Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book II: On the Real Presence, from the Testimonies of the Fathers
Chapter 9: The Testimony of St. Cyprian
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. IV, De Sacramento Eucharistiae, Book II: On the Truth of the Body of the Lord in the Eucharist, from the Testimonies of the Fathers. 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).
The third witness in the same third age is Saint Cyprian, who suffered in the year of the Lord 259, or thereabouts. He, then, in sermon 5, which is On the Lapsed, reproving those who, after having denied Christ, approached the Sacrament of the Eucharist, not first cleansed by due penance, says: “Violence is done to His body and blood; and now they offend more against the Lord with their hands and mouth than when they denied the Lord.” So he. But surely it seems incredible that Cyprian held it to be a greater sin to touch with unworthy hands some sign or figure representing Christ than to deny Christ Himself. For who would so desire as to say that he sins more grievously who touches the book of the Gospel, or an image of the Crucified, with a conscience of sin, than he who denies Christ before a persecutor? Cyprian means, therefore, that those who receive the Eucharist unworthily injure the very person of Christ in Himself and immediately, and on that account sin most grievously, and more grievously (at least in this respect) than those do who, by denying Christ, sin against His faith and honor. In the same place Saint Cyprian narrates four miracles which had been wrought upon those who wished to handle the body of the Lord with unworthy hands, which sufficiently and abundantly prove that the Eucharist is not only a sign of the Lord’s body, since no such miracles are read to have been wrought upon those who unworthily handled other signs, especially since those of whom Cyprian speaks did not approach the Sacrament out of contempt or hatred of Christ.
There exists among the works of Cyprian a sermon On the Supper of the Lord, which, although it does not seem to be of Cyprian the bishop of Carthage, of whom we now treat, yet is altogether of some ancient, most learned, and most holy Father, as the adversaries confess. Thence, then, we shall seek, under the name of Cyprian, two or three most clear testimonies. The first is at the beginning of the sermon: “The supper being arranged, amid the sacramental feasts the old and new institutions met one another; and, the lamb which the ancient tradition set forth being consumed, the Master sets before the disciples an inconsumable food.” Of this passage we disputed above, where we treated of the figures of this Sacrament, and showed against Peter Martyr that by the inconsumable food cannot be understood bread, which is no less consumed than the lamb; nor the body of Christ as it is eaten by faith alone, because in that manner the Jews would have had the same food in the paschal lamb which we have in the Eucharist, and therefore Cyprian would not rightly oppose the consumable food given to the Jews to the inconsumable food which is given to the Christians.
The second testimony is had a little below: “This bread,” he says, “which the Lord held out to the disciples, changed not in form but in nature, was by the omnipotence of the Word made flesh; and just as in the person of Christ the humanity appeared and the divinity lay hidden, so into the visible sacrament the divine essence ineffably infused itself.” This testimony admits no solution, though the adversaries have often attempted to answer it.
Peter Martyr answers, then, in part 2 of his book against Gardiner near the end, and again in part 4 of the same book, that the bread is changed because from profane it becomes sacred, and from a non-sacrament a sacrament. And he says it is changed not in form but in nature, because that new sacramental signification accrues not to the accidents of the bread, which are called by Cyprian the ‘form’, but to the very nature and substance of the bread. For there is an analogy between the bread and the body of Christ, that as the bread nourishes bodies, so the flesh of Christ nourishes souls; now to nourish pertains to the substance, not to the accidents. And he adds (lest we be deceived) that the substance or nature of the bread is changed, not that it ceases to be what it was, but that it acquires something which it had not; just as a man is said to be changed when from a non-grammarian he becomes a grammarian, and from a private man a prince.
But this solution is easily refuted from nearly all the words which Cyprian uses. First, from that, “not in form.” For if this change is nothing else but the addition of a signification, not only the nature of the bread but also the form is changed; nay, the form rather than the nature; since that which properly signifies is some sensible sign, such as are the accidents of the bread; why then does Cyprian say, “changed not in form but in nature”?
Martyr answers that the substance of bread is sensible through its accidents, and that to it properly belongs that analogy of nourishment.
But although the substance is sensible through the accidents, yet to be a sign belongs more to the accidents than to the substance; for a sign is that which of itself and immediately is perceived by the senses. Nor is it true that that analogy of nourishment is in the substance and not in the accidents; both because the substance without the accidents does not nourish; and especially because, for something to be a sign of spiritual nourishment, it is not required that it be able truly to nourish bodily, but it is required that it represent by its external appearance that thing which is wont to nourish. For the brazen serpent was a true figure of Christ crucified, on account of the analogy between the serpent and Christ; and yet that brazen serpent had not true substance, but only the figure of a serpent. And the fiery tongues which appeared over the Apostles most rightly signified the gift of eloquence divinely given to the Apostles, on account of the analogy between the tongue and that gift; and yet those tongues had not substance, but only the figure of a tongue. Finally, in all the visions of the Prophets, and in the dreams divinely sent to Pharaoh, Nabuchodonosor, and others, and in the whole Apocalypse, very many signs of other things are described, on account of the analogy between natural and divine things; and yet those signs had not the substance of the natural things, but only the external figure. So then the accidents of the bread are properly signs of the body of the Lord, on account of the analogy between the bread and Christ; but it is by accident that under those accidents there be, or be not, the substance of bread; no cause, therefore, can be rendered why Cyprian said that the bread is changed not in form but in nature, if to be changed is to acquire a new signification.
Secondly, it is refuted from that word, “but in nature.” For Cyprian did not say that the nature of the bread is changed, as Martyr seems to have taken it, but that the bread is changed in nature; and for the bread to be changed in nature is for the bread to be changed naturally, that is, substantially; for that in that place ‘nature’ is taken for substance the adversary confesses. But to acquire a new signification is not to be changed substantially, but only accidentally; nay, not even accidentally, except according to reason, since that signification is a relation of reason.
But Peter Martyr says, “The bread is changed not only because it acquires a new signification, but also because it is made an instrument of God to move our souls.” But if you ask how the sacraments are instruments of God to move souls, he can answer nothing but: by signifying, by representing; for they attribute to the sacraments no true efficiency, as we demonstrated above.
