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 14: The Arguments of the Adversaries Drawn from the Word of God 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).
Now at length the arguments must be solved which the adversaries bring forward from the word of God to prove that the body of Christ is not really in the Eucharist. And I shall propose the arguments according to the order of the books of sacred Scripture, for memory’s sake.
The first argument they take from those words of Psalm 113: But our God is in heaven; and Isaiah 66: Heaven is my throne. From these passages Peter Martyr frames this argument, in his book against Gardiner, part 1, in the eighth objection: “Christ, as man, after the resurrection is in the same seat with the Father, because He sits at the right hand of God; therefore just as God the Father has His seat in heaven, and is there to be sought, not in a temple or a pyx, so also Christ; unless we will have the seat of God and heaven contained in a pyx.”
I answer: This argument proves nothing at all, or rather proves the contrary of what the author intends. For although the seat of God is called heaven, because in that place God manifests the glory of His kingdom, yet even outside that place God is found, since He is everywhere; and it is false that God is not to be sought except in heaven, since in Acts 17 Paul says that God can be sought and found everywhere, because He is not far from every one of us; for in Him we live and move and are. In the same manner, then, Christ as man, although He is in heaven and there sits on the throne of His kingdom, manifesting His glory to the Angels and the blessed, yet can be also outside heaven, where He Himself wills; we do not therefore say that heaven is in the pyx, but that Christ can be in heaven and outside heaven.
But Martyr urges, in the solution of objection 48, this sophism: “The body of Christ is in heaven, the body of Christ is in the Sacrament, therefore the Sacrament is in heaven.” And because Gardiner had answered that the argument is faulty, since it consists of four terms, Martyr again affirms that there are only three terms, namely the body of Christ, existing in heaven, existing in the sacrament; and by two other arguments he contends that it altogether follows that the Sacrament is in heaven, if the body of Christ is in heaven, as Scripture says, and also in the Sacrament, as we say. The second argument, then, is: “For the same body to be at the same time with the Sacrament and not with the Sacrament is a manifest contradiction; therefore the body of Christ in heaven will be also with the Sacrament, and consequently the Sacrament will be in heaven; for if it be in heaven without the Sacrament, it will be at the same time with the Sacrament and not with the Sacrament.” The third is in the first figure: “All the body of Christ, or whatever is the body of Christ, is in heaven. But the Sacrament of the Eucharist is the body of Christ, therefore the Sacrament of the Eucharist is in heaven.”
I answer: In the first argument there are truly four terms, as Gardiner said. For in the conclusion, “therefore the Sacrament is in heaven,” there is not taken ‘existing in the Sacrament’, which was the third term in the premises, but the Sacrament itself, which is the fourth term; for it is one thing to be in the sacrament, another to be the Sacrament. And so either the argument is altogether faulty, or it ought to have been concluded thus: The body of Christ is in heaven, the body of Christ is in the sacrament; therefore what is in the sacrament is in heaven; or: therefore the thing existing in the Sacrament is a thing existing in heaven. And this is true, but thence it does not follow: therefore the Sacrament is in heaven; since the sacrament is one thing, the thing existing in the sacrament another.
The second argument concludes nothing; because from this, that the body of Christ is in heaven, where the sacrament is not, it does not follow that the body of Christ is with the sacrament and not with the sacrament; but it only follows that the body of Christ is in the sacrament and outside the sacrament, or is not with the sacrament, or is with the sacrament and is without the sacrament, or is not with the sacrament. All which are true, and in no way contradictory, since all are affirmative; for of contradictories the one must deny, the other affirm. We see the same in like cases. For from this, that the same God is at the same time in heaven and on earth, and in heaven God is not with the earth, nor on earth is with heaven, we do not gather: therefore God is in heaven and is not heaven, or is with heaven and is not with heaven; but only gather: therefore God is in heaven and outside heaven; is with heaven and without heaven. The same appears in the soul, which is at once in the head and the feet, when nevertheless neither are the feet in the head, nor the head in the feet.
The third argument is indeed in the first figure if the body of Christ be taken for the natural and mystical body of Christ, but then the proposition is false: “All the body of Christ is in heaven.” For the Church militant is the body of Christ, and is not in heaven. But if the body of Christ be taken for the natural body alone, then the proposition is true, but is not universal, nor can the argument be in the first figure. For a proposition is not universal if that sign (All) be added to a singular term; for it is the same, Peter, and, All Peter, if you speak of one only. Besides, the assumption too is false. For the sacrament of the Eucharist is not the body of Christ, but contains the body of Christ; for the sacrament is a sensible sign.
The second passage is Matthew 15: Whatsoever entereth into the mouth, goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the privy. “But the body of Christ is not cast out into the privy, but only the bread; therefore the body of Christ does not enter into the mouth, but only the bread.” The argument is Peter Martyr’s, in his book against Gardiner, part 1, objection 88.
I answer, with Alger at the beginning of his second book, that to such objections it would indeed have been fitting to stop the ears and answer nothing; yet, on account of the importunity of the heretics, and lest the little ones be scandalized, the argument must be briefly satisfied. I say, then, that among the Catholics it is a physical question what becomes of the species corrupted in the stomach, of which we do not here dispute; but of the body of Christ, of which alone we have instituted the disputation, there is no question, but it is certain that the body of Christ enters through the mouth of the communicants, and yet is not cast out into the privy, but, the species being corrupted in the stomach, ceases there to be, without any injury to itself; just as before the consecration of the bread it was not there, without any detriment to itself. The only question, then, remains concerning the words of the Lord, how there coheres with them what we say, that something enters through the mouth and is not cast out into the privy; but the solution is most plain. For the Lord speaks of foods which are received to nourish the body; for these ordinarily hold the course which the Lord describes. Wherefore the Lord Himself after the resurrection truly ate and drank, as all the Evangelists testify in the last chapter of the Gospel, and Peter, Acts 10; and yet He did not cast the foods out into the privy, because He did not eat to nourish the body, but to prove, by that action of vital eating, that He had a true and living body. So then the body of Christ, which is eaten by the faithful, not to nourish the body, but to sustain the soul, as Ambrose says, Book 1 On the Sacraments, chapter 4, need not be bodily digested or cast out into the privy.
Peter Martyr takes exception that the example adduced of Christ eating after the resurrection is not to the point, because the Lord spoke in Matthew 15 of mortal men eating, not of immortal. But just as he restricts the words of the Lord to mortal eaters, so we could restrict them to corruptible food, such as the body of Christ, which we receive in the sacrament, is not. And besides, our example is most to the point. For if the Lord spoke only of the eating of mortals, He therefore spoke of them only because they alone eat that they may be nourished; wherefore of Himself He spoke of all who eat that they may be nourished, but by accident He spoke only of mortals. For if the immortal needed nourishment, certainly they too, after eating, would digest the food and void the excrements; just as, on the contrary, when a mortal eats and is not thence nourished, but vomits what he had eaten, that which entered through the mouth does not go into the privy. The example, then, of Christ eating after the resurrection is most apt to demonstrate that that food alone enters through the mouth and is cast out into the privy which is received to nourish the body.
The third passage is Matthew 24: If any man shall say to you: Lo here is Christ, or there, do not believe. “It is not therefore to be believed when they (the Papists) say: Lo, in that altar, or in that pyx, is Christ.” The argument is of the same Peter Martyr, in his book against Gardiner, part 1, objection 9.
I answer: Christ warns that we beware of impostors who will vend themselves in the name of Christ; for He subjoins: There shall arise false christs, and so forth. But He describes these impostors by two conditions which altogether repugn to the Eucharist, so that this passage cannot with any probability be drawn to the Eucharist. First He says that those impostors will come secretly, not openly and manifestly, as is clear from those words: Lo, he is in the desert; lo, he is in the inner chambers. Whence He opposes to these secret false christs His own coming, conspicuous to the whole world, which He compares to the flash of the sun; for no one says, Here is the sun, or there, since scarcely has it appeared above the horizon when it has filled the whole hemisphere with its splendor, so that there is no need to indicate where it is. Secondly He says that they will come visibly, and speaking after the human manner, and dealing with men, though in corners and inner chambers. For He says they will be men who deceive by words and false prodigies. Either condition is wanting to the Eucharist. For, in the first place, it is consecrated and kept not in the desert or in inner chambers, but in the midst of cities, in the most frequented temples, on high and conspicuous altars. And besides, although the Eucharist is so publicly had and honored in the whole world, yet Christ is not there visibly, nor after the human manner, nor does He preach or work miracles, but is so there as if He were not, as regards the judgment of the exterior senses.
But Peter Martyr insists: “Although Christ does not speak in that place of the Eucharist, yet that passage is rightly brought against the Papists erring about the Eucharist. For Christ’s mind in that place was to admonish the faithful lest by rashly believing they be deceived, and receive impostors for the true Christ; but no less danger threatens if they believe that Christ is in the bread, and adore a creature for the Creator.” But he ought to have proved, not assumed, that the danger is the same. For great danger threatens if we believe some man preaching in the desert that he is Christ, since the Lord openly warned that He would not come after the manner of a preacher or a secret prophet, but only after the manner of a judge, and that most manifestly in the clouds of heaven. But nowhere did Christ warn that He would not be invisibly in the Sacrament; nay, He said the contrary, both by Himself, when He said, This is my body, and through the Church, which He commanded us to obey.
The fourth passage is Matthew 26: The poor you have always with you: but me you have not always. This passage Calvin urges vehemently, Book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 17, section 20, and Martyr against Gardiner in the second objection: “For if Christ is truly in the Eucharist,” says Martyr, “the contrary sentence will be true, namely: The poor you shall not have always, but me you shall have always. For after the resurrection we shall not have the poor, but only in this life, and so we shall not have them always; but Christ we shall have always, both here in all the temples, and in the other life in heaven.” And because the Catholics might perhaps answer that here it is a question of the presence of Christ poor, and needing the services of men, such as we do not now have of Him, they prove, on the contrary, that Christ in this place distinguished Himself from the poor, when He said, The poor you have always, but me not always; and that He does not speak of useful service, but of worship and honor; for the Apostles murmured because they saw the price subtracted from the necessities of the poor and poured out on a certain worship and honor of which Christ had no need, nor required it. But such worship we could still exhibit to Christ present, if He were in the Eucharist. Wherefore they conclude that it is necessary either that Christ be not in the Eucharist, or that those words be false: But me you have not always, that is, so present that you can honor my body with precious things. Martyr adds that Christ by these words openly marked the idolatry of the Papists, who honor the Eucharist with gold, silver, incense, and other precious things. Finally, both Calvin and Martyr confirm their exposition from Augustine, who, tract 50 on John, comparing this passage, But me you have not always, with that, I am with you all days, says that the former passage is understood of the presence of the flesh, the latter of the presence of the majesty.
I answer: The Lord speaks of His bodily and visible presence, and according to that state in which He could receive some bodily service from men. This is clear, because He speaks of the service rendered to Him by Mary in that anointing, and says that He will not always be so present that He can receive such service. Now Magdalen anointed a certain part of the body which she saw; consequently the Lord was conversing with her after the human manner. Besides, the Lord speaks of the presence by which we have the poor with us; for the antithesis requires this: The poor you have always, but me not always, that is, in the manner in which you have the poor, that is, visibly and conversing after the human manner. Nor was that service of Magdalen of honor only, but also of advantage and utility, whether we regard the intention of Mary, or the intention of the Holy Spirit moving her. For she without doubt did it to refresh the members of Christ wearied from labors; but the Holy Spirit intended also, through this ministry of Mary, to signify that the death and burial of Christ were imminent; for thus the Lord says: She hath prevented to anoint my body for the burial. Now the anointing of bodies is not only of honor, but also of utility, because it preserves and gives fragrance. According to such a presence, then, that is, visible and needing service, we have not now Christ; nor yet does the lack of this presence repugn to the presence of the same Christ in the Eucharist, which is invisible and needing no service. For if the Lord, Luke the last chapter, said, These are the words which I spoke to you, while I was yet with you, where He signified that He was not now with them, because He no longer conversed with them after the human manner, although He was truly and visibly present—how much more can we say that Christ is not now with us, according to that, But me you have not always, since He not only does not converse with us after the human manner, but is not even visibly present?
