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 13: The Same Is Proved from 1 Corinthians 11
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).
Another passage pertaining to the use of the Sacrament is had in chapter 11 of the first to the Corinthians, where, besides the words of institution which were treated above, are had those words: He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. And above: He shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. For hence this argument is knit together. Certain men are reproved because they receive the body of Christ unworthily, and whence they are said to draw not life, but judgment. But these do not receive the body of Christ by spirit and faith, for they would receive profitably if they so received; therefore they receive with the body alone; therefore the body of Christ is truly present in the Eucharist; for the body of Christ, as it is in heaven, cannot be received by the bodily mouth.
The adversaries attempt to elude this passage in two ways; for they say that those who approach unworthily are for a twofold cause made guilty of the body of the Lord and eat judgment to themselves. First, because they do not truly receive the body of the Lord, which God offers them in those symbols, which is the same as if they cast to the ground the symbols of the body of the Lord; and an injury to a symbol or image is referred to that of which it is the symbol or image. Both causes Calvin briefly touches, Book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 17, section 33; but more at length Peter Martyr in his commentary on this passage, where he sets the example of the statue of a prince; and Peter Boquin in his book against Heshusius, page 164, where he also brings the example of Theodosius, who most gravely punished those who had affected the image of his wife with contumely.
But neither cause is solid. And, to begin from the latter, wonderful is the inconstancy of the Calvinists. For in the cause of images they do not think they sin against Christ and the saints when they demolish their images; and they laugh at the Catholics when they object to them that the honor and contumelies of images are referred to the exemplar; but now they will have it to be the highest sacrilege to receive unworthily the figure of the body of Christ, because that injury redounds to Christ Himself.
Now Klebitz is so without mind that on the same page, in the solution to the seventh argument, he inveighs against those who do not demolish the images of Christ and the saints, on which page he had said that those who unworthily receive the symbols of the body of the Lord sin, because he sins against the king who does injury to his seal, since, namely, in the seal is the image of the king.
Besides, an injury is not judged to be done to an image except when someone violates the image with the mind of doing injury to him; for if for another cause an image be torn, trodden under foot, stained—as very often happens with images either painted on the ground, or existing on vessels, garments, and other things of the kind—no one says that he was violated whose those images are. But those who receive the sacrament of the Eucharist with a conscience of mortal sin are made guilty of the body of the Lord, and eat judgment to themselves, even though they did not approach with the mind of violating the Eucharist; that is not therefore the cause of this sin, that the Eucharist is a figure of the body of Christ.
Besides, if those who receive the Eucharist unworthily sinned because it represents Christ, it would not be lawful for a sinful man to look upon or handle a painted image of Christ, or to hear the word of God. For these too represent and offer Christ; nay, in the opinion of the adversaries, the preaching of the word of God signifies and offers Christ to us better than any sacrament. And why, I ask, did good and bad, worthy and unworthy, receive promiscuously the manna and the water from the rock, and yet none were said to be guilty of the body of the Lord, nor did they eat judgment to themselves, although those too represented and offered Christ in the manner in which, in the opinion of the adversaries, the Eucharist does?
If you object that in the Old Testament it was not lawful for a polluted man to eat of the flesh of the sacrifice, Leviticus 7, nor of the loaves of proposition, 1 Kings 21, I answer that this makes for us. For those, because they were certain types and figures of the sacrament of the Eucharist, required a certain bodily cleanness, that from it we might understand the spiritual cleanness which the thing figured requires.
