Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book II: On the Real Presence, from the Testimonies of the Fathers
Chapter 22: The Testimony of St. Chrysostom
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).
At the beginning of the year 400 there flourished also Saint John Chrysostom, who in many ways testified what he held concerning the Sacrament of the body of the Lord. His first testimony is had in homily 60 to the people of Antioch, and homily 83 on Matthew: “Let us everywhere,” he says, “believe God, and not resist Him, even though what He says seem absurd to our sense and thought. Let His word, I pray, overcome both our sense and our reason; which let us do in all things, but especially in the mysteries, not looking only at the things which lie before us, but also holding fast His words; for by His words we cannot be defrauded, but our sense is most easily deceived. Since, then, He said: This is my body; let us be held by no doubt, but believe,” and so forth. And homily 51 on Matthew: “He who laid down the greater, that is, His soul, for thee, will He disdain to deliver to thee His body? Let us hear, then, both priests and others, how great, how admirable a thing has been granted to us; let us hear, I pray, and shudder. He delivered His flesh to us, He set Himself before us immolated.” Chrysostom certainly could not have spoken more clearly if he had had some Calvinist before him whom he wished to exhort to faith.
The second testimony is had in the same two places: “O, how many now say: I would I could see His very garments, His very sandals. Him, then, thou seest, Him thou touchest, Him thou eatest.”
To this passage Peter Martyr, Boquin, and others answer that Chrysostom attributes the name of the thing signified to the symbols themselves, and speaks hyperbolically. And they prove that he speaks of the symbols, not of the true body itself, because he says that Christ is seen and touched in the Sacrament, whereas only the symbols are touched and seen; but of the true body itself he had said above that it is to be seen with the eyes of the mind by faith; and below he says that in sensible things an insensible gift is given us. But what is insensible can neither be touched nor seen; therefore he speaks not of the true Christ Himself, but of the bread, when he says: “Him thou seest, Him thou touchest, Him thou eatest.”
But this solution is easily refuted; for Chrysostom, when he says that Christ Himself is seen and touched, understands that the true Christ Himself is seen and touched, but in an alien species, not in His own—that is, that He is truly present, and received under those species which are properly seen and touched—although in His own species Christ is not seen in the Sacrament except with the eyes of faith, nor is sensible, as He is in the Sacrament. We have an example in the Angels. For those were truly said to see, touch, and receive as guests the Angels, who received them in an assumed body, as Abraham, Lot, Tobias, and others. And that Chrysostom means this is clear from this, that he says many desire to see the garments and sandals, and that in the Sacrament they have more than they desire, since they have Christ Himself; for those who desire the garments desire true garments, not an image of the garments. And truly it would be more desirable to see or have the true garments of Christ than an image of His body; therefore Chrysostom does not say truly that they have more than they wish, unless they truly have the true Christ Himself.
Besides, in the same place Chrysostom says that no shepherd ever fed his sheep with his own flesh and blood, as Christ does, and that many mothers gave their sons to others to be nursed, but that Christ nourishes us with His own flesh. Which comparisons will altogether be flat, if He nourishes us with His flesh only in a sign.
Add that in homily 24 on the first to the Corinthians he says that the Magi adored this very body in the manger; but that we have something more than the Magi had; for they had it in the manger, we on the altar; they in the arms of a woman, we in the hands of the priest; they saw the simple body, we both see the same body and know its power and virtue, and so forth. But if we have Christ only in a sign, we are not only not more superior, but so much inferior as an image of Christ is inferior to the true Christ Himself.
In the same place he says that lovers are wont to give to the persons they love garments, money, and other things of the kind, but cannot give their own flesh; but that Christ found a way, through this marvelous Sacrament, truly to give Himself to us to be had. But what Chrysostom says will be false if Christ gives Himself to us only in a symbol; for even men can give themselves, and really do give themselves to their friends in a symbol, when they give them their images.
Likewise homily 51 on Matthew: “Let us approach Christ, each one of us sick, with great faith. For if those who then touched the hem of His garment were all rightly healed, how much more shall we be strengthened, if we shall have the whole within us?” Where Chrysostom does not speak of Christ had only in the symbols; for the power of an image of Christ is not greater than that of that hem, which all who touched were healed.
Likewise homily 3 on the epistle to the Ephesians he says that the Eucharist differs nothing at all from that body which is adored in heaven by the Angels: “Our discourse,” he says, “is of the body, and of that which differs nothing from it. How often are we made partakers of that body? How often do we taste His blood? Consider that it is the body and blood of Him who resides above the heavens, who is suppliantly adored by the Angels.”
Finally, homily 3 On the Incomprehensible Nature of God, near the end, he most sharply reproves the people, because they came most frequently to his sermon, but more rarely to the sacred things: “A vehement sigh took me,” he says, “that when I, your fellow-servant, dispute, you apply zeal and talent, you strain the mind, one pushes and jostles another that he may be nearer, and you persevere in crowds, most patient, even to the end of the speaking; but when Christ Himself, the common Master and Lord of all, is about to show Himself in the sacred mysteries, the church is left empty. O the faith of Christian men!” So he. Which comparison and exclamation would certainly be most inept if we had nothing in the Eucharist but a sign; for they could have answered that they had at home images of Christ enough, in which they could see Him.
The third testimony is had in the same places, namely homily 60 to the people and 83 on Matthew, where Chrysostom says thus: “It does not suffice Him to be made man, to be meanwhile beaten with scourges, but He reduces us with Himself into one (so to speak) mass; and this not by faith only, but really He made us His body.” And homily 61 to the people, and homily 46 on John, he adds that not by charity only, but really His flesh is commingled with us through this Sacrament. And homily 24 on the first to the Corinthians he says that we are so united to the body of Christ through the Eucharist as that body was united to the Word through the Incarnation, that is, truly and really. And in the same place he says that lovers sometimes, out of excessive love, desire to bite with the teeth those whom they love, that in that manner they may indicate that they desire, if it could be, to be intimately united and made one with them; but that Christ, in this marvelous manner, through the Eucharist, brought it about that we are truly and intimately united to His body. All which would be most cold and ridiculous if we received the body of Christ only in a sign.
Peter Martyr answers that there is a twofold union of the faithful with Christ; one through faith and charity; another, which follows this, by which we are members of Christ, and He our head; and that Chrysostom speaks of this latter when he says that we are really united to Christ, and not by faith or charity alone.
But on the contrary. For that union of the members with the head, by which we are made one mystical body of Christ, is properly obtained through Baptism, and must necessarily precede the reception of the Eucharist; for he who is not a member of Christ approaches this Sacrament only unworthily. But Chrysostom says that through the Eucharist we are joined to Christ by a certain new and true union. Besides, what Chrysostom says, that the body of Christ is really joined to us, is no less opposed to the mystical conjunction of the members with the head than to the conjunction through faith and love; for the former is not more real than the latter. Finally, those examples of the Incarnation and of lovers sufficiently refute those figments of the adversaries.