From these all the objections of the adversaries fall. For, in the first place, they are not contrary sentences, as Martyr objected: The poor you have always, but me not always; and, The poor you shall not have always, but me always. For if they be understood of a diverse manner of presence, both are true.
Then it is false which they assumed, that such service could be exhibited to Christ in the Eucharist as Mary exhibited. For (as I showed a little before) that service was not of honor only, but also of utility; of which service the Lord is now not capable. And besides, she rendered that service to Christ visibly present, and anointed certain members, which we cannot do; nay, if the objection of the adversaries were worth anything, it would follow that Christ is not even now in heaven. For even Him existing in heaven we can honor with gold, silver, incense, and like things, as we honor Him in the Eucharist. For we do not use incense to delight the nostrils of Christ, or gold to delight His bodily eyes, but we apply these things externally to those species of bread and wine, to testify our pious affection toward Him; just as we do also when we adorn temples, crosses, images, and other places or instruments, even when the Eucharist is absent.
Now that which Martyr said, that the idolatry of the Papists is marked by Christ, who honor the Eucharist with gold, we much better retort upon himself. For the Lord, while He praised the deed of Mary, taught plainly enough that the worship of His body must sometimes be preferred to alms to the poor. And Theophylact, on chapter 14 of Mark, writes that those are companions of Judas Iscariot, and reproved with him by the Lord, who give to the poor the golden paten on which the body of Christ is wont to lie on the sacred table, and lay it up in a viler vessel. Which nevertheless is understood when there does not press such a calamity of the poor that their necessity cannot be otherwise provided for.
Finally, to the passage of Augustine I answer: By the presence of the flesh Augustine understands the visible presence of Christ conversing among men after the human manner; for so he explains himself: “You shall not have me always with you. Why? Because He conversed, according to the presence of the body, forty days with the disciples, and, they accompanying Him by seeing, not by following, He ascended into heaven.” And below: “The Church had Him according to the presence of the flesh a few days; now it holds Him by faith, it sees Him not with the eyes.” So he. Where he indicates that the presence of the flesh is so called when Christ was seen with the eyes, which certainly we now have not; for Christ in the Eucharist we hold by faith, we see Him not with the eyes.
Add that Augustine in the same place did not pass over the presence of the Lord in the Eucharist. For he said that He is now present in three ways: by majesty, by providence, and by ineffable and invisible grace; under which last member, Calvin too being witness, is included the presence of the Lord through the Eucharist. But he himself understands, after his manner, not of a real presence, but through a sign or the apprehension of faith. But this repugns to the same Augustine, who above in the same tract writes that Christ is now present by faith, by the sign of Christ, that is, by the sign of the cross, by Baptism, and by the Eucharist; where he distinguishes the Eucharist from a sign and the apprehension of faith.
Where it must also be noted that faith, the sign of the cross, and Baptism do not require the real presence of Christ, as the Eucharist requires it. For by faith we apprehend even things absent; the sign of the cross can represent even things absent; in Baptism Christ is present as regenerating, but He can regenerate even though absent in body, just as the sun, remaining in heaven, produces herbs on the earth. But in the Eucharist Christ is present as food refreshing while it is eaten; and food cannot be eaten and refresh unless it be really present.
The fifth passage is Mark the last chapter: He was taken up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God. Likewise Acts 1: While they looked on, he was raised up, and so forth. And Acts 3: Whom heaven indeed must receive, until the time of the restitution of all things. Philippians 3: Our conversation is in heaven, from whence also we look for the Saviour. Hence Calvin argues thus, Book 4, chapter 17, section 27: “The Scripture testifies that Christ, as regards the human nature, ascended into heaven, and there will remain until the day of judgment, and then at length, and not before, will return to these lower places; therefore it is not true that He so often descends as to be in the Eucharist, as the Papists will.”
I answer: This argument, which seems to the adversaries insoluble (whence they perpetually cry out that we destroy one article of the Creed), has in truth no difficulty. For we confess that Christ, as regards the human nature, ascended into heaven, and is now there, and will be until the day of judgment, nor will descend before. But we deny the consequence: “Therefore He is not truly in the Eucharist.” For to be in the Eucharist He need not desert heaven, or descend by local motion; just as also, to appear to Paul, Acts 9, and to Peter when He said to him, “I go to Rome to be crucified again,” and to other saints frequently, He did not desert heaven, but only placed Himself where He willed and how He willed. There is therefore no question about the article of the Ascension; but rather about the article of omnipotence, namely whether Christ can place Himself in several places, and is truly omnipotent, or cannot; of which matter we shall treat in its place.
“But,” says Calvin, “we are bidden to look for Him from heaven, therefore not to seek Him on earth.” I answer: We are bidden to look for Him, that He may come with glory to reform our bodies, to judge the world, and so forth; with which expectation the invisible presence, to refresh us meanwhile, does not fight.
The sixth passage is Luke 24: Handle and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as you see me to have. Calvin, Book 4, chapter 17, section 29, argues thus: “The truth of the flesh, Christ being witness, is proved by sight and touch. But in the Eucharist nothing is seen or touched but bread; therefore there is not flesh there, but bread.” Peter Martyr, in his book against Gardiner, objection 123, deduces the consequence in another manner: “If it could be that the senses were deceived, and something were seen as bread and were flesh, Christ’s argument would have been weak, when He proved that He had flesh because He could be seen and touched; for it could have been answered that it is seen indeed by the judgment of the senses to be flesh, but yet is something else.”
I answer to Calvin that it is one thing to gather affirmatively: This is touched and seen, therefore it is a body; another to gather negatively: This is not touched nor seen, therefore it is not a body. The former consequence is excellent, which the Lord makes; since it can in no way be that an incorporeal thing be seen or touched by the bodily senses, nor are the senses deceived about their proper object; and so necessarily what is seen and touched is corporeal. The latter consequence, which the Lord by no means makes, but Calvin makes, is bad. For it can be that a true body be present and not be touched nor seen, because it is covered by another body, or because God hinders it from transmitting the sensible species to the senses; in which manner, Luke 4, He Himself, passing through the midst of them, went His way, of those who wished to cast Him down from the mountain. And of Saint Gregory Thaumaturgus, Gregory of Nyssa writes in his life; and of Saint Felix of Nola, Paulinus in his birthdays, that they were sometimes so hidden from their persecutors that, though present with nothing interposed, they were not seen or perceived. I add too that it can be done by divine power that a body exist after the manner of spirits, indivisibly, so that it can in no way be seen or touched; when nevertheless it cannot be that a spirit exist after the manner of bodies, divisibly. But of this we shall speak below; now it is enough to have shown that it is not a good consequence: It is not seen or touched, therefore it is not a body; although this is excellent: It is seen and touched, therefore it is a body.
Now to Peter Martyr I answer: The bodily senses cannot be deceived about their proper object, but can yet be deceived about that which lies hidden under the object of the senses; which nevertheless belongs more to the internal sense than to the external. For it often happens that painters deceive the eyes, or the imagination of the beholders, when they express something to the life; as is related of him who so skillfully painted grapes that the birds ran up to them as if they were true grapes. And in the Scriptures, those who saw and touched the bodies assumed by the angels, Genesis 18 and 19, were not deceived when they believed that they saw and touched a body; yet they were deceived when they thought they touched and saw a human body. So too in the Eucharist, our senses are not deceived when we judge that we perceive something white, round, solid; but they are deceived when they announce to us that the substance of bread lies hidden under those accidents. But not on that account was the argument of the Lord weak, but most efficacious. For the Lord only wished to prove that He was not an empty spectre, or a shadow, or a phantasm, as the Apostles suspected, but a true body; and this indeed He best proved from the testimony of the sense of touch; but that that body was human, living, the same which it had before been, the Lord did not prove by this argument alone drawn from the sense of touch, which without doubt was not sufficient, but in many other ways: by speaking, by eating, by the testimony of the Angels, by the miracle of the fishes, by the allegation of the Scriptures, and so forth.
The seventh passage is John 6: It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. This is the chief foundation of Zwingli, in his book On True and False Religion, in the chapter on the Eucharist; for he calls this passage a wall of brass, and an unbroken adamant. Peter Martyr too, in his book against Gardiner, objection 34, uses this same passage, and thus deduces the argument: “The Capharnaites thought that the flesh of Christ was to be eaten bodily, as now the Papists judge. But Christ reproved their error when He said, The flesh profiteth nothing; the Lord therefore signifies that His flesh is not to be eaten bodily, but by faith alone, spiritually.”
I answer: That wall can be called not only not of brass or adamant, but scarcely of clay. For, in the first place, even though Christ spoke of His flesh, and said that it profited nothing, we should not rightly gather that there is not true flesh in the Sacrament, and that for two causes. First, because in the same manner it could be concluded that there is not bread in the Sacrament; for if the flesh of Christ profits not, much less will wheaten bread profit. Secondly, because if the Lord had said this of His flesh, certainly He would not have understood that it absolutely profits nothing, but that it profits nothing if it be alone, that is, without the spirit quickening it, as Augustine and Cyril expound; for otherwise, if the flesh of Christ profited not those eating it, how in the same chapter would the Lord have said: He that eateth my flesh hath everlasting life? and, Except you eat, you shall not have life in you? And finally it is the highest impiety to deny that the flesh of Christ, united to the Divinity, profits nothing, to which blessed Paul attributes our whole salvation, when in Colossians 1 he says that we are reconciled to God through the flesh of Christ. Since therefore we believe that in the Sacrament there is not bare flesh, but flesh united to the divinity, and living and quickening through the Spirit of God, that saying, The flesh profiteth nothing, makes nothing against us.
But besides there is another solution. For the true and literal sense of those words is not that the flesh of Christ, or the substance of the flesh, profits not, but that carnal understanding profits not, as Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Euthymius expound on this passage; as also Origen, Book 3 on the epistle to the Romans, explaining those words of chapter 3, By the works of the law no flesh shall be justified; and Cyprian in his sermon On the Supper of the Lord, and others. For in that place by the name of flesh is called human and carnal thought, as it is distinguished from spiritual thought, and that roused by faith and heavenly inspiration.
This is proved, first, because flesh in the Scriptures, nearly everywhere it is distinguished against spirit, or against something more sublime, does not signify the substance of the flesh, but either weakness, or corruption, or (as I said) human and carnal thought; all which come nearly to the same; since it is of corruption that a man should wish to judge of divine things by his own human sense. Genesis 6: My spirit shall not remain in man, because he is flesh, that is, carnal, weak. Matthew 16: Flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father. Romans 8: Who walk according to the flesh, and not according to the spirit; and, They who are in the flesh cannot please God; and, The wisdom of the flesh is death, but the wisdom of the spirit is life and peace. Galatians 1: I consented not to flesh and blood. In this manner, then, the flesh profiteth nothing, that is, to think and understand the eating of the flesh of Christ in a human and carnal manner, as if it were to be cut into parts, and cooked, and chewed, and converted into one’s own substance by the action of natural heat.
Secondly, the same is proved from the occasion which the Lord had to say those words. For the occasion was the error of the Capharnaites, who not only thought, as Martyr says, that the true flesh of Christ is promised to us, which is most true, but thought that it was to be eaten in the manner which their own judgment and human experience suggested to them, as Augustine and others expound, namely in the manner in which other flesh is eaten. For to this error most aptly answers this sentence of the Lord; for it is the same as if He had said: The animal man does not attain the divine mysteries.
Thirdly, it is proved from the following words; for He immediately subjoins: The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life, that is, they are words explaining and delivering divine, spiritual things, bringing eternal life; therefore they must not be taken by human sense, but by faith and understanding inspired by God; as if the Lord said: It is no wonder if you do not understand, because you think human things, and I speak divine. In which manner too, John 3, when the Lord spoke of the mystery of regeneration, and Nicodemus thought of a certain carnal nativity from the mother’s womb, He reproved him with those words: He that is of the earth, of the earth he speaketh; he that cometh from heaven is above all; that is, thou, an earthly man, thinkest and speakest earthly things; I, who came from heaven, speak those things which surpass the grasp of all men; and therefore here there is need of divine faith, not of human judgment. The same too is gathered from the other following words: But there are some of you that believe not. For those words in no way cohere with that explanation, The flesh profiteth nothing, that is, it profits not to eat the flesh in the Sacrament. For what connection is this: It profits not to eat the flesh in the Sacrament; but there are of you who believe not? But with our explanation they cohere most aptly. For it is the same as if He said: The flesh profiteth nothing for believing, but the spirit of faith; therefore some of you believe not, because they have not the spirit, but are wholly flesh, and measure divine things by carnal judgment. Whence too He consequently adds: Therefore did I say to you, that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father. Where we see the Lord always speak of spiritual understanding, which is given by God to those who believe His words, and is opposed to human thought and wisdom.
