem in Christo. Octavum argumentum Calvini §. 20. et Martyris in cap. xi. i. Corinth. et aliorum, ex illis verbis : Hic calix novum Testamentum est in meo sanguine. Hic enim duplex tropus necessario est admittendus. Primus in voce, calix ; accipitur enim omnium consensu con¬ tinens pro re contenta, qui tropus dicitur metonymia. Secundus in voce testamenti : neque enim vinum, aut sanguis est proprie testamentum, sed signum Testamenti. Quod probant primo, quia alioqui singulis diebus renovaretur testamentum Christi, et praece¬ dens antiquaretur. Secundo, nccesse esset socp e ‘Christum mori : Testamentum enim non valet, nisi moriatur qui testatus est, Hebr. ix. Praeterea tertio Matthaeus ait : Hic est sanguis meus novi Testamenti ; ergo san¬ guis non erat testamentum, at quod erat in caliccerat testamentum, teste Luca; ergo in UBER I. • U calice non erat sanguis. Quarto Lucas, et Paulus dicunt, calicem esse testamentum in sanguine ; ergo quod erat in calice, non erat sanguis : esset enim sensus : Hic sanguis est testamentum in sanguine, quod est absur¬ dum, et impossibile. Nam quando unum est in alio, non possunt illa esse unum et idem ; nisi dicamus idem esse in seipso. Ex his col¬ ligit Calvinus exponi debere verba Matthaei, et Marci per verba Lucae et Pauli, quia illa sunt pauciora, ista plura. Itaque illud : H c est sanguis meus, quod Matthaeus et Marcus dixerunt, sic debet exponi : Hoc est testa¬ mentum in sanguine meo, id est, signum te¬ stamenti sanguine meo confirmati ; et simili¬ ter illud : Hoc est corpus meum , exponi debet : Hoc est testamentum in corpore meo. Non solum enim sanguis, sed etiam corpus Christi testamentum novum stabilivit : non ergo proprie accipi potest vocabulum corporis, nisi idem esse velimus corpus, et testamen¬ tum in corpore. Atque hic videtur esse Achil¬ les Calvini in hac materia. Respondeo, non negamus in verbo, calix, tropum esse; sed tropum ibidem clarissime explicatum ; quod de tropo, quem adversarii ponunt in voce, corpus dici non potest. Do¬ minus enim sit: Accipite, bibite, hic est calix : at certe non bibitur vas, sed liquor in eo contentus. Item (ut supra diximus) Lucas ad¬ dit de calice : Qui pro vobis effunditur ; at vas non effunditur, sed liquor. Denique, quod Lucas et Paulus dicunt : Hic est calix; Mat- t Incus et Marcus dixerunt : Hic est sanguis. Oportet autem exponere obscura verba per clariora, et figurata per propria. Certe si idem homo de' eodem vase diceret : Bibite ex hoc poculo, et adderet : Bibite ex hoc vino, nemo dubitaret illo poculo contineri vinum, et eum hominem explicare voluisse, quid in poculo contineretur : cum ergo idem Spiritus sanctus de eadem re dicat per duos scriptores sanctos : Hic est sanguis, per alios duos : Hic est calix , dubitari non debet eo calice sanguinem contineri. Demonstrent ad¬ versarii explicari tam claro in Scripturis tropum, quem fingunt in vocabulo corporis, et vicerunt. Omitto quod accipere calicem pro re contenta in calice, est tropus- tam usitatus, et vulgaris, ut non minus apertus sit, quam voces ipsae propria?. Quantum ad alterum tropum, quem ponunt in voce, testamenti, dico nullum esse ibi tro¬ pum. Observandum enim est duo esse, qua? nomine Testamenti appellari solent. Primo, ipsa voluntas testatoris, qua? de haereditate disponit, sive sit absoluta, sive conditionem requirat, et pactum etiam dici possit. Sic ac¬ cipitur Exod. xxiv. Hic est sanguis foederis ; seu (ut citat Apostolus Hebr. ix). Hic est sanguis testamenti ; est enim sensus : Hic est sanguis, quo sancitur, et confirmatur vo¬ luntas, pactum, promissio Dei. Sic accipitur etiam Genes, xyit. ubi circumcisio dicitur signum foederis, et Galat. iv. Hebr. vm. et Hierem. xxxi, ubi distinguuntur duo Testa¬ menta. Secundo, vocatum est testamentum authen¬ ticum instrumentum, quod continetur volun¬ tas testatoris, et per quod acquirit haeres jus ad haereditatem. Et hoc modo non improprie vocamus testamentum vetus et novum, sacra Biblia, in quibus continetur voluntas Dei de bonis temporalibus dandis populo