The fourth testimony is in those places where Chrysostom attributes to a miracle that the body of Christ is at once in heaven and on the altar, Book 3 On the Priesthood: “O miracle, O the goodness of God, who, sitting above with the Father, at that moment of time is handled by the hands of all, and gives Himself to those willing to receive and embrace Him.” Likewise homily 2 to the people of Antioch, at the end: “Elijah left his mantle to his disciple; but the Son of God, ascending, left His flesh; but Elijah indeed stripped off his, whereas Christ both left it to us and ascended having it.”
To this passage Beza answers, in the Cyclops, that the flesh of Christ is in heaven properly, on earth symbolically. And he proves it because in the same place Chrysostom says that Elijah was at once above and below, because, namely, he was above in his own person, and was below because his spirit had rested on Elisha; and so he was below in another, not in himself. Beza also adduces the same Chrysostom, homily 24 on the first to the Corinthians, where he says that through this mystery it comes about that earth is heaven to us, and exhorts us to ascend in mind into heaven, where we may have Christ.
But Beza says nothing. For even if Elijah was not properly above and below, yet the case of the flesh of Christ is different, which Chrysostom compares not with Elijah, but with his mantle.
And that Chrysostom understood the flesh of the Lord properly to be left to us on earth, and at the same time to be in heaven, is clear, both from the passage cited from Book 3 On the Priesthood, where Chrysostom acknowledges a miracle in this matter—for it would be no miracle if we had the flesh of the Lord only in a symbol—and from this very passage of which we treat. For Chrysostom says that a far greater thing was left to us than Elijah left to Elisha; because Elijah left a garment, Christ His flesh. But certainly flesh in a symbol is not a greater thing than a garment properly so called.
Finally, the other passage produced by Beza from homily 24 on the first to the Corinthians would alone suffice to convert him to the true faith, had he not plainly hardened in his heresy. For Chrysostom does not say that we should ascend in mind into heaven, that we may have Christ only there, but that we may see that there is nothing in heaven more excellent than Christ, and that therefore earth is made heaven through this Sacrament, because we truly have on earth that which is most excellent in heaven. His words are these, homily 24 on the first to the Corinthians, at the end: “This mystery makes that even in this life we are with God, that earth is heaven to us. Ascend, then, to the gates of heaven, and diligently attend—nay, not of heaven, but of the heaven of heavens—and then thou shalt behold what we say. For that which is worthy of the highest honor, that I will show thee on earth; for as in the royal palaces not the walls, not the golden roof, but the royal body sitting on the throne is the most excellent of all, so also in the heavens the royal body, which is now set before thee to be seen on earth. For I show thee neither Angels, nor Archangels, nor the heavens, nor the heavens of heavens, but the very Lord of all these.” In which place, if Chrysostom meant Christ to be on earth only in a sign, he would plainly deceive his hearers, nor would he prefer Him to the Angels and Archangels. For who would not rather see true Angels than an image of Christ alone? Add that in the same place Chrysostom again says: “If a royal child, adorned with purple and diadem, were handed to thee to carry, wouldst thou not, casting away all earthly things, receive him? But now, when thou receivest not a man’s royal child, but the only-begotten Son of God, dost thou not shudder, and cast away all love of worldly things?” So he. Where, if he spoke of a sign of Christ, not of Christ Himself, he would in no way compare Him with a royal child, but with an image of a royal child; or certainly he would be most inept.
The fifth testimony is in those places where Chrysostom says that Christ in the Eucharist is adored not only by men, but also by the Angels. Homily 41 on the first to the Corinthians: “Not in vain do we celebrate the memory of the dead among the sacred mysteries, and approach, beseeching for them that Lamb who lies there, and takes away the sins of the world.” So he. Where he most plainly says that the Lamb lying on the altar is invoked (which is a kind of the highest adoration); and perhaps he alludes to those words: “Lamb of God, who takest away the sins of the world, grant them rest.”
The same, in his oration on Saint Philogonius, speaking of the Magi who came from Persia to adore Christ, says thus: “If we approach with faith, without doubt we shall see Him lying in the manger. For this table fills the place of the manger; since here too is placed the body of the Lord, not indeed wrapped in swaddling clothes, as then, but clothed on every side with the Holy Spirit. And the Magi indeed adored nothing else; but to thee, if thou approach with a pure conscience, we will permit that thou receive, and, having received, go home.” Where he indicates that we can not only adore, which the Magi did, but also receive.
The same, homily 60 to the people of Antioch: “Consider with what honor thou art marked, of what table thou dost enjoy. That which the Angels seeing shudder, and dare not freely behold, on account of the splendor darting thence, with this we are fed, to this we are united.” And homily 61: “This the heavenly powers too attend, since they too more manifestly behold the power of the things set forth, and admire the inaccessible splendors.” And homily 3 on the epistle to the Ephesians: “And thou art about to approach this saving victim, which the Angels themselves look upon with trembling.” And Book 6 On the Priesthood: “At that time,” he says, “the Angels too stand beside the priest, and the whole order of the heavenly powers raises shouts, and the place near the altar, in honor of Him who is immolated, is full of choirs of Angels; which it is abundantly lawful to believe, even from that great sacrifice which is then performed. And I have heard someone relating, when he said that a certain old man, an admirable man, to whom many mysteries of revelations had been divinely disclosed, told him that he had once been held worthy by God of such a vision: and at that time he suddenly beheld a multitude of Angels (as far as human sight could bear), clad in shining garments, surrounding the altar itself; and finally so bowed down in head as if one should see soldiers standing in the presence of the king.” Homily 21 on the Acts: “What sayest thou? The victim is in the hands, the Angels are present, the Archangels are present, the Son of God is present; with so great awe all stand by,” and so forth. Finally, homily On the Eucharist at the Dedication: “The Lamb of God is immolated; the Seraphim stand by, covering their face with six wings,” and so forth.
To these things the adversaries neither answer, nor can answer. For if the Angels stand at the altar with bowed heads, and with fear and trembling, and scarcely dare freely to behold on account of the splendor darting thence, who can deny that there is there something other than bread? And if the Angels adore, who can reprove men if they too adore?
The sixth testimony is in those places where Chrysostom says that the bread is changed, homily 83 on Matthew and homily 60 to the people: “The things set forth are not works of human power; we hold the place of ministers, but He who sanctifies and changes them is Himself.” And below: “He who said, This is my body, and by His word confirmed the deed.” And in his homily On the Betrayal of Judas he says that those words, “This is my body,” are like those, “Increase and multiply.” And homily On the Eucharist at the Dedication: “Dost thou see bread? Dost thou see wine? Do they, like the other foods, go into the privy? Away with the thought; think not so. For just as, if wax be applied to fire, it is made like it, nothing of the substance remains, nothing is left over, so here too think that the mysteries are consumed by the substance of the body.”