Where it must also be observed that this sentence, The flesh profiteth nothing, is therefore brought as a wall of brass against the Sacrament by the heretics, because they themselves are truly flesh, and the flesh not only profits nothing, but also greatly harms; for it is the root and as it were the parent of all heresies. For heretics are heretics for this reason, that they will not subject their judgment to the word of God, but wish to measure all things by their own human reason; and especially the Sacramentarians. For the chief cause why they do not believe is that human reason, by which alone they are led, does not attain the secrets of God, and they will believe nothing but what they understand. They pretend indeed the Scriptures, but the whole question is of the sense of Scripture, in attaining which they will not acquiesce in the Church, to which the Scriptures most plainly send us, but will rely on their own judgment. And so the Apostle, Galatians 5, numbered heresies among the works of the flesh.
The eighth passage is John 12: Where I am, there also shall my minister be. “But the saints are not in the Eucharist, therefore neither is Christ there.” This argument sufficiently indicates the poverty of solid reasons under which the adversaries labor; for they would not descend to these follies if they could bring forward anything solid.
But yet I answer. First, Christ did not say, Wheresoever I am, but, Where I am, there also shall my minister be. It is enough, then, if the saints be somewhere with Christ, even though they be not wheresoever He Himself is; otherwise they ought all to have been with Him on the cross too. Secondly, it is certain that Christ by those words promised the fellowship of His kingdom and glory; for so He says more clearly, John 17: Father, I will that where I am, they also whom thou hast given me may be with me, that they may see my glory.
But Peter Martyr insists against this solution, in his book against Gardiner, objection 37: “Either Christ in the Eucharist is in the glory of the Father, or not; if He is not, they act impiously who call Him down from the glory of God the Father to these lower things.”
I answer: That pseudo-martyr argues sophistically; since that Christ is in the Eucharist in the glory of the Father can be understood in two ways. In one way, that while He is in the Eucharist, that holy soul sees God, and consequently is also in the glory of the Father; and in this manner Christ in the Eucharist is in glory; for He is never or nowhere deprived of glory. In the other way, that to be in the Eucharist is to Him glory and beatitude; and in this manner in the Eucharist He is not in glory; for those species are not the glory of God the Father; there is therefore no need that the saints be in the Eucharist, that they may be with Christ in glory. But I add that, according to the doctrine of the holy Fathers, choirs of Angels are always present to Christ existing in the Eucharist, as Chrysostom openly testifies, Book 6 On the Priesthood, and homily 60 To the People of Antioch, and Ambrose on chapter 1 of Luke, on those words, An angel appeared to him; and Gregory, Book 4 of the Dialogues, chapter 58.
The ninth passage is John 16: I leave the world, and I go to the Father. And lest perhaps we answer that the Lord left the world visibly, but yet remained in the world invisibly, Martyr meets us, in his book against Gardiner, objection 3, and Calvin, Book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 17, section 26; and he proves that this cannot rightly be answered, because the Lord in the same place promises another Paraclete, that is, the Holy Spirit, who should supply the defect of His absence. But the Holy Spirit would not truly supply the defect of Christ’s absence, unless He truly, at least as man, were absent; for if the whole Christ, both as God and as man, is present, to what purpose does He need a vicar? Finally, Calvin notes that the ascent of Christ and the descent of the Holy Spirit are antitheses; wherefore it is necessary that Christ truly departed from the world as regards the flesh, if the Holy Spirit was to succeed.
I answer: Christ left the world as regards human conversation; for after His death He did not converse in the world after the manner of other men; yet this absence does not repugn to a presence of another kind, as we said above, and proved from that passage of Luke 24: These things I spoke to you while I was with you.
Now the argument from the coming of the Holy Spirit either I see nothing, or it helps our cause. For the Holy Spirit was not promised to supply every presence of Christ; for He Himself says in the same place: I will not leave you orphans, I will come to you; and Matthew the last chapter: I am with you until the consummation of the world; and John 1: He was in the world. He was therefore only to supply the presence of Christ conversing among men after the human manner. For because the Apostles were to lack the sight of Christ, and His discourses and examples, they needed a greater internal grace, which should supply that external consolation and aids; and this is what Christ promised them, when He promised another Paraclete. Which certainly makes nothing against the presence of Christ in the Eucharist; for Christ is so present there that we neither see nor hear Him, nor does He converse with us after the human manner.
Finally, that antithesis of the ascent of Christ and the descent of the Holy Spirit seems also against Calvin. For just as the Holy Spirit truly descended, and yet also remained in heaven, so Christ truly ascended, and yet also truly remained with us, not only as God (in which manner He is everywhere), but also as man in the Eucharist, but in a spiritual and invisible manner.
The tenth passage is John 20: Do not touch me, for I am not yet ascended to my Father. This passage Calvin urges, Book 4, chapter 17, section 29: “The Lord Himself,” he says, “wished to withdraw not only our eyes, but all our senses, from the earth, forbidding Himself to be touched by the women until He had ascended to the Father. Since He sees Mary hasten with pious zeal of reverence to kiss His feet, there is no cause why He should disapprove and forbid this touch until He was received into heaven, except because He wills to be sought nowhere else.”
I answer: So far is it that there is no other cause but that one, that that is not the true cause, and many others can be rendered. For that this is not the true cause is evident from this, that a little after the Lord permitted Himself to be touched, not only by Magdalen, but also by other women, as Matthew has, chapter 28, and Augustine noted, tract 121 on John. As therefore Calvin from the prohibition proves that Christ wills not to be sought or touched except in heaven, so from the permission we prove that He wills to be sought and touched even on earth. Then, if Christ willed not to be sought except in heaven, yet on earth He very often appeared, both before the ascension and also afterward.
But that many causes of that prohibition can be rendered, he will not doubt who has read the Fathers. Chrysostom, homily 83 [86] on John, and Theophylact on this passage, say that Mary wished to approach the Lord familiarly, in her wonted manner, and to embrace Him; but that the Lord forbade this, to indicate that His body, now glorious and immortal, was to be handled with greater reverence than before; and this those words signify: I am not yet ascended, but I go, and so forth; that is, I have not indeed yet ascended, but a little after I am to ascend; for I now have a glorious body, worthy of the heavenly mansion. Whence, when she with the other women a little after adored, and reverently kissed His feet, He is not read to have forbidden them.
Augustine, tract 121 on John, and Leo, sermon 2 On the Ascension, say that Mary bore the type of the Church of the Gentiles; and because Christ was not to show Himself to be seen and touched by the Church of the Gentiles, but only by faith, through the preaching of the Apostles after the ascension, therefore He said: Do not touch me, for I am not yet ascended, and so forth.
The same Augustine in the same place, and Gregory, Book 22 Morals, chapter 29, say that by that touch is signified the touch of faith; and because Mary did not yet believe Christ to be equal to the Father, therefore Christ willed not to be touched by her; and this is signified by those words: For I am not yet ascended; that is, in thy heart I have not yet ascended, in thy opinion I am not with the Father.
Cyril, Book 12, chapter 50 on John, writes that Christ by these words wished to signify that the flesh in the Eucharist ought not to be touched except by pure men, and who have already received the Holy Spirit. And because Mary bore the type of sinners, inasmuch as she wished to touch Him before she had been fully purged by the coming of the Holy Spirit, therefore it was said: Do not touch me.
Bernard, sermon 28 on the Canticle, says this is the sense: Do not touch me, that is, do not prove my resurrection by the judgment of sense, but await the ascension and the coming of the Holy Spirit; for then, strengthened in faith, by faith itself thou shalt far better and more safely know that I have risen than thou canst now by touching.
Another explanation can be added, which to me seems the simplest and most literal: that the touch was not forbidden, but the haste of touching restrained, so that this is the sense: Do not touch me, for I am not yet ascended to my Father, but go to my brethren, and tell them, and so forth; that is: Do not so hasten to touch me, thou shalt still have time enough; for I have not yet departed from you; go first to the Apostles, announce that I have risen, and then thou shalt more conveniently, together with the others, be able to see and touch me. This exposition seems therefore the best, because it coheres most aptly with that cause, For I am not yet ascended, and also with this, that the Lord permitted Himself to be touched by the women and the apostles; nay, He Himself invited them, saying: Handle and see, Luke 24; and to Thomas: Touch my side, John 20. Finally, this explanation overturns the whole foundation of Calvin.
The eleventh passage is Acts 7 and 17: God dwelleth not in temples made with hands; therefore Christ, since He is God, does not remain shut up in individual temples. This argument Peter Martyr uses, in his book against Gardiner, objection 8; but because he had seen that it could easily be solved, he says that this is the force of this argument, and that it is wont to be proposed by his followers in this manner: “God, on account of His immensity, cannot be enclosed in any temple, because He is greater than every temple; therefore neither can the body of Christ, which has the just stature of a man, be enclosed in a pyx, because it is greater than the pyx.”
I answer: Those passages are properly understood of the divinity, which, although it is everywhere, and in a peculiar manner in temples, is yet most truly said not to dwell in temples made with hands; because to dwell signifies need of a place; for those properly dwell in a house who, unless they were there, would be ill; it signifies also comprehension and enclosure in a place. Both repugn to the true God, and yet both belonged to the idols of the Gentiles; therefore Paul, Acts 17, says this, that God dwells not in temples, to distinguish Him from the idols. But although these passages are properly understood of the divinity, yet they suit in their manner also the body of Christ existing in the Eucharist. For although Christ is truly there, yet He is not properly to be said to dwell there, since He Himself needs no roof or house, nor is He so enclosed in one place that He is not also outside that place.
Now to the argument of Martyr I answer: If the proportion be rightly accommodated, the argument is for us, not against us. For just as God, on account of His immensity, is not enclosed in the pyx or the species of bread, yet is truly wholly there; how a human body can not occupy a place, and consequently be contained under the species of a little bread, will be explained in another question; for here it is treated only from the word of God. But the word of God does not have that a great body cannot be in a small place; but rather the contrary, since in Matthew 19 we read that God can make a camel pass through the eye of a needle.
The twelfth passage is 1 Corinthians 10: Our fathers did all eat the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. “But they did not eat the flesh of Christ, nor drink with the bodily mouth, as is known, but by faith only; therefore we too eat and drink by faith only.” This argument Peter Martyr urges, book against Gardiner, part 1, objection 82.
But the solution is easy. For, in the first place, we demonstrated in the disputation on the sacraments in general that Paul does not mean to say that we and the Hebrews ate the same food, but that all those who then lived, both good and bad, ate the same food.
But because Peter Martyr cites Augustine, who on Psalm 76 and tract 26 on John says that we and the Hebrews ate the same food, from this passage of Paul, therefore to Augustine I answer two things. First, that Augustine did not expound this passage in any proper commentary, as Chrysostom, Theophylact, and others did, but only adduced something from this sentence of Paul to his own purpose; therefore it ought not to seem wonderful if in this part, in investigating the literal sense, we prefer Chrysostom and others, who of set purpose expounded this passage, to Augustine treating these words in other places. Certainly Paul most plainly speaks, to the letter, of the same food among all those, but not with us. For according to Augustine, and even the adversaries, not all the Hebrews, but only the good, who understood the symbols, ate the same food with us. But Paul signifies that the good and the bad ate the same; for he subjoins: But with the most of them God was not well pleased. All therefore ate, and yet very many of them pleased not God; namely many bad with the good ate that food. And just as he says, All did eat the same spiritual food, so also he says, All passed through the sea. But certainly all passed through the sea, both bad and good.