If again you object that in Baptism there is true and natural water, and not the Holy Spirit under the species of water, and yet he who receives that water without due disposition in Baptism without doubt sins against the sacrament of God, and consequently against God Himself, I answer that this is indeed true, that those sin who receive any sacrament whatever unworthily and without disposition, because they place an obstacle to the grace of God, but not because that matter signifies or represents something sacred. But in receiving the Eucharist, besides disposition, lest the sacrament be received in vain, there is required also a certain singular and special reverence and purity; which is clear both from the words of Paul: He shall be guilty of the body of the Lord; he eateth judgment to himself—for we nowhere read anything such of any other sacrament, nor would anyone say that he who handles the water of Baptism unworthily is guilty of the Holy Spirit; and from the punishment by which of old those were punished who received the Sacrament of the Eucharist unworthily; for they either fell sick or died, as the Apostle testifies: Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep; and Cyprian relates some examples in his sermon On the Lapsed, such as are nowhere found of Baptism; and finally, that always in the Church they most diligently took care lest any particle of the Eucharist should fall to the ground. Tertullian, On the Soldier’s Crown: “We suffer anxiously if anything of our chalice or bread be shaken to the ground”; but the water of Baptism we ourselves pour out when we baptize. Wherefore the Eucharist is not to be honored only because it is a Sacrament, or figure, or sign of the body of the Lord, but for another far greater cause; and none can be feigned except that it truly contains the Lord Himself; for the rest are common to other sacraments and figures.
Now the other cause which the adversaries allege, why Paul reproves those who receive the Eucharist unworthily—namely that they do not truly receive the body of the Lord which the sacred symbols offer them—has no probability. For the Apostle does not say that they sin because they do not receive, but because they receive unworthily; where he places the crime in the very receiving, not in the omission of receiving.
Besides, those words, He eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, openly indicate that the very thing which is received by the unworthy brings them death, while to others it brings salvation; for this is to eat judgment, to receive something which, received, harms.
Besides, those words, Not discerning the body of the Lord, what else can they signify but not distinguishing the body of the Lord, but receiving it as if it were not the body of the Lord? Where certainly the eating of the true body is not denied, but most strongly asserted.
Besides, if the wicked were unwilling to receive the body of Christ, they would not approach the communion; therefore when they approach, they sin not in this, that they are unwilling to have the body of the Lord, but in this, that they will it, since they are unworthy of it.
Finally, all interpreters, and all the ancients, always so understood this passage. Basil, Book 2 On Baptism, chapter 3; Chrysostom, homily 24 on the first to the Corinthians near the end, homily 83 on Matthew, and homily 45 on John; Origen, homily 2 on Psalm 37; Hesychius, Book 7 on Leviticus, chapter 36; Jerome on chapter 1 of Malachi; Theophylact, Oecumenius, Ambrose, and Theodoret on chapter 11 of the first to the Corinthians place in this the sin of which the Apostle speaks, that we, unclean and sordid, dare to receive the most pure body of the Lord. And Chrysostom indeed adds the example of him who casts the royal purple into the mud, who is judged to sin no less than if he rent it. Theophylact sets the example of the light of the sun, which harms sick eyes, not because it is not seen, but because too great light offends weak and infirm eyes. Oecumenius compares those who communicate unworthily with those who crucified Christ; who certainly not only sinned because they did not receive Christ as God, but affected Him with a most grave injury. Cyprian, sermon On the Supper of the Lord: “When a perfidious mind has touched the sacred food, and the sanctified bread has entered into a wicked mouth,” and so forth.
Finally, Augustine, Book 5 On Baptism, chapter 8: “Just as Judas, to whom the Lord gave the morsel, gave place in himself to the devil not by receiving an evil thing, but by receiving it evilly, so anyone receiving the Lord’s Sacrament unworthily does not bring it about that, because he himself is evil, it is evil, or that, because he does not receive it unto salvation, he received nothing; for the body of the Lord and the blood of the Lord was nonetheless present even to those to whom the Apostle said: He that eateth unworthily, eateth judgment to himself.” And Book 1 against Cresconius, chapter 25, wishing to prove that the evil use of good things harms: “What of the very body and blood of the Lord, the one sacrifice for our salvation, although the Lord Himself says: Unless a man eat my flesh and drink my blood, he shall not have life in him; does not the Apostle teach that this too becomes pernicious to those who use it ill, when he says: Whosoever shall eat the bread or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord?” In which place Augustine most plainly says that the unworthy sin because they receive the very body of the Lord, the one sacrifice of our salvation; but certainly the one sacrifice of salvation is not the symbol of bread, but the very true body of the Lord. The same Augustine, in epistle 120 to Honoratus, chapter 27, speaking of the proud who communicate unworthily: “These too,” he says, “are led to the table of Christ, and receive of His body and blood; but they only adore, they are not also filled, because they do not imitate.” Where he says that the proud, although they communicate without fruit, yet receive the body of the Lord; and lest we think that he speaks of the body figuratively, that is, of the bread which is a sign of the body, he says that they adore that which they receive, but are not thence filled. Finally, in epistle 162, past the middle: “The Lord Himself,” he says, “tolerates Judas, a devil, a thief, and His seller; He suffers him to receive, among the innocent disciples, what the faithful know to be our price.” But certainly our price is not a morsel of bread, but the true flesh of Christ.
