Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book II: On the Real Presence, from the Testimonies of the Fathers
Chapter 24: The Testimony of St. Augustine
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).
Saint Augustine follows next after Saint Jerome, since he was his most intimate friend, and survived him about ten years; for Augustine died, Prosper being witness in his Chronicle, in the year of the Lord 433, whereas Jerome died, by the same Prosper’s account, in the year 422. Now this Father Calvin falsely claims to be wholly his own, Book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 17, section 28. The same Peter Martyr and the other Calvinists cite beyond all others, and boast that he is theirs; just as of old Berengarius, Guitmund being witness in Book 2, alone did not reject Augustine. I will therefore bring forward, to repress this their boasting, testimonies from absolutely all the volumes of the works of Augustine.
And first, from the first volume, we have a testimony in Book 9 of the Confessions, chapter 13: “She desired only that a remembrance of her be made at Thy altar, whence she knew that the holy victim is dispensed, by which was blotted out the handwriting that was against us.” And below: “To the Sacrament of which our price Thy handmaid bound her soul with the bond of faith.” So he. And by the victim by which the handwriting against us was blotted out, he can understand nothing but the true flesh of Christ, which was immolated for us on the cross; for bread is no such victim. And when he says that that victim is dispensed from the altar, he most plainly indicates that the flesh of Christ is received not only by faith, but also by the hands, from the mouth. Finally, when he says that Saint Monica bound her soul with the bond of faith to the Sacrament of the body of the Lord, he manifestly signifies that in that Sacrament there is not a bare sign, but the very true body of the Lord; for a most wise woman would not have bound her soul to bread, that through it she might be secure.
In the second volume, in epistle 44 to Maximus, when Maximus, a heathen man, had objected to Augustine that the Christians believe they see their God in hidden places, he answered nothing at all. For he could neither deny that Christ is seen in the Sacrament of the altar—since he himself says, Book 3 On the Trinity, chapter 10, that in the species of bread the Lord appears to the eyes of mortals—nor yet did he think it safe or fitting to explain this mystery to a heathen man. But certainly, if Christ were present in the Eucharist only in a sign, he could and ought to have refuted that objection.
A testimony exists in epistle 86 to Casulanus, where Augustine reproves a certain Urbicus, who had said that the Old Testament was so changed into the new that the flock yielded to bread, and the blood to the cup. “He says,” he says, “that the flock yielded to bread, as if not knowing that then too the loaves of proposition were wont to be placed on the table of the Lord, and that now he receives a part from the body of the immaculate Lamb; and he says that the blood yielded to the cup, not considering that even now he receives blood in the cup.” And below: “When, therefore, would he say better and more fittingly that the old things have passed away, and are made new in Christ, than thus: that altar yielded to altar, sword to sword, fire to fire, bread to bread, flock to flock, blood to blood?” So he. But certainly, if the opinion of the adversaries were true, that Urbicus would have said most rightly; for the flock would truly have yielded to bread, and the blood to the cup. For as regards the sign, in that flock Christ would have been no less than in our bread; and the blood of the Lord would have been no less in that blood than in our wine. Wherefore they would then have had Christ in the flock, whom we have in the bread; and blood in the blood, which we have in the wine; and by this the flock would have yielded to bread, not flock to flock, and blood to the cup, not blood to blood. Augustine means, therefore, that all things are so changed that for the bread of proposition we have the heavenly bread; for the irrational flock, the Lamb of God; for the blood of brute animals, the blood of Christ.
The same, in epistle 118, chapter 3, says that a singular veneration is owed to the Eucharist; and in the same place he compares those who out of devotion approach this Sacrament daily, or out of devotion sometimes do not approach, with Zacchaeus and the Centurion, of whom the one received the Lord into his house rejoicing, the other said, Lord, I am not worthy; which comparison would be flat and inept if we received nothing but a sign of the body of the Lord.
In epistle 120 to Honoratus, chapter 27, the same Augustine, expounding that of Psalm 21, All the rich of the people have eaten and adored: “These too,” he says, “are led to the table of Christ, and receive of His body and blood, but they only adore, they are not also filled, because they do not imitate; for eating the poor One, they disdain to be poor.” In this place Augustine openly says that proud men receive from the table of the Lord the body of the Lord, and adore, but are not filled. From which it follows that by the body of the Lord he understands not a sign of the body, that is, bread, because bread is not adored; nor does he understand the body of the Lord as it is in heaven, but as it is on the altar; because he says it is received from the table of the Lord, and received by the wicked. See also epistles 162 and 163.
In the third volume there are two other testimonies. One is Book 3 On the Trinity, chapter 4, where, when he had said that Christ is signified in one way by the tongue and written words, in another by the sacrament of the body and blood, he subjoins: “For neither the tongue, nor the parchment, nor the ink, nor the significant sounds uttered by the tongue, nor the signs of letters written on skins, do we call the body and blood of Christ, but only that which, taken from the fruits of the earth and consecrated by the mystical prayer, we rightly receive unto spiritual salvation, in memory of the Lord’s passion for us.” So he. But certainly, if the Eucharist were the body of Christ only significatively, why could not the words themselves, whether written or spoken, which most clearly signify that same body, be called the body of the Lord?
But a little after the same Augustine subjoins: “Which, when it is brought by the hands of men to that visible species, is not sanctified so as to be so great a Sacrament, save by the Spirit of God working invisibly; since God works all these things which are done in that work by bodily motions,” and so forth. Where the truth of the body of the Lord is asserted by Augustine in two ways. First, because he says that this Sacrament is made by the Holy Spirit working invisibly; for that working would not be necessary if the Eucharist were the body of the Lord only significatively. Secondly, because he numbers this working among miracles; for there he treats of miracles, and brings forward many examples, as of the rain obtained by Elijah, of the thunders on Mount Sinai, of the water changed into wine by Christ, of the rod of Aaron which flowered, and of the rod of Moses turned into a serpent. What marvelous working, then, can there be in the confection of this Sacrament, if nothing at all is done?
From these the solution of Peter Martyr can be refuted, which he applies to this passage in his book against Gardiner, part 4; for he says that the Holy Spirit works invisibly in this Sacrament, both because the Sacraments are instituted by God alone, and because the efficacy of the Sacrament, by which our minds are stirred, is from the Holy Spirit. But these are mere evasions. For the institution and even the confection of a Sacrament, if it be nothing but a sign, requires no invisible working of the Holy Spirit; and the working by which our minds are stirred to faith is in our minds, not in the Sacrament.
The other testimony is Book 3 On the Trinity, chapter 10, where he says thus: “How the Angels made or assumed those clouds or fires to signify what they announced, even though the Lord or the Holy Spirit was shown in those forms—who of men knows? Just as infants do not know what is placed on the altar, and, the celebration of the piety being accomplished, is consumed—whence or how it is confected, whence it is taken for the use of religion. And if they never learn by experience, either their own or others’, and never see that species except during the celebration of the Sacraments, when it is offered and given, and it be said to them by most weighty authority whose body and blood it is, they will believe nothing else than that in that species the Lord altogether appeared to the eyes of mortals, and that that liquor altogether flowed from such a stricken side.” So he. Where he disputes of the forms in which the Angels, or God, appeared in the Old Testament. And to show that we are ignorant how those forms were made, and yet certainly believe that in them God or the Angels appeared, he takes a similitude from the Eucharist; for infants, when they are present at the sacred things, are ignorant how that form is made in which the Eucharist is consecrated, and yet certainly believe that in that form the Lord appeared, and that in the chalice is the blood of the Lord, because it is told them that Christ taught this in the Gospel, when He said: This is my body, This is my blood.
Now hence we have a most firm argument against the adversaries. For the infants, to whom it is said by most weighty authority that in that visible form is the body of Christ, and that the liquor which is in the chalice is blood, do not believe that these are body and blood significatively, but truly and properly; for they are not able of themselves to understand those tropes, but believe simply what is told them. Whence Augustine says: “They will believe nothing else than that the Lord appeared to the eyes of mortals in that species, and that that liquor altogether flowed from the side of Christ.” Nor is it to be said that these infants have a false faith; both because Augustine says that they believe this because it is told them by most weighty authority; and because, if that faith were false, they ought to have been instructed and admonished, especially since they too at that time were admitted to Communion. Besides, Augustine compares the Eucharist with the forms in which the Angels appeared; but in those forms the Angels were truly and properly present. Therefore also in the form of bread the body of Christ is truly and properly present; otherwise the comparison will be worth nothing, and the whole disputation of Augustine will fall. See besides the same Augustine, Book 4 On the Trinity, chapter 11, and in the Enchiridion, chapter 100.
In the fourth volume we have a testimony in Book 3 On Leviticus, question 37: “What means it,” he says, “that the people is so greatly forbidden the blood of the sacrifices which were offered for sins, if by those sacrifices was signified this one sacrifice, in which is the true remission of sins; from whose blood, nevertheless, to be taken as food, not only is no one forbidden, but all rather are exhorted to use it, who wish to have life?” So he. But certainly that question would be not only superfluous, but also most inept, if we received the blood of the Lord only in a sign and spiritually; for the Jews were not forbidden to drink blood spiritually by faith, but bodily. Wherefore Cyprian, or whoever was the author, in the sermon On the Supper of the Lord, rightly said that this doctrine is new and unheard-of, which commands blood to be drunk, whereas the old law most strictly forbade the eating of blood.