I say secondly that the opinion of Augustine is true, although it does not agree to the letter with the passage of Paul; nor yet is it in any way adverse to us. For he says that the Hebrews ate the same food with us; but he explains how the same, namely in signification; because those sacraments and ours signify the same. For so he says, tract 26 on John: “Those were sacraments; in the signs they are diverse, in the thing which is signified they are equal.” And besides they are the same in signification, because ours contain what those signified, as Augustine openly says on Psalm 73, where he says that the old sacraments promised a Saviour, ours give salvation; and on Psalm 77: “The same,” he says, “in mystery was their food and drink, and ours; but the same in signification, not in species; because the same Christ was figured to them in the rock, manifested to us in the flesh.” Where you see that to the Jews Christ is attributed in the rock, to us in the flesh, which that rock figured. Finally, in his book against the letters of Petilian, chapter 37: “One thing,” he says, “is the Pasch which the Jews celebrate of a sheep, another that which we receive in the body and blood of the Lord.” Where you see that, for the sheep which the Jews had, there is attributed to us not bread, but the body and blood of the Lord, which was signified by that sheep. Not, therefore, in Augustine was the food of the Jews and of the Christians the same, as regards the thing itself, but only as regards the signification; in the manner in which the figure and the thing figured are said to be the same, because one is truly what the other is typically.
The thirteenth passage is 1 Corinthians 10 and 11: “Where the Eucharist is several times called bread, even after consecration; therefore the Eucharist is nothing else but bread in fact, and by signification the body of Christ.” This argument, which is common to the adversaries, Peter Martyr uses, book against Gardiner, objection 19.
Some answer that the Eucharist is called bread by a trope, because it is made of bread, or because it was before bread; and they bring many examples of Scripture, as that, Genesis 3, Eve is called the bone of Adam; Exodus 7, the rods changed into serpents are still called rods; that, Matthew 11 [21], the publicans and harlots are said to go before into the kingdom of heaven. But this solution does not seem most solid; for the adversaries could say that not, because somewhere a thing is denominated from that of which it was made, therefore the words are everywhere so to be taken. Secondly, then, it can be said that Scripture ordinarily calls things as they outwardly appear; for so it calls the brazen serpent a serpent; the angels who appeared in human form it calls men; the brazen oxen, golden pomegranates, and like ornaments of the temple it simply calls oxen, pomegranates, and so forth. Since therefore the Eucharist differs in outward form nothing from true bread, what wonder if it be called bread? Thirdly it can be said, and (in my judgment) best, that it is called bread by the Hebrew phrase, because by the name of bread is understood in general all food. And finally, fourthly, that it is called bread because it is not only food, but solid, chief, substantial food, such as wheaten bread is among bodily foods. And that you may see that the argument of the adversaries effects nothing, weigh this, that in chapter 6 of John the body of the Lord is frequently called bread, and yet the adversaries contend that in that chapter the Eucharist is not treated of, and consequently are compelled by bread to understand not material bread, but heavenly food.
The fourteenth passage is Philippians 3: We look for the Saviour, who will reform the body of our lowness, made like to the body of His glory. Hence Calvin makes such an argument, Book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 17, section 29: “Our bodies after the resurrection will have those endowments which the body of Christ now has. But it would be foolish to expect that our bodies can be in several places, or under a little species of bread.”
I answer that the body of Christ being able to be in many places, or under a little species of bread, does not arise from any endowment of a glorious body, but from the infinite power of God. For even before the resurrection of Christ we believe that the body of Christ was in the Eucharist; therefore the glory of the body, which we expect, makes nothing to the point.
The fifteenth passage is Colossians 3: Seek the things that are above, where Christ is sitting at the right hand of God. From this passage Calvin gathers, Book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 17, section 30, that Christ is not to be sought in the bread of the Eucharist; and he adds that not without cause it was instituted in the ancient Church that before the celebration of the mysteries it should be said: “Lift up your hearts.”
I answer: If we feared this argument, I should long ago have bidden farewell to that preface, Lift up your hearts; which nevertheless we diligently frequent, and the adversaries neglect. For although in his book On the Rite of Ministering the Sacraments Calvin bids the minister, in the course of communicating, admonish that the heart is to be held on high, yet he will not have that preface recited with its responses in prescribed words, as the ancients did, Cyprian being witness in his sermon On the Lord’s Prayer, and Augustine in his book On the Gift of Perseverance, chapter 13, and all the Greek liturgies, of James, Basil, Chrysostom, and all the Latin; which we too do at this time.
I answer therefore: “Lift up your hearts” does not signify an elevation to a bodily place; otherwise astronomers would be the most pious of all men, who are always occupied in mind and eyes among the stars; but an elevation from earthly things and the cares of this life to God and to eternal and divine things. Whence, to the priest saying, “Lift up your hearts,” we do not answer, We have them lifted to the firmament, but, “We have them lifted to the Lord.” And certainly those who in this world sought Christ, whether in the manger, as the three Magi, or in the temple, as the Virgin Mother herself, or in the sepulchre, as Magdalen, had their heart on high; who sought Him who is over all things, God blessed forever. And it can be that someone, while he beholds and thinks of the earth, has his heart on high; and on the contrary, while someone beholds and thinks of heaven, has his heart below; if, namely, the former thinks in the earth of the power of God which shines forth there, but the latter in heaven thinks of nothing but the nature and qualities of heaven. So then those who in the Eucharist seek and venerate Christ have their heart on high, if meanwhile they think of Christ Himself, not of the affairs of this life.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XIV. Solvuntur argumenta adversariorum deprompta ex verbo Dei . Nunc laudem solvenda sunt argumenta, quae adversarii ex verbo Dei proferunt, ut probent Christi corpus non esse revera in Eucharistia. Proponam autem argumenta se¬ cundum ordinem librorum Scripturae sacrae, memoriae causa. Primum argumentum sumunt ex illis ver¬ bis Ps. cxiii : Deus autem noster in caelo , et Isai. lxvi : Coelum mihi sedes est (1). Ex his lo¬ cis hoc argumentum instituit Petrus Martyr in lib. contra Gardinerum, par. i. in 8. ob¬ jecto : «Christus ut homo post resurrectionem est in eadem sede cum Patre, quia sedet ad dexteram Dei ; ergo sicut Deus Pater in coelo sedem habet, ibiquh quaerendus est, non in templo, vel pyxide \ ita etiam Christus ; nisi velimus, sedem Dei et coelum in pyxide con¬ tineri. » Respondeo : Argumentum hoc nihil omni¬ no probare, vel potius contrarium probare ejus, quod auctor intendit. Nam licet sedes Dei dicatur coelum, quia in eo loco Deus ma¬ nifestat gloriam regni sui ; tamen etiam ex¬ tra eum locum Deus invenitur, cum sit ubi¬ que, et falsum est Deum non esse quaeren¬ dum, nisi in coelo, cum Actor, xvii. Paulus dicat, ubique posse quaeri, et ir. veniri Deum, quia non longe est ab unoquoque nostrum : in ipso enim vivimus, movemur, et sumus. Eodem igitur modo Christus homo, licet sit in coelo, et ibi sedeat in throno regni, mani¬ festans Angelis et beatis gloriam suam, ta¬ men etiam extra coeli. m esse potest, ubi ipse ^oluerit : non ergo dicimus coelum esse in pyxide, sed Christum in coelo, et extra coelum esse posse. Sed urget Martyr in solutione objecti 48. hoc sophisma : « Christi corpus est in coelo, Christi corpus est in Sacramento, ergo Sacra¬ mentum est in cado. » Et quia responderat Gardinerus vitiosum esse argumentum, cum constet quatuor terminis, iterum Martyr af¬ firmat, non esse nisi tres terminos, videlicet Christi corpus, existens in coelo, existens in sacramento : et duobus aliis argumentis con¬ tendit omnino sequi, ut Sacramentum sit in cado, si corpus Christi est in cado, ut Scriptura dicit, et etiam in Sacramento, ut nos dicimus. Secundum igitur argumentum est : « Esse idem corpus eodem tempore cum Sacramento, et non cum Sacramento, con¬ tradictio est manifesta ; ergo Christi corpus in coelo erit etiam cum Sacramento, proinde Sacramentum erit in cado : nam si sit in calo sine Sacramento, erit eodem tempore cum Sacramento, et non cum Sacramento. » Tertium est in prima figura : «Omne Christi corpus, ve! quidquid est Christi corpus, est in calo. Sed Sacramentum Eucharistiae est Chri ti corpus, ergo Sacramentum Euchari¬ stia est in cado.» Respondeo : In primo argumento' vere sunt quatuor termini, ut Gardinerus dixit. Nam in conclusione : « Ergo Sacramentum est in calo, » non accipitur, existens in Sacramen¬ to, qui fuit tertius terminus in praemissis, sed ipsum sacramentum, qui est quartus termi¬ nus: aliud enim est esse in sacramento, aliud esse Sacramentum. Itaque, vel argumentum est omnino vitiosum, vel ita concludi de¬ buisset, Christi corpus est in calo, Christi corpus est in sacramento ; ergo quod est in sacramento, est in calo ; sive : ergo res exi¬ stens in Sacramento, est res existens in cado. Et hoc est verum, sed non inde sequitur : ergo Sacramentum est in calo; cum aliud sit sacramentum, aliud res existens in sacra¬ mento. Secundum argumentum nihil concludit : quia ex eo quod Christi corpus est in cado, ubi non est sacramentum , non sequitur Christi corpus esse cum sacramento, et non esse cum sacramento : sed tantum sequitur Christi corpus esse in sacramento, et extra sacramentum : vel esse non cum sacramen¬ to ; vel esse cum sacramento, et esse sine sacramento, vel esse non cum sacramen¬ to. Quae omnia sunt vera, et nullo modo contradicentia, cum omnia sint affirmantia : contradicentium enim altera negare, altera affirmare debet. Idem videmus in similibus. Nam ex eo, quod idem Deus eodem tempore est in calo, et in terra, et in codo non est Deus cum terra, nec in terra. est cum cado, non colligimus : ergo Deus est in calo et non est calo, vel est cum calo et non est cum calo, sed solum colligimus : ergo Deus est in calo, et extra calum ; est cum cado, et sine cado. Idem apparet in anima, quae simul est (!) Peal. CXIII, 3; IsaV. LXVI, 1. in capite, et pedibus : cum tamen nec pedes sint in capite, nec caput in pedi¬ bus. Tertium argumentum est quidem in prima figura si accipiatur corpus Christi pro cor¬ pore Christi naturali, et mystico, sed tunc est falsa propositio : « Omne corpus Christi est inccelo ». Nam Ecclesia militans est cor¬ pus Christi, et non in coelo. Si vero accipia¬ tur corpus Christi pro solo naturali corpore tunc vera est propositio, sed non est univer¬ salis, neque argumentum esse potest in pri¬ ma figura. Non enim propositio est universa¬ lis, si signum illud (Omne) addatur ad termi¬ num singularem ; idem enim est : Petrus, et, Omnis Petrus, si de uno tantum loquaris. Praeterea etiam assumptio est falsa. Non enim sacramentum Eucharistiae est corpus Christi, sed continet corpus Christi : sacra¬ mentum enim est signum sensibile. Secundus locus est Malth. xv : Omne quod intrat in os, in ventrem vadit , et in secessum emittitur (1). « Sed corpus Christi non emit¬ titur in secessum, sed solus panis ; ergo non intrat corpus Chrsti in os, sed solus panis. » Argumentum est Petri Martyris in lib. contra Gardinerum i. par. object. 