To this last passage Peter Martyr answers, in his book against Gardiner, part 4, that Chrysostom does not deny that in the Eucharist there is true bread, but by that manner of speaking means to signify that we must not attend to the bread, but to that which is signified by it; and that he does not mean the substance of the bread properly to be consumed by the body of the Lord supervening, as the wax by the fire, but that this is a trope by which it is indicated that we must withdraw the mind from the bread and wine, and place it in the things signified. And this he proves, because Chrysostom says that not only the substance of the bread, but also the accidents, are consumed, when he says that nothing is left over, and when he uses the likeness of the wax, which wholly perishes in the fire, both as to substance and as to accidents. But the accidents of the bread are not truly and properly consumed, since they are still perceived by the senses; therefore neither is the substance truly and properly consumed. Secondly he proves the same, because in the same place Chrysostom says: “Think not that thou receivest the divine body from a man, but fire from the very tongs of the Seraphim.” Which words certainly are not to be taken properly, because they would be false; in the same manner, then, when the same author says that there is not bread and wine, and that the mysteries are consumed, all is to be understood improperly.
But this solution can be refuted with no difficulty. For if Chrysostom did not deny that bread is really present, and only meant that it is not present as to our thought, he would not say that the Eucharist is not cast out into the privy like the other foods; for these things pertain nothing to thought, but to the thing itself. Whence Peter Martyr, although he said much of this passage, yet never answered that little sentence, but always avoided it as a certain hostile reef. Besides, that likeness of the wax consumed by fire would be very absurd if the bread were not really consumed.
To his first argument I answer that Chrysostom does not say that the accidents of the bread are consumed; nay, in express words he expressed that the substance departs, another substance coming. Whence, when he says that the mysteries are consumed, he understands as to the substance, of which he was speaking; and when he says that nothing is left over, he signifies that nothing of the substance remains. And finally, when he compares the wax, which is wholly consumed, he compares only the substance of the bread, not whatever is in the bread.
To the second I say that those expressions are not alike: “Think not that thou receivest the divine body from a man,” and “Dost thou see bread, dost thou see wine?” For in the former the tropes are manifest, since he calls the priest a Seraphic angel, and the body of the Lord fire, and the priestly hand tongs; nor does he deny that the body of the Lord is received from the priest, but denies that he acts at that time as a man, and rather confirms that he uses an angelic ministry. But in the latter all the circumstances cry out that there is no trope there, since he says that that bread does not go into the privy, and that the whole substance is consumed.
The seventh testimony is in those places where he says that in the Eucharist there is the truth of the blood, whose figure had preceded in the Old Testament. In his homily to the Neophytes, disputing of the blood of the lamb with which the doorposts of the sons of Israel in Egypt were smeared, that they might be freed from the striking Angel: “Just as,” he says, “the statues of reigning princes are sometimes wont to succor men fleeing to them, not because they are made of bronze, but because they retain the image of the prince, so also that blood freed, not because it was blood, but because it showed the coming of His blood. Now, then, if the enemy shall see, not the blood of the type placed on the doorposts, but the blood of the truth shining on the mouth of the faithful, much more will he withdraw himself. For if the Angel yielded to the figure, how much more will the enemy be terrified if he behold the truth itself?” Similar things he repeats homily 46 on John and homily 61 to the people of Antioch. To which passages nothing at all can be answered; for Chrysostom places the truth of the blood not only in the soul, but also on the mouth of the faithful.
Now against the Catholic truth Peter Martyr adduces nine testimonies from Chrysostom, in his book against Gardiner, objection 197 and following; but six of them have no difficulty. One he takes from homily 83 on Matthew, where Chrysostom calls the Eucharist symbols of the passion of Christ; which indeed we too confess, as we have often said above.
Another he takes from the same homily, where he says that the Israelites ate the paschal lamb in the garb of travelers, because they were about to set out for Palestine, but that we are about to set out for heaven; from which passage Peter Martyr deduces that we, while we eat the Eucharist, ought to ascend in mind into heaven, and there seek Christ, not in the Sacrament. But this is a wonderful either stupidity or obstinacy. For Chrysostom does not teach that, while we receive the Eucharist, we should ascend into heaven, but that we should receive the Eucharist as food and viaticum by which we may be strengthened in this life, while we journey to the heavenly fatherland, to which after death we shall come. Which is evident from the comparison adduced; for the Israelites, while they ate the lamb, did not go into Palestine to seek the lamb there, but ate the lamb which they had present, yet in the garb of travelers, because a little after they were about to make their journey to the land of promise.
The third testimony he takes from homily 24 on the first to the Corinthians, where Chrysostom says: “What is the bread? The body of Christ.” “Therefore,” says Peter Martyr, “the bread is the body of Christ; therefore true bread remains in the Eucharist.” I answer: Chrysostom predicates the body of Christ not of material bread, but of consecrated bread; and most truly consecrated bread is not common bread, but the bread of life, that is, the body of Christ. Whence in the same place Chrysostom says in express words that in the sacred chalice is that which flowed from the side of Christ, that is, His blood.
The fourth testimony he takes from the same homily, where Chrysostom says that the Eucharist is the food of eagles, according to those words of the Lord: Wheresoever the body shall be, there shall the eagles also be gathered together; and consequently that we, after the manner of eagles, ought to be borne on high, and approach Christ. Hence Peter Martyr strives to show that Christ is not to be sought on the altar. But he strives in vain. For Chrysostom speaks of an ascension not into the bodily heaven, but into God and eternal and spiritual things, earthly cares being neglected; which indeed he does who seeks Christ and cleaves to Him, wherever at length He be.
The fifth testimony he takes from homily 27 on the first to the Corinthians, where he calls the Eucharist bread and chalice. But to this it has already often been answered; for Chrysostom uses the words of Paul.
The sixth testimony is in homily 20 on the second to the Corinthians, where Chrysostom says that not only is the Eucharist the body of the Lord, but also the poor are the body of the Lord, of whom the Lord says: What you did to one of these least, you did to me. But the poor are not the body of Christ except representatively; therefore the Eucharist too is the body of Christ only representatively. I answer: Chrysostom does not say that the poor are the body of Christ in the same manner in which the Eucharist is; and from his other countless passages it has already been sufficiently proved that the Eucharist is the very true body of Christ, such as certainly the poor are not.
The seventh testimony he takes from the commentary on Psalm 22 [23]. For there we read thus: “That they might daily show us, in the likeness of the body and blood of Christ, bread and wine according to the order of Melchizedek in the Sacrament.”
I answer: The commentary on that psalm is without doubt not Chrysostom’s, nay, nor of any Greek; for the phrase is Latin, and both the matter and the words are very far from the writings of Chrysostom. Yet it can be answered (whosesoever that sentence be) that the bread and wine are shown in the Sacrament as to the external species. For, as we said above, even according to the custom of the Scriptures things are denominated from the external species; in which manner the brazen serpent is called a serpent, and the Angels who appeared in human form are everywhere in Scripture called men. Nor do we deny that the bread of the Eucharist bears a likeness of the body of the Lord, since it is His sacrament; although we also teach at the same time that by that sacrament the present body of the Lord, not the absent, is signified. Now that author wished to call the Eucharist bread and wine, not body and blood, because he was expounding those words of Solomon: Come, eat my bread, and drink the wine which I have mingled for you.
The eighth testimony he takes from a book, or epistle, to Caesarius the monk, where we read that the bread after consecration is no longer called bread, although the nature of bread remains in it.
I answer: Chrysostom never wrote anything of the kind; for in the whole work of Chrysostom there is no book or epistle to Caesarius. And the words of this author (whoever he was) have altogether the same opinion as the opinion of Theodoret and Gelasius; therefore what we shall afterward answer to them will be able to be answered to him too; for I am unwilling to mix with Chrysostom testimonies uncertain and of no authority.
The ninth testimony he takes from a homily on Matthew, where we read thus: “If, then, it is so dangerous to transfer to private uses these sanctified vessels, in which not the true body of Christ, but a mystery of His body, is contained, how much more ought we not to give place to the devil to do in them what he wills—the vessels of our body, which God has prepared for Himself as a dwelling?”
I answer: There is no doubt that the Opus Imperfectum of the homilies, whence the testimony is taken by the adversaries, is not Chrysostom’s; nor is it less certain that that work teems with various errors. This Erasmus noted in the preface; the same Peter Martyr confesses; and all who read it will easily judge. Now those words, “in which is not the true body of the Lord, but a mystery of His body is contained,” seem to have been inserted into that homily by some disciple of Berengarius. For they are not in all the copies, as is there noted in the margin; and besides they are not to the point. For the author of the homily was speaking of the sacred vessels of the temple of Solomon, which Belshazzar transferred to profane use, and on that account lost his kingdom and his life. But in those vessels not only was there not the true body of the Lord, but not even a mystery of it. Finally, it is established that that work was in many ways corrupted by various heretics, and has various uncertain things here and there. Which Sixtus of Siena rightly proves, Book 4 of the Holy Library, page 413, by three arguments. First, because in certain most ancient copies these errors are not found. Secondly, because if they be taken away, nothing perishes of the sense and context of the words. Thirdly, because there are in this book not only errors of the most diverse heretics—as Montanus, Donatus, Manichaeus, Arius, Pelagius, Berengarius—but also there are found contrary sentences, and plainly Catholic, and especially against the Arians; which is a manifest argument that all those things are not of the same author. We have, therefore, that nothing solid could be brought forward by the heretics from the true Chrysostom, whereas we have brought forward so many things from his undoubted books for the Catholic truth.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XXII.
Testimonium S. Chrysostomi.
Ad initium anni 400. floruit etiam S.
Joannes Chrysostomus, qui multis modis
testatus est, quid sentiret de Sacramento
corporis Domini. Primum testimonium ejus
habetur hom. GO. ad popul. Antiochen. et
hom. 83. in Matth. « Credamus, inquit ubi¬
que Deo, nec repugnemus ei, etiamsi sensui,
102
LIBER II.
>‘t cogitationi nostra) absurdum esse videa¬
tur, quod dicit. Superet et sensum, et ratio¬
nem nostram sermo, qua)so, ipsius; quod in
omnibus rebus, sed praecipue in mysteriis
faciamus, non illa, quae ante nos jacent solum¬
modo aspicientes, sed verba quoque ejus
tenentes : nam verbis illius defraudari non
possumus, sensus vero noster deceptui facil¬
limus est. Quoniam ergo ille dixit : Hoc est
corpus meum ; nulla dubitatione teneamur,
credamus etc. » Et homil. 51. in Matth.
« Qui, inquit, majus, id est, animam suam,
pro te posuit, quare dedignabitur suum tibi
tradere corpus ? Audiamus igitur tam Sacer¬
dotes, quam alii, quam magna, quam admi¬
rabilis res nobis concessa est, audiamus, oro,
et perhorrescamus, carnes suas nobis tradi¬
dit, seipsum immolatum proposuit ». Sane
non potuisset Chrysostomus clarius loqui,
si Galvinistam aliquem ante se habuisset,
quem hortari ad fidem voluisset.
Secundum testimonium habetur in iisdem
duobus locis : «0, quot modo dicunt, vellem
vestimenta ipsa, vellem calceamenta videre;
ipsum igitur vides, ipsum tangis, ipsum co¬
medis. »
Ad hunc locum respondet Petrus Martyr,
Boquinus, et alii, Chrysostomum tribuere
nomen rei significata) symbolis' ipsis, et
hyperbolice loqui. Et probant eum loqui de
symbolis, non de ipso vero corpore, quia
dicit videri Christum, et tangi in Sacramen¬
to, cum tamen sola symbola tangantur, et
videantur : de ipso autem vero corpore supra
dixit, oculis mentis per fidem esse viden¬
dum ; et infra dicit, in rebus sensibilibus
donum insensibile nobis dari. Quod autem
insensibile est, nec tangi, nec videri potest :
nen igitur de ipso vero Christo loquitur,
sed de pane, cum ait : « Ipsum vides, ipsum
tangis, ipsum comedis. »
At solutio ista facile refellitur : Chrysost.
enim cum dicit, Christum ipsum videri, et
tangi, intelligit ipsum verum Christum videri,
et tangi, sed in specie aliena, non in sua,
id est, vere adesse, et recipi sub illis specie-
bus, quae proprie videntur, et tanguntur ;
licet in propria specie Christus in Sacra¬
mento non videatur, nisi oculis fidei, necque
sensibilis sit, ut in Sacramento est. Exem¬
plum habemus in Angelis. Nam vere dice¬
bantur videre, tangere, et hospitio excipere
Angelos, qui illos recipiebant in corpore
assumpto, ut Abraham, Loth, Tobias, et alii.
Id autem velle Chrysostomum, patet ex eo
quod dicit, multos cupere videre vestimenta, >»
et calceamenta, et in Sacramento, plus ha¬
bere, quam cupiant, cum ipsum Christum
habeant; illi enim qui cupiunt vestimenta,
vera vestimenta cupiunt, non imaginem ve¬
stimentorum. Et sane optabilius esset videre,
vel habere vera Christi indumenta, quam
imaginem corporis ejus : non ergo vere dicit
Chrysostomus, illos habere plus quam op¬
tent, nisi ipsum verum Christum vere ha¬
beant.
Praeterea ibidem dicit Chrysost. nullum
unquam pastorem pavisse oves carne, et
sanguine suo, ut Christus facit, et multas
matres dedisse filios aliis nutriendos,
at Christum carne sua nos alere. Quae
comparationes omnino frigebunt, si tantum
id symbolo carne sua nos nutrit.