In the fifth volume there exists a testimony in Book 17 On the City of God, chapter 20, in these words: “In another book, which is called Ecclesiastes, where he says: There is no good for a man but that he shall eat and drink; what is understood to be said more credibly than what pertains to the participation of this table, which the Priest Himself, the mediator of the New Testament, exhibits according to the order of Melchizedek, of His body and blood? For that sacrifice succeeded all those sacrifices of the Old Testament which were immolated in shadow of the thing to come. On account of which we acknowledge, in Psalm 39, that voice of the same mediator through prophecy: Sacrifice and oblation Thou wouldst not, but a body Thou hast fitted to me; because for all those sacrifices and oblations His body is offered, and is ministered to the participants.” So he. In which place Augustine cannot speak of a sign of the body, but of the very true body, since he says that that body is offered and ministered which succeeded the ancient sacrifices; for those too were signs of the body of the Lord. And besides, Augustine says that that body is offered and ministered of which it is written in Psalm 39, But a body Thou hast fitted to me; which indeed was a true and natural body no one denies. Nor can the adversaries answer that Augustine speaks of the true body, but such as is received by faith only; for when he says, “It is offered and ministered,” he most plainly speaks of the bodily handling of the body of the Lord. See also on this matter the exposition of the same Augustine on Psalm 39, where he calls the body which the faithful know, and which they receive in the Eucharist, the completion of all the old sacrifices.
In the sixth volume, Book 2 against Faustus, chapter 10, he says that the faithful receive with the mouth the blood by which they were redeemed; and chapter 20 he says that now is drunk that which flowed from the side of Christ; and Book 2 against the Adversary of the Law and the Prophets, chapter 9: “The Mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus,” he says, “giving His flesh to be eaten and His blood to be drunk, we receive with faithful heart and mouth; although it may seem more horrible to eat human flesh than to slay it, and to drink human blood than to shed it.” So he. Where it must be noted that he says the flesh of the Lord is received by us not only with the heart, but also with the mouth.
In the seventh volume, Book 2 against the letters of Petilian, chapter 27: “One thing is the Pasch, which they still celebrate of a sheep; another that which we receive in the body and blood of the Lord.” So he. Where he opposes to the Paschal Lamb the body of the Lord which we receive in the Eucharist; which certainly he would not do if he spoke of a sign of the body, not of the true body; for that lamb too was the body of the Lord significatively, and more expressly than bread. See also Book 1 against Cresconius, chapter 25, and Book 1 On the Merits of Sins, chapter 24.
In the eighth volume there are most plain testimonies. On Psalm 33, first discourse, Augustine, explaining the title of the Psalm, in which was written “And he was borne in his own hands”: “How,” he says, “could this be done in a man, let one understand? For who is borne in his own hands? A man can be borne in the hands of others; in his own hands no one is borne. How it is to be understood, in David himself according to the letter we do not find; but in Christ we find. For Christ was borne in His own hands, when, commending His very body, He said: This is my body; for He bore that body in His own hands.”
To this passage Calvin deigned to answer, Book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 17, section 28, who passed over in deep silence so many testimonies of all the Fathers and of Augustine himself. He says, then, that Christ bore Himself in His own hands, but improperly and figuratively, because, namely, He bore the Sacrament of His body. And this he proves, because Augustine, in the second discourse on the same Psalm, repeating the same matter, added the particle “in a manner”; for he says thus: “How was He borne in His own hands? Because, when He commended His very body and blood, He took into His own hands that which the faithful know, and He bore Himself in a manner, when He said: This is my body.” The same solution Peter Martyr too applies to this passage.
But they are easily refuted. For Augustine not only says that Christ was borne by His own hands, but adds that this is a most difficult thing, and impossible to other men; for he says thus: “How could this be done in a man, let one understand?” and again: “A man can be borne in the hands of others; in his own hands no one is borne.” But how easy it is for one to bear himself in a sign! Certainly when a prince bears his coin in his purse, he bears himself in a sign, since in that coin his image is found impressed; and each of us, when he reads letters given to him, where he has his name written, does he not bear himself in a sign? Since, then, this is done frequently and commonly, why would Augustine say that it cannot be done, and can scarcely even be understood, if he spoke only of a sign?
But Peter Martyr says: “No one can bear himself in the manner in which Christ bore Himself, because no one can institute a Sacrament, and in that manner bear himself in the Sacrament.” But I answer: No one can institute a Sacrament, inasmuch as a Sacrament is an instrument of conferring grace, or an infallible sign of that grace; but he can well institute one inasmuch as it is a simple sign of some thing. Now Christ, if He was said to bear Himself because He bore the Sacrament, was said to bear Himself for this, that that Sacrament was a sign of Himself; not because it was an instrument of grace, as even they themselves confess, who say that the Sacrament of the body of the Lord is called the body of the Lord because the name of the thing signified is sometimes attributed to the sign. Whoever, then, bears an image of himself painted by himself, he no less bears himself than Christ would bear Himself, if the opinion of the adversaries is true.
Peter Martyr adds: “Will they, nill they, the Papists, it cannot in any way be that Christ bore His body properly, because there would then have been two bodies.” This, namely, is what grieved him, that the mystery is more sublime than that he could grasp it—that it could be that one nature be in two really distinct persons, unless that nature be doubled. What, I ask, will he answer, save that there is need of faith to understand these things, which surpass human reason? Let him, then, know that the same is answered by us concerning this mystery. Or if he himself answers the Arian, that the divine essence, on account of its infinity, can be in several really distinct persons, we too will say to him that the body of Christ, on account of the omnipotence of Christ, can be at once placed in diverse places. But of this we shall dispute in the following book.
To that objection, then, from the particle “in a manner,” I answer that that particle signifies that Christ bore Himself not in His own species, but in an alien one; nor bore Himself in the manner in which human bodies are ordinarily borne, namely with great labor on the shoulders, or in some like manner, but mystically and sacramentally, yet so that His body was truly contained under that mystery. And briefly, whatever that “in a manner” signifies, it suffices us in this place that it does not signify “in a sign” or “figuratively,” as we have shown.
Another notable passage is in the commentary on Psalm 98, where, explaining that, Adore His footstool, he says that the footstool of the Lord’s feet is the earth, according to that of Isaiah 66, The earth is my footstool; and he asks how it is lawful to adore the earth without impiety: “Wavering,” he says, “I turn to Christ, because Him I seek here, and I find how the earth may be adored without impiety, how the footstool of His feet may be adored. For He took earth of earth, because the flesh is of earth, and He received flesh of the flesh of Mary. And because He walked here in that very flesh, and gave that very flesh to us to be eaten unto salvation; but no one eats that flesh unless he first adore it—it has been found how such a footstool of the Lord’s feet may be adored, so that not only do we not sin by adoring, but we sin by not adoring.” So he.
Peter Martyr answers, in his book against Gardiner, part 4, that Saint Augustine speaks of the true and properly-so-called flesh of the Lord, which we eat spiritually with the mouth of faith, and which, existing in heaven, we adore; and in the same place he notes in passing that, according to Augustine, the wicked do not eat the flesh of the Lord, because the wicked do not adore the flesh of Christ; and according to Augustine no one eats that flesh unless he first adore it.
But this false Martyr did not read Augustine well, and therefore boldly gathers from Augustine things altogether contrary to what Augustine wrote. For on Psalm 21, first discourse, of the proud and wicked rich, Augustine says: “The rich too have eaten the body of the lowliness of their Lord; they have not, like the poor, been filled unto imitation, but yet they have adored.” And in epistle 120 cited above: “These too,” he says, “are led to the table of the Lord, and receive of His body and blood, but they only adore, they are not also filled, because they do not imitate.” So he. You see, therefore, that according to Augustine the wicked adore and eat the flesh of the Lord received from the very table, that is, from the altar. From those passages, then, we explain this passage, and from Augustine himself we teach that he speaks of the very eating of the flesh of the Lord by the bodily instrument, since the wicked too eat that flesh.
Besides, if Augustine only meant to say that the earth is adored without impiety because the flesh of Christ, as it is in heaven, is adored, he would without cause have said that that flesh was given us to eat. For to what purpose does he mention the Eucharist, if it be not in the Eucharist itself that we adore the flesh of the Lord present? Augustine wished, therefore, to show that the very flesh of the Lord is adored; and because we have no more illustrious argument than from the daily practice of adoring the Eucharist, therefore he mentioned it; for apart from that adoration it cannot easily be discerned whether one adores the flesh of the Lord or the divinity alone.
Finally, it is probable that Augustine took this whole passage from Ambrose, who, as we cited above, openly says that the flesh of the Lord is adored by us in the mysteries, as the Apostles adored it in its own species; and that this is to adore the footstool of the Lord’s feet. See besides on Psalms 33, 45 [50], 15, 93, 99, 100.