Hebrae¬ orum, et de bonis aeternisdandis populo Chri¬ stianorum : nec non sacramenta, quae sunt in¬ strumenta authentica, quibus applicatur nobis jus ad haereditatem ; imo etiam ipsa Increditas saltem ex parte. Hrereditas enim est gratia, et gloria : datur autem nobis per sacramenta in praesenti gratia, et jus ad glo¬ riam. Unde circumcisio, qua? erat sacramen¬ tum Testamenti veteris, et per quod dabatur Hebraeis jus ad terram promissionis, testa¬ mentum vocatur Eccles. iv. In carne ejus stare fecit Testamentum (1). Eadem etiam dicitur signum foederis, et ipsum foedus, Genes, xvn. et utrumque proprie. Nam erat ipsa signum foederis, ut foedus accipitur pro divina promissione : et simul erat foedus, ut foedus -accipitur pro instrumento, quo expli¬ catur illa promissio. Inter omnia autem sa¬ cramenta dicitur testamentum praecipue ipsa Eucharistia, quia non solum c-st instrumen¬ tum conferendae haereditatis, sed etiam con¬ tinet apertissimam repraesentationem effusio¬ nis sanguinis Domini, a quo vim suam habet testamentum novum. Ex his ad omnes objectiones respondemus. Ad primam nego quotidie fieri novum testa¬ mentum, et antiquari praecedens. Nam cele¬ bratio Eucharistiae non est nova institutio testamenti, sed repetitio ejusdem; ut cum describitur saepius idem testamentum, quae repetitio fit ad applicandam haereditatem variis haeredibus, qui subinde exoriuntur; (t)Eccl. XIV, 21. CAPUT XI. sicut etiam Circumcisio repetebatur saepissi¬ me, nec tamen antiquabatur praecedens. Ad secundani nego, debere Christum quo¬ tidie mori. Nam mors ejus non fuit Testa¬ mentum, sed confirmatio Testamenti : sufficit autem una ejus mors ad confirmandum Te¬ stamentum ipsius, etiamsi infinities repe¬ tatur. Ad tertiam dico, in Matthaei verbis : Hic est sanguis Testamenti , accipi vocem Testa¬ menti primo modo, id est, pro divina pro¬ missione : in verbis autem Lucae : Hic calix Testamentum est, accipi secundo modo, id est, pro instrumento illius promissionis. Itaque utrumque est vere, ac proprie dictum. Ad quartam dico, non esse absurdam locutionem : Hic calix Testamentum est in meo sanguine , etiamsi illud : Hic calix , signi¬ ficet, Sanguis in calice contentus. Nam san¬ guis accipitur diverso modo in his duobus locis. Cum enim dicitur : Hic calix , sumitur sanguis in eo contentus, ut est sub speciebus vini, et est sacramentum, ac proinde testa¬ mentum ; cum autem dicitur, In sanguine meo , sumitur pro ipso sanguine visibiliter in cruce effuso, ut hic sit sensus,- Hic calix, id est, res contenta in hoc calice sub speciebus vini, est novum testamentum dedicatum, et sancitum, in sanguine meo. Ad illud quod objiciunt, necessario distin¬ gui ea, quorum unum est in alio, respondeo, illud (in) hoc loco non significare continen¬ tiam, sed causam instrumentalem : est enim positum (in) loco (per) ut sit sensus, testa¬ mentum novum in sanguine Christi sanciri, id est, per Christi sanguinem. Quomodo dici¬ tur Roman. nr. Christus propitiator in san¬ guine suo. Et Rom. v. dicimur justificari in sanguine Christi. Et Ephes. ii. Qui eramus longe, facti sumus prope in sanguine ejus (1). Denique ad consequentias illas Calvini, dico non debere exponi Matthaeum, per Lucam, neque contra ; quia uterque proprie loquitur, et satis aperte : tamen si tropus esset in illis verbis : Hic calix Testamentum est deberet exponi per verba Matthan, qua} sunt clariora, Hic est sanguis novi Testamenti. Potest tamen concedi Calvino, licere dicere : Hic est sanguis Testamenti, id est, Hic calix Testamentum est in meo sanguine. Et etiam : Hoc est corpus meum, id est, Testamentum in corpore meo. Neque sequitur corpus accipi figurate : quia, ut diximus, verum corpus, et (I) Eph. II, 13, - (2)1 Cor. XI, 2G. sanguis Domini sub speciebus panis, et vini, vere, et proprie testamentum sunt. Nonum argumentum ex illis verbis ; IIoc facite in meam commemorationem. Nam me¬ moria est rerum absentium ; ergo panis et vinum non sunt corpus et sanguis, nec in ea mutantur, sed sunt mero symbola rei absen¬ tis ; ergo corpus, et sanguis