But Calvin objects, Book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 17, section 34, certain passages of Augustine where that holy doctor seems to deny that the body of Christ is received by the wicked. In tract 26 on John, Augustine distinguishes the visible Sacrament from the virtue or thing of the sacrament; and says that by the wicked only the visible sacrament is received, not the virtue or thing of the sacrament; and that the sacrament is indeed set before all, whether unto life or unto destruction, but the thing itself unto life to all, unto destruction to none. Now that by the virtue and thing of the sacrament is understood not only justifying grace, but also the body of Christ, Calvin proves from the antithesis between visible and invisible. For the body of Christ is not visible in the Eucharist; therefore it is not comprehended under the name of the visible sacrament, which is received by good and bad, but under the name of the invisible thing, which is received only by the good.
I answer: Saint Augustine, by the virtue or thing of the sacrament, does not understand the body of Christ absolutely, but justifying grace, that is, the effect of the flesh of Christ spiritually refreshing. This is clear both from this, that in the same place he says that the Fathers of the Old Testament received in the manna raining from heaven the virtue and thing of the sacrament which we receive in the Eucharist; but the fathers did not receive in fact the flesh of Christ, which did not yet exist, but received its effect, that is, the grace which was given from the merit of the future passion of Christ; and from this, that in the same place, when he asserts that the wicked do not receive the flesh of Christ, he adds the word spiritually: “And by this,” he says, “he who abides not in Christ, and in whom Christ does not abide, without doubt does not eat spiritually His flesh nor drink His blood, although carnally and visibly he presses with his teeth the sign of the body and blood.” So he. Now the very body of Christ without its effect, that is, without the spiritual nourishment of the soul, Augustine does not distinguish from the visible sacrament, but comprehends together with it, although the body itself is not visible except in the species of bread. The reason why he does not distinguish the body from the visible sign is that they receive no greater fruit from the communion who thus receive the body of Christ than if they received nothing but the sign alone. And that Calvin may not marvel that we say the body of Christ is comprehended under the name of the visible sign, let him consider that all the scholastics are wont to say that the body of Christ is received by the wicked only sacramentally; when nevertheless it is established that it is not denied by the scholastics that the very body of Christ is truly received by the wicked. And so ‘sacramentally only’, or, what Augustine says, ‘in the visible sign only’, does not exclude the body of Christ, but the effect of the body of Christ.
But he objects another passage from tract 59 on John, where Augustine says that the other Apostles ate the bread the Lord, Judas ate the bread of the Lord; and sermon 2 On the Words of the Apostle: “Then,” says Augustine, “the body and blood of Christ will be to each one, if what is received in the Sacrament be in very truth spiritually eaten, spiritually drunk.” He objects other passages too, but to the same purport.