In the ninth volume, tract 11 on John, explaining that, But Jesus did not trust Himself to them, he says that this suits the Catechumens, to whom the Lord did not offer Himself through the Eucharist: “If we say to a Catechumen, Dost thou believe in Christ? he answers, I believe; and he signs himself with the cross of Christ, he bears it on his forehead, and is not ashamed of the cross of his Lord. Behold, he believes in His name. Let us ask him: Dost thou eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink the blood of the Son of man? He knows not what we say, because Jesus did not trust Himself to him.” And below: “Whither does He lead the believing and baptized? To the manna: behold, I say manna. It is known what the Jews received, the people of Israel; it is known what the Lord rained upon them from heaven; and do the Catechumens not know what the Christians receive? Let them be ashamed, then, that they do not know; let them pass through the Red Sea, let them eat manna, that, as they believed in the name of Jesus, so Jesus may trust Himself to them.” So he. He also, Book 2 On the Merits and Remission of Sins, chapter 26, says that a holy bread was wont to be given to the Catechumens, which was not indeed the body of Christ, yet was holy, and sanctified, and could even be called a Sacrament, and consequently a sign of a sacred thing. From these we have a notable argument. For first, if there were not in the Eucharist the true body of Christ, and if the flesh of Christ were not eaten except in a symbol and by faith, it would not be true that Christ does not trust Himself to the Catechumens; for they too have Christ in a sign, and eat Him by faith; for they sign themselves with the sign of the cross, and believe in Christ. Secondly, there would be no reason why the Eucharist should not be given them, since other clearer signs are given them, such as the written words of God. Thirdly, that holy bread too could be called the body of the Lord, as is clear; whereas Augustine constantly denies this.
The same author, tract 26 on John, explaining that, The bread which I will give is my flesh: “This,” he says, “when could the flesh grasp, that He called bread flesh? What the flesh does not grasp,” and so forth. But certainly the flesh would most easily grasp that the bread is flesh significatively. Whence also tracts 27 and 5 on John.
In the tenth volume, sermon 2 On the Words of the Apostle: “We have heard the truthful Master, the divine Redeemer, the human Saviour, commending to us our price, His blood; for He spoke of His body and blood, which body He called food, and His blood drink. The faithful acknowledge the Sacrament of the faithful.” So he. Where certainly he speaks of His blood, not of a figure of the blood; for a figure is not our price; and he says that this blood is drink, as also the body is food. And lest the adversaries should say that this drink and food are received by faith and mind alone, he added that it is the Sacrament of the faithful, which the faithful know; where he indicates that it is a mystery known to the faithful alone, in what manner the body and blood of Christ are food and drink. Which phrase, “the faithful know,” we find in countless places in Augustine, as Book 10 On the City of God, chapter 6, on Psalm 39, on Psalm 109, Book 1, homily 42, and elsewhere. But certainly it is no secret known to the faithful alone, that the body and blood of Christ are received by faith; for that is publicly preached even to the Gentiles, and was most well known not only to the faithful, but even to the Catechumens. Augustine understands, therefore, what the Catholic Church understands, that there is a truly marvelous secret in the Eucharist, which ought neither to be opened to unbelievers, nor can be understood without faith.
In his sermon to the Neophytes, as Ivo of Chartres, bishop, testifies in his epistle to Hymericus, and Paschasius in his epistle to Frudegard: “Receive in the bread that which hung on the cross; receive in the chalice that which flowed from the side of Christ.” Book 1, homily 26, he admonishes that they take care with the greatest diligence lest any particle of the Eucharist fall to the ground. Sermon 2 On the Season: “We are invited to the table where is found not the food of men, but the bread of Angels is set forth.” Finally, Gratian too cites from Augustine, in the book of the sentences of Prosper, most plain sentences. See distinction 2 On Consecration, canon Nos autem, and canon Hoc est quod dicimus. The same Alger cites, Book 1, chapter 5: “It is His flesh,” says Augustine, “which, covered by the form of bread, we receive in the Sacrament, and His blood, which under the species and taste of wine we drink.” Yet those words, Hoc est quod dicimus, and so forth, seem to be rather Lanfranc’s than Augustine’s or Prosper’s; for they are had in the book of Lanfranc and are cited in his name by Ivo, part 2, chapter 9.
Objections from Augustine
Let us now see what the adversaries object from Augustine, and let us proceed through his volumes in the same order.
From the second volume (for from the first they object nothing) they bring forward two passages. One from epistle 23 to Boniface, the other from epistle 57 to Dardanus. In epistle 23 Augustine speaks in these words: “If the Sacraments had not a certain likeness of those things of which they are Sacraments, they would not at all be Sacraments; and from this likeness they very often take the names also of the things themselves. As, therefore, according to a certain manner the Sacrament of the body of Christ is the body of Christ, the Sacrament of the blood of Christ is the blood of Christ, so the Sacrament of faith is faith.”
This passage Calvin, Peter Martyr, and all the others produce; but before them Berengarius of old also produced it, and it was answered him. Wherefore, as the adversaries repeat the arguments of their elders, so we too will repeat the solutions of our elders. First, then, Paschasius, in his epistle to Frudegard, and Lanfranc, in his book against Berengarius, answer that the Sacrament of the body of the Lord is called in a manner the body of the Lord; because, although in the sacrament of the Eucharist there is the true body of the Lord as to substance, yet it is not there in that manner in which it was on the cross, save by likeness; for Augustine there speaks of the passion and death of Christ, which is represented in the sacrifice of the altar. It is therefore the same as if he had said: The celebration of the mysteries of the altar is in a manner the passion of Christ; for it is not truly, but only representatively, the passion of Christ; or if he had said: The body of the Lord, as it is under the species of bread, is in a manner the body hanging on the cross; for it is not truly, but representatively, the body hanging on the cross. And Lanfranc illustrates the whole matter by a notable likeness. In Luke the last chapter, the Lord feigned that He was going farther; which Augustine expounds in his book Against Lying, chapter 13, where he says that by that feigning Christ signified that He would ascend above all the heavens. The same Christ, then, was a figure of Himself, and it could most rightly be said, Christ feigning to go farther, and in a manner Christ ascending into heaven.
Guitmund, Book 2, applies two other solutions. One, that he speaks of the old Sacraments, as of the manna, or of the bread of Melchizedek, which according to a certain manner were the body of the Lord, because they were Sacraments, that is, signs and figures of the body of the Lord. The other, that he speaks of the Eucharist inasmuch as it is a sign of the mystical body of Christ; for the same Augustine, tract 26 on John, says that the Eucharist is the society of the faithful, because it is a sign or Sacrament of that society.
Now Alger, Book 1, chapter 5 On the Sacrament of the Eucharist, expounds otherwise, and no less rightly, this passage of Augustine. For he will have Augustine speak of the species of bread and wine, which are most properly the Sacrament of the body and blood of the Lord, that is, sensible signs representing the body and blood of the Lord; and that of these it was most rightly said, The Sacrament of the body of Christ is in a manner the body of Christ; for those species are not the body of Christ except in a manner, that is, representatively. You will say: We are not wont so to speak, as to say that those species are the body of the Lord—although we are not wont so to speak.
The other passage, which Calvin and Peter Martyr and others everywhere object, is in epistle 57 to Dardanus: “Take away spaces from bodies, and they will be nowhere; and because they will be nowhere, they will not be. Take away bodies from the qualities of bodies: there will be no place where they may be, and therefore it is necessary that they be not.” Hence they strive to prove that the body of Christ can neither be indivisibly in the Sacrament, as we say, nor the accidents of bread and wine be without a proper subject.
I answer: Augustine speaks of things according to the course of nature, not according to the omnipotence of the Creator; and we confess that naturally a body cannot, within heaven, fail to occupy a place, nor can accidents exist without a subject; or (which is the same) he speaks of bodies which retain the bodily manner of existing; but whether some body can, through the omnipotence of God, receive the manner of existing of spirits, and consequently not occupy a place, Augustine does not dispute in that place. But of this whole argument we shall treat below in its place.
From the third volume they object, first, chapter 9 of Book 3 On Christian Doctrine, where Augustine says that Christ instituted a few signs, as Baptism and the Eucharist. But the passage is not to the point, because we do not deny that the Eucharist is a Sacrament, and consequently a sign; but we deny that it is nothing but a sign.
Secondly they object chapter 16 of Book 3 On Christian Doctrine, where he says that the eating of the flesh of Christ is to be taken figuratively. But this has been explained above, where we treated of John 6.
Thirdly they produce chapter 19 of the book On Faith, to Peter, where the Eucharist is called the Sacrament of bread and wine. But there is no difficulty in this matter; since from the matter the Eucharist can most rightly be so named.
Fourthly they produce chapter 4 of Book 3 On the Trinity, where we read thus: “The Apostle could, by signifying, preach the Lord Jesus in one way by the tongue, in another by an epistle, in another by the Sacrament of His body and blood.” But here too there is no difficulty. For the Catholics have never not asserted that by the Sacrament of the body of the Lord is signified the very body of the Lord; but present, not absent; which Augustine in the same place openly asserted, when he says that it is signified in one way by this Sacrament, in another by sounds and letters; for these are bare signs of an absent thing, that is a sign of a present thing. Whence in the same place he says that neither letters nor sounds are called the body of Christ, although they signify it, but only consecrated bread is called the body of Christ.
Fifthly they produce chapter 10 of the same Book 3 On the Trinity, where Augustine says that the bread placed on the altar, the celebration of the piety being accomplished, is consumed: “But the true body of Christ,” they say, “is not consumed; therefore it is true bread which is received when the Eucharist is received.”
I answer: The bread which is placed on the altar, the celebration being accomplished, is consumed; for it is consumed as to the interior substance when the consecration is accomplished, and as to the external form it is consumed when it is eaten. Nor is there any doubt that Augustine speaks only of the visible symbol; for he speaks of the bodily forms in which God or the Angels appeared, and compares with them the symbols of the Eucharist.