88. Respondeo cum Algero initio secundi libri, ad similia objecta opportuisse quidem aures obturare, et nihil respondere : tamen ob hae¬ reticorum importunitatem, ac ne pusilli scan¬ dalizentur, breviter argumento satisfacien¬ dum. Dico igitur, apud Catholicos quaestio¬ nem esse physicam, quid fiat de speciebus corruptis in stomacho, de qua nos hoc loco non disputamus : de corpore autem Christi, de quo solo disputationem instituimus, nullam esse quaestionem, sed certum esse Christi corpus intrare per os Communicantium, et tamen non emitti in secessum, sed corruptis in stomacho speciebus sine ulla sui laesione desinere ibi esse : sicut ante consecrationem panis, sine ullo detrimento suo ibi non erat. Solum igitur quaestio manet de verbis Do¬ mini, quomodo cum illis cohaereat, quod dicimus ; aliquid per os intrare, et in seces¬ sum non emitti : sed solutio apertissima est. Loquitur enim Dominus de cibis, qui su¬ muntur ad alendum corpus : illi enim ordi¬ narie cum cursum tenent, quem Dominus describit. Quare ipse Dominus post resur¬ rectionem vere comedit, et bibit, ut testan¬ tur omnes Evangelistac in ult. cap. Evangelii, et Petrus Actor, x. et tamen non emisit cibos in secessum, quia non comedit ad nutrien¬ dum corpus, sed ut ex actione illa vitalis manducationis probaret se verum, et vivum corpus habere. Sic igitur corpus Christi, quod a fidelibus manducatur, non ad corpus nutriendum, sed ad animam sustentandam, ut Ambrosius dicit lib. i. de Sacramentis cap. 4. non est necesse ut corporaliter dige¬ ratur, vel in secessum emittatur. Excipit Petrus Martyr, exemplum allatum de Christo comedente post resurrectionem, non esse ad rem, quia Dominus loquebatur Matth. xv. de hominibus mortalibus come¬ dentibus, non de immortalibus. At sicut ipse restringit verba Domini ad manducantes mortales : ita nos restringere possemus ad cibum corruptibilem, quale non est corpus Christi, quod in sacramento* sumimus. Et praeterea exemplum nostrum maxime est ad rem. Nam Dominus si tantum loquebatur de mortalium manducatione, ideo de eis tan¬ tum loquebatur, quia illi soli comedunt, ut nutriantur : quocirca per se loquebatur de omnibus, qui comedunt ut nutriantur, per accidens autem loquebatur tantum de mor¬ talibus. Nam si immortales indigerent nu- tritione, certe etiam ipsi post comestionem digererent cibum, et egererent excrementa : sicut e contrario cum aliquis mortalis come¬ dit, et inde non nutritur, sed evomit quod comederat, quod intravit per os, in seces¬ sum non vadit. Exemplum igitur Christi comedentis post resurrectionem, aptissimum est ad demonstrandum eum solum cibum intrare per os, et in secessum emitti, qui sumitur ad corpus nutriendum. Tertius locus est Matth. xxiv : Si dixerint, vobis : ecce hic, aut illic est Christus, nolite credere (2). « Non igitur creden 'um est, cum dicunt (Papista)) : Ecce in illo altari, aut in illa pyxide est Christus. » Argumentum est ejusdem Petri Martyris in lib. contra Gardi¬ nerum i. par. object. 9. Respondeo : Monet Christus, ut caveamus impostores, qui se nomine Christi vendi¬ tabunt : subjungit enim : Surgent pseudo- christi etc. Sed duabus conditionibus descri¬ bit hos impostores, qua? omnimo repugnant Eucharistia), ut nulla probabilitate trahi possit hic locus ad Eucharistiam. Primo dicit, eos impostores clanculum venturos, non aperte, et manifeste ; ut patet ex illis (1) Matth. XV, 17. — (2) Matth. XXIV, 23. u UBER 1. verbis : Ecce in deserto est , ecce in penetra¬ libus. Unde (ti m opponit his c’anculariis pseudocbristis adventum suum toti orbi terrarum conspicuum, quem com arat ful¬ gori solis ; nemo enim dicit : Hic e.-t sol, aut sol : nam vix apparuit supra horizontem, cum totum hemispherium splendore im¬ plevit, ut non sit opus indicare ubi s:t. Se¬ cundo dicit, eos venturos visibiliter, et more humano loquentes, et tracta t s cum 1 omi¬ nibus. licet in angulis, et pen< tralibus. Nam dicit for.1 homines, qui verbis, et falsis pro¬ digiis dt cipiant. Uterque conditio deest Eu¬ charistiae. Nam in primis non in deserto aut penetralibus, sed in mediis urbibus, in fre- quentissimis templis, in editis, et conspicuis altaribus consecratur, et asse.vatur. Et prae¬ terea licet ita publice in toto mundo Eucha¬ ristia habeatur, et honoretur, tamen Chri¬ stus non visibi iter, nec more humano ibi ad¬ est. neque praedicat, aut nrraeula facit, sed ita est ibi, ac si non esset, quod attinet ad judicium exteriorum sensuum. Sed instat Petrus Martyr : « Licet Christus non loquatur eo loco de Eucharistia, tamen recte affertur iste locus contra Papistas errantes circa Eucharistiam. Nam Christi mens eo loco fuit, admonere fideles, ne temere credendo decipiantur, et pro vero Christo recipiant impostores : at non minus periculum imminet, si Christum in pane esse credant, et creaturam pro creatore adorent. » At probaro debuit, non assumere, idem esse periculum. Siquidem magnum imminet pe¬ riculum, si credamus alicui homini praedi¬ canti in deserto se esse Christum ; cum Dc- minus aperte monuerit, se non venturum more praedicatoris, aut Prophetae clancularii, sed solum more judicis, idque in nubibus coeli manifestissime. Nusquam autem Chri¬ stus monuit, se non futurum invisibiliter in Sacramento : imo contrarium dixit, tum per se, cum ait : Hoc est corpus meum / tum per Ecclesiam, cui ut obediremus, impera¬ vit. Quartus locus est Matth. xxvi : Pauperes semper habebitis vobiscum , me autem non sem- per habebitis (i). Urgent hunc locum vehe¬ menter Calvinus lib. iv. Instit. cap. 17. §20. et Martyr contra Gardinerum in 2. objecto : «Nam si vere Christus est in Eucharistia, inquit Martyr, contraria sententia erit vera, nimirum : Pauperes non semper habebitis. me autem semper habebitis. Nam post re¬ surrectionem non habebimus pauperes, sed in hac vita tantum, atque ita non semper ha¬ bebimus ; Christum autem; et hic in omnibus templis, et in alia vita coelo semper habebi¬ mus.» Et quia Catholici forte respondere pos¬ sent, hic agi de praesentia Christi pauperis, et egentis hominum obsequiis, qualis nunc non habetai a nobis : contra illi probant, Chri¬ stum, hoc lec» se a pauperibus distinxisse, cum ait : Pauperes semper habebitis , me autem non s niper nec loqui eum de obsequio utili; sed de cu’tu, et honore : nam ideo apostoli murmurabant, quia viderant subtractum pretium pauperum necessitatibus, et effu¬ sum in cultum, et honorem quemdam, quo Chiistus non egebat, neque eum requirebat. At ejusmodi cultum adhuc possemus exhi¬ bere Christo praesenti, si in Eucharistia ades¬ set. Quare necesse esse concludunt, ut vel non sit Christus in Eucharistia, vel falsa sint illa verba : Me autem non semper habebitis, id est, ita praesentem, ut rebus pretiosis corpus meum honorare possitis. Addit Martyr Chri¬ stum his verbis aperte notasse Papistarum idololatra m , qui Eucharistiam honorant auro, argento, suffitu, aliisque rebus pretio¬ sis. Denique, tum Calvinus, tum Martyr con¬ firmant expositionem suam ex Augustino qui tract. 50. in Joan. conferens hunc locum : Me autem non semper habebitis , cum illo : Vobiscum sum omnibus diebus ; dicit, priorem locum intelligi de praesentia carnis, poste¬ riorem de praesentia majestatis. Respondeo : Loquitur Dominus de praesen¬ tia sua corporali, ac visibili, et secundum eum statum in quo aliquid utilitatis corpo¬ ralis ab hominibus recipere poterat. Id pa¬ tet, quia loquitur de obsequio a Maria sibi praestito in illa unctione, ac dicit non sem¬ per se ita fore praesentem ut tale obsequium recipere possit. Porro Magdalena unxit cer¬ tam partem corporis, quam videbat : proinde more humano cum ea versabatur Dominus. Praeterea loquitur Dominus de praesentia, qua habemus nobiscum pauperes : id enim requirit antithesis : Pauperes semper habebi¬ tis, me autem non semper, id est, eo modo, quo habetis pauperes, id est, visibiliter, et more humano conversantem. Neque illud Magdalenae obsequium, fuit solius honoris, sed etiam commodi, et utilitatis ; sive respi- ciamus intentionem Mariae, sive intentionem fl) Matth. XXVI, 11. CAPUT XIV. 53 Spiritus sancti illam moventis. Illa enim sine dubio id fecit ad refocillanda Christi membra ex laboribus fatigata : Spiritus sanctus autem intendebat etiam per hocMarise ministerium significare Christi mortem, et sepulturam imminere ; sic enim Dominus ait : Prsevenit. ungere corpus meum in sepulturam. Unctio autem corporum non est tantum honoris, sed e iam utilitatis, quia conservat, et odo¬ rem tribuit. Secundum praesentiam igitur talem, id est, visibilem, et obsequio indigen¬ tem, non habemus nunc Christum : nec tamen carentia hujus praesentiae repugnat praesentiae ejusdem Christi in Eucharistia, quae est invisibilis, et nullo indigens obse¬ quio. Nam si Dominus Lucae ult. dixit : II xc locutus sum vobis, cum adhuc essem vobiscum , ubi significavit, se non esse jam cum illis, quia non versabatur amplius cum eis more humano, licet vere, et visibiliter adesset : quanto magis nos dicere possumus, Chri¬ stum non esse jam nobiscum juxta illud : Me autem non semper habebitis : cum non modo non versetur nobiscum more ' humano, sed ne adsit quidem visibiliter? Exhis ruunt omnia objecta adversariorum. Nam in primis non sunt contrariae sententia, ut Martyr objiciebat : Pauperes semper habe¬ bitis , me autem non semper; et, Pauperes non semper habebitis, me autem semper. Nam si intelligantur de diverso modo praesentiae, ambae sunt verae. Deinde falsum est, quod illi assumebant, posse Christo exhiberi obsequium tale in Eucharistia, qualo exhibuit Maria. Nam (ut paulo ante ostendi) illud obsequium fuit non solius honoris, sed etiam utilitatis ; qualis obsequii nunc Dominus capax non est. Et praeterea illa obsequium praestitit Chr sto visibiliter praesenti, et unxit certa membra, quod nos facere non possumus : imo si quid valeret objectum adversariorum, sequeretur Christum, ne in cmlo quidem nunc esse. Nam etiam in coelo existentem possumus hono¬ rare, auro, argento, suffito, ac similibus rebus, ut honoramus in Eucharistia. Nec enim suffitum adhibemus, ut oblectemus na¬ res Christi, vel aurum, ut oblectemus ejus oculos corporales, sed adhibemus ista extrin¬ secus ad species illas panis, et vini, ut teste- mur pium affectum erga ipsum; sicut etiam facimus, cum ornamus templa, cruces, ima¬ gines , et alia vel loca, vel instrumenta, etiam absente Eucharistia. Quod autem Martyr dicebat , notari a Christo papistarum idololatriam, qui auro honorant Eucharistiam : multo nos melius retorquemus in ipsum. Dominus enim dum factum Mari se laudavit, satis aperte docuit cultum sui corporis anteponendum esse ali¬ quando eleemosynis in pauperes. Et Theo- phylactusincn/?. xiv. Marci scribit, eos Judse Iscariotis socios esse, et cum eo a Domino reprehendi, qui discum aureum, in quo jacere solet Christi corpus in sacra mensa, dant pauperibus, et in viliori vase illud reponunt. Quod tamen intelligitur, quando non ea ur¬ get calamitas pauperum, ut aliter provideri non possit eorum necessitati. Denique ad locum Augustini respondeo : Per carnis praesentiam intelligere Augusti¬ num preesentiam visibilem Christi , more humano inter homines conversantis : ita enim ipse se explicat : « Non semper habebitis, inquit, me vobiscum. Quare? quoniam con¬ versatus est secundum corporis praesentiam quadraginta diebus cum discipulis, et eis deducentibus videndo, non sequendo, ascen¬ dit in coelum. » Et infra : « Habuit illum Ecclesia secundum praesentiam carnis paucis diebus : modo fide tenet, oculis non videt. » Haec ille. Ubi indicat preesentiam carnis vo¬ cari, quando Christus oculis videbatur, quam certe modo non habemus : Nam Christum in Eucharistia fide tenemus, oculis non vide¬ mus. Adde quod Augustinus ibidem non tacuit praesentiam Domini in Eucharistia. Dixit enim nunc adesse tribus modis, per maje¬ statem, per providentiam, et per ineffabilem atque invisibilem gratiam : sub quo ultimo membro, etiam Calvino teste , includitur praesentia Domini per Eucharistiam. Sed in- telligit ipse more suo non de reali praesen¬ tia, sed per signum, aut fidei apprehen¬ sionem. Verum id repugnat eidem Augu¬ stino, qui superius in eodem tractatu scribit, Christum nunc esse praesentem per fidem, per signum Christi id est, per signum cru¬ cis, per Baptismum, et per ,Eucharistiam : ubi distinguit Eucharistiam a signo, et ap¬ prehensione fidei. Ubi etiam notandum est, fidem, signum crucis, et Baptismum non requirere realem preesentiam Christi, ut requirit Eucharistia. Nam fide apprehendimus etiam absentia; signum crucis repraesentare potest etiam ab¬ sentia : in Baptismo adest Christus ut rege¬ nerans, potest autem regenerare, etiamsi corpore absit, quemadmodum sol manens in coelo* gignit herbas in terra. At in Eucha¬ ristia Christus adest, ut cibus reficiens, dum manducatur : non potest autem cibus man¬ ducari, et reficere, nisi reipsa sit prsesens. Quintus locus est Marci ult : Assumptus est in coelum, et sedet ad dexteram Dei. Item. Act. i : Videntibus illis elevatus est , etc. Et Actor, m. Oportet illum ccelum suscipere usque ad tem¬ pus restitutionis omnium. Philip, m. Conver¬ satio nostra in coelis est, unde etiam Salvatorem expectamus (1). Hinc ita argumentatur Calvi¬ nus lib. iv. cap. 17. § 27. « Scriptura te¬ statur Christum, quod attinet ad naturam humanam ascendisse in coelum ; ibique man¬ surum usque ad diem judicii ; et tunc demum, et non ante ad inferiora hsec loca rediturum : non igitur verum est tam soepe descendere, ut sit in Eucharistia, ut Papistae volunt. » Respondeo : Hoc argumentum, quod vide¬ tur adversariis insolubile (unde perpetuo clamant nos destruere unum articulum Sym¬ boli) nullam revera difficultatem habet. Nos enim fatemur Christum, quoad naturam hu¬ manam ascendisse in coelum, ibique nunc esse, et futurum usque ad diem judicii, ne¬ que ante descensurum. At negamus conse¬ quentiam : « Ergo non est vere in Euchari¬ stia. » Non enim ut sit in Eucharistia, debet coelum deserere, aut descendere motu locali : sicut etiam, ut appareret Paulo Act. ix. et Petro cum ei dixit : « Vado Romam iterum crucifigi, » et aliis sanctis frequenter, non ccelum deseruit, sed solum se constituit, ubi voluit, et quomodo voluit. Non igitur de ar¬ ticulo Ascensionis ulla quaestio est ; sed po¬ tius de articulo omnipotentiae, utrum scilicet Christus possit se in pluribus locis consti¬ tuere, et sit vere omnipotens, an id non possit : de qua re suo loco disseremus. «At, inquit Calvinus, e coelo illum expe- ctare jubemur, non igitur in terris quserere.» Respondeo : Expectare jubemur, ut veniat cum gloria reformaturus corpora nostra , mundum judicaturus, etc., cum qua expecta- tione non pugnat invisibilis praesentia ad nos interim reficiendos. Sextus locus est Luc. xxiv : Palpate , et vi¬ dete, quia spiritus carnem, et ossa non habet , sicut me videtis habere (2). Calvinus lib. iv. cap. 17. § 29. ita argumentatur : « Veritas car¬ nis, Christo teste, probatur aspectu, et con¬ tactu. At in Eucharistia nihil videtur, aut tangitur, nisi panis : non igitur ibi caro, sed panis est. » Petrus Martyr in lib. contra Gardinerum objecto 123. alio modo conse¬ quentiam deducit : « Si posset fieri, ut sen¬ sus fallerentur, et aliquid panis videretur, et esset caro, Christi argumentum infirmum fuisset, cum probavit se carnem habere, quia videri, et tangi poterat : potuisset enim responderi, videri quidem sensuum judicio esse carnem, sed tamen aliud quidpiam esse.» Respondeo ad Calvinum, aliud esse affir¬ mative colligere : Hoc palpatur et videtur, ergo corpus est ; aliud negative : Hoc non palpatur, nec videtur, ergo non est corpus. Prior consequentia optima est, quam Domi¬ nus facit : siquidem nullo modo fieri potest, ut res incorporalis videatur, aut tangatur sensibus corporalibus, nec sensus falluntur circa proprium objectum. Itaque necessario quod videtur, et tangitur, corporale est. Posterior consequentia, quam Dominus ne¬ quaquam facit, sed Calvinus facit, mala est. Potest enim fieri, ut verum corpus sit prse- sens, et non tangatur, nec videatur, quia tectum est alio corpore ; vel quia Deus im¬ pedit, ne species sensibiles ad sensus trans¬ mittat : quomodo Luca; iv. ipse transiens per medium illorum ibat, qui eum de monte praecipitare volebant. Et de sancto Gregorio Thaumaturgo scribit Nyssenus in ejus vita; et de S. Felice Nolano Paulinus in natalibus ejus, ita interdum eos persecutoribus occul¬ tatos, ut nulla re interposita praesentes non viderentur, aut sentirentur. Addo etiam, posse divina virtute fieri, ut corpus existat more spirituum indivisibiliter, ut videri ac tangi nullo modo possit; cum tamen fieri nequeat, ut spiritus existat more corporum divisibiliter. Sed de hoc infra dicemus : nunc satis est ostendisse non esse bonam conse¬ quentiam : non videtur, aut tangitur, ergo non est corpus ; licet optima sit : Videtur, et tangitur, ergo corpus est. Jam ad Petrum Martyrem respondeo : Sensus corporales falli non posse circa pro¬ prium objectum ; falli tamen posse circa id, quod latet sub objecto sensuum ; quod tamen magis convenit sensui interno, quam externo. Ssepe enim accidit, ut pictores decipiant oculos, vel imaginationem intuentium, cum aliquid ad vivum exprimunt : quod de illo refertur, qui ita scite uvas depinxit, ut ad illas aves accurrerent, quasi verse essent uvse. Et in Scripturis, qui videbant, et tan- (I) Mare. XVI, 19 : Act. I, 9: HI, 21 ; Philipp. III, 20 — (2) Luc. XXIV, 39. CAPUT XIV. 57 gebant assumpta ab angelis corpora, Genes. xviii. et xix. non fallebantur, cum se corpus videre et tangere credebant : fallebantur ta¬ men, cum se corpus humanum tangere, et videre existimabant. Sic etiam in Eucharis¬ tia, non falluntur sensus nostri, cum nos al¬ bum quid, rotundum, solidum sentire arbi¬ tramur : falluntur tamen cum nobis substan¬ tiam panis, sub illis accidentibus latere de nuntiant. At nonpropterea infirmum fuit ar¬ gumentum Domini, sed efficacissimum. So¬ lum enim probare voluit Dominus, se non esse inane spectrum, aut umbram, seu phantasma, ut Apostoli suspicabantur, sed verum corpus ; id vero ex testimonio sen¬ sus tangendi optime probavit : illud autem corpus esse humanum, vivum, idem quod antea fuerat, non probavit Dominus hoc solo argumento ex tangendi sensu deprompto, quod sine dubio non erat sufficiens; sed multis aliis modis, loquendo, manducando, testimonio Angelorum, miraculo piscium, allegatione Scripturarum etc. Septimus locus estJoan. vi : Spiritus est, qui vivificat, caro non prodest quidquam (1). Hoc est potissimum fundamentum Zwinglii, in lib. de vera, et f Usa religione cap. de Eucha¬ ristia ; hunc enim locum yocat murum ahe- neum, et adamantem infractum. Petrus etiam Martyr in lib. contra Gardinerum ob¬ jecto 34. eodem hoc loco utitur, atque ita argumentum deducit : « Capharnaitae puta¬ bant Christi carnem corporaliter manducan¬ dam, ut nunc arbritrantur Papistse. At Chri¬ stus errorem illorum reprehendit, cum ait : Caro non prodest quidquam : significat igitur Dominus carnem suam non corporaliter manducandam, sed sola fide spiritualiter. » Respondeo : Murum istum non modo non aheneum, aut adamantinum, sed vix luteum dici posse. Nam in primis etiamsi Christus loqueretur de carne sua, et eam diceret ni¬ hil prodesse, non tamen recte colligeremus, non esse veram carnem in Sacramento, id- que propter duas causas. Primo, quia eodem modo concludi posset, non esse panem in Sa¬ cramento : nam si caro Christi non prodest, multo minus panis triticeus proderit. Secun¬ do, qnia si de carne sua hoc Dominus dixis¬ set, certe non intellexisset eam absolute non prodesse, sed non prodesse, si sola sit, id est, absque spiritu eam vivificante, ut exponunt Augustinus et Cyrillus ; alioqui enim si caro Christi non prodesset manducantibus eam, quomodo in eodem capite Dominus dixisset: Qui manducat meam carnem , habet vitam seter - nam? et, Nisi manducaveritis , non habebitis vitam in vobis ? (2) Et denique summa impie¬ tas est negare Christi carnem Divinitati uni¬ tam nihil prodesse, cui totam nostram salu¬ tem B. Paulus tribuit, dum Coloss. i. dicit, nos Deo reconciliatos per carnem Christi. Cum igitur in Sacramento nos esse credamus non nudam carnem, sed unitam divinitati, et per spiritum Dei vivam, et vivificantem , nihil facit contra nos illud : Caro non prodest quidquam. Sed prseterea est alia solutio. Nam verus et litteralis sensus eorum verborum, non est, quod caro Christi, sive substantia carnis non prosit, sed quod carnalis intelligentia non prosit / ut exponunt Ghrysostomus, Theo- phylactus, et Euthymiusin hunc locum : nec- non Origines in lib. m. inepist. ad Romanos , explicans illa verba cap. iii : Ex operibus legis non justificabitur omnis caro (3); et Cyprianus in sermone de Ccena Domini et alii. Vocatur enim eo loco nomine carnis, humana et car¬ nalis cogitatio, ut distinguitur a cogitatione spirituali, et ex fide, atque inspiratione coe¬ lesti excitata. Id probatur primo, quia caro in Scripturis fere ubicumque distinguitur contra spiritum, vel contra aliquid sublimius; non significat substantiam- carnis, sed vel infirmitatem, vel corruptionem, vel (ut dixi) humanam, et car¬ nalem cogitationem ; quee omnia in idem fere incidunt : si quidem ex corruptione est, ut homo humano suo sensu de rebus divinis ju¬ dicare velit. Genes. vi : Non permanebit spiritus meus in homine, quia caro sunt , id est, carna¬ les, infirmi. Matth. xvi : Caro, et sanguis non revelavit tibi , sed Pater meus. Rom. vm : Qui secundum carnem ambulant , et non secundum spiritum ; et, Qui in carne sinit , Deo placere non possunt ; et, Prudentia carnis mors est, prudentia spiritus, vita et pax. Galat. i : Non acquievi carni et sanguini (-4). IIoc ergo modo caro non prodest quidquam, id est, cogitare, et intelligere manducationem carnis Christi humano, et carnali modo, quasi scindenda esset in partes, et coquenda, ac masticanda, et convertenda in propriam substantiam per actionem caloris naturalis. (1) Joan. VI, 64. —(2) Joan. VI. 55 et 56. - (3) Rom. 111, 20. - (4) Gen. VI, 3: Matth XVI, 17 ; Rom. VI II. 5, 0 et 8 ; Galat I, 16. 