I answer that in Augustine very often that alone is said to be such, and truly such, which has its effect conjoined; for a thing is estimated from its fruit. And so he says that those truly eat the body of Christ who eat it profitably; in which manner too we commonly say that someone has eaten nothing who eats so little that it does not suffice to sustain his life, or certainly what he eats he does not retain, but immediately casts out. The same Augustine too, Book 4 Against Julian, chapter 3, when he had said that the works of the virtues without faith are evil and vicious, explains that he calls that alone a true good which leads to eternal salvation. And Book 2 against Faustus, chapter 7, he shows that in the Scriptures words are often so taken that they signify not the substance of the thing, but a quality or effect; as in 1 Corinthians 15 bodies after the resurrection are said to be spiritual, because they will be such as to effect, not as to substance; and in the same place it is said, Flesh and blood shall not possess the kingdom of God, where flesh is taken for the corruption of the flesh; and 2 Corinthians 5, If we have known Christ according to the flesh, now we know him so no longer, where also flesh signifies not the substance of the flesh, but mortality. So then the wicked are said not to eat the body of Christ, although they receive the sacrament of the Eucharist, because it profits them nothing, nor are they thence nourished or strengthened. Finally, in sermon 2 On the Words of the Apostle cited by Calvin, Augustine says: “That eating is to be refreshed; that drinking, what is it but to live?” Since therefore to eat, with him in that place, is to be refreshed, what wonder if he says that those do not truly eat who are not refreshed?
But Calvin urges another passage from Book 21 On the City of God, chapter 25, where Augustine reports the opinion of certain men who thought that any wicked persons whatever were to be saved, provided they had eaten the body of Christ not in the sacrament only, but in fact; and he refutes that opinion, and affirms that the wicked cannot be said truly to eat the body of Christ, but only sacramentally.
I answer: in that place by the body of Christ Augustine takes the mystical body of Christ, of which too the Eucharist is a sacrament, as he himself says in the same place. For the opinion which he refutes so took the body of Christ; for they said there that those could not perish who had received the Sacrament, being constituted in the true Church, because in that manner they not only received the sacrament of the unity of the faithful, but also ate the body of Christ, that is, were incorporated into that unity. But Augustine refutes it and says that not even in that manner do the wicked eat the body of Christ, because they cannot be members of Christ, since they are members of a harlot; where nevertheless he does not deny that the wicked are of the body of Christ, which is the Church, but denies that they are living members of that body. And so the argument of Calvin turns upon a manifest equivocation. But of these things thus far.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XL1I. Idem probatur ex cap. XI. prioris ad Corinthios. Alter locus ad usum Sacramenti pertinens habetur, cap. xi. prioris ad Corinthios, ubi praeter verba institutionis, quae supra tra¬ ctata sunt, habentur illa verba : Qui manda- ' ccit, et bibit indigne, judicium sibi manducat et bibit, non dijudicans, corpus Domini. Et supra : Reus erit corporis, et sanguinis Dominii 1). lfinc enim conticetur hoc argumentum. Repre¬ henduntur quidam, quod indigne recipiant corpus Christi, et unde dicuntur non vitam, sed judicium haurire. At isti non recipiunt spiritu, et fide corpus