Adde, quod homil. 24. in priorem ad Co-
rinth. dicit, magos hoc ipsum corpus adorasse
in preesepi : nos autem aliquid amplius ha¬
bere, quam habuerint magi : nam illi habue¬
runt in prasepi, nos in altari ; illi in ulnis
mulieris, nos in manibus sacerdotis ; illi sim¬
plex corpus viderunt, nos et corpus idem
videmus, et scimus ejus potentiam, et virtu¬
tem, .etc. At si tantum in signo Christum
habemus, non modo, non sumus magis supe¬
riores, sed tanto inferiores, quanto inferior
est imago Christi ipso vero Christo.
Ibidem dicit, amantes consuevisse perso¬
nis amantibus donare vestes, pecunias, et
alia id genus : at carnem suam non posse
dare; Christum autem rationem invenisse
per hoc mirabile Sacramentum, quod se nobis
vere donaret habendum. Sed falsum erit,
quod Chrysostom. dicit si tantum in syriibolo
se nobis Christus donat : possunt enim etiam
homines se donare, et rcipsa donant amicis
in symbolo, cum imagines suas illis do¬
nant.
Item homil. 51. in Matth . « Adeamus, in¬
quit, Christum singuli aegrotantes magna
cum fide. Nam si qui fimbriam vestimenti
ejus tunc tetigerunt, recte omnes convalue¬
runt : quanto magis corroborabimur, si
totum in nobis habebimus ? » Ubi non loqui¬
tur Chrysost.de Christo habito tantum in sym¬
bolis : non enim major est virtus imaginis
Christi, quam fimbriae illius, quam qui tange¬
bant, curabantur omnes.
Item homil. 3. in epist. ad Ephes . dicit,
Eucharistiam nihil prorsus differre ab illo
corpore, quod inccelo ab angelis adoratur :
« De corpore, inquit, nobis sermo est, et
CAPUT XXII.
co, quod nihil ab illo dissidet. Quot istius
corporis efficimur participes ? quot ejus san¬
guinem gustamus? Recolito, quia illius cor¬
pus, et sanguis est, qui supra coelos residet,
qui ab Angelis suppliciter adoratur. »
Denique homil. 3. cie Incomprehensibili na¬
tura Dei prope finem, reprehendit acerrime
populum, quod ad ejus concionem frequen¬
tissime accederent, ad sacrum autem rario¬
res : « Me, inquit, vehemens coepit suspi¬
rium, quod cum ego disputo vester conservus,
studium adhibitis et ingenium, contenditis
animum, alter alterum impellit, et jactat, ut
ipse propius adsit, frequentes ad finem usque
dicendi patientissimi perseveratis : cum au¬
tem ipse Christus communis omnium magister
et Dominus in sacris mysteriis se ostensurus
est, vacua ecclesia redditur. Proh fidem
hominum Christianorum? » Hsec ille. Quee
sane comparatio, et exclamatio ineptissima
esset, si nihil in Eucharistia praeter signum
haberemus: potuissent enim illi respondere,
se domi satis multas habere imagines Christi
in quibus eum videre possent.
Tertium testimonium habetur in iisdem
locis, homil. videlicet 60. ad popul. et 83.
in Matth. ubi Chrysostomus sic ait : « Non
sufficit ipsi, hominem fieri, flagellis interim
eoedi, sed nos secum in unam (ut ita dicam)
massam reducit: neque id fide solum, sed
reipsa nos corpus suum effecit. » Et homil.
61. ad popul. ethorn. 45. in Joan. addit non
sola charitate, sed reipsa nobis commisceri
carnem ipsius per hoc Sacramentum. Et
homil. 24. in priorem ad Corinth. dicit, sic
nos uniri corpori Christi per Eucharistiam,
quemadmodum corpus illud unitum est
Verbo per Incarnationem, id est, vere et
realiter. Et ibidem dicit, amantes aliquando
pr& nimio amore morsu appetere eos, quos
diligunt, ut eo modo indicent, cupere se, si
posset fieri, intime uniri, et fieri unum cum
illis : Christum autem hoc mirabili modo per
Eucharistiam effecisse, ut vere corpori ejus
intime uniremur. Quae omnia frigidissima,
et ridicula essent, si tantum in signo Christi
corpus acciperemus.
Respondet Petrus Martyr, duplicem esse
unionem fidelium cum Christo ; unam per
fidem, et charitatem ; alteram, quae est ista
sequitur, qua sumus membra Christi, et ipse
caput nostrum ; et de hac posteriore loqui
Chrysostomum, cum dicit, nos reipsa uniri
Christo , et non sola fide, 'aut charitate.
Sed contra. Nam ista unio membrorum
103
cura capite, qua officimur unum corpus
mysticum Christi, proprie obtinetur per Ba¬
ptismum, et necessario praecedere debet
sumptionem Eucharistiae : qui enim non est
membrum Christi, non nisi indigne ad hoc
Sacramentum accedit. At Chrysost. dicit,
per Eucharistiam nos conjungi Christo nova
quadam, et vera unione. Praeterea, quod ait
Chrysostomus, reipsa nobis conjungi corpus
Christi, non minus opponitur conjunctioni
mysticae membrorum cum capite, quam con¬
junctioni per fidem, et dilectionem : neque
enim illa magis realis est, quam ista. Deni¬
que illa exempla Incarnationis, et aman-
tiumsatis refellunt figmenta ista adversario¬
rum.
Quartum testimonium est in his locis, ubi
miraculo tribuit Chrysostomus, quod Christi
corpus simul sit in coelo, et in altari lib. ni.
de Sacerdotio : e. 0 miraculum, o Dei be¬
nignitatem, qui cum patre sursum sedet in
illo temporis articulo omnium manibus per¬
tractatur, ac se ipse tradit volentibus illum
excipere, et amplecti. » Item homil. 2. ad
populum Antiochenum in fine : « Elias melo-
tem discipulo reliquit : Filius autem Dei
ascendens suam carnem dimisit : sed Elias
quidem exutus, Christus autem, et nobis
reliquit, et ipsam habens ascendit. »
Ad hunc locum respondet Beza in Cyclope
Christi carnem in coelo esse proprie, in terra
symbolice. Et probat* quia ibidem Chrysost.
dicit, Eliam simul fuisse sursum et deorsum,
quia nimirum sursum erat in sua persona,
et deorsum erat, quia requieverat spiritus
ejus in Elisam : et sic in alio erat deorsum,
non in se. Adducit etiam Beza eumdem Chry¬
sostomum hom. 24. in priorem ad Corinth.
ubi dicit, per hoc mysterium fieri, ut terra
nobis sit coelum, et hortatur, ut mente con¬
scendamus in coelum, ubi Christum ha¬
beamus.