Thirdly, it is refuted from those words: “by the omnipotence of the Word.” For what omnipotence is required to make nothing? But Peter Martyr says that omnipotence is required because God alone can institute sacraments. On the contrary; for omnipotence is required in Him who institutes the sacraments, that He may truly accomplish what the sacraments signify, that is, justify man. But no omnipotence is required to make some thing signify; for that even men can do. Now Cyprian places the omnipotence of God not in accomplishing what the sacraments signify, but in the change of the bread into flesh; for he says: “By the omnipotence of the Word it was made flesh.”
Fourthly, from that similitude: “Just as in the person of Christ the humanity appeared, the divinity lay hidden, so into the visible sacrament the divine essence ineffably infused itself.” Where Cyprian does not say, what the adversaries gather from this passage, that in the Sacrament there are two natures, as there are in Christ, and consequently that the nature of the bread remains; but he says that under the visible species of bread the true God lies hidden, as He lay hidden under the visible species of the flesh of Christ while He conversed on earth. And lest anyone say that in the sacrament God lies hidden by representation alone, he adds the adverb ‘ineffably’, whereby it is declared that here there underlies a very great and most difficult mystery; but there is no difficulty in this, that the bread signifies Christ.
The third testimony is in the same sermon: “New is the doctrine of this Sacrament, and the schools of the Gospel first brought forth this teaching; and with Christ as teacher this discipline first became known to the world: that Christians should drink blood, whose eating the authority of the ancient law most strictly forbids; for the law forbids the eating of blood, the Gospel commands that it be drunk.” So he. Where, unless he speaks properly of blood, he says nothing at all; for the old law did not forbid blood taken figuratively; nay, the Hebrews, in the drink of the water gushing from the rock, drank the blood of Christ figuratively, as now the Sacramentarians say they do in the Eucharist.
But now the testimonies must be brought forward which Peter Martyr adduces from Cyprian in his book against Gardiner, objection 170 and the following nine; for he himself collected all the passages which are wont to be cited by others. First, then, from that same sermon On the Supper of the Lord he brings forward those words: “Even until today He creates, and sanctifies, and blesses this most true and most holy His body, and divides it to those who piously receive.” In which place the adversaries seize for themselves that, “creates, sanctifies, blesses, divides”; for all these belong to bread, not to the very true body of Christ.
I answer: Cyprian wished to allude to the canon of the Mass, where after the consecration of the bread we say: “Through whom Thou dost ever create, sanctify, quicken, bless, and bestow upon us all these good things.” Now both in the words of the canon and in the words of Cyprian, that “Thou createst, sanctifiest, blessest” is referred to the matter from which the body of Christ is confected; for we give thanks to God that through Christ He first creates the bread for us, then through the same sanctifies and blesses it, by converting it into His body, and so bestows it upon us. And so that sentence, “Christ creates, sanctifies, divides His body,” is like as if someone said of bread: This bread is first sown, then reaped, then ground, baked, and at length eaten. For the sense would not be that the bread under the form of bread is sown, reaped, ground, and so forth, but that, as regards the matter from which it is made, it is first sown, then reaped, and so forth. And that Cyprian speaks of the true body, not of a sign of the body, which he says is divided, that is, distributed to us, after the bread is created and sanctified, is clear from that adjunct, “most true”; for that cannot be called most true which is a body only figuratively.
The second testimony from the same sermon: “This common bread, changed into flesh and blood, procreates life and increase for bodies; and therefore, from the accustomed effect of things, the weakness of our faith, aided, is taught by a sensible argument that in the visible Sacraments there is the effect of eternal life.” So he. Hence Peter Martyr deduces that the bread of the Eucharist, even after the sacramental change, nourishes our bodies, and is true bread, and is called the body of Christ from that analogy of nourishment, and so forth.
I answer: In this place Peter Martyr errs by the whole heaven. Nor does Cyprian speak of the bread of the Eucharist when he says it is “changed into flesh” and nourishes our bodies; but he renders the reason why from common bread the Eucharist is made, and why sometimes the body of Christ is called bread. And he says the reason is that, just as common bread, that is, truly material and wheaten, while it is changed into our flesh and blood by the natural action of natural heat, nourishes and increases us, so the body of Christ spiritually nourishes and increases us. And so he speaks not of a sacramental nourishing, when he says, “common bread changed into flesh and blood,” but of the natural change which is made in us when we are nourished by food.
The third testimony, from the end of the same sermon: “As often as we do these things, we do not sharpen our teeth to bite, but with sincere faith we break the holy bread.”
I answer: By these words Cyprian declares that the fruit of the Sacrament consists not in delighting or fattening our body, but in nourishing and refreshing the soul. For not all who wish to take something by the instrument of the mouth are said to sharpen their teeth, but those who eagerly desire to take it that they may delight the palate. Certainly those who are bidden to eat a bitter medicine are not said to sharpen their teeth, because they take it not to be delighted by that food, but receive it unwillingly, that they may be healed.
The fourth testimony is from the same sermon, where we read: “For the Son alone is consubstantial to the Father, nor is the substance of the Trinity divisible or partible; but our conjunction with Him neither mixes the persons nor unites the substances, but associates the affections and confederates the wills.” So he. From which passage Peter Martyr gathers that there is between us and Christ no bodily union, but only a spiritual one; and consequently that the body of Christ is eaten by us not with the body, but with the spirit alone.
I answer: Cyprian speaks of that union which is the proper and principal end of the Eucharist; and he denies that Christ is so united to us through the Eucharist that we become with Him one person, as happens in the mystery of the Incarnation; or that we become one nature, in the manner in which the Father is one with the Son in the secret of the Trinity; and he affirms only that we are united to Christ by the affections and the confederation of the will. Now the bodily union, such as is between us and the body of Christ through the Eucharist, Cyprian neither denies, because it really comes about, nor asserts, because that union is not the end of the Eucharist, but rather a means. For that union can be found even in the wicked; and it harms, does not profit, when it does not lead to the spiritual union, which is the true end of this Sacrament.
The fifth testimony, from the same sermon: “That we might know,” he says, “that our abiding in Him is an eating.” And below: “The eating, then, of this flesh is a certain eagerness and desire of abiding in Him.” And below: “What food is to the flesh, that faith is to the soul.”
I answer: Cyprian by these words speaks of the effect of the Sacrament; for this is to eat the flesh of Christ, as to the effect and fruit, to abide in Him through faith and charity. This testimony, however, not Peter Martyr, but certain others are wont to adduce.