From the fourth volume they have nothing. Peter Martyr indeed produces one passage from the book On Catechizing the Uninstructed, chapter 26, where the Sacraments are called visible seals of invisible things. But neither is it established whether in that place Augustine speaks of the Eucharist, or of Baptism, or of the blessed bread which was given to Catechumens; and besides we have never denied that the Sacrament of the Eucharist is a visible seal of an invisible thing, but yet a present one.
From the fifth volume too they have nothing solid. They produce that of Book 10 On the City of God, chapter 5: “A visible sacrifice is a Sacrament, that is, a sacred sign, of an invisible sacrifice.” But this passage does not make to the point, because Augustine speaks of the sacrifices of the Old Testament. Likewise that of Book 21, chapter 25, where Augustine says that the wicked do not eat the body of Christ. But he speaks of the mystical body, as we showed above, when we explained the passage of Paul, 1 Corinthians 11.
From the sixth volume Calvin, Peter Martyr, and others produce that passage from the book against Adimantus, chapter 12: “The Lord did not hesitate to say: This is my body; when He gave a sign of His body.”
To this passage our men answer in many ways. Some say, and not badly, that Augustine speaks from the opinion of the Manichees, that he may refute them from their own opinions. For they, since they attributed to Christ not a true body, but only an external species and appearance, and say that whatever Christ suffered, He suffered in a sign and appearance, took also those words, This is my body, in that sense, as if it had been said: This is a sign and appearance of my body. And that Augustine was wont to dispute with the Manichees from their own principles is established from Book 2 On the Gift of Perseverance, chapters 11 and 12. Where, when it was objected to Augustine that he had written in his books On Free Will that the ignorance and difficulty with which we are born is natural, whereas he himself against the Pelagians asserted the contrary, namely that it is not natural, but arose from the sin of the first parent, he answered that he had spoken in his books On Free Will from the mind of the Manichees, that he might refute their error from their own opinion.
Another solution is that Augustine in this place by ‘sign’ understands not a bare sign, but one with which the thing signified is really joined. For he explains those words of Deuteronomy 12, The blood is the soul; and teaches that the blood is called the soul, not because it is the soul, but because it is a sign of the soul; and to illustrate this he brings forward that sentence, that the Eucharist is called the body of the Lord because it is a sign of the body of the Lord. Now the blood is a sign not of an absent soul, but of a present one; for the blood shows the soul far otherwise than a statue shows the prince. Wherefore the same Augustine, question 57 on Leviticus, explaining how the blood is called the soul, teaches that it is called the soul because it contains the soul. So, then, the blood signifies the soul so that it at the same time contains it, and is really joined with it; and in the same manner all Catholics confess that the Eucharist is a sign of the body of the Lord.
The third solution is that Augustine speaks of a sign of the body as immolated on the cross; in which manner the bread of the Eucharist, of which the Lord says, This is my body, is both truly the body of the Lord and a sign of the same body. So Guitmund answers to another like passage, Book 2. See what we said above to the testimony from epistle 23; for the opinion of both passages is, in my judgment, the same.
And hence too is solved that which they produce from Book 20 against Faustus, chapter 21, where Augustine says thus: “The flesh and blood of this sacrifice, before the coming of Christ, was promised through victims of likenesses; in the passion of Christ it was rendered through the truth itself; after the ascension of Christ it is celebrated through the Sacrament of memory.” So he. But we see in this place that Augustine manifestly speaks of the memory of the passion and death of the Lord.
Finally, from the same sixth volume Peter Martyr and others produce a testimony of Augustine, Book 3: “Christ admitted Judas to the banquet, in which He commended to the disciples the figure of His body.” We answer what we answered to the foregoing, that Augustine speaks of a figure of the body hanging on the cross, that is, of a representation of the Lord’s passion; for in the same manner Augustine called the Eucharist a figure of the body in which the ancient Greeks called it an antitype, of which word we spoke in the testimonies of Basil.
Another passage they produce from the commentary on Psalm 98: “You are not about to eat this body which you see, and to drink that blood which they who will crucify me are about to shed. I have commended to you a certain Sacrament,” and so forth. Lanfranc of old answered, in his book against Berengarius, that Augustine meant to say that not the same body is to be eaten, that is, not in the same manner. For the body was present then in a mortal and visible species; but it was to be eaten in an alien species, and holding itself impassibly and invisibly. And so it was the same (as Lanfranc says) and was not the same; the same as to substance, not the same as to manner, species, and quality. For the Apostle too, 1 Corinthians 15, says: “Thou dost not sow the body that shall be, but bare grain.” Where he likewise understands that not the same human body dies and is sown in the sepulchre which is afterward to rise; not that it will not be the same body in number, as to substance (for that he most wished to prove), but because it will not be the same as to qualities; for it is sown, as he himself explains, corruptible, and shall rise incorruptible. And this manner of speaking Augustine noted in epistle 146. And Ambrose, Book 2 On Penance, chapter 10, relates that someone rightly said, “I am not I,” because he had changed his life and morals. And Jerome, on chapter 1 to the Ephesians, says that one flesh is in the Eucharist, another was on the cross; whereas it has evidently been proved that he places in the Eucharist true flesh, and the same with that which was on the cross as to substance, though not in quality. Finally the Lord Himself, Luke 24, distinguishes Himself from Himself when He says: “These things I spoke to you while I was yet with you.” Now that this was the mind of Augustine we gather from that very passage. For that the true body of the Lord is received in the Eucharist he there teaches, when he says that it is the very flesh in which the Lord walked, and that it is eaten by no one unless it be first adored. But how the same body is not eaten he explains in the same place, when he says that the Capharnaites thought that the flesh of Christ was to be cut into particles, and so eaten; for to this absurd thought the Lord answers when He says: “You are not about to eat this body which you see,” and so forth.
But Peter Martyr objects, in his book against Gardiner, objection 220, one dilemma: “When the Lord in the last supper gave His body to the disciples, either that body was mortal or immortal. If mortal, then it did not differ in quality from that which was then seen, nor could it rightly be said: You are not about to eat this body which you see, and so forth. If immortal, how did it die a little after?”
I answer: In the last supper the body given to the disciples was mortal, but was given to them in an immortal and impassible manner; for, as it was under the species of bread, it could not be harmed, although otherwise, in its own form, it could suffer and die.
From the ninth volume they produce many testimonies, but either most slight, or explained elsewhere. First, that of tract 25 on John: “Why dost thou prepare tooth and belly? Believe, and thou hast eaten.” To this passage we answered above, in the explanation of John 6, that Augustine speaks of the spiritual eating of Christ by faith in the Incarnation, not of the Eucharist.
Secondly they add that of tract 26 on John, that the Hebrews ate the same food with us. To this we answered above, in the explanation of the figures of the Old Testament, that they ate the same in signification, not in reality.
Thirdly they produce that of tract 30 on John: “The body of Christ, in which He rose, can be in one place; His truth is diffused everywhere.” But Augustine does not in this place deny that the body of the Lord can be in several places, but denies that His truth can be restricted to one place, since it is diffused everywhere; which is most true. It would be as if someone said: The humanity of Christ can be in one place, the divinity cannot.
Fourthly they produce that of tract 50 on John, where he says that now Christ is not present according to the presence of the flesh. To this passage we answered when we treated that passage, Me you shall not have; and we said that Augustine speaks of the visible presence.
Fifthly they produce that of tract 59: “They ate the bread the Lord, but Judas the bread of the Lord.” To which passage we answered when we treated chapter 11 of the first to the Corinthians, where we demonstrated that the body of the Lord is eaten even by the wicked.
Sixthly they produce that of tract 10 on the epistle of John, where Augustine says that the natural body of Christ is in heaven, whither it was taken up by the ascension, but that on earth the mystical body of Christ, that is, the Church, was left. But Augustine explains himself. For he says thus: Now thou dost not find Christ speaking on earth; and in the same place: “About to ascend, He spoke His last words; after those words He did not speak on earth.” And so he speaks of the visible presence of Christ conversing with men after the human manner; for in this manner He is not on earth except in His mystical body.
From the tenth volume, first Peter Martyr, and Calvin too, produce from the sermon On the Words of the Apostle that the wicked do not truly receive the body of the Lord. But to this we answered above, when we expounded chapter 11 of the first to the Corinthians, where we said that the wicked are said not to eat because they are not spiritually nourished; for Augustine himself says: “That eating is to be refreshed; that drinking, what is it but to live?” From the same foundation is solved that which Peter Martyr cites from Augustine in the sentences of Prosper, where we read that he does not eat the bread of the Lord, nor drink His blood, who is at discord with Him, although he receive His Sacrament.
Secondly he produces from the book of 50 homilies, sermon 26, that Augustine says it is an equal sin if one let the body of the Lord fall to the ground, and if one let the word of God flow away from his heart. Which comparison seems not true if the true and natural body of the Lord is in the Eucharist; for it would be a greater sin to let the body of the Lord fall to the ground than to let the word of Christ perish from the heart.