figurate acci¬ piuntur pro signo corporis, et sanguinis. Confirmatur, quia commemoratio mortis Domini est proprius finis symbolorum illo¬ rum Eucharistiae : ipsius autem veri corporis alius est finis sublimior. At Dominus in in¬ stitutione Sacramenti solum meminit comme¬ morationis ; ergo corpus figurate accipitur pro symbolo corporis. Respondeo, quid sit, in mei memoriam , explicatum esse a Paulo I Corrinth. xi. illis verbis : Hortem Domini annuntiabitis donec veniat (2). Itaque jubemur sumere Euchari¬ stiam in memoriam Dominicae passionis, et mortis, qua} non praesens, sed absens est, imo non est, sed fuit. Ad confirmationem, respondeo, Dominum meminisse utriusque finis. Nam cum ait : Hoc est corpus meum , quod pro vobis datur. Et : Hic est sanguis , qui pro vobis effundetur in remissionem peccato¬ rum, aperte significat finem hujus Sacra¬ menti esse peccatorum remissionem. Adde, quod de fractu sacramenti hujus multa dixerat Dominus Joan. vi. ut necesse non fuerit hic plura adjungere. Decimum argumentum ex illis verbis : Aon bibam amodo ex hoc genimine vitis , donec illud bibam novum in regno Dei (3). Ha}c dicuntur post consecrationem ; ergo etiam post conse¬ crationem vinum fuit, quod erat in calice ; ergo non fuit sanguis, nisi figurate. Respondeo, ex Luca aperte colligi verba ista pertinere ad calicem vini, quem dedit Apostolis Dominus post esum agni paschalis ante consecrationem mysteriorum, ac proinde alios duos Evangelistas, non narrasse hoc suo loco. Nam in primis Lucos meminit duorum calicum, unius ante consecrationem panis; et de priore non dicit : 1 'Ite est sanguis , vel, Testamentum in sanguine , sicut dicit de posteriore: de eodem autem priori dicit: Aon bibam de hoc genimine vitis. Praeterea con¬ jungit Lucas ista verba : Aon bibam de geni¬ mine vitis , cum illis, Aon manducabo ex hoc , nimirum pasehate, donec, impleatur in regno Dei. At certum est pascha ibi vocari agnum — (3) Math. XXVI, 29 ; Mare XIV. 25. 46 LIBER I. paschalem, quo nomine utuntur in hac signi¬ ficatione omnes tres Evangelistai ; ergo per¬ tinent illa verba, Non bibam de genimine vitis , ad vinum, quod biberunt, cum agnum paschalem comederent. Dices : Matthaeus cap. xxvi. non facit men¬ tionem, nisi unius calicis, nimirum Eucha¬ ristiae ; ergo cum ait : Non bibam de hoc genimine vitis , illud, hoc, refertur ad calicem Eucharistiae, non ad alium : videtur enim valde absurdum, ut demonstret calicem alte¬ rum, de quo nihil omnino dixerat. Respon¬ deo, Matthaeum non demonstrasse ullum calicem ex duobus, sed simpliciter demon¬ strasse vinum, quod erat in mensa, vel quod biberant in ccena : tamen ex Luca colligimus, Dominum non solum respexisse ad vinum, quod biberant, sed etiam ad certum quod¬ dam poculum, quod ipso Apostolis porrexit in fine coenae judaicae, dum imponeret finem legalibus, quod Matthaeus, ut multa alia praetermisit. Si rursus objicias Augustinum, qui lib. ili. de Consensu Euangelistarum , cap. i. dicit, Lucam non narrasse historiam suo ordine, sed per anticipationem narrasse id, quod loco Matthaeus, et Marcus narrarunt. Respondeo, Augustinum, non expendisse hunc locum diligenter, ut ex eo patet, quod brevissime se expedivit ab hac difficultate. Porro Hiero¬ nymus in cap. xxvi. Matthaei, Beda, et Theophylactus in cap. xxn. Lucae, aperte duo pocula distinguunt in coena Domini, et de priore, quod erat Judaicum, intelligunt illa verba r Non bibam de genimine vitis. Adde, quod multo probabilius est (si nulla alia esset ratio) Matthaeum, et Marcum non nar¬ rasse suo loco rem parvi momenti, quam Lucam non narrasse recto ordine summum mysterium. Denique , si convinceremur, verba illa Domini: Non bibam de hoc genimine vitis , dicta esse post consecrationem, calicis ; adhuc nihil adversarii obtinerent. Possent enim ac deberent ea verba referri, non ad calicem consecratum, sed antea potatum ; ut ea refert Anselmus in hunc locum Mat- thsei : non enim voluit Dominus dicere, se non amplius celebraturum Eucharistiam, sed non se bibiturum more humano ad reficien¬ das vires.