The sixth testimony Peter Martyr takes from the sermon On the Anointing of Chrism: “Our Lord gave, at the table at which He shared the last banquet with the Apostles, bread and wine; but on the cross He delivered His body to be wounded by the hands of the soldiers; that the sincere truth and true sincerity, more secretly impressed on the Apostles, might expound to the nations how wine and bread were flesh and blood, and by what reasonings the causes agreed with the effects, and the diverse names or species were reduced to one essence, and the signifying and the signified were reckoned by the same words.” From this passage the adversary gathers that only bread and wine, as opposed to the true body dead on the cross, are in the Eucharist; and therefore that the bread is called body and the wine blood, because they signify, and the others are signified.
I answer: The words of Cyprian are not without obscurity; yet rightly weighed, they favor the Catholics, not the heretics. First, then, when Cyprian says that Christ at the table gave the Apostles bread to eat, but on the cross gave His body to the soldiers to be wounded, he opposes not the bread to the body, but the body under the species of bread to the same body in its own species; or the body as food, to the same body as victim. This is clear, first, because the same author in the earlier sermon taught in express words that the bread is changed in nature and becomes flesh by the omnipotence of the Word. Then, the same is clear because in that whole sermon this author treats of the excellence of the Christian religion above the Jewish, comparing the sacraments on either side; but certainly it pertains nothing to this excellence that we have mere bread in the Sacrament.
Besides, Cyprian immediately explains why the Lord gave bread and wine in the supper; and his reason does not cohere well unless by bread and wine we understand the body and blood under the species of bread and wine. The reason which he subjoins has four members; for he says that the Lord gave bread and wine, that the Apostles, secretly taught the sincere truth, might be able to explain to all others these four things. First, how the bread and wine are flesh and blood. Secondly, how the causes agree with the effects. Thirdly, how the diverse names or species are reduced to one essence. Fourthly, how both the signifying and the signified are reckoned by the same words.
The first member is most rightly expounded by us. For we say that the Apostles easily understood, and could explain to others, how the bread was flesh; because that bread, truly sanctified, which outwardly seemed common and ordinary bread, was the flesh of the Lord, He Himself saying: This is my body.
The second member too we rightly expound. For we say that the Apostles understood, from this, that they received the body under the species of bread, how the causes agree with the effects, that is, how the flesh of the Lord truly nourishes and refreshes the souls of those who faithfully eat it; for they understood this from the analogy of bread, under whose species they saw the flesh of the Lord given to them.
The third member too we rightly expound. For we say that the Apostles understood how the diverse names and species are reduced to one essence; because, namely, through the consecration of the Eucharist, from bread the flesh of the Lord is made, and one only essence remains, namely of flesh, which nevertheless receives diverse names; for it is called flesh, because it is such truly, and it is called bread, because it is such by effect.
Finally, the fourth member is rightly expounded by us: how, namely, both the signifying and the signified are reckoned by the same words, that is, why the bread of the Eucharist is called flesh, and why the flesh of the Lord is called bread. For the flesh of the Lord, which is the thing signified, can be called bread, because it is given under the species of bread; and that bread, which by its external species signifies the body of the Lord, can be called flesh, because it really, as to substance, is flesh. And so all things fit in our interpretation. But the adversary cannot so easily disengage himself, and especially as to the third member of that reasoning. For how, I ask, are the diverse species, that is, bread and flesh, reduced to one essence, if no real change is made?
Peter Martyr answers that they are reduced to one essence because they become one sacrament; for the entire Sacrament of the Eucharist consists of the sign and the thing signified. But what he says is most absurd. For since the sign and the thing signified are relatively opposed, how can any one thing consist of the sign and the thing signified? For he does not mean to say what the Catholics say, that the sacrament consists materially of the sign and the thing signified really present and joined with the sign; but that it consists formally of the sign and the thing signified, one of which is as far distant from the other as heaven from earth; for the sign is only on earth, and the thing signified only in heaven.
The seventh testimony he takes from epistle 6 of Book 1 to Magnus, where Cyprian writes that the body of the Lord is called bread, gathered together from the union of many grains, and the blood wine, pressed out from many clusters.
But there is here no new difficulty; for Cyprian explains why the Lord wished to confect this sacrament from bread and wine, and not from some other thing; and he says the reason is on account of the analogy which is between bread and wine and the Church of the Lord, which is signified by that Sacrament.
But the adversary urges those words: “He called the bread body”; and thence gathers: “Therefore the bread is the body; but it is not so properly; therefore tropically.” I answer: The bread, in Cyprian’s opinion, was called body by the Lord when it was said in the supper: This is my body. Wherefore the bread was called body, but by that very calling it was made truly body; and therefore it does not follow that the bread, while it is bread, is the body, but that what had been bread is now the body. Just as, when an army called some private soldier emperor, by that very calling he became emperor; nor could it be said, A private man is emperor, but, He who was a little before a private man is now emperor.
The eighth testimony they produce from Book 2, epistle 3 to Caecilius, where we read thus: “Nor can His blood, by which we are redeemed, seem to be in the chalice, when wine is wanting to the chalice, by which the blood of Christ is shown.” And below: “We see that in the water the people is understood, in the wine the blood of Christ is truly shown.” And below: “So the chalice of the Lord is not water alone, or wine alone, unless each be mixed with the other; just as neither can the body of the Lord be flour alone, or water alone, unless each be united and coupled and solidified into the compact of one bread.” From this passage the adversaries deduce, first, that wine must necessarily be in the chalice, even after consecration. For after consecration the wine shows the blood of the Lord; but what is not can show nothing. Secondly, that by that wine the blood of the Lord is shown, that is, signified, and consequently is not in the chalice of the Lord except figuratively. Thirdly, that by that wine is shown not a present blood, really existing in the chalice, but an absent one. For the blood is shown by the wine in the manner in which the peoples are shown by the water; but the peoples are not in the chalice except significatively. This argument Peter Martyr, Peter Boquin, Beza, and others urge.
I answer: This passage of Cyprian, in which Peter Martyr, in his book against Gardiner, objection 175, at the end, glories that his opinion is so clearly asserted that it could be asserted more clearly from none other, in no way at all fights with the opinion of the Catholics, but openly destroys the opinion of the heretics.