Sed nihil Beza dicit. Nam etiam si Elias
non erat proprie sursum et deorsum, tamen
alia ratio est de Christi carne, quam Chry¬
sostomus non confert cum Elia, sed cum ejus
melote.
Quod autem proprie carnem Domini Cliry
sost. intellexerit in terra nobis relictam, et
simul in coelo, patet, tum ex loco citato ex
lib. nr. de sacerdotio, ubi miraculum in hac
re agnoscit Chrysost.; neque enim miraculum
esset, si tantum in symbolo carnem Domini
haberemus : tum ex hoc ipso loco, de quo
agimus. Dicit enimChrysost. rem nobis longe
104
UBER II.
quam Elias Elisfoo reliquit : quia Elias ve¬
stem, Christus carnem reliquit.At certe non
est res major caro in symbolo, quam vestis
porprie dicta.
Denique locus alius a Beza productus ex
hom. 24. in priorem ad Corinth. vel solus
sufficeret ad eum convertendum ad veram
fidem, nisi in sua haeresi plane obduruisset.
Nam non dicit Ghrysost. ut mente in ccelum
ascendamus, ut ibi tantum Christum habea¬
mus, sed ut videamus, nihil esse in ccelo
praestantius Christo, et ideo terram per hoc.
Sacramentum fieri ccelum, quia vere habe¬
mus in terris id, quod est in ccelo prsestan-
tissimum. Verba ejus haec sunt hom. 24. in
priorem ad Corinth. in fine : « Deum in hac
vita sumus, ut terra nobis ccelum fit, facit
hoc mysterium. Ascende igitur ad coeli por¬
tas, et diligenter attende, imo non coeli
sed coeli coelorum, et tunc quod dicimus
intueberis. Etenim quod summo honore di¬
gnum est, id tibi in terra ostendam ; nam
quemadmodum in regiis non parietes, non
tectum aureum, sed regium corpus in throno
sedens, omnium pra?stantissimum est : ita
quoque in coelis regium corpus, quod nunc
in terra videndum tibi proponitur : neque
enim Angelos, neque Archangelos, non
coelos, non coelos coelorum, sed ipsum horum
omnium Dominum tibi ostendo. » Quo loco
Chrysost. si solum in signo Christum in terra
esse vellet, plane deciperet auditores ; nec
anteponeret eum Angelis et Archangelis.
Quis enim non malit veros Angelos videre,
quam solam Christi imaginem ? Adde quod
ibidem rursus ait Chrysost. : «Si puer regius
purpura, et diademate ornatus tibi ferendus
traderetur, nonne, omnibus rebus humi ab¬
jectis, eum exciperes ? Verum nunc cum non
hominis regium puerum, sed unigenitum
Dei Filium accipias, non horrescis, et omnem
saicularium rerum amorem abjicis? » Hcec
ille. Ubi si de Christi signo, non de ipso
Christo loqueretur, nullo modo eum cum
regio puero, sed cum imagine pueri regii
conferret ; aut certe ineptissimus esset.
Quintum testimonium, est in his locis, ubi
Chrysost. dicit, Christum in Eucharistia, non
modo ab hominibus, sed etiam ab Angelis
adorari. Hom. 41. in priorem ad Corinth.
« Non frustra memoriam mortuorum inter
sacra mysteria celebramus, aut accedimus,
pro istis agnum illum jacentem ; et peccata
mundi tollentem deprecantes. » Hcec ille.
Ubi apertissime dicit invocari (quse species
est summa? adorationis) agnum in altari
jacentem ; et forte alludit ad illa verba :
« Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi dona
eis requiem. »
Idem in orat de S. Philogonio, loquens de
magis, qui ad Christum adorandum ex Per¬
side venerunt, sic ait : « Si cum fide accesse¬
rimus, procul dubio videbimus eum in pra:-
sepi jacentem. Nam lieec mensa vicem explet
prmsepis: si quidem et hic ponitur corpus
Dominicum, non quidem fasciis involutum,
sicut tunc, sed undequaque Spiritu sancto
convestitum. Ac magi quidem nihil aliud
quid adorarunt : tibi vero si cum pura acces¬
seris conscientia, permittemus ut sumas, et
sumpto domum abeas. » Ubi indicat nos non
tantum adorare posse, quod magi fecerunt,
sed etiam sumere.
Idem homil. GO. ad populum Antiochenum :
« Cogita quali sis insignitus honore, qua
mensa fruaris. Quod Angeli videntes horre¬
scunt, neque libere audent intueri, propter
emicantem inde splendorem, hoc nos pasci¬
mur, huic nos unimur. » Et homil. 61.
« Huic et superna? potestates assistunt, quo¬
niam et ille nobis manifestius propositorum
virtutem speculantur, et inaccessibiles admi¬
rantur splendores. » Et homil. 3. in epist.
ad Ephes. « Et tu ad salutarem hoc hostiam
accessurus, quam Angeli ipsi cum tremore
suspiciunt. » Et lib. 6. ad sacerdot. : « Per id
tempus, inquit, et Angeli sacerdoti assident
et coelestium potestatum universus ordo cla¬
mores excitat, et locus altari vicinus in illius
honorem, qui immolatur, Angelorum choris
plenus est : id quod credere abunde licet,
vel ex tanto illo sacrificio, quod tunc pera¬
gitur. Ego vero, et commemorantem quem¬
dam audivi, cufn diceret senem quemdam,
virum admirabilem, ac cui revelationum
mysteria multa divinitus fuissent detecta,
sibi narrasse, se tali olim visione dignum ha¬
bitum a Deo fuisse : ac per illud quidem tem¬
pus derepente Angelorum multitudinem
conspexisse (quatenus aspectus humanus
ferre poterat j fulgentibus vestibus indutorum
altare ipsum circumdantium: denique sic
capite inclinatorum, ut si quis milites prse-
sente rege stantes videat. » Homil 21. in Acta
« Quid dicis ? hostia in manibus est, adsunt
Angeli, adsunt Archangeli, adest Filius Dei:
cum tanto horrore astant omnes etc. » Deni¬
que homil. de Eucharistia in enca?niis :
« Agnus Dei immolatur, Seraphim astant sex
alis faciem tegentia, etc. »
CAPUT XXII.
103
Ad hffic adversarii neque respondent, ne¬
que respondere possunt. Si enim Angeli ad
altare astant capitibus inclinatis, et cum
timore, ac tremore, vix audent libere intueri
propter splendorem inde emicantem; quis
negare potest ibi aliud esse, quam panem ?
Et si Angeli adorant, quis homines reprehen¬
dere potest si et ipsi adorent?