I answer: Augustine does not compare the word of Christ by reason of sound or character with the body of Christ, but by reason of the divine truth which is signified by those sounds and characters. Whence he does not say that the word of God flows away from the ears, but from the heart; nor does he say that it is the same sin if one let the Eucharist, and if one let the Bible, fall to the ground. For if Augustine had said this, then indeed the argument of Peter Martyr would be worth something. Now the truth of the divine word is in many things like and equal to the body of Christ. For as that is immortal, impassible, united to God, so the truth of the word of Christ is eternal, immutable, divine. And as that body is given us in the species of visible and earthly things, so this truth is given us in the external signs of letters and sounds. Wherefore this comparison of Augustine favors us most of all. For hence it follows that it is truly a sin, and a grave sin, to let the Eucharist fall to the ground, as it is a sin, and a grave sin, to let the truth conceived in the heart be extinguished; but it is not a sin to cast the water of Baptism on the ground, which nevertheless among the adversaries is no less holy than the Eucharist.
Lastly they produce the sermon to the infants, a fragment of which Bede recites on chapter 10 of the first to the Corinthians: “What you have seen,” he says, “is bread and a chalice, which your eyes too announce to you; but what your faith, to be instructed, demands: the bread is the body of Christ, and the chalice is the blood.” And below, when he had said that Christ is in heaven, he asks: “How is the bread His body? and the chalice, or what the chalice holds, how is it His blood?” Then he answers: “These things, brethren, are therefore called Sacraments, because in them one thing is seen, another understood; what is seen has a bodily species, what is understood has a spiritual fruit. If, then, thou wilt understand the body of Christ, hear the Apostle saying: You are the body of Christ,” and so forth.
I answer: The whole force of this testimony is placed in two things. First, in that Augustine says that the bread is that which is on the altar, as the eyes themselves announce. Secondly, that to the question, how the bread is the body of Christ, if Christ is in heaven, Augustine did not answer by transmutation, or anything of the kind, but said that the Sacraments are certain visible and bodily signs of spiritual and intelligible things.
To the first it is easy to answer. For Augustine declares what it is that is on the altar, and says that it is bread as to the external species, as the eyes rightly judge; but as to the interior substance it is the body of Christ, as faith rightly judges. For if Augustine meant to say that on the altar there is bread even as to substance, and proved it by the testimony of the eyes, as his words at first sight seem to sound, he would most plainly repugn Cyril, Ambrose, Nyssen, Epiphanius, Gaudentius, Chrysostom, who in express words say that the senses are deceived, and that we must not judge from the taste, and finally that it is not bread. But who would believe that Augustine, in so great a matter, repugned so many Fathers? And besides, if he had repugned them, how is it that neither did he ever reprove them, nor was he reproved by others? Wherefore, since his words can be expounded in two ways, and in one way repugn the other Fathers, in another agree with them, who does not see which sense is to be preferred? Add that he would repugn not only the other Fathers, but also himself, if he wished to give place to the judgment of the senses in this mystery, as is clear from so many passages cited by us.
To the second I answer that Augustine, to the question, How is the bread the body of Christ? was unwilling to answer directly, because the hearers were not capable; for that homily was delivered to children lately baptized. Therefore he admonished them to believe simply that that bread is the body of Christ, and to give their effort to be themselves the body of Christ by faith and good works, because afterward, when they had grown and advanced in the way of God, these mysteries would be opened to them. That this is so is clear, because, when the question proposed was of the natural body of Christ, which is in heaven, how it is in the Eucharist, he, omitting the natural body of Christ, passed to the mystical body, and said that the Eucharist is a sign of the society of the faithful, and that we are the body of Christ, and that we eat what we are, and that our mystery is on the table, and other things of the kind; but he never said that the bread is a sign of the natural body of Christ, or that the natural body is not on the altar, or that it is there symbolically, which certainly he ought to have said if he had wished to answer the question directly, and had been in the heresy of the Calvinists. As, therefore, they ask us why Augustine did not solve the question by saying that the bread is the body by transubstantiation, so we too ask them why he did not solve the question by saying that it is the body of Christ representatively; and for both we answer that Augustine of set purpose dissembled the question, and digressed to a moral exhortation. And of Augustine thus far.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XXIV. Testimonium S. Augustini. S. Augustinus proxime S. Hieronymum sequitur, quippe qui ejus amicissimus fuit, et annos circiter decem illi supervixit : obiit enim, teste Prospero in Chronico, Augustinus anno Domini -433. cum obiisset Hieronymus, eodem Prospero auctore, anno 422. Ilunc autem Patrem Calvinus totum suum esse mentitur lib. iv. Instit. cap. 17. §. 28. Eum- dem Petrus Martyr, et cceteri Calvinistae praeter coeteros omnes citant, ac suum esse jactant, ut etiam olim Berengarius, teste Guitmundo lib. ii. solum Augustinum non respuebat. Proferam igitur ad hanc eorum jactantiam comprimendam, testimonia ex omnibus omnino tomis operum Augustini. Ac primum ex primo tomo testimonium habemus in lib. ix. confess. cap. 13 :« Tan¬ tummodo, inquit, memoriam sui ad altare tuum fieri desideravit, unde sciret dispen¬ sari victimam sanctam, qua deletum est chyrographum, quod erat contrarium no¬ bis. Et infra : Ad cujus pretii nostri Sa¬ cramentum ligavit ancilla tua animam suam vinculo fidei. » Heec ille. Qui per victimam, qua deletum est chirographum contrarium nobis, non potest intelligere, nisi veram Christi carnem, quse pro nobis immo¬ lata fuit in cruce ; neque enim panis est ejusmodi victima : et cum dicit eam victi¬ mam dispensari ex altari, apertissime indi¬ cat carnem Christi non tantum fide, sed etiam manibus, ex ore suscipi. Denique cum dicit sanctam Monicam alligasse animam suam vinculo fidei, ad Sacramentum corpo¬ ris Domini, manifeste significat, in eo Sa¬ cramento non esse nudum signum, sed ip¬ sum etiam verum Domini corpus : neque enim alligasset mulier sapientissima animam suam pani, ut per eum secura esset. In secundo tomo in epist. 44. ad Maxi¬ mum, cum Maximus homo gentilis objecisset Augustino, quod Christiani in abditis locis Deum suum se videre credant : nihil omnino respondit. Nam neque negare poterat Chri¬ stum videri in Sacramento altaris, cum ipse idem dicat lib. 3. Trinit. cap. 10. in specie panis Dominum oculis apparere mortalium : neque tamen tutum, aut sequum putavit ho¬ mini gentili explicare hoc mysterium. At certe si nonnisi in signo Christus in Eucha¬ ristia adesset, potuisset, et debuisset obje¬ ctionem illam refellere. Exstat testimonium in epist. 86. ad Casu- lnnum, ubi reprehendit Augustinus quem¬ dam Urbicum, qui dixerat, ita mutatum esse Testamentum vetus in novum, ut cederet pecus pani, et sanguis poculo. « Dicit, inquit, cessisse pani pecus, tanquam nes¬ ciens, et tunc in Domini mensa panes pro¬ positionis poni solere, et nunc se de agni immaculati corpore partem sumere et dicit cessisse poculo sanguinem, non cogitans etiam nunc se accipere in poculo sangui¬ nem. » Et infra : « Quando ergo melius, et congruentius .vetera transisse, et novo in Christo facta esse sic diceret, ut cederet altare altari, gladius gladio, ignis igni, panis pani, pecus pecori, sanguis san¬ guini? » Hac ille. At certe si vera esset adversariorum sententia, Urbicus ille re¬ ctissime dixisset, nam vere cessisset pecus pani, et sanguis poculo. Quod enim ad si¬ gnum attinet, in pecore illo non minus fuis¬ set Christus, quam in nostro pane : et sanguis Domini non minus fuisset in sanguine illo, quam in nostro vino. Quocirca tunc habuis¬ sent Christum in pecore, quem nos habemus in pane ; et sanguinem in sanguine, quem nos habemus in vino : ac per hoc cessisset pecus pani, non pecus pecori ; et sanguis poculo, non sanguis sanguini. Vult igitur Augustinus ita esse omnia mutata, ut pro pane propositionis panem cmleslem habea¬ mus ; pro pecore irrationali, agnum Dei ; pro sanguine brutorum animantium, san¬ guinem Christi. Idem in epist. 