For it must be observed that there is a great difference between these two propositions: The wine is the blood of the Lord, and, The blood of the Lord is wine. For the former proposition teaches that the wine is blood by likeness, but that really and properly it is wine, not blood; the latter, on the contrary, teaches that the blood is wine by likeness, but that really and properly it is blood, not wine; for neither can wine properly be blood, nor blood wine, since those things are diverse in species, and (as they say) disparate terms. Hence it comes about that the former proposition, if it be found in Cyprian or another Father, is neither for us nor against us; but the latter is openly for us against the adversaries. For that proposition, The wine is the blood of Christ significatively, only requires that in the Eucharist there be wine as to that which signifies, that is, as to the external accidents; for, as we showed above, the wine signifies only by reason of the accidents. And truly in the Eucharist the wine remains as to the accidents signifying the blood of Christ. But whether with those accidents there be in the Eucharist the substance of wine, or the very blood of Christ, that proposition says nothing, and so is neither against us nor for us. But the other proposition, namely, The blood of Christ is wine by likeness, is altogether for us; for it necessarily requires that in the chalice there be blood properly, which yet has a likeness to wine. Nor can they say that the blood of the Lord is somewhere as to accidents, not as to substance, as we say of the wine. For it is not impious to separate the accidents of wine from its substance; but it would be impious to separate the real accidents of Christ from His substance, for that would be truly to slay Christ.
Now, then, the adversaries could see in Cyprian only the former proposition, which, as I showed, is not against us; but the latter too we shall show them in the same passage of Cyprian, which is most plainly against them. For thus he speaks in that epistle not far from the beginning: “For since Christ says, I am the true vine, the blood of Christ is assuredly not water, but wine. Nor can His blood, by which we are redeemed, seem to be in the chalice, when wine is wanting to the chalice, by which the blood of Christ is shown.” So he. Where, just as he says that Christ is the vine, not that the vine is Christ, so he says that His blood is wine, not that the wine is blood; and when he says that the blood, by which we are redeemed, is in the chalice, but must be shown by the wine, because the blood is like wine, not water. And below he cites that of Genesis 49: He shall wash his robe in wine, and his garment in the blood of the grape. And that of Isaiah 63: Why then is thy apparel red, and thy garments like theirs that tread in the winepress? To prove that the blood of the Lord is called wine, not that the wine is called blood. For the Lord washed His robe (that is, His flesh in the passion) not with wine signifying blood, but with true blood, which has a likeness to wine. We have, therefore, in Cyprian that latter proposition which we wished to show.
Now to those three things which the adversaries gathered from Cyprian, answer can be made with no difficulty. To the first I say that wine must be in the chalice, at least as to the accidents, as we said, because through them it shows the blood. To the second I say that the blood of the Lord is signified by the wine, but as present in the chalice, not absent. For, as we heard from Cyprian, what is in the chalice is called wine by likeness, but is blood by propriety, and that the blood by which we are redeemed. To the third I say that comparisons need not agree in all things. Wherefore, although Cyprian says that by the wine the blood is signified, by the water the peoples, yet it ought not thence to be gathered that the peoples and the blood of the Lord are equal in all things, so that if the blood be truly in the chalice, the peoples too must be there. For otherwise the blood of the Lord is signified as a price and as a drink, but the peoples are not so signified; and finally, in the Eucharist the body and blood of the Lord are principally represented, but the peoples secondarily. And of Cyprian thus far.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT IX. Testimonium S. Cypriani. Tertius testis in eadem tertia aetate, est S. Cyprianus, qui passus est anno Domini 259. vel circiter. Is igitur in serm. 5. qui est de lapsis, reprehendens eos, qui post negatum Christum ad Sacramentum Eucharistiae acce¬ debant, non prius per debitam poenitentiam purgati : « Vis, inquit, infertur corpori ejus, et sanguini : et plus modo in Dominum ma¬ nibus atque ore delinquunt, quam cum Do¬ minum negaverunt. » Haec ille. At profecto incredibile videtur Cyprianum sensisse, ma¬ jus esse peccatum indignis manibus tangere signum aliquod, seu figuram Christum reprae¬ sentantem, quam Christumipsumnegare.Quis enim ita desideret, ut diceret, gravius pecca¬ re eum, qui tangeret librum Evangelii, aut imaginem Crucifixi cum conscientia peccati, quam eum, qui Christum coram persecutore negaret ? Vult igitur Cyprianus dicere, eos, qui indigne sumunt Eucharistiam, ipsam Christi personam in se, et immediate injuria afficere, et propterea gravissime peccare, et gravius (saltem ex hac parte) quam ii fa¬ ciant, qui Christum negando, in fidem, et honorem ejuspeccant. Ibidem narrat sanctus Cyprianus quatuor miracula, quae facta fue¬ rant in eos, qui indignis manibus corpus Do¬ mini tractare voluerant, quae satis abunde arguunt non esse Eucharistiam signum tan¬ tum Dominici corporis, cum nulla ejusmodi miracula legantur iu eos edita, qui alia signa indigne tractarunt, praesertim cum illi, de quibus loquiturCyprianus, non ex contemptu, vel odio Christi ad Sacramentum accede* rent. Exstat inter opera Cypriani sermo de Ccena Domini , qui etsi Cypriani episcopi Carthagi- x LIBER II. nensis, cic