58 LIBE Ii I. Secundo idem probatur ex occasione, quam habuit Dominus, ut diceret ista verba. Occa¬ sio enim fuit error Capharnaitarum, qui non solum cogitabant, quod Martyr dicit, veram carnem Christi nobis promitti, quod est ve¬ rissimum, sed cogitabant eam manducandam eo modo, quem illis suggerebat proprium judicium , et humanum experimentum, ut Augustinus et alii exponunt, nimirum quo modo comeduntur alia» carnes. Huic enim errori aptissime respondet hcec Domini sen¬ tentia : idem enim est ac si dixisset : Anima¬ lis homo non assequitur divina mysteria. Tertio probatur ex verbis sequentibus ; subjungit enim immediate : Verba quae ego locutus sum vobis, spiritus, et vita sunt (1), id est, sunt verba explicantia, et tradentia res divinas, spirituales, vitam aeternam af¬ ferentes, propterea non debent humano sen¬ su accipi, sed fide, et intelligcntia a Deo in¬ spirata, quasi dicat Dominus: Non mirum est si vos non intelligitis, quia vos humana cogi¬ tatis, et ego loquor divina. Quomodo etiam Joan. iii. cum Dominus loqueretur de my¬ sterio regenerationis, et Nicodcmus cogitaret carnalem quamdam nativitatem ex utero matris, reprehendit eum illis verbis : Qui cie terra est , de terra loquitur ; qui cie coelo venit, super omnes est, id est, tu homo terrenus, terrena cogitas, et loqueris ; ego qui de coelo veni, loquor ea, quae superant captum om¬ nium hominum : et ideo fide divina, non hu¬ mano judicio hic opus est. Idem etiam colli¬ gitur ex aliis sequentibus verbis : Secl sunt quidam ex vobis, equi non credunt. Ista enim verba nullo modo cohaerent cum illa explica¬ tione; Caro non prodest quidquam, id est, non prodest manducare carnem in Sacramento. Quae enim est ista connexio : Non prodest manducare carnem in Sacramento ; sed sunt ex vobis qui non credunt? At cum nostra explicatione aptissime cohaerent. Idem enim est, ac si diceret : Caro non prodest ad cre¬ dendum, sed spiritus fidei : ideo quidam ex vobis non credunt, quia non habent spiritum, sed toti sunt caro, et carnali judicio res divi¬ nas metiuntur. Unde etiam consequenter ad¬ jungit : Proqoterea dixi vobis, quia nemo po¬ test ad me venire, nisi Pater meus traxerit il¬ lum (2). Ubi videmus Dominum semper loqui de intelligentia spirituali, quee datur a Deo iis, qui credunt verbis ipsius, et opponitur humanae cogitationi, et sapientiae. Ubi etiam illud est observandum, istam sententiam: Caro non proclest quidquam, ideo afferri ut murum aheneum contra Sacra¬ mentum ab haereticis, quia vere caro sunt ipsi, et caro non modo non prodest quidquam, sed etiam plurimum obest ; est enim radix, et quasi parens omnium heeresum. Ideo enim haeretici sunt haeretici, quia nolunt subjicere judicium suum verbo Dei, sed humana sua ratione omnia metiri volunt : et praesertim Sacramentarii. Causa enim praecipua cur non credant, est, quia humana ratio, qua sola ducuntur, non assequitur arcana Dei, et ipsi nihil volunt credere, nisi quod intelligunt. Praetexunt quidem Scripturas, sed tota quae¬ stio est de sensu Scripturae in quo asse¬ quendo nolunt illi Ecclesiae acquiescere, ad quam nos Scripturae apertissime mittunt, sed judicio suo niti volunt. Itaque Apostolus Galat. v. inter opera carnis, heereses nu¬ meravit. Octavus locus est Joan. xn : Ubisum ego, illic et minister meus erit (3). a At sancti non sunt in Eucharistia, igitur neque Christus ibi est. » Hoc argumentum satis indicat inopiam solidarum rationum, qua laborant adversarii : neque enim ad has ineptias descenderent, si aliquid solidi proferre possent. Sed tamen respondeo. Primo, Christum non dixisse : Ubicumque ego sum, sed : Ubi ego sum , illic et minister meus erit. Satis igi¬ tur est si sancti alicubi sint cum Christo, etiamsi non sint ubicumque est ipse : alioqui etiam in cruce cum ipso omnes esse debuis¬ sent. Secundo, certum est Christum illis verbis promisisse consortium regni, et glo¬ riae : sic enim ait clarius Joan. xvn : Pater, volo ut ubi sum ego, et isti sint mecum , ut vi¬ deant claritatem 7neam (4). Sed instat Petrus Martyr contra hanc so¬ lutionem in lib. contra Gardinerum objecto 37. «Vel Christus in Eucharistia est in gloria Patris, vel non : Si non est, impie faciunt, qui eum gloria Dei Patris ad haec inferiora devocant. » Respondeo : Sophistice argumentari pseu- domartyrem istum : siquidem Christum in Eucharistia esse in gloria Patris, dupliciter intelligi potest. Uno modo, ut dum est in Eu¬ charistia, videat Deum sancta illa anima, et proinde sit etiam in gloria Patris ; et hoc mo¬ do Christus in Eucharistia est in gloria ; nec enim unquam, aut usquam gloria privatur. (0 Joan. VI, 64. — (2) Joan. III, 31 ; VI, 65 et 44. — (3) Joan. XIF, 26. — (4) Joan. XV, 24. CAPUT XI Y. 39 Altero modo, ut esse in Eucharistia sit illi gloria, et beatitudo ; et hoc modo in Eucha¬ ristia non est in gloria: nec enim species illse sunt gloria Dei 'Patris ; non igitur opus est, ut sancti sint in Eucharistia, ut sint cum Christo in gloria. Addo autem secundum Sanctorum Patrum doctrinam, Christo in Eucharistia existenti adesse semper choros Angelorum, ut aperte testatur Chrysostomus lib. vi. de Sacerdo io , et homil. 63 ad popu¬ lum Antiochenum , et Ambrosius in cap. i. lucx , in illa verba : Apparuit illi Angelus : et Gregorius lib. iv. Dialogor. cap. 58. Nonus locus est Joan. xiv : Relinquo mun¬ dum, et vado ad Patrem (i). Ac ne forte re¬ spondeamus Dominum reliquisse mundum vi¬ sibiliter, sed mansisse tamen in mundo invi¬ sibiliter, occurrit Martyr libro contra Gardi- nerum objecto. 3. ct Calvinus lib. iv. Institu- tionum cap. 17. §. 26. ac probat id non recte posse responderi, quia Dominus in eodem lo¬ co promittit alium Paracletum, id est, Spiri¬ tum sanctum, qui suppleat absenti* sure de¬ fectum. Non autem vere suppleret defectum absentise Christi Spiritus sanctus, nisi is vere, sa’tem ut homo, abesset : si enim totus ■Christus, et ut Deus, et ut homo adest, quor¬ sum eget vicario? Denique notat Calvinus, antitheta esse, Christi ascensum, et descen¬ sum Spiritus sancti : quocirca necesse esse, ut vere ex mundo Christus abierit quoad carnem, si succedere debuit Spiritus san- ctus. Respondeo : Christum reliquisse mundum, quoad conversationem humanam; non enim post mortem suam versatus est in mundo more aliorum hominum : hsec tamen absentia non repugnat praesentiae alterius generis, ut supra diximus, et probavimus ex eo loco Luc. xxiv : ILxc locutus sum vobis cum essem vobiscum (2). Porro, argumentum de adventu Spiritus sancti, aut ego nihil video, aut juvat causam nostram. Nam Spiritus sanctus non promitte¬ batur, ut suppleret omnem Christi praesen¬ tiam ; ipse enim ibidem dicit : Non relinquam vos orphanos , veniam ad vos ; et Matth. ult. Vobiscum sum usque ad mundi consummatio¬ nem ; et Joan. I. In mundo erat (3). Solum ergo supplere debuit praesentiam Christi inter homines humano more conversantis. Quia enim Apostoli carituri erant conspectu Christi, et concionibus, atque exemplis ejus ; egebant majori gratia interna, quae supple¬ ret externam illam consolationem, et auxilia: atque hoc est, quod eis Christus promisit, cum alium Paracletum promisit. Quod certe nihil facit contra praesentiam Christi in Eu¬ charistia : sic enim ibi praesens est Christus, ut eum nec videamus, nec audiamus, neque nobiscum humano more conversetur. Denique illa antithesis ascensus Christi, ct descensus Spiritus sancti, videtur etiam contra Calvinum. Nam sicut Spiritus sanctus vere descendit, et tamen in coelo etiam man¬ sit ; ita Christus vere ascendit, et tamen vere etiam mansit nobiscum, non solum ut Deus (quomodo ubique est) sed etiam ut homo in Eucharistia, sed modo spirituali et invisi¬ bili. Decimus locus est, Joan. xx : Noli me tan¬ gere ; nondum enim ascendi ad Patrem meum (4). Urget hunc locum Calvinus lib. iv. cap. 17. § 29. « Dominus, inquit, ipse non oculos tantum, sed omnes sensus nostros e terra subducere voluit, se tangi a mulieribus vetans, donec ascendisset ad Patrem. Cum pio reverenti* studio Mariam videat prope¬ rare ad osculandos pedes, cur tactum hunc improbet, ac prohibeat, donec in coelum re¬ ceptus fuerit, nulla causa est, nisi quia nusquam alibi vult quseri. » Respondeo : Tantum abest, ut nulla sit alia causa, nisi ista ; ut ista non sit vera causa, et multee 'alite reddi possint. Istam enim veram causam non esse, perspicuum est ex eo, quod paulo post permisit Dominus se tangi, non modo a Magdalena, sed etiam ab aliis mulieribus, ut Matthseus habet cap. xxviii. ct Augustinus notavit tract. 121. in Joan. Sicut ergo Calvinus ex prohibitione probat, Christum nolle qu*ri, aut tangi, nisi in coelo ; ita ex permissione nos probamus velle quaeri, et tangi etiam in terra. Deinde si Christus noluisset quieri, nisi in coelo ; at in terra soepissime apparuit, tum ante ascensio¬ nem, tum etiam postea. Multas autem causas illius prohibitionis reddi posse non dubitabit, qui Patres legerit. Chrysostomus hom. 83. in Joan. et Theophy- lactus in hunc locum dicunt, Mariam voluis¬ se solito sibi more familiariter ad Dominum accedere, cumque complecti : Dominum au¬ tem id prohibuisse, ut indicaret corpus suura (1) Joan. XVII, 28. — (Q Luc. XXIV, 44. — (3) Joan. X1Y, 18 ; Matth. XXVIII, 20 : Joan. I, 10. — f4) Joan. 20, i7. eo LIBER L jam gloriosum et immortale, majori reveren¬ tia tractandum, quam antea; et hoc signifi¬ cant illa verba : Nondum ascendi , sed vado etc. id est nondum quidem ascendi, sed paulo post ascensurus sum: jam enim corpus habeo gloriosum, et dignum coelesti mansio¬ ne. Unde cum ipsa cum aliis mulieribus paulo post adoraret, et pedes reverenter o- scularetur, non legitur eas prohibuisse. Augustinus tract. 121. in Joannem , et Leo serm. 2. de Ascensione dicunt, Mariam typum gessisse Eccleske Gentilium, et quia Christus non se ostensurus erat videndum, et tangen¬ dum Ecclesiae Gentium, sed tantum fide, per Apostolorum praedicationem post ascensio¬ nem, ideo dixisse : Noli me tangere, nondum enim ascendi etc. Idem Augustinus ibidem, et Gregorius lib. XXVI. Moral. cap. 29. dicunt, per illum con¬ tractum significari contractum fidei : et quia Maria nondum credebat Chrisium esse Patri aequalem, ideo Christum noluisse ab ea tangi ; et hoc significari illis verbis : nondum enim ascendit; id est, in corde tuo nondum ascen¬ di, opinione tua non sum cum Patre. Cyrilluslib. xu. cap. 50. in Joannem scribit Christum voluisse his verbis significare car¬ nem in Eucharistia non debere tangi, nisi ab hominibus puris, et qui jam 'acceperint Spiritum sanctum. Et quia Maria typum gerebat peccatorum, quatenus tangere eum voluit, antequam per adventum Spiritus sancti plane purgata luisset, ideo dictum esse : Noli me tangere. Bernardus serm. 28. in Cantica , dicit hunc esse sensum : Noli me tangere , id est, noli judicio sensum probare meam resurrectio¬ nem, sed expecta ascensionem, et adventum Spiritus sancti ; tunc enim roborata in fide, ipsa fide longe melius, ct tutius cognosces me resurrexisse, quam nunc possis tangendo. Addi potest alia explicatio, quae mihi vi¬ detur simplicissima, et litteralis maxime ; non prohibitum contactum, sed cohibitam festinationem tangendi, ut hic sit sensus : Noli me tangere , nondum enim ascendi ad Pa¬ trem meum , sed vade ad fratres meos , et dic eis etc. hoc est: Noli ita festinare ad me tan¬ gendum, adhuc satis temporis habebis ; non¬ dum enim recessi a vobis : vade prius ad Apostolos, nuntia me resurrexisse, et tunc commodius poteris una cum aliis me videre, et tangere. Ista expositio, ideo videtur op¬ tima, quia cohaeret aptissime cum illa cau¬ sa : Nondum enim ascendi , et etiam cum eo, quod Dominus se tangi permisit a mulieri¬ bus, et apostolis; imo ipse invitaverit eos, dicens : Palpate et videte , Luc. xxiv. et Thomae : Tange latus meum , Joan. xx. De¬ nique ista explicatio totum Calvini funda¬ mentum evertit. Undecimus locus est Actor, vn. et xyii. Deus non in manu factis templis habitat : non igitur manet inclusus Christus , cum sit Deus , in singulis templis (I). Utitur hoc argumento Petrus Martyr in lib. contra Gardinerum ob¬ jecto 8. sed quia viderat facile solvi posse, dicit hanc esse vim hujus argumenti, et hoc modo a suis proponi solere : « Deus ob suam immensitatem non potest ullo templo con¬ cludi, quia est major omni templo : ergo ne¬ que corpus Christi, quod justam hominis sta¬ turam habet, poterit includi in pyxide, quia majus est pyxide. » Respondeo : Loca illa intelliguntur pro¬ prie de divinitate, quse licet sit ubique, et peculiari modo in templis, dicitur tamen ve¬ rissime non habitare in templis manufactis ; quia habitare significat indigentiam loci : illi enim proprie habitant in domo, qui nisi ibi essent, male essent ; significat etiam com¬ prehensionem, et conclusionem in loco. Utrumque repugnat Deo vero, et tamen utrumque conveniebat idolis Gentilium; idcir¬ co Paulus Actor, xyii. hoc dicit, Deum non habitare in templis, ut distingueret eum ab idolis. Quamvis autem haec loca proprie de divinitate intelligantur ; tamen conveniunt suo modo etiam corpori Christi in Euchari¬ stia existenti. Etsi enim est ibi vere Chri¬ stus, tamen non proprie habitare ibi dicen¬ dus est, cum non indigeat ipse tecto, aut do¬ mo ulla, nec concludatur ita uno in loco, ut non sit etiam extra eum locum. Jam ad argumentum Martyris respondeo : Si recte accommodetur proportio, argumen¬ tum esse pro nobis, non contra nos. Nam sic¬ ut Deus ob suam immensitatem non con¬ cluditur in pyxide, aut speciebus panis, ta¬ men totum ibi revera est. Quomodo autem possit corpus humanum non occupare locum, et proinde sub specie modici panis contineri, in alia quaestione explicabitur : hic enim so¬ lum ex verbo Dei agitur. Verbum autem Dei non habet, non posse magnum corpus esse in parvo loco : sed contrarium potius, cum (1) Act. VII, 48 : XVil, 24. CAPUT XIV. 6 i ' Matth. 7. legamus posse Deum facere, ut transeat camelus per foramen acus. Duodecimus locus est I Corinth. x : Patres nostri eamdem escam spiritualem manducave¬ runt, et eumdem potum spiritualem bibe¬ runt (1). « At illi non manducarunt car¬ nem Christi, nec biberunt ore corporali, ut notum est, sed fide tantum : igitur etiam nos fide tantum manducamus, et bibimus . » Hoc argumentum urget Petrus Martyr lib. contra Gardinerum , par. i. objecto 8:2. Sed facilis solutio est. Nam in primis de¬ monstravimus in disputatione de sacramen¬ tis in genere, non velle Paulum dicere eam¬ dem escam nos et Hebraeos comedisse, sed eamdem escam comedisse omnes illos, qui tunc vi\ebant, tum boni, tum mali. Quia vero citat Augustinum Petrus Mar¬ tyr, qui in Psalm. lxxvi. et tract. 26. in Jo- annern dicit, eamdem escam nos, et Hebraeos comedisse ex hoc loco Pauli : ideo ad Au¬ gustinum duo quaedam respondeo. Primo, Augustinum non exposuisse hunc locum in commentario aliquo proprio, sicut fecerunt Chrysostomus, Theophylactus, et alii ; sed solum adduxisse ad suum propositum ali¬ quid ex hac Pauli sententia, propterea non mirum videri debere, si anteponimus in hac parte in sensus litteralis investigaitione Chry- sostomum, et 'alios, qui ex proposito hunc locum exposuerunt, Augustino tractanti haec verba in alienis locis. Certe Paulus apertissi¬ me ad litteram loquitur de esca eadem inter omnes illos, non autem nobiscum. Nam se¬ cundum Augustinum, et etiam adversarios, non omnes Hebraei, sed boni duntaxat, qui symbola intelligebant , eamdem nobiscum escam manducarunt. At Paulus significat bo¬ nos, et malos eamdem manducasse ; sub¬ jungit enim : Sed non in pluribus eorum beneplacitum est Deo : omnes ergo mandu¬ carunt, et tamen plurimi eorum non placue¬ runt Deo, qui nimirum vmulti mali cum bonis illam escam manducabant. Et sicut dicit : Omnes eamdem escam spiritualem manduca¬ runt ; ita etiam dicit : Omnes mare transie¬ runt. At certe mare transierunt omnes, et mali, et boni. Dico secundo, veram esse Augustini sen¬ tentiam, licet Pauli loco ad litteram non con¬ veniat : nec tamen nobis ullo modo adver¬ sari. Nam dicit ipse, eamdem nobiscum es¬ cam manducasse Hebraeos; sed explicat quo¬ modo eamdem, nimirum significatione : quia idem significant sacramenta illa, et nostra. Sicenim ; it tract. 62. in Joan. « Sacramenta illa fuerunt, in signis diversa sunt, in re quae significatur paria sunt. » Et praeterea eadem sunt significatione, quia nostra conti¬ nent, quod illa significant, ut aperte Augu¬ stinus, ait in Psalm. lxxiii. ubi dicit, sacra¬ menta vetera promisisse salvatorem, nostra dare salutem, et in Psalm. lxxv : eidem, inquit, in mysterio cibus, et potus illorum, et noster; sed significatione idem, non specie; quiaidemipse Christus illis in petra figuratus, nobis in carne manifestatus. Ubi vides, Judaeis tribui Christum in petra, nobis in carne, quam nimirum petra illa figurabat. Denique lib. contra litteras Petili ani cap. 37. « Aliud, inquit, est Pascha, quod Juda3i de ove celebrant, aliud quod nos in corpore, et sanguine Domini accipimus.» Ubi vides, pro ove, quam habebant Juclsei, nobis non tribui panem, sed corpus, et sanguinem Domini, qum ove illa significabatur. Non igitur apud Augustinum eadem erat esca Judaeorum, ct Christianorum, quoad rem ipsam, sed solum quoad significationem : quomodo dicuntur idem esse figura, et figuratum, quia unum est vere, quod alterum est typice. Decimus tertius locus est I Corinth. x. et xi. « Ubi aliquoties Eucharistia vocatur panis, etiam post consecrationem : nihil igitur aliud est Eucharistia, nisi panis reipsa, significa¬ tione autem corpus Christi. » Utitur hoc ar¬ gumento, quod est commune adversariorum, Petrus Martyr lib. contra Gardinerum , ob¬ jecto 19. Respondent nonnulli, Eucharistiam vocari panem per tropum, quia fit ex pane, sive quia antea fuit panis : et afferunt multa exempla Scripturae, ut quod Genes, m. Eva dicitur os Adarni : Exodi vii. virgae conversae in dracones, adhuc vocentur virgae : quod Matth. xi, dicantur publicani, et meretrices praecedere in regnum coelorum. Sed haec solutio non videtur solidissima : possent enim adversarii dicere, non ideo, quia ali¬ cubi res denominatur ab eo, unde facta est, ubique ita accipienda esse vocabula. Se¬ cundo igitur dici potest, Scripturam vocare ordinarie res ut exterius apparent; sic enim serpentem aeneum vocat serpentem: angelos, qui apparebant in forma humana, vocat viros; boves aeneos, malogranata aurea, et similia (I) I Cor. X. 3. LIBER I. (32 ornamenta templi simpliciter vocat boves, malogranata etc. Quoniam igitur Eucharistia forma exteriore nihil differt a vero pane, quid mirum si vocatur panis? Tertio dici potest, et (meo judicio) optime, vocari pa¬ nem phrasi hebraica, quia nomine panis intclligitur generatim omnis cibus. Et deni¬ que quarto vocari panem, quia non solum est cibus, sed est cibus solidus, prajeipuus, substantialis, qualis est panis triticeus inter cibos corporales. Ac ut videas argumentum adversariorum nihil efficere, illud perpende, in 6. cap. Joannis, corpus Domini frequenter vocari panem, et tamen adversarii conten¬ dunt in eo capite non tractari de Eucharistia, ac proinde coguntur per panem non intelli- ge re panem materialem, sed cibum coelestem. Decimus quartus locus est Philip, m. Sal¬ vatorem expectamus , qui reformabit corpus humilitatis nostra?, configuratum corpori clari¬ tatis suae (1). Hinc tale argumentum facit Calvinus lib. iv. Institui, cap. 17. §. 29. « Corpora nostra post resurrectionem habe¬ bunt eas dotes, quas nunc habet corpus Christi. At stultum esset cxpectare, ut nostra corpora esse possint in pluribus locis, vel sub modica panis specie. » Respondeo quod Christi corpus esse possit in multis locis, aut sub modica specie panis non oritur ex aliqua dote corporis gloriosi, sed ex infinita Dei potentia. Nam etiam ante Christi resurrectionem credimus, Christi corpus fuisse in Eucharistia; nihil igitur ad rem facit gloria corporis, quam exspectamus. Decimus quintus locus est Coloss. m: Quae sursum sunt quaerite , ubi Christus est in dex¬ tera Dei sedens (2). Ex hoc loco Calvinus colligit lib. iv. Instit. cap. 17. §. 30. Chri¬ stum non esse quaerendum in pane Euchari¬ stia! : et addit, non sine causa, in antiqua Ec¬ clesia fuisse institutum, ut ante mysteriorum celebrationem diceretur : « Sursum corda. » (1) Philipp. III, 20 et 21. — ( ) Coloss. 111, 1. Respondeo : Si timeremus hoc argumen¬ tum , jam cludum valere jussissem illam praefationem : Sursum corda; quam tamen non diligenter frequentamur, et adversarii negligunt. Tametsi enim in libro de ritu Sa¬ cramentorum ministrandorum jubet Cal¬ vinus, ut condonator inter condonandum moneat, sursum cor esse habendum ; tamen non vult praescriptis verbis recitari praefatio¬ nem illam cum suis responsionibus, ut vete¬ res faciebant, testo Cypriano in serm. de orat. Domin. et Augustino lib. de bono persever. cap. 13. et omnibus Grcecis liturgiis, Jacobi, Basilii, Chrysostomi, et omnibus Latinis ; id quod etiam hoc tempore nos facimus. Respondeo igitur : « Sursum corda non significare elevationem ad locum corpora¬ lem : alioqui astrologi piissimi essent om¬ nium hominum , qui ' semper versantur animo, et oculis inter sidera : sed elevatio¬ nem a rebus terrenis et curis hujus vitee ad Deum, et res aeternas, et divinas. Unde, sa¬ cerdoti dicenti : «Sursum corda», non re¬ spondemus, Habemus ad firmamentum, sed « Habemus ad Dominum. » Et certe, qui in hoc mundo Christum quaerebant, vel in prae- sepi, ut tres magi, vel in templo, ut ipsa Virgo mater, vel in sepulchro, utMagdalena; sursum cor habebant ; qui illum quaerebant, qui est super omnia Deus benedictus in sm- cula. Et potest fieri, ut quis dum terram in¬ tuetur, et cogitat, cor habeat sursum ; et contra, dum quis coelum intuetur, et cogitat, cor habeat deorsum ; si nimirum ille in terra cogitet Dei potentiam, quae ibi relucet; hic autem in coelo nihil cogitet, nisi naturam, et qualitates coeli. Sic igitur qui in Eucharistia Christum quierunt, et venerantur, sursum cor habent, si de ipso Christi, non de ne¬ gotiis hujus vitee, interim cogitent. i