118. cap. 3. dicit, Eucha¬ ristia) deberi singularem venerationem : et ibidem comparat eos, qui cx devotione ac- LIBEll II. i i() cedunt quotidie ad hoc Sacramentum, vel ex devotione etiam aliquando non accedunt, cum Zaccliseo et Centurione, quorum alter Dominum excepit in domum suam gaudens, alter dixit : Domine, non sum dignus , qua; comparatio frigida, et inepta esset, si nihil nisi signum corporis Domini sumeremus. Inepist. 120. ad Honoratum cap. 27. idem Augustinus exponens illud Psalm. xxi. Manducaverunt, et adoraverunt omnes di¬ vites plebis. « Et ipsi, inquit, adducti sunt ad mensam Christi, et accipiunt de corpore et sanguine ejus , sed adorant tantum non etiam saturantur, quia non imitantur : manducantes enim pauperem, dedignantur esse pauperes. » Hoc loco Augustinus aperte dicit, homines superbos accipere de mensa Domini, corpus Domini, et adorare, sed non saturari. Ex quo sequi¬ tur, ut per corpus Domini non intelligat sig¬ num corporis, id est, panem, quia panis non adoratur: nec intelligat corpus Domini, ut est in coelo, sed ut est in altari ; quia dicit sumi ex mensa Domini, et sumi ab im¬ piis. Yide etiam epist. 1G2. et 163. In tertio tomo sunt duo alia testimonia. Unum est lib. iit. de Trinit. cap. 4. ubi cum dixisset aliter significari Christum per lin¬ guam, et voces scriptas, aliter per sacramen¬ tum corporis, et sanguinis, subjungit : « Nec linguam quippe, nec membranas, nec atramentum, nec significantes sonos lingua editos, nec signa litterarum conscripta pel¬ liculis, corpus Christi et sanguinem dici¬ mus, sed illud tantum, quod ex fructibus terne acceptum, et prece mystica conse¬ cratum, rite sumimus ad salutem spiritua¬ lem in memoriam pro nobis Dominica; pas¬ sionis. )> Ila;c ille. At certe si Eucharistia tantum esset corpus Christi significative, cur non possent corpus Domini vocari verba ipsa, seu scripta, seu pronuntiata, qua; clarissime idem corpus significant? Sed paulo post idem Augustinus subjun¬ git : « Quod cum per manus hominum ad illam visibilem speciem perducitur, non sanctificatur, ut sit tam magnum Sacramen¬ tum, nisi operante invisibiliter spiritu Dei : cum hsec omnia, qua; per corporales motus in illo opere fiunt, Deus operetur etc. » Ubi dupliciter asseritur ab Augustino veritas corporis Domini. Primo, quia dicit, operante invisibiliter Spiritu sancto fieri hoc Sacra¬ mentum : nec enim illa operatio necessaria esset, si tantum significative esset Euchari¬ stia corpus Domini. Secundo, quia numerat hanc operationem inter miracula : ibi enim de miraculis agit, ac multa profert exempla, ut de pluvia ab Elia impetrata, de tonitruis in monte Sina, de aqua mutata in vinum a Christo, de virga Aaron qua; floruit, et de virga Mosis versa in draconem. Qua; porro mirabilis operatio in confectione hujus Sa¬ cramenti esse potest, si nihil omnino fit? Ex his refelli potest solutio Petri Martyris, quam ad hunc locum adhibet in lib. contra Gardinerum , part. 4 : dicit enim operari in¬ visibiliter Spiritum sanctum in hoc Sacra¬ mento ; tum quia Sacramenta a solo Deo in¬ stituuntur, tum quiaefficaciaSacramenti, qua mentes nostra; excitantur, a Spiritu sancto est. Sed sunt ha;c mera effugia. Nam Sacra¬ menti institutio, et etiam confectio, si nihil sit nisi signum, nullam requirit invisibilem operationem Spiritus sancti : operatio autem, qua mentes nostrae excitantur ad fidem, in mentibus nostris est, non in Sacramento. Alterum testimonium est lib. m. Trinit. cap. 10. ubi sic ait : « Illas etiam nubes, vel ignes quo modo fecerint, vel assumpserint An¬ geli ad significandum quod annuntiabant, etiam si Dominus, vel Spiritus sanctus illis formis ostendebatur ; quis novit hominum? sicut infantes non noverunt, quod in altari ponitur, et peracta pietatis celebratione con¬ sumitur, unde vel quomodo conficiatur, unde in usum religionis assumatur. Et si nusquam discant experimento vel suo, vel aliorum, et nunquam illam speciem verum videant, nisi inter celebrationem Sacramentorum, cum offertur, et datur, dicaturque illis auctoritate gravissima, cujus corpus, et sanguis sit, nihil aliud credent, nisi omnino in illa specie Do¬ minum oculis apparuisse mortalium, et de latere tali percusso liquorem illum omnino fluxisse. )> Ha;c ille. Ubi disputat de formis, in quibus Angeli, vel Deus apparuerunt in Testamento veteri. Ac ut ostendat nos igno¬ rare, quomodo illa; forma; facta; sint, et ta¬ men certo credere, in illis Deum vel Angelos apparuisse, assumit similitudinem ab Eu¬ charistia ; ignorant enim infantes cum sacris intersunt, quomodo fiat illa forma, in qua consecratur Eucharistia, et tamen certo cre¬ dunt in illa forma apparuisse Dominum, et in calice sanguinem Domini .esse, quia dici¬ tur eis, Christum inEvangelico hoc docuisse, cum ait : Hoc est corpus meum, Hic est san¬ guis meus. Habemus autem hinc argumentum firmissi- CAPUT XXIV. 111 mum contra adversarios. Nam infantes, qui- bus dicitur auctoritate gravissima, in illa forma visibili esse corpus Christi, et liquorem qui est in calice, esse sanguinem, non cre¬ dunt illa esse corpus et sanguinem significa¬ tive, sed vere, et proprie : non enim valent ipsi per se intelligcrc istos tropos, sed cre¬ dunt simpliciter id quod eis dicitur. Unde Augustinus ait : « Nihil aliud credent, nisi Dominum oculis apparuisse mortalium in illa specie, et liquorem illum de latere Christi omnino fluxisse. » Neque dicendum est hos infantes falsam fidem habere ; tum quia Augustinus dicit, illos id credere, quia dici¬ tur eis auctoritate gravissima ; cum etiam quia si falsa esset ista fides, debuissent instrui, et admoneri, praesertim cum etiam ipsi eo tempore ad Communionem admitte¬ rentur. Praeterea comparat Augustinus Eu¬ charistiam cum formis, in quibus Angeli ap¬ parebant ; sed in illis formis Angeli vere, et proprie aderant praesentes. Igitur etiam in forma panis vere, et proprie praesens adest corpus Christi : alioqui nihil valebit compa¬ ratio, et tota Augustini disputatio corruet. Vide praeterea eumdem Augustinum lib. iv. Trinit. cap. 11. et in Enchiridio, cap. 100. In tomo quarto 1 labemus testimonium in lib. 3. super Lcvitic. quaest. 37. « Quid sibi vult, inquit, quod a sanguine' sacrificiorum, quae pro peccatis, offerebantur, tantopere populus prohibetur; si illis sacrificiis unum hoc sacrificium significabatur, in quo vera sit remissio peccatorum : a cujus tamen sa¬ crificii sanguine in alimentum sumendo, non solum nemo prohibetur, sed adhibendum potius omnes exhortantur, qui volunt habere vitam ? » Ilacc ille. At certe quaestio ista non modo supervacanea, aed etiam ineptissima esset, si tantum in signo, et spiritualiter san¬ guinem Domini sumeremus : non enim pro¬ hibebantur Judaei sanguinem bibere spiri¬ tualiter per fidem, sed corporaliter. Quare Cyprianus, vel quicumque fuit auctor, in serm. de ccena Domini, recte dixit, novam esse, et inauditam hanc doctrinam, quae ju¬ bet sanguinem bibi, comme lex vetus esum sanguinis districtissime prohiberet. In quinto tomo exstat testimonium lib. 17. de Civit. Dei cap. 20. in haec verba : «In alio libro qui dicitur Ecclesiastes, ubi ait : Non est bonum homini, nisi quod manducabit, et bibet ; quid credibilius dicere intelligitur, quam quod ad participationem mensae hujus pertinet, quam sacerdos ipse mediator Te¬ stamenti novi exhibet secundum ordinem Melchisedech de corpore, et sanguine ? Id enim sacrificium successit omnibus illis sa¬ crificiis veteris Testamenti, quae immolaban¬ tur in umbra futuri. Propter quod etiam vocem illam in Psal. 39. ejusdem mediatoris per prophetiam agnoscimus : Sacrificium, et oblationem noluisti, corpus autem aptasti mihi : quia pro illis omnibus sacrificiis, ct oblationibus corpus ejus offertur, et partici¬ pantibus ministratur. » Hsec ille. Quo loco non potest Augustinus loqui de signo corpo¬ ris, sed de ipso vero corpore, cum dicit of¬ ferri et ministrari illud corpus, quod succes¬ sit sacrificiis antiquis : nam etiam illa erant signa corporis Domini. Ac praeterea illud corpus offerri, et ministrari dicit Augustin. de quo scriptum est in Psalm. xxxix. Corpus autem aptasti «mihi : quod quidem verum et naturale corpus fuisse, nemo negat. Neque possunt