quo nunc agimus, cssc non videa¬ tur, tamen est omnino antiqui alicujus, et doctissimi, ac sanctissimi Patris, ut adversa¬ rii fatentur. Inde igitur petemus sub nomine Cypriani duo, vel tria clarissima testimonia. Primum est in principio sermonis : «Cocna disposita inter Sacramcntales epulas obvia¬ verunt sibi instituta antiqua, et nova; et con¬ sumpto agno, quem antiqua traditio propo¬ nebat, inconsumptibilcm cibum magister apponit discipulis. » De hoc loco supra dis¬ seruimus, ubi egimus de figuris Sacramenti hujus, atque ostendimus contra Petrum Mar¬ tyrem per cibum inconsumptibilcm non posse intelligi panem, qui non minus consu¬ mitur, quam agnus ; neque corpus Christi, ut sola fide manducatur, quia eo modo ha¬ buissent cumdcm cibum Judaei in agno pas¬ cali, quem nos in Eucharistia, et propterea non recte opponeret Cyprianus cibum con- sumptibilem datum Judaeis, cibo inconsum- ptibili, qui datur Christianis. Secundum testimonium habetur paulo inferius : « Panis iste, inquit, quem Dominus discipulis porrigebat, non effigie, sed natura mutatus, omnipotentia Yerbi factus est caio, et sicut in persona Christi humanitas appa¬ rebat, et latebat divinitas; ita Sacramento visibili ineffabilitcr divina se infudit essentia.» Iioc testimonium nullam admittit solutionem, etiamsi adversarii secpc ad illud responde¬ re conati sint. Respondet igitur Petrus Martyr in II par. libri contra Gardinerum prope finem, et rur¬ sum in -i. parte libri ejusdem, panem mutari, quia ex prophano fit sacer, et ex non sacra¬ mento sacramentum. Dicit autem mutari non effigio, sed natura, quia nova illa signi¬ ficatio sacramentalis nona accedit accidenti¬ bus panis, qu® a Cypriano dicuntur effigies, sed ipsi naturae, et substanti® panis. Analo¬ gia enim est inter panem, et corpus Christi, quod sicut panis nutrit corpora, ita caro Christi nutrit animas : porro nutrire ad sub¬ stantiam pertinet, non ad accidentia. Addit vero (ne decipiamur) substantiam, seu na¬ turam panis mutari, non quod, ipsa desinat esse quod erat, sed quod acquirat aliquid, quod non habebat : quemadmodum mutari dicitur homo, cum ex non grammatico fit grammaticus, et ex privato princeps. L; Sed facile refellitur b®c solutio ex omni¬ bus fere vocibus, quibus utitur Cyprianus. Primo ex illa, « non effigie ». Nam si mutatio i-tu nihil est aliud, nisi additio significationis, non solum natura panis, sed etiam effigies mutatur ; imo magis effigies, quam natura : siquidem id quod proprie significat, est aliquod signum sensibile, qualia sunt ac¬ cidentia panis ; cur ergo Cyprianus ait : a non effigie sed natura mutatus. » Respondet Martyr, substantiam panis sen¬ sibilem esse per accidentia sua, et ipsi pro¬ prie convenire analogiam illam nutritionis. At licet substantia sensibilis sit per acci¬ dentia, tamen, signum esse, magis convenit accidentibus, quam substanti® : signum enim est id, quod per se, et immediate sen¬ sibus percipitur. Neque verum est, analo¬ giam illam nutritionis osse in substantia, et non in accidentibus ; tum quia substantia sine accidentibus non nutrit : tum vero maxime ut aliquid sit signum nutritionis spiritualis, non requiritur ut vere nutrire possit corpora¬ liter, sed requiritur ut reprsesentet externa specie eam rem, qu® nutrire solet. Nam ser¬ pens ®neus fuit vera figura Christi crucifixi, ob analogiam inter serpentem, et Christum : et tamen serpens ille ®neus non habuit sub¬ stantiam veram, sed solum figuram serpen¬ tis. Et lingu® igne®, qu® super Apostolos apparuerunt, rectissime significabant donum eloquenti® divinitus datum Apostolis, ob analogiam inter linguam, et illud donum : et tamen lingu® ili® non habuerunt sub¬ stantiam, sed solam figuram lingu®. Deni¬ que in omnibus visionibus Prophetarum, et insofnniis divinitus immissis, Pliaraoni, Na- buchodonosor, et aliis, et in tota Apoca¬ lypsi describuntur plurima signa rerum alia¬ rum, ob analogiam inter res naturales, et divinas, ct tamen signa illa non habebant substantiam rerum naturalium, sed figuram externam tantum. Sic igitur accidentia pa¬ nis proprie signa sunt corporis Domini, ob analogiam inter panem, ct Christum : per accidens ailtem est, ut sub illis accidentibus sit substantia panis, vel non sit : nulla igitur causa reddi potest, cur Cyprianus dixerit, non effigie, sed natura mutari panem ; si mutari est acquirere novam significatio¬ nem. Secundo refellitur ex illa voce, «sed na¬ tura. » Nam non dixit Cyprianus, naturam panis mutari, ut Martyr videtur accepisse, sed, panem, natura mutari : panem autem natura mutari, est panem naturaliter, id est, substantialiter mutari; naturam enim eo loco pro substantia accipi fatetur adversarius. At acquirere significationem novam, non csl CAPUT iX. 81 mutari substantialiter, sed accidentaliter tan¬ tum, imo ne accidentaliter quidem, nisi se¬ cundum rationem, cum sit illa significatio relatio rationis. Sed inquit Petrus Martyr, « non solum mu¬ tatur panis, quia acquirit novam significa¬ tionem ; sed .etiam quia efficitur instrumen¬ tum Dei ad movendos animos nostros. » At si petas, quomodo sint sacramenta instru¬ menta Dei ad movendos animos, nihil re¬ spondere poterit, nisi significando, repraesen¬ tando : nec enim tribuunt ipsi sacramentis ullam efficientiam veram, ut supra demon¬ stravimus. Tertio refellitur ex illis verbis : « Omni¬ potentia Verbi. » Nam quae omnipotentia requiritur ad faciendum nihil ? Sed ait Pe¬ trus Martyr, requiri omnipotentiam, quia solus Deus potest instituere sacramenta. Contra; nam omnipotentia requiritur in eo qui instituit sacramenta, ut vere perficiat, quod sacramenta significant, id est, justificet hominem. At non requiritur ulla omnipoten¬ tia ad faciendum, ut res aliqua significet : id enim etiam homines facere possunt. Porro Cyprianus non ponit omnipotentiam Dei in efficiendo, quod sacramenta significant ; sed in mutatione panis in carnem ; sic enim ait : « Omnipotentia Verbi factus est caro. » Quarto ex illa similitudine : « Sicut in per¬ sona Christi humanitas apparebat, latebat divinitas; ita sacramento visibili ineffabiliter divina se infudit essentia. » Ubi Cyprianus non dicit, quod adversarii ex hoc loco colli¬ gunt, in Sacramento esse duas naturas, ut sunt in Christo : ac proinde manere naturam panis ; sed dicit ita latere sub specie visibili panis, Deum verum, ut latebat sub specie visibili carnis Christi, dum is in terris con¬ versaretur. Et ne quis dicat in sacramento latere Deum per solam repraesentationem, addit adverbium, « ineffabiliter, » quo de claratur mysterium hic subesse maximum, et difficillimum : nulla autem difficultas in eo est, quod panis significet Christum. Tertium testimonium est in eodem ser¬ mone : « Nova est hujus Sacramenti do¬ ctrina, et scholas Evangelica; hoc primum magisterium protulerunt, etDoctore Christo primum ha?c mundo innotuit disciplina, ut biberent sanguinem Christiani, cujus esum legis antiques auctoritas districtissime inter¬ dicit ; lex quippe esum sanguinis prohibet, evangelium pixecipit ut bibatur. » Htec ille. Ubi nisi proprie de sanguine loquatur, nihil Tom. IV. prorsus dicit; non enim lex vetus prohibebat sanguinem figurate sumptum ; imo Hebraei in potu aquae de petra scaturientis, Christi sanguinem bibebant figurate : ut modo Sa- cramentarii facere se dicunt in Eucharistia. Sed jam afferenda sunt testimonia, (piae ex Cypriano affert Petrus Martyr in lib. contra Gar cliner um, objecto 170. et sequen¬ tibus novem ; collegit enim ipse omnia loca, quae ab aliis citari solent. Primum ergo ex isto ipso sermone de coena Domini profert illa verba : « Usque hodie hoc veracissimum et sanctissimum corpus bum creat, et san¬ ctificat, et benedicit, et pie sumentibus di¬ vidit. » Quo loco pro se adversarii arripiunt illud : « Creat, sanctificat, benedicit, divi¬ dit » ; haec enim omnia pani conveniunt, non ipsi corpori vero Christi. Respondeo : Cyprianum alludere voluisse ad canonem missae, ubi post consecrationem panis, dicimus : « Per quem omnia semper nobis bona creas, sanctificas, benedicis, et praestas nobis. » Porro tam in verbis cano¬ nicis, quam in verbis Cypriani, illa : « Creas, sanctificas, et benedicis, » referuntur ad ma¬ teriam unde conficitur corpus Christi ; agi¬ mus enim Deo gratias, quod per Christum nobis panem primum creet, deinde pereum- dem sanctificet, et benedicat, convertendo in corpus suum, et sic nobis praebeat. Itaque similis est illa sententia : Christus corpus suum creat, sanctificat, dividit ; ac si quis de pane diceret, hic panis primo seminatur, deinde metitur, tum molitur, coquitur, et tandem comeditur. Non enim sensus esset panem sub forma panis, seminari, meti, moli etc., sed quoad materiam unde fit, primo seminari, deinde meti, etc. Quod au¬ tem loquatur Cyprianus de vero corpore, non de signo corporis, quod nobis dividi, id est, distribui dicit, posteaquam panis creatus, et sanctificatus est, patet ex illo ad¬ juncto, « veracissimum, » neque enim dici potest veracissimum, quod non nisi figurate corpus est. Secundum testimonium ex eodem ser¬ mone : «Panis iste communis in carnem, et sanguinem mutatus procreat vitam, et in¬ crementum corporibus: ideoque ex consueto rerum effectu fidei nostra; adjuta infirmitas sensibili argumento edocta est, visibilibus Sacramentis inesse vita; aderna; effectum ». lla:c ille. ITinc deducit Petrus Martyr, panem Eucharistia;, etiam post mutationem Sacra- men talem nutrire nostra corpora, et esse ve 6 UBER II. 8 '2 rum panem, ex illa analogia nutritionis vo¬ cari corpus Cliristi, etc. Respondeo : Errat hoc loco toto coelo Pe¬ trus Martyr. Neque Cyprianus loquitur de pane Eucharistiae, cum dicit, « mutari in carnem, » et alere corpora nostra ; sed ra¬ tionem reddit, cur ex pane communi fiat Eu¬ charistia, et cur aliquando corpus Christi dicatur panis. Rationem autem esse dicit, quia sicut panis communis, id est, vere mate¬ rialis, et triticeus, dum mutatur in carnem, et sanguinem nostrum per naturalem actio¬ nem caloris naturalis, nutrit nos et auget : ita corpus Christi spiritualiter nos nutrit et auget. Itaque non loquitur de nutritio ne sa¬ cram en talis, cum dicit : « Panis communis in carnem et sanguinem mutatus, » sed de naturali mutatione, quae fit in nobis, dum cibo nutrimur. Tertium testimonium ex fine ejusdem ser¬ monis : « Haec quoties agimus, non dentes ad mordendum acuimus, sed fide sincera panem sanctum frangimus. » Respondeo : Declarat his verbis Cyprianus fructum Sacramenti non consistere in cor¬ pore nostro delectando, vel saginando, sed in animo nutriendo, et reficiendo. Non enim acuere dicuntur dentes quicumque aliquid sumere volunt per oris instrumentum ; sed qui avide sumere cupiunt, ut palatum de¬ lectent. jCerte qui medicamentum amarum comedere jubentur, non dicuntur acuere dentes, quia non sumunt, ut delectentur eo cibo, sed inviti accipiunt, ut sanentur. Quartum testimonium est cx eodem ser mone, ubi legimus : « Solus quippe Filius patri consubstantialis est, nec divisibilis est, nec partiabiiis substantia Trinitatis : nostra vero et ipsius conjunctio nec miscet personas, nec unit substantias, sed affectus consociat, et confoederat voluntates. » llsec ille. Ex quo loco Petrus Martyr colligit, nullam esse inter nos et Christum corporalem unionem, sed solum spiritualem; proinde non corpore, sed spiritu solo Christi corpus a nobis mandu¬ cari. Respondeo : Loquitur Cyprianus de illa unione, qua) est proprius, et principalis finis Eucharistiae : ac negat per Eucharistiam ita nobis uniri Christum, ut efficiamur cum illo una persona, sicut fit in mysterio Incarna¬ tionis ; vel ut efficiamur una natura, quo¬ modo unum est Pater cum Filio in arcano Trinitatis : et solum affirmat uniri nos Christo per affectus, et voluntatis confoede¬ rationem. Porro corporalem unionem, qualis est inter nos, et Christi corpus per Euchari¬ stiam, Cyprianus neque negat, quia revera fit, neque asserit, quia non est illa unio finis Eucharistiae , sed potius medium. Nam etiam in impiis illa unio inveniri potest ; et obest, non prodest, cum non perducit ad spiritualem unionem, quae est verus finis hujus Sacramenti. Quintum testimonium ex eodem sermone : «Ut sciremus, inquit, quod mansio nostra in ipso, sit manducatio, n Et infra : « Esus igi¬ tur hujus carnis, quaedam aviditas est, et desiderium manendi in ipso. » Et infra : «Quod est esca carni, hoc animae est fides. » Respondeo : Cyprianus his verbis de Sa¬ cramenti effectu loquitur ; id enim est co¬ medere Christi carnem, qua ntum ad effe¬ ctum, et fructum manere in ipso per fidem, et charitatem. IIoc tamen testimonium non Petrus Martyr, sed alii quidam afferre so¬ lent. Sextum testimonium sumit Petrus Martyr ex sermone de unctione Chrismatis : «Dedit, inquit, Dominus noster in mensa, in qua ultimum cum Apostolis participavit convi¬ vium, panem et vinum, in cruce vero mani¬ bus militum corpus tradidit vulnerandum : ut in Apostolis secretius impressa sincera ve¬ ritas, et vera sinceritas, exponeret gentibus, quomodo vinum et panis caro esset et san¬ guis ; et quibus rationibus causee effectibus convenirent : et diversa nomina, vel species ad unam reducerentur essentiam ; et signi¬ ficantia, et significata iisdem vocabulis ceu- serentur. » Ex hoc loco colligit adversarius panem tantum, et vinum, ut opponuntur vero corpori in cruce mortuo, esse in Eucha¬ ristia et ideo panem vocari corpus, et vinum sanguinem, quia illa significant, ista signifi¬ cantur. Respondeo : verba Cypriani non carent obscuritate : tamen recte expensa, Catholicis non haereticis favent. Primum igitur cum Cy¬ prianus ait Christum in mensa dedisse Apo¬ stolis panem edendum, militibus autem in cruce dedisse corpus vulnerandum : non opponit panem corpori, sed corpus sub spe¬ cie panem eidem corpori in specie sua ; sive corpus ut cibum, eidem corpori ut victima). Id patet primum, quia idem auctor in supe¬ riore sermone disertis verbis docuit, panem natura mutari, et fieri carnem omnipotentia 'Verbi. Deinde idem patet, quia in loto eo sermone tractat hic auctor de excellentia CAPUT IX. religionis christiauu) supra Judaicam, confe¬ rens bine inde sacramenta : at certe nihil ad hanc excellentiam pertinet, quod habea¬ mus merum panem in»S aeramento. Praeterea explicat continuo Cyprianus, cur dederit Dominus panem et vinum in ccena ; ratio autem ejus non bene cohaeret, nisi per panem et vinum intelligamus corpus et san¬ guinem sub specie panis et vini. Ratio quam subjungit, habet quatuor membra ; dicit enim Dominum dedisse panem, et vinum, ut Apostoli secreto edocti sinceram veritatem, possent aliis omnibus explicare ista quatuor. Primo, quomodo panis, et vinum caro sit et sanguis. Secundo, quomodo causae effectibus conveniant. Tertio, quomodo diversa no¬ mina, vel species ad unam reducantur es¬ sentiam. Quarto, quomodo et significantia, et significata iisdem vocabulis censeantur. Primum membrum a nobis rectissime ex¬ ponitur. Dicimus enim Apostolos facile intel¬ lexisse, et aliis explicare potuisse, quomodo panis esset caro ; quia vere panis ille san¬ ctificabis, qui exterius panis videbatur com¬ munis, et usitatus, caro Domini erat dicente ipso : Hoc est corpus meum. Secundum etiam membrum nos recte ex¬ ponimus. Intellexisse enim Apostolos dicimus ex eo, quod acceperunt corpus sub specie panis quomodo causa) cum effectibus conve¬ niant, id est, quomodo caro Domini vere nu¬ triat ct reficiat animas fideliter eam mandu¬ cantium : id enim intellexerunt ex analogia panis, sub cujus specie carnem Domini sibi dari videbant. Tertium quoque membrum recte exponi¬ mus. Dicimus enim Apostolos intellexisse, quomodo nomina ac species diversa) ad unam reducantur essentiam : quia videlicet per consecrationem Eucharistia) ex pane fit caro Domini, et unica tantum essentia rema¬ net, carnis videlicet ; qua) tamen diversa no¬ mina recipit ; nam et dicitur caro, qu-ia talis est per effectum. Denique quartum membrum recte a nobis exponitur, quomodo scilicet et significantia, et significata iisdem vocabulis censeantur, id est, cur panis Eucharistia) dicatur caro, et cur caro Domini dicatur panis. Non caro Domini, qua) est res significata, potest dici panis, quia datur sub specie panis ; et potest ille panis, qui exteriore specie sua corpus Domini significat, dici caro, quia revera quoad substantiam est caro. Itaque omnia cubarent in nostra interpretatione. At ad- 83 versari us non ita facile se expedire potest, et pra)sertim quoad tertium membrum illius rationis. Quomodo enim, quaso, ad unam essentiam reducuntur diversae species, id est, panis et caro, si nulla fit realis mutatio? Respondet Petrus Martyr reduci ad unam essentiam, quia fiunt unum sacramentum : Sacramentum enim Eucharistiae integrum constat ex signo, et re significata. At absur¬ dissimum est quod dicit. Cum enim signum et res significata sint opposita relative, quo¬ modo potest unum aliquid ex signo, et re significata constare? Non enim vult ipse di¬ cere, quod Catholici dicunt, sacramentum constare materialiter ex signe, et re signifi¬ cata reipsa pnfesente, ct cum signo con¬ juncta ; sed formaliter constare ex signo, ct re signata, quorum unum tantum abest ab altero, quantum coelum a terra ; signum enim est tantum in terra, et res signata tan¬ tum in coelo. Septimum testimonium sumit ex epist. G. lib. i. ad Magnum , ubi scribit Cyprianus, corpus Domini panem vocari ex multorum granorum adunatione congestum, et sangui¬ nem vinum ex botris pluribus expressum. Sed nulla est hic nova difficultas ; explicat enim Cyprianus, cur Dominus ex pane, et vino hoc sacramentum conficere voluit, et non ex aliqua alia re ; rationem autem esse dicit propter analogiam, qua) est inter pa¬ nem, et vinum, et Ecclesiam Domini, qua) per Sacramentum illud significatur. Sed urget adversarius illa verba : « Panem vocavit corpus » ; atque inde colligit, « ergo panis est corpus ; non est autem proprie ; ergo tropice » . R.espondeo : panem ex Cy¬ priani sententia vocatum esse a Domino cor¬ pus, cum dictum est in ccena : Hoc est cor¬ pus meum. Quare panis vocatus est corpus, sed ipsa vocatione factus est vere corpus ; et ideo non sequitur, panem, dum est panis, esse corpus, sed qui fuerat panis, jam esse corpus. Quemadmodum cum exercitus pri¬ vatum aliquem militem appellabat impera¬ torem, ipsa appellatione fiebat ille impera¬ tor; nec poterat dici : homo privatus est imperator, sed qui fuerat paulo ante priva¬ tus, nunc est imperator. Octavum testimonium proferunt ex lib. it. • epist. 3. ad Cecilium , ubi sic legimus : « Nec potest videri sanguis ejus, quo redempti su¬ mus, es5e in calice, quando vinum desit ca¬ lici, quo Christi sanguis ostenditur. » Et infra : « Videmus in aqua populum intelligi, in vino iSi UliElt II. vere ostendi sanguinem Christi. » Et infra : <i Sic vero calix Domini non est aqua sola, aut vinum solum, nisi utrumque sibi miscea¬ tur : quomodo nec corpus Domini potest esse farina sola, aut aqua sola, nisi utrumque adunatum fuerit, et copulatum, et panis unius compage solidatum. » Ex hoc loco de¬ ducunt adversarii primo, vinum necessario debere esse in calice, etiam post consecratio¬ nem. Nam post consecrationem vinum os¬ tendit sanguinem Domini ; quod autem non est, nihil potest ostendere. Secundo, eo vino sanguinem Domini ostendi, id est, significari, ac proinde non esse in calice Domini, nisi figurate. Tertio, eo vino non ostendi sangui¬ nem praesentem, ct in calice reipsa existen- tem, sed absentem. Nam eo modo per vinum ostenditur sanguis, quo per aquam populi : populi autem non sunt in calice, nisi signifi¬ cative. Hoc argumentum urgent Petrus Mar¬ tyr, Petrus Boquinus, Beza, et alii. Respondeo : locum hunc Cypriani, quo Petrus Martyr lib. contra Gardinerum , ob¬ jecto 175. in fine gloriatur, ita perspicue as¬ seri suam sententiam, ut ex nullo alio possit asseri clarius, nihil omnino pugnare cum sententia catholicorum, sed aperte destruere sententiam haereticorum. Observandum est enim, multum interesse inter has duas propositiones : Vinum est san¬ guis Domini, ct sanguis Domini est vinum. Nam prior propositio docet vinum esse san¬ guinem per similitudinem; reipsa autem, et proprie esse vinum, non sanguinem : poste¬ rior contra docet, sanguinem esse vinum per similitudinem; reipsa autem, et proprie esse sanguinem, non vinum; nec enim proprie esse potest, aut vinum sanguis, aut sanguis vinum, cum res ilice sint specie diversse, et (ut loquuntur) termini disparati. Ilinc fit, ut prior propositio, si apud Cyprianum vel alium Patrem inveniatur, non sit pro nobis, neque contra nos : posterior autem sit aperte pro nobis contra adversarios. Nam illa pro¬ positio : Vinum est sanguis Christi significa¬ tive, solum requirit, ut in Eucharistia sit vi¬ num, quantum ad id, quod significat, id est, quantum ad accidentia exteriora : nam, ut supra ostendimus, ratione accidentium tan¬ tum vinum significat. Vere autem in Eucha¬ ristia remanet vinum, quantum ad acciden¬ tia significantia sanguinem Christi. Utrum autem cum accidentibus illis sit in Eucliari- (l)Gcn.XLIX, 11; Isai. LX1II, 2. st ia substantia vini, aut ipse Christi sanguis; illa propositio nihil dicit, atque ita neque est contra nos, neque pro nobis. Altera autem propositio, nimirum : Sanguis Christi est vi¬ num per similitudinem, est omnino pro no¬ bis : nam requirit necessario ut in calice sit sanguis proprie, qui tamen habeat cum vino similitudinem. Neque possunt dicere, sangui¬ nem Domini esse alicubi; quoad accidentia, non quoad substantiam, ut nos dicimus de vino. Nam non est impium separare acci¬ dentia vini ab ipsa ejus substantia : impium autem esset separare accidentia realia Christi ab ejus substantia, id enim esset Christum vere perimere. Jam igitur adversarii in Cypriano priorem tantum propositionem videre potuerunt, quae, ut ostendi, non est contra nos : at po¬ steriorem etiam illis in eodem loco Cypriani ostendemus, quae est apertissime contra cos. Sic enim loquitur in illa epistola non procul a principio : « Nam cum dicatChristus : Ego sum vitis vera, Sanguis Christi non aqua est utique, sed vinum. Nec potestvideri sanguis ejus, quo redempti sumus, esse in calice, quando vinum desit calici, quo Christi san¬ guis ostenditur. » Ilaec ille. Ubi sicut dicit, Christum esse vitem, non vitem esse Chri¬ stum; ita dicit, sanguinem ejus esse vinum, non vinum esse sanguinem : et cum sangui¬ nem, quo redempti sumus, dicit esse in ca¬ lice, sed demonstrari debere per vinum, quia sanguis est similis vino, non uquee. Et infra citat illud Genes, xlix : Lavabit in vino stolam sucim, ct in sanguine uvx amictum suum. Et illud Isai. lxiii : Quare rubicunda sunt ve¬ stimenta tua , ct indumenta tua vclut a calca- tieme torcularis ? (1) ut probet sanguinem Do¬ mini diei vinum, non vinum dici sanguinem. Non enim Dominus lavit stolam suam (id est, carnem suam in passione) vino significante sanguinem, sed vero sanguine, qui habet cum vino similitudinem. Habemus ergo in Cypriano posteriorem illam sententiam , quam ostendere volebamus. Jam ad illa tria, quae cx Cypriano collige¬ bant adversarii, nullo negotio responderi potest. Ad primum dico, vinum debere esse in calice, saltem quoad accidentia, ut dixi¬ mus, quia per ca sanguinem ostendit. Ad secundum dico, sanguinem Domini vino si¬ gnificari, sed praesentem in calice, non ab¬ sentem. Nam ut ex Cypriano audivimus, quod est in calice, vinum dicitur per simili¬ tudinem, sanguis autem est per proprietatem, et is sanguis, quo redempti sumus. Ad ter¬ tium dico, comparationes non in omnibus rebus convenire debere. Quare, licet dicat Cyprianus per vinum significari sanguinem, per aquam populos, non tamen inde colligi debet, in omnibus pares esse populos, et sanguinem Domini, ut si sanguis vere in ca¬ lice sit, ibi etiam populos esse oporteat. Nam alioqui sanguis Domini significatur ut pre¬ tium, et ut potus, populi autem non ita si¬ gnificantur : et denique principaliter in Eu¬ charistia repreesentatur corpus, et sanguis Domini, secundario autem populi. Ac de Cypriano hactenus.