Christi, quia utiliter reciperent, si ita reciperent ; ergo recipiunt solo corpore ; ergo corpus Christi vere prae¬ sens est in Eucharistia, neque enim ore corpo¬ rali sumi potest corpus Christi, ut est in ccelo. Adversarii duobus modis eludere conantur hunc locum : dicunt enim eos, qui indigne accedunt, duplici de causa reos lici i corporis Domini, et judicium sibi manducare. Primo quia non recipiunt vere corpus Domini, quod eis in illis symbolis Deus offert, quod idem est, ac si illud in terram abjiciunt symbola corporis Domini : injuria autem symboli, seu imago refertur ad ipsum, cujus est symbo¬ lum, vel imago. Utramque causam brevi¬ ter attingit Calvinus lib. iv. Instif. cap xvn. § 33. fusius autem Petrus Martyr in com¬ mentar. hujus loci, ubi ponit exemplum sta¬ tum principis, et Petrus Boquinus in lib. cont. Heshusium pag. 164. ubi etiam adfert exemplum Theodosii, qui gravissime punivit eos, qui uxoris suai imaginem affecerant contumelia. Sed neutra causa solida est. Ac, ut a po¬ steriore incipiamus, miranda est inconstantia Calvinistarum. In causa enim imaginum non putant se peccare in Christum et sanctos, cum eorum imagines demoliuntur ; et rident Catholicos, cum illis objiciunt, honorem, et contumelias imaginum referri ad exemplar : nunc autem summum sacrilegium esse vo¬ lunt indigne sumere figuram corporis Christi, quod ea injuria in Christum ipsum redun¬ det. (1)1 Cor. XI, 29 et 27. > CAPUT XIII. Porro Klebitius tam ost sine mente, ut in eadem pagina in solut. 7. argument. inve¬ hatur in eos, qui imagines Christi, et san¬ ctorum non demoliuntur, in qua dixerat pec¬ care cos, qui indigne sumunt symbola cor¬ poris Domini ; quia in regem peccat, qui sigillo ejus injuriam facit, quia nimirum in sigillo inest regis imago. Prmterea non censetur fieri injuria ima¬ gini, nisi quando eo animo quis imaginem violat, ut illi injuriam faciat : si enim alia de causa imago discerpatur, conculcetur, maculetur, ut soepissime usu venit in imagi¬ nibus, vel humi depictis, vel in vasis, vesti¬ bus, aliisque ejusmodi rebus existentibus, nemo dicit violatum esse cum, cujus illae imagines sunt. At qui sacramentum Eucha¬ ristiae percipiunt cum conscientia peccati lethalis, rei fiunt corporis Domini, et judi¬ cium sibi manducant, etiamsi non acces¬ serint animo Eucharistiam violandi : non igitur illa causa est hujus peccati, quod Eucharistia sit figura corporis Christi. Ad haec, si ideo peccarent, qui indigne sumunt Eucharistiam , quia illa Christum repraesentat, non liceret homini peccatori aspicere, vel tractare imaginem Christi de¬ pictam ; neque verbum Dei audire. Nam ista etiam Christum repraesentant, et offerunt : imo opinione adversariorum, melius verbi Dei praedicatio Christum nobis significat, et offert, quam ullum sacramentum. Et cur, quaeso, manna, et aquam de petra sumebant promiscue boni et mali, digni et indigni, et tamen non dicebantur ulli rei corporis Domini, neque judicium sibi manducabant, licet illa etiam Christum repraesentarent, et offerrent eo modo, quo Eucharistia adversa¬ riorum sententia. Si objicias non licuisse in Testamento ve¬ teri homini polluto edere de carnibus sacri¬ ficii, Levitic. vn. , nec de panibus propositio¬ nis, I Reg. xxi. respondeo, id pro nobis facere. Illa enim, quia erant typi quidam, et liguree sacramenti Eucharistiae, exigebant munditiam quamdam corporalem, ut inde intelligeremus spiritualem munditiam, quam exigit res figurata. Si rursus objicias, in Baptismo esse aquam veram, et naturalem, et non Spiritum san¬ ctum sub speciebus aquae ; et tamen, qui aquam illam sine debita dispositione sumit in Baptismo, sine' dubitatione peccat in sa¬ cramentum Dei, et proinde etiam in ipsum Deum ; respondeo, id quidem esse verum, Tome IV. 19 peccare, qui sacramentum quodeumque in¬ digne, et sine dispositione sumunt, quia ponunt obicem gratias Dei, non autem quia materia illa significat, vel repraesentat ali¬ quid sacrum. At in Eucharistia sumenda pree- ter dispositionem, ne in vacuum sacramentum recipiatur, requiritur etiam singularis quae¬ dam, et specialis reverentia, et puritas, quod patet tum ex verbis Pauli : Reus erit corporis Domitii ; judicium sibi manducat : nihil enim tale de ullo alio sacramento usquam legi¬ mus, nec ullus diceret reum esse Spiritus sancti, qui aquam Baptismi indigne tractat; tum ex pcena, qua puniebantur olim, qui Sacramentum Eucharistiae indigne percipie¬ bant ; nam vel aegrotabant, vel moriebantur, ut Apostolus testatur : Ideo inter vos multi in¬ firmi et dormiunt multi ; et exempla aliqua refert Cyprianus in serm. de lapsis, qualia de Baptismo nusquam inveniuntur : tum de¬ nique, quod semper in Ecclesia diligentis¬ sime caverint, ne ulla particula Eucharistiae in terram caderet. Tertullianus de coronat, milit : « Calicis, aut panis nostri aliquid de¬ cuti in terram, anxie patimur» : at aquam Baptismi ipsi projicimus, dum baptizamus. Quare non ideo solum honoranda est Eu¬ charistia, quia est Sacramentum, vel figura, vel signum corporis Domini, sed ob aliam longe majorem causam : nulla autem fingi potest, nisi quia ipsum Dominum vere con¬ tinet, nam ccetera communia sunt aliis sa¬ cramentis et figuris. Jam altera causa, quam a erunt adver¬ sarii, cur Paulus reprehendat indigne su¬ mentes Eucharistiam, quod videlicet illi non recipiant vere corpus Domini, quod sacra symbola illis offerunt, nihil habet probabi¬ litatis. Nam apostolus non dicit eos peccare, quod non recipiant, sed quod recipiant in¬ digne : ubi crimen ponit in ipsa sumptione, non in omissione sumptionis. Praeterea illa verba : Judicium sibi mandu¬ cat et bibit, aperte indicant, ipsum quodsumi- turab indignis, afferre illis mortem, cum aliis afferat salutem : hoc enim est manducare judicium, sumere aliquid, quod sumptum noceat. Praeterea illa verba : Non dijudicans corpus Domini, quid aliud significare possunt, nisi non discernens corpus Domini; sed ita su¬ mens, ac si non esset corpus Domini ? Ubi certe non negatur manducatio veri corporis, sed asseritur maxime. Praeterea, si nollent impii sumere corpus 4 LIBER 1. 50 Christi, non accederent ad communionem : ergo cum accedunt, non in co peccant, quod nolunt corpus Domini, sed in co, quod illud volunt, cum sint co indigni. Denique omnes interpretes, atque omnes veteres ita hunc locum semper intellexerunt. Basilius lib. n. de Baptismo cap. 3. Chrysos- tomus hom. 24. in priorem ad Corinth. prope finem, homil. 83 .in Mattii, etliom. 43. inJoan. Origenes homil. 2. inPsal. xxxvn. Hesychius lib. vii. in Levitic. cap. 36. Hieronymus in i. cap. Malach . Theophylactus, OEcumenius, Ambrosius, et Theodoretus in cap. n. primae ad Corinth. in eo ponunt peccatum, dc quo loquitur Apostolus, quod immundi, ac sor¬ didi purissimum Domini corpus sumere au¬ deamus. Et Chrysostomus quidem addit exemplum de eo, qui purpuram regiam in lutum abjicit, qui non minus peccare cen¬ setur, quam si eam scinderet. Theophyla¬ ctus ponit exemplum de luce solis, quae o- culis aegris nocet, non quia non videtur, sed quia nimia lux offendit debiles et infirmos oculos. OEcumenius comparat indigne com¬ municantes cum iis, qui Christum crucifixe¬ runt ; qui certe non solum peccarunt, quia Christum ut Deum non receperunt, sed qui cumdem injuria gravissima affecerunt. Cypri¬ anus serm. de Coena Domini : « Ubi sacrum cibum mens perfida tetigit, et in sceleratum os panis sane tificatus intravit, etc. » Denique Augustinus lib. v. de Baptismo cap. 8 : a Sicut, inquit, Judas cui buccellam tra¬ didit Dominus, non malum accipiendo, sed male accipiendo, locum in se diabolo prae¬ buit : sic indigne quisque sumens Domini¬ cum Sacramentum non efficit, ut quia ipse malus est, malum sit, aut quia non ad salu¬ tem accipit, nihil acceperit ; corpus enim Domini, et sanguis Domini, nihilominus erat etiam illis, quibus dicebat Apostolus : Qui manducat indigne, judicium sibi manducat.» et lib. i. cont. Crescou. cap. 23. probare volens usum malum rerum bonarum nocere : « Quid, inquit, de ipso corpore, et sanguine Domini, unico sacrificio pro salute nostra, quamvis ipse Dominus dicat : nisi quis man¬ ducaverit carnem meam, et biberit sangui¬ nem meum, non habebit in se vitam ; nonne Apostolus docet, etiam hoc perniciosum male utentibus fieri, cum ait : Quicumque mandu¬ caverit panem, vel biberit calicem Domini indigne, reus erit corporis et sanguinis Do¬ mini?» Quo loco Augustinus apertissime dicit, indignos peccaro, quia sumunt ipsum corpus Domini, unicum sacrificium salutis nostrae : certe autem unicum sacrificium sa¬ lutis non est symbolum panis, sed ipsum ve¬ rum Domini corpus. Idem Augustinus in epist. 120. ad Honoratum, cap. 27. loquens dc superbis, qui indigne communicant : « Et ipsi, inquit, adducti sunt ad mensam Christi, et accipiunt de corpore et sanguine ejus : sed adorant tantum, non etiam saturantur, quia non imitantur. » ETbi dicit superbos, licet sine fructu communicent, tamen per¬ cipere corpus Domini : et ne putemus eum loqui de corpore figurate, id est, dc pane, qui est signum corporis, dicit eos adorare id, quod sumunt, sed inde non saturari. De¬ nique in epist. 162. ultra medium : «Tolerat, inquit, ipse Dominus Judam diabolum, fu¬ rem, et venditorem suum : sinit accipere inter innocentes discipulos, quod fideles noverunt, pretium nostrum. » At certe non est pretium nostrum, frustum panis, sed vera Christi caro. Sed objicit Calvinus lib. iv. Instit. cap. 17. §. 34. quaedam loca Augustini, ubi videtur sanctus ille doctor negare sumi ab impiis corpus Christi. Tractat. 26. in Joan. distin¬ guit Augustinus visibile Sacramentum a vir¬ tute, seu re sacramenti : ac dicit ab impiis sumi tantum visibile sacramentum, non vir¬ tutem, aut rem sacramenti : et sacramentum quidem proponi omnibus, sive ab vitam, sive ad exitium ; rem vero ipsam omnibus ad vitam, nulli ad exitium. Quod autem per virtulem, et rem sacramenti non solum in- telligatur gratia justificans, sed etiam corpus Christi, probat Calvinus ex antithesi inter visibile et invisibile. Nam corpus Christi non est v sibile in Eucharistia ; ergo non compre¬ henditur nomine sacramenti visibilis, quod a bonis, et malis sumitur : sed nomine rei in¬ visibilis, quae sumitur solum a bonis. Respondeo : S. Augustinus per virtutem seu rem sacramenti, non intelligit corpus Christi absolute, sed gratiam justificantem, id est, effectu n carnis Christi spiritualiter re¬ ficientis. Id patet tum exeo, quod ibidemdi- cit, Patres testamenti veteris in manna de coelo pluente sumpsisse virtutem, et rem sa¬ cramenti, quam nos in Eucharistia suscipi¬ mus: patres autem non sumebant reipsa car¬ nem Christi, qum n ndumerat, sedsumebant effectum ejus, id est, gratiam, quae dabatur ex merito passionis Christi futurae : tum ex eo quod ibidem, cum asserit impios non sumere carnem Christi, addit vocem : Spiri- GAP li T Xill. 31 tualiter : « Ac per hoc, inquit, qui non manet in Christo, et in quo non manet Christus, procul dubio non manducat spiritualiter car¬ nem ejus nec bibit sanguinem, licet carnali- ler, et visibiliter premat dentibus signum corporis, et sanguinis». Ilsec ille. Porro, cor¬ pus ipsum Christi sine effectu suo, id est, sine spirituali nutritioneanimrenon distinguit Augustinus a visibili sacramento, sed simul cum illo comprehendit, licet non sit visibile ipsum corpus nisi in specie panis. Ratio, cur non distinguat corpus asigno visibili, est quia non majorem fructum percipiunt ex commu¬ nione, qui sic accipiunt corpus Christi, quam si nihil perciperent, nisi solum signum. Ac ne miretur Calvinus nos dicere comprehendi corpus Christi nomine signi visibilis, cogitet scholasticos omnes dicere solitos Christi corpus sumi ab impiis sacramentaliter tan¬ tum ; cum tamen constet a scholasticis non negari sumi ab impiis vere ipsum Christi corpus. Itaque sacramentaliter tantum, sive, quod Augustinus dicit, in signo visibili tan¬ tum nor. excludit corpus Christi, sed effectum corporis Christi. Sedobjicitaliumlocum ex tract. 59. inJoan. ubi Augustinus dicit, Apostolos coeteros man¬ ducasse panem Dominum, Judam mandu¬ casse panem Domini, et serm. 2. de verb. Apostol : «Tunc erit, inquit Augustinus, uni¬ cuique corpus et sanguis Christi, si quod in Sacramento sumitur, in ipsa veritate spiri¬ tualiter manducetur spiritualiter bibatur. » Objicit etiam alia loca, sed in eamdem sen¬ tentiam. Respondeo, apud Augustinum soepissime illud solum dici tale, et vere tale, quod ha¬ bet effectum suum conjunctum : res enim ex fructu aestimatur. Itaque illos dicit vere co¬ medere corpus Christi, qui utiliter comedunt: quo modo etiam nos vulgo dicimus aliquem nihil comedisse, qui tam parum comedit, ut non sufficiat ad ejus vitam sustentandam ; aut certe, quod comedit, non retinet, sed con¬ tinuo ejicit. Idem etiam Augustinus lib. iv. In Julimum , cap. 3. cum dixisset, opera virtutum sine fide esse mala, et vitiosa, ex¬ plicat, seillud solum appellare verum bonum quod ad eeternam salutem ducit. Et lib. ii. contra Faustum, cap. 7. ostendit in Scripturis ita scepe accipi vocabula, ut non substantiam rei, sed qualitatem, vel effectum signifi¬ cent : ut 1 Cor. xv, dicantur corpora post resurrectionem lutura spriritualia, quia ta¬ lia erunt quoad effectum, non quoad sub¬ stantiam ; et ibidem dicitur : Caro ct sanguis regnum Dei non possidebunt , ubi caro acci¬ pitur pro carnis corruptione ; et II Corinth. v. Si novimus Christum secundum carnem , jam non novimus (1), ubi etiam caro non substan¬ tiam carnis significat, sed mortalitatem. Sic igitur dicuntur impii non comedere corpus Christi, licet sumant sacramentum Euchari¬ stiae, quia nihil eis prodest, nec inde nutriun¬ tur, aut roborantur. Denique in serm. 2. de verbis A postoli a Calvino citato, Augustinus dicit : « Illud manducare, refici est ; illud bibere, quid est nisi vivere ? » Cum ergo manducare apud illum eo loco sit refici, quid mirum, si dicat eos non vere manducare, qui non reficiuntur? Sed urget Calvinus alium locum ex lib. xii. Civitat. cap. 25, ubi Augustinus refert quo¬ rumdam opinionem, qui putabant impios quoscumque salvandos esse, modo non in sacramento solum, sed reipsa comedissent 'corpus Christi : refellit autem eam opinio¬ nem, atque affirmat, impios non posse dici vere comedere corpus Christi, sed solum sa¬ cramento tenus. Respondeo : eo loco per corpus Christi ac¬ cipit Augustinus corpus Christi mysticum, cujus etiam sacramentum est Eucharistia, ut ipse ibidem dicit. Nam opinio, quam refu¬ tat, ita accipiebat corpus Christi : dicebant enim ibi non posse perire eos, qui Sacramen¬ tum percepissent, in vera Ecclesia const tuti, quia eo modo non solum sacramentum su¬ mebant unitatis fidelium, sed etb.m comede¬ bant corpus Christi, id est, incorporati erant illi unitati. Augustinas autem refeliit ac dicit; neque eti m eo modo impios comedere cor¬ pus Christi, quia non possunt esse membra Christi, cum sint membra meretricis : ubi tameu non negat impios esse de corpore Christi, quod est Ecclesia, sed negat esse membra viva ejus corporis. Itaque argumen¬ tum Calvini ;n manifesta sequivocatione ver¬ satur. Sed de i.is hactenus. (1) I Cor. XV, 50: II Cor. V, 16, 52 LIBER 1.