adversarii respondere, loqui Augus¬ tinum de vero corpore, sed quod fide tantum percipiatur : nam cum ait : « Offertur et mi¬ nistratur, » apertissime loquitur de corpo¬ rali tractatione corporis Domini. Vide etiam de hac re expositionem ejusdem Augustini in Psal. 39. ubi vocat corpus, quod norunt fideles, ct quod sumunt in Eucharistia, com¬ pletivum omnium veterum sacrificiorum. In sexto tomo lib. ii. contra Faustum cap. 10. dicit, fideles cum sanguinem ore perci¬ pere, quo redempti sunt, et cap. 20. dicit, nunc bibi, quod ex latere Christi manavit, et lib. n. contra adversarium legis, et pro¬ phetarum cap. 9. « Mediatorem, inquit, Dei et hominum hominem Christum Jesum car¬ nem suam nobis manducandam, bidendum- que sanguinem dantem fideli corde, atque ore suscipimus : quamvis horribilius videa¬ tur humanam carnem manducare, quam perimere, et humanum sanguinem potare, quam fundere. » Haec ille. Ubi notandum est, quod dicit, non solum corde, sed etiam ore sumi a nobis carnem Domini. ‘ In septimo tomo lib. ii. contra litteras Pe¬ tiliam, cap. 27. « Aliud est Pascha, quod adhuc illi de ove celebrant : aliud autem quod nos in corpore, et sanguine Domini ac¬ cipimus. )) Haic ille. Ubi opponit Agno Pas¬ chali corpus Domini, quod sumimus in Eu¬ charistia ; quod certe non faceret, si dc sig¬ no corporis, non de vero corpore loquere¬ tur : nam etiam ille agnus erat corpus Do¬ mini significative, ct expressius, quam pa¬ nis. Vide etiam lib. i. contra Cresconium 112 LIBER II. cap. 25. etlib. i. dc Peccator, meritis cap. 24. In octavo tomo sunt apertissima testimonia. In Psalm. xxxm. conc. i. explicans Augu¬ stinus titulum Psalmi, in quo scriptum erat : « Et ferebatur in manibus suis » : « Hoc, in¬ quit quomodo posset fieri in homine quis in- telligat ? quis enim portatur manibus suis ? Manibus aliorum potest portari homo ; mani¬ bus suis nemo portatur. Quomodo intelliga- tur, in ipso David secundum litteram non in¬ venimus, in Christo autem invenimus. Fere¬ batur enim Christus in manibus suis, quando commendans ipsum corpus suum, ait : IIoc est corpus meum, ferebat enim illud corpus in manibus suis. » Ad hunc locum dignatus est Calvinus re¬ spondere lib.iv.Instit. cap. 17. §. 28 qui tam multa testimonia omnium Patrum, et ipsius Augustini alto silentio praeteriit. Dicit igitur, Christum, seipsum manibus suis tulisse, sed improprie, ac figurate, quia nimirum Sacra¬ mentum corporis sui ferebat. Id autem probat, quia Augustinus conc. 2. in eumdem Psalmum rem eamdern repetens, addidit par¬ ticulam, a Quodammodo » ; sic enim ait : « Quo¬ modo ferebatur in manibus suis ? quia cum commendaret ipsum corpus suum, et san¬ guinem, accepit in manus suas, quod norunt fideles, et ipse se portabat quodammodo, cum diceret : Hoc est corpus meum. » Eam- dem etiam solutionem adhibet ad hunc lo¬ cum Petrus Martyr. Sed facile refelluntur. Nam Augustinus non solum dicit Christum suis ipsius manibus portatum, sed addit rem istam esse difficil¬ limam, et impossibilem aliis hominibus ; sic enim ait: « Quomodo posset fieri in homine, quis hoc intelligat ? » et rursus : « Manibus aliorum portari potest homo ; manibus suis nemo portatur. » At quam facile est, ut quis seipsum in signo portet ? certe cum princeps monetam suam in. sacculo portat, seipsum portat in signo, cum in ea moneta imago ip¬ sius inveniatur impressa, et unusquisque nostrum cum litteras ad se datas legit, ubi nomen suum scriptum habet, nonne seipsum in signo portat ? Cum igitur rem frequenter, et usitate hoc fiat, cur diceret Augustinus id non posse fieri, et vix etiam intelligi, si de , signo tantum loqueretur ? Sed inquit Petrus Martyr : « Nemo potest se portare, quomodo Christus se portabat, quia nemo potest Sacramentum instituere, et eo modo seipsum in Sacramento portare. » At respondeo : Nemo potest Sacramentum instituere, quatenus Sacramentum est instru* mentum gratiae conferendae, vel infallibile signum ejusdem gratiae : sed bene potest, instituere, quatenus est simplex alicujus rei signum. Christus autem si portare se ipse dicebatur, quia Sacramentum portabat ; ideo dicebatur se portare, quia Sacramentum illud erat signum ipsius : non quia erat in¬ strumentum gratiae, ut etiam ipsi fatentur, qui dicunt Sacramentum corporis Domini vo¬ cari corpus Domini, quia nomen rei signatae aliquando tribuitur signo. Quicumque ergo portat imaginem suam a se depictam, ille non minus se ipse portat quam se Christus portaret, si vera est sententia adversariorum. Addit Petrus Martyr : « Yelint, nolint Pa- pistae, non potest ullo modo fieri, ut corpus 'suum Christus portaverit proprie, quia duo corpora tunc fuissent. » Hoc nimirum est, quod illi dolebat, mysterium esse sublimius, quam ut ipse illud capere posset fieri, ut una natura sit in duabus personis distinctis reipsa, nisi natura illa geminetur; quid, quaeso, respondebit, nisi fide opus esse ad ista intel- ligenda, quae humanam rationem superant ? idem ergo sciat a nobis responderi de hoc mysterio. Vel si Ariano ipse respondeat, di¬ vinam essentiam ob suam infinitatem posse esse in pluribus personis re distinctis : et nos ei dicemus, corpus Christi ob omnipotentiam Christi posse simul statui in diversis locis. Sed de hoc in sequenti libro disseremus. Ad illud igitur objectum ex particula « quo¬ dammodo », respondeo, illam particulam si¬ gnificare Christum non se portasse in propria specie, sed in aliena, nec se portasse quo¬ modo ordinarie portantur corpora humana, nimirum magno labore in humepis, vel alio simili modo, sed mystice et Sacramentaliter, sic tamen, ut vere sub eo mysterio corpus ejus contineretur. Ac breviter quidquid illud « quodammodo » , significet, id nobis hoc loco sufficit, non significare, « in signo », vel « figurate », ut ostendimus. Alius insignis locus est in comment. Psalm. 98. ubi explicans illud : Adorate scabellum pedum ejus , dicit, scabellum pedum Domini esse terram juxta illud Isai. lxvi : Terra au¬ tem scabellum pedum meorum : et quaerit quo¬ modo liceat terram adorare sine impietate : « Fluctuans, inquit, converto me ad Christum, quia ipsum, quaero hic, et invenio quomodo sine impietate adoretur terra, adoretur sca¬ bellum pedum ejus ; suscepit enim de terra terram, quia caro de terra est, et dc carne CAPUT XXIV. Maria: carnem accepit. Et quia in ipsa carne hic ambulavit, et ipsam carnem mandu¬ candam nobis ad salutem dedit ; nemo au¬ tem illam carnem manducat, nisi prius ado¬ raverit ; inventum est, quemadmodum ado¬ retur tale scabellum pedum Domini, ut non solum non peccemus adorando, sed pec¬ cemus non adorando. » Hsecillc. Respondet Petrus Martyr in lib. contra Gardinerum par. 4. loqui S. Augustinum de vera, et proprie dicta carne Domini, quam spiritualiter ore fidei manducamus, et quam in coelo existentem adoramus : atque ibidem obiter notat, impios secundum Augustinum non manducare carnem Domini, quia impii non adorant Christi carnem ; et secundum. Augustinum nemo eam carnem comedit, nisi prius adoraverit. At falsus iste Martyr, non bene legit Au¬ gustinum, et ideo audacter colligit ex Au¬ gustino omnino contraria iis, quas Augus¬ tinus scripsit. Nam in Psalm. xxi. conc. i. de divitibus superbis et impiis, inquit Au¬ gustinus: «Manducaverunt corpus humilitatis Domini sui etiam divites, non sicut pauperes saturati sunt usque ad imitationem, sed tamen adoraverunt. » Et in epist. 