Sextum testimonium est in his locis, ubi
Chrysost. dicit mutari panem homil. 83. in
Matt/i. et homil. 60. ad Populum : « Non sunt
humana} virtutis opera proposita : nos mi¬
nistrorum locum tenemus, qui vero sanctifi¬
cat ea, et immutat, ipse est. » Et infra : « Qui
dixit, Hoc est corpus meum, et verbo factum
confirmavit. » Et in hom. de proditione Judx
dicit ista verba: « Hoc est corpus meum »,
similia esse illis : « Crescite et multiplica¬
mini. » Et hom. de Eueharist. in encamiis:
« Num vides panem? num vinum ?num sicut
reliqui cibi in secessum vadunt? absit, ne sic
cogites. Quemadmodum enim si cera igni
adhibita illi assimilatur, nihil substantia} re¬
manet, nihil superfluit : sic et hic puta mys¬
teria consumi corporis substantia. »
Ad hunc ultimum locum respondet Petrus
Martyr in lib. contra Gardinerum par. 4.
Chrysostomum non negare in Eucharistia
esse verum panem; sed modo illo loquendi
significare velle, non esse attendendum ad
panem, sed ad id, quod per eum significatur
neque substantiam panis propria velle con¬
sumi ab ipso Domini corpore superveniente
sicut ceram ab igne ; sed istum esse tropum,
quo indicetur oportere nos mentem abstra¬
here a pane, et vino, et in rebus significatis
eam ponere. Id autem probat, quia Chryso-
stomus non solum substantiam panis, sed
etiam accidentia consumi dicit, cum ait nihil
superfluere, et cum adhibet cerfe similitudi¬
nem, quse tota omnino perit in igne, tum
quoad substantiam, tum quoad accidentia.
Atqui accidentia panis non consumuntur
vere et proprie, cum adhuc sensibus per¬
cipiantur ; ergo neque substantia vere et
proprie consumitur ; ergo neque substantia
vere, et proprie consumitur. Secundo idem
probat, quia ibidem Chrysostomus dicit :
« Ne putetis quod accipiatis divinum corpus
ex homine, sed ex ipsius Seraphim forcipe
ignem. » Qua} certe verba proprie acci¬
pienda non sunt, quia falsa essent: eodem
igitur modo, cum idem auctor dicit, non esse
panem, et vinum, et consumi mysteria,
intelligenda sunt omnia improprie.
Sed heee solutio nullo negotio refelli po¬
test. Nam si Chrysostomus non negaret
reipsa panem adesse, et tantum vellet non
adesse quoad cogitationem nostram; non
diceret Eucharistiam non emitti in secessum
sicut alios cibos : ista enim nihil ad cogita¬
tionem, sed ad rem ipsam pertinent. Unde
Petrus Martyr, quamvis multa dixerit de hoc
loco, nunquam tamen respondit ad istam
sententiolam, sed eamsemper, quasi scopu¬
lum quemdam infestum evitavit. Praderea
valde absurda esset similitudo illa de cera
ab igne consumpta, si non reipsa panis con¬
sumeretur.
Ad argumentum ejus primum respondeo,
Chrysostomum non dicere consumi acciden¬
tia panis: imo disertis verbis expressit ille
substantiam discedere, adveniente alia sub¬
stantia. Unde cum ait mysteria consumi, in-
telligit quoad substantian, de qua loqueba¬
tur ; et cum ait, nihil superfluere, nihil sub¬
stantia} remanere significat. Et denique cum
cera, qua} tota consumitur, solam substantiam
panis comparat, non quidquid in pane est.
Ad secundum dico, non esse similes illas
locutiones : « Ne putes divinum corpus ex
homine te accipere. » et <c Num panem vides,
num vinum ? » Nam in priore manifesti sunt
tropi, dum sacerdotem vocat angelum Sera-
phicum, et corpus Domini ignem, et manum
sacerdotalem forcipem : neque negat accipi
corpus Domini a sacerdote, sed negat illum
eo tempore gerere, ut hominem, sed potius
angelico ministerio illum uti confirmat. At in
posteriore omnes circumstantice clamant non
esse ibi tropum, cum dicat, eum panem non
ire in secessum, et totam substantiam con¬
sumi.
Septimum testimonium est in his locis, ubi
dicit in Eucharistia esse veritatem sanguinis,
cujus figura pra}cesserat in Testamento ve¬
teri. Homini ad Neophytos disputans de san- „
guine agni, quo liniebantur postes filiorum
Israel in iEgypto, ut ab Angelo percutiente
liberarentur : « Sicut, inquit, regnantium
statua}, nonnumquam ad se confugientibus
hominibus subvenire consueverunt, non quia
sunt tere confecta}, sed quia retinent imagi¬
nem principalem : ita et sanguis ille libera¬
vit, non quia sanguis fuit, sed quia ejus san¬
guinis ostendebat adventum. Nunc ergo si
viderit inimicus, non postibus impositum
sanguinem typi, sed fidelium ore lucentem
sanguinem veritatis, multo magis se subtra¬
het. Si enim Angelus cessit exemplo, quanto
10(1
UBER 11.
magis terrebitur inimicus, si ipsum perspexe¬
rit veritatem ? » Similia repetit hom. 45. in
Joan. et homil. 61. Ad populum Antiochenum.
Ad quae loca nihil omnino responderi potest :
nam sanguinis veritatem ponit Chrysostomus
non solum in animo, sed etiam in ore fide¬
lium.
Jam contra catholicam veritatem ex Chry-
sostomo novem testimonia" Petrus Martyr ad¬
ducit in lib. contra G ardi neram ohject. 197.
et sequentibus, sed sex ex illis, nullamhabent
difficultatem. Unum sumit ex hom. 83. in
Matth. ubi Chrysostomus Eucharistiam vocat
symbola passionis Christi. Quod quidem et
nos fatemur, ut supra saepe diximus.
Alterum, sumit e\ eadem homilia, ubi di¬
cit Israelitas agnum paschalem comedisse
habitu viatorum, quia in Palaestinam pro¬
fecturi erant ; nos autem in coelum profectu¬
ros esse : ex quo loco deduci i Petrus Martyr
nos, dum manducamus Eucharistiam, debere
in coelum mente conscendere, et ibi Christum
quaerere, non in Sacramento. Atqui ista mira
est vel stupiditas, vel pertinacia. Nam non
docet Chrysostomus, ut dum sumimus Eu¬
charistiam, ascendamus in coelum, sed ut su-
manus Eucharistiam tanquam cibum, et
viaticum, quo roboremur in hac vita, dum
proficiscimur ad patriam coelestem, ad quam
post mortem perveniemus. Id quod ex allata
comparatione perspicuum est : neque enim
lsraelitae dum comederent agnum, ibant in
Palaestinam, ut ibi quaererent agnum, sed
comedebant agnum quem praesentem ha¬
bebant, habitu tamen viatorum, quia paulo
post iter facturi erant ad terram promissio¬
nis.
Tertium testimonium sumit ex homil. 24.
in priorem ad Corinthios : ubi Chrysostomus
ait : <( Quid est panis ? corpus Christi » :
« Ergo, inquit Petrus Martyr, panis est cor¬
pus Christi ; ergo verus panis manet in Eu¬
charistia. » Respondeo : Chrysostomus non
de pane materiali, sed de pano consecrato
praedicat corpus Christi : verissime autem
panis consecratus non est panis communis,
sed panis vita?, id est, corpus Christi. Unde
ibidem Chrysostomus, disertis verbis dicit, in
calice sacro illud esse, quod ex latere Chri¬
sti fluxit, id est, sanguinem ejus.
Quartum testimonium sumit ex eadem
homil. ubi Chrysostomus dicit, Euchari¬
stiam esse cibum aquilarum, juxta illa verba
Domini : Ubi fuerit, corpus, illic congrega¬
buntur et\aquilx{ l).Proindo more aquilarum
debere nos in altum evehi, et ad Christum
accedere. Hinc autem nititur ostendere Pe¬
trus Martyr, Christum non esse quaerendum
in altari. Sed frustra nititur. Chrysostomus
enim loquitur de ascensione non in coelum
corporale, sed in Deum, ac res alternas, et
spirituales, neglectis terrenis curis, quod
sane facit, qui Christum quaerit, eique ad
seret, ubicumque tandem is sit.
Quintum testimonium sumit ex homil. 27.
in priorem ad Corinthios, ubi panem, et ca¬
licem vocat Eucharistiam. Sed ad hoc jam
scepe responsum est : utitur enim Chrysosto¬
mus verbis Pauli.
Sextum testimonium est in hom. 20. in
posteriorem ad Corinthios , ubi Chrysostomus
dicit, non solum Eucharistiam esse corpus
Domini, sed etiam pauperes esse corpus
Domini, de quibus Dominus ait : Quod uni ex
minimis istis fecistis, mihi fecistis. At paupe¬
res non sunt corpus Christi nisi repraesenta-
tive ; ergo et Eucharistia solum repraesenta-
tive corpus est Christi. Respondeo : Non
dicit Chrysostomus eodem modo corpus
Christi esse pauperes, quo est Eucharistia : et.
ex aliis ejus locis infinitis satis jam probatum
est, Euchari tiam esse ipsum verum Christi
corpus, quale certum est non esse pauperes.
Septimum testimonium sumit ex comment.
Psal. xxii. Sic enim ibi legimus : «Ut quo¬
tidie in similitudinem corporis, et sanguinis
Christi panem, et vinum secundum ordinem
Melchiscdech nobis ostenderent in Sacra¬
mento. »
Respondeo : Commentarium in eum psal¬
mum, sine dubio non esse Chrysostomi,
imo neque graeci alicujus ; phrasis enim
latina est, et cum res, tum verba longissime
absunt ascriptis Chrysostomi : potest tamen
responderi, (cujuscumque sit illa sententia),
panem, et vinum in Sacramento ostendi
quoad externam speciem. Nam ut supra di¬
ximus, etiam more Scripturarum res deno¬
minantur ab exteriore specie : quomodo
serpens aeneus vocatur serpens, et Angeli
qui apparebant in forma humana, passim
dicuntur in Scriptura homines. Neque nega¬
mus panem Eucharistiae similitudinem gerere
corporis Domini, quoniam ejus sacramentum
est, licet simul etiam doceamus, praesens
Domini corpus, non absens, eo sacramento
(1) Matth. XX V, 40.
CAPUT XXI 11.
107
significari. Porro ille auctor panem et vinum
appellare voluit Eucharistiam, non corpus,
et sanguinem, quia exponebat illa verba Sa¬
lomonis : Venite comedite panes meos, et bibite
vinum, quod miscui vobis (1).
Octavum testimonium sumit ex libro, sive
epistola aci Caesarium monachum, ubi legi¬
mus, panem post consecrationem non vocari
amplius panem, licet natura panis in ipso
permaneat.
Respondeo : Nihil ejusmodi unquam scri¬
psisse Chrysostomum : neque enim in toto
Chysostomi opere ullus est liber, vel epistola
ad Caesarium. Verba autem hujus auctoris
(quicumque ille fuerit) eamdem prorsus sen¬
tentiam habent cum sententia Theodoreti, et
Gelasii ; ideo, quod postea ad illos responde¬
bimus, idem et huic responderi poterit : no¬
lo enim cum Chrysostomo miscere testimo¬
nia incerta, et nullius auctoritatis.
Nonum testimonium sumit ex hom. in
Matth. ubi sic legimus : « Si ergo haec vasa
sanctificata ad privatos usus transferre sic
periculosum est, in quibus non verum corpus
Christi, sed mysterium corporis ejus conti¬
netur ; quanto magis vasa corporis nostri,
quse sibi Deus ad habitaculum praeparavit,
non debemus locum darrc diabolo agendi in
eis quod vult. »
Respondeo : Non dubium est, opus homi-
liarunl imperfectum, unde sumptum est ab
adversariis testimonium, non esse Chryso-
stomi : nec minus certum est, opus illud va¬
riis erroribus scatere. Id annotavit Erasmius
in praefatione : idem fatetur Petrus Martyr ;
et omnes, qui legerint, facile judicabunt.
Porro verba illa : « In quibus non est ve¬
rum corpus Domini, sed corporis ejus myste¬
rium continetur » : ab aliquo Berengarii
discipulo incerta illi homilise esse videntur.
Nam non sunt in omnibus exemplaribus, ut
ibidem ad marginem annotatur; et praeterea
ad rem non faciunt. Nam loquebatur auctor
homiliae de vasis sacris templi Salomonis,
quae Balthasar transtulit ad profanum usum,
et propterea regnum, et vitam perdidit. In
illis autem vasis, non solum non erat verum
corpus Domini, sed nec mysterium ejus.
Denique constat opus illud multis modis cor¬
ruptum a variis haereticis, et varia hinc inde
incerta habere. Id quod recte probat Sixtus
Senensis lib. iv. Bibliothecae sanctae pag. 413.
tribus argumentis. Primo, quia in quibusdam
antiquissimis exemplaribus non inveniuntur
hi errores. Secundo, quia si auferantur, ni¬
hil perit de sensu et contextu verborum.
Tertio, quia non solum sunt in hoc libro er¬
rores diversissimorum haereticoram, ut Mon¬
tani, Donati, Manichaei, Arii, Pelagii, Beren¬
garii ; sed etiam inveniuntur contrax-iae sen¬
tentiae, et plane catholicae, et praesertim
adversus Aiianos ; id enim argumentum
est manifestum, non esse illa omnia ejusdem
auctoris. Habemus igitur, nihil solidi ex vero
Chrysostomo ab haereticis afferri potuisse,
cum tamen nos tam multa ex indubitatis ejus,
libris attulerimus pro catholica veritate.