120. supra citata : « Et ipsi, inquit, adducti sunt ad mensam Domini, et accipiunt de corpore et sanguine ejus, sed adorant tantum, non etiam saturantur, quia non imitantur. » Ha3c ille. Vides igitur secundum Augustinum impios adorare, et manducare carnem Do¬ mini de ipsa mensa, id est, de altari acceptam. Ex illis igitur locis hunc locum explicamus, ac ex ipso Augustino docemus loqui ipsum de ipsa manducatione carnis Domini per corpo¬ rale instrumentum, quandoquidem etiam impii eam carnem manducant. Praeterea si tantum vellet Augustinus di¬ cere terram sine impietate adorari, quia caro Christi, ut est in coelo, adoratur sine causa dixisset eam carnem nobis mandu¬ candam datam esse. Quorsum enim Eucha¬ ristiae meminit si non in ipsa Eucharistia carnem Domini praesentem adoramus ? Vo¬ luit igitur Augustinus ostendere, carnem ip¬ sam Domini adorari, et quia non habemus aliud argumentum illustrius, quam ex quo¬ tidiano usu adorandae Eucharistiae, ideo illius meminit ; nam praeter istam adorationem non facile potest discerni, an quis adoret carnem Domini, an solam divinitatem. Denique probabile est Augustinum totum hunc locum desumpsisse ex Ambrosio, qui Tom. IV. ut supra citavimus, aperte dicit carnem Do~ mini a nobis in mysteriis adorari, ut eam Apostoli in propria specie adorarunt : et hoc esse adorare scabellum pedum Domini. Vi¬ de praeterea in Psalm. xxxm. l. xv. xchi. xcix. c. In nono tomo tract. xt. in Joannem ex¬ plicans illud : Jesus autem non se credebat cis , dicit istud convenire Catechumenis, quibus non se praebebat Dominus per Eucharistiam: « Si dixerimus, inquit, Catechumeno, Credis in Christo ? respondet, Credo ; et signat se cruce Christi, portat in fronte, et non eru¬ bescit de cruce Domini sui. Ecce credit in nomine ejus. Interrogemus eum, manducas carnem fdii hominis, et bibis sanguinem filii hominis ? nescit quid dicimus, quia Jesus non se credidit ei. » Et infra : « Quo per¬ ducit credentes : et baptizatos ? ad manna, ecce dico manna. Notum est quid acceperint Judaei, populus Israel ; notum est quid illis pluisset Dominus de coelo : et nesciunt Cate¬ chumeni, quid accipiant Christiani ? Eru¬ bescant ergo, quia nesciunt, transeant per mare rubrum, manducent manna, ut quo¬ modo crediderunt in nomine Jesu, sic se ipsis credat Jesus. » Haec ille. Qui etiam lib. ii. de peccator, meritis et remissione cap. 26. dicit, Catechumenis dari solitam panem sanctum, qui non esset quidem corpus Christi tamem sanctus esset, et sanctificaret, et Sa¬ cramentum etiam dici posset, ac proinde sacrae rei signum. Ex his habemus argu¬ mentum insigne. Nam primo, si non esset in Eucharistia verum Christi corpus, et si non manducaretur Christi caro, nisi in symbolo, et per fidem, non esset verum Christum non se credere Catechumenis ; nam et illi habent Christum in signo, et manducant eum fide ; nam et signant se signo crucis, et credunt in Christum. Secundo, nulla esset ratio cur non daretur eis Eucharistia, cum dentur illis alia signa clariora, ut sunt verba Dei scripta. Tertio, potuisset etiam ille panis sanctus dici corpus Domini, ut patet, cum tamen id Au¬ gustinus constanter neget. Idem auctor tract. xxvi. in Joan. explicans illud : Panis quem ego dabo, caro mea est ; « IIoc, inquit, quando caperet caro, quod dixit panem carnem, vocatur caro ; quod non capit caro etc. » At profecto facillime ca¬ peret caro, panem esse carnem significative. Unde etiam tract. 27. et 5. in Joan. In tomo decimo serm. 2. de verbis Apo¬ stoli : « Audivimus veracem Magistrum, di- 8 i 14 LIBER II. vinum Redemptorem, humanum Salvatorem commendantem nobis pretium nostrum san¬ guinem suum : locutus est enim de corpore, et sanguine suo, quod corpus dixit escam, et sanguinem potum. Sacramentum fidelium agnoscunt fideles. » Ilrec ille. Ubi sane lo¬ quitur de sanguine suo, non de figura san¬ guinis : nec enim figura est pretium nostrum; atque hunc sanguinem potum esse dicit, sicut etiam corpus escam. Ac ne dicerent adver¬ sarii, potum, et escam istam sola fide, ac mente sumi, adjunxit, Sacramentum esse fidelium, quod norunt fideles : ubi indicat, esse mysterium solis fidelibus notum, quo¬ modo corpus Christi, et sanguis sint esca, et potus. Quam phrasim « norunt fideles, » in infinitis locis in Augustino reperimus, ut lib. 10. de Civit. Dei cap. 6. xxxix. in Psal. cix. lib l. hom. 42. et alibi. At profecto non est arcanum solis fidelibus notum, quod Christi corpus, et sanguis fide percipiatur: id enim publice praedicatur etiam gentilibus, et notissimum erat non solum fidelibus, sed etiam Catechumenis. Intelligit igitur Augu¬ stinus id, quod Ecclesia Catholica intelligit, arcanum esse vere mirabile in Eucharistia, quod nec debet aperiri infidelibus, nec sine lide intelligi potest. In serm. ad Neophytos, ut testatur Ivo Carnotensis Episcopus in epist. ad Hyme- ricum, et Paschasius in epist. ad Frude- gardum : « Hoc accipite in pane, quod pe¬ pendit in cruce ; hoc accipite in calice, quod manavit de Christi latere. » Lib. l. hom. 26. monet, ut summa diligentia, caveant ne aliqua particula Eucharistke in terram cadat. Serm. 2. de tempore : « Invitati sumus ad mensam, ubi non invenitur cibus hominum, sed panis ponitur Angelorum. » Denique citat etiam Gratianus ex Augustino in lib. sententiarum Prosperi apertissimas sen¬ tentias. Yide dist. 2. de consecratione can. Nos autem, et can. Hoc est quod dicimus. Easdem citat Algerus lib. i. cap. 5. « Caro, inquit Augustinus, ejus est, quam forma panis opertam in Sacramento accipimus, et sanguis ejus, quem sub vini specie, et sapore potamus. » Verba tamen illa, IIoc est, quod dicimus etc. videntur potius esse Lantfranci quam Augustini, vel Prosperi : habentur enim in lib. Lantfranci et ejus nomine citantur ab Ivone par. 2. cap. 9. * Objectiones ex Augustino. Videamus nunc quid adversarii objiciant ex Augustino, ac eodem ordine per tomos ejus progrediamur. Ex secundo tomo (nam ex primo nihil ob¬ jiciunt) proferunt duo loca. Unum ex epistol. 23. ad Bonifacium. Alterum ex epist. 57. ad Dardanum. In epistola 23. loquitur Augu¬ stinus in hcec verba : « Si Sacramenta quamdam similitudinem earum rerum, quarum Sacramenta sunt, non haberent, omnino Sacramenta non essent : ex hac autem simili tudine plerumque etiam ipsarum verum nomina accipiunt. Sicut ergo se¬ cundum quemdam modum Sacramentum corporis Christi, corpus Christi est, Sacra¬ mentum sanguinis Christi, sanguis Christi est : ita Sacramentum fidei fides est. » Producunt hunc locum Calvinus, Petrus Martyr, et omnes alii, sed ante eos olim pro¬ tulit etiam Berengarius : et responsum ei fuit: quare ut adversarii repetunt argumenta suorum majorum, et nos repetemus solu¬ tiones majorum, nostrorum. Primo igitur Pas¬ chasius in epist. ad Frudegardum, et Lant- francus in lib. contra Berengarium , re¬ spondent, Sacramentum corporis Domini vocari quodammodo corpus Domini ; quia licet in sacramento Eucharistia; sit verum corpus Domini, ■ quoad substantiam, non tamen est ibi eo modo, quo fuit in cruce, nisi per similitudinem : loquitur enim ibi Augustinus de passione et morte Christi, qua; in sacrificio altaris reprses entatur. Idem itaque est, ac si dixisset, Celebratio myste¬ riorum altaris est quodammodo passio Christi; non enim est vere, sed tantum representative passio Christi; vel si dixisset, corpus Domini, ut est sub specie panis, est quodammodo cor¬ pus in cruce pendens: non est enim vere sedre- prEesentative corpus in cruce pendens. Et il¬ lustrat Lantfrancus rem totam insigni simi¬ litudine. Luca; ult. Dominus finxit se longius ire : quod exponit Augustinus lib. contra ■mendae, cap. 13. ubi dicit, Christum ca fic¬ tione significasse, se supra omnes ccelos as¬ censurum. Idem igitur Christus sui ipsius figura fuit, et dici rectissime posset, Christus fingens se longius ire, et quodammodo Christus in coelum ascendens. Guitmundus lib. ii. adhibet duas alias so¬ lutiones. Unam, quod loquatur de Sacra¬ mentis veteribus, ut de manna, vel de pane Melchisedech, qua; secundum quemdam mo- CAPUT XXIV. 115 dum erant corpus Domini, quia Sacramenta, id est, signa, et figurae corporis Domini. Al¬ teram, quod loquatur de Eucharistia, qua¬ tenus signum est corporis Christi mystici : nam ipse idem Augustinus tract. 26. in Joan. dicit, Eucharistiam esse fidelium societatem, quia est signum, seu Sacramentum ejus so¬ cietatis. Porro Algerus lib. i. cap. o. de Sacra¬ mento Eucharistiae exponit aliter, nec mirius recte hunc locum Augustini. Vult enim loqui Augustinum de speciebus panis et vini, quae sunt maxime proprie Sacramentum corporis et sanguinis Domini, id est signa sensibilia repraesentantia corpus, et sanguinem Do¬ mini, ac de iis rectissime dictum esse, Sa¬ cramentum corporis Christi est quodammodo corpus Christi : neque enim illae species sunt corpus Christi, nisi quodammodo, id est, rc- praesentative. Dices : Non solemus ita loqui, ut dicamus species illas esse corpus Domini, licet non ita loqui soleamus. Alter locus, quem Calvinus et Petrus Mar¬ tyr, et alii passim objiciunt, est in epist. 57. ad Dardanum : « Spatia tolle corporibus, et nusquam erunt, et quia nusquam erunt, nec erunt, tolle corpora qualitatibus corporum : non erit ubi sint, et ideo, necesse est, ut non sint. » Hinc probare nituntur, neque esse posse corpus Christi indivisibiiiter in Sacra¬ mento, ut nos dicimus, neque accidentia pa¬ nis, et vini sine proprio subjecto. Respondeo : Loquitur Augustinus de rebus secundum naturae cursum, non secundum omnipotentiam Creatoris ; fatemur autem naturaliter non posse intra coelum corpus non occupare locum, neque accidentia posse sine subjecto existere : sive (quod idem est) loquitur de corporibus quee modum existendi corporalem retinent; utrum autem possit aliquod corpus per omnipotentiam Dei acci¬ pere modum existendi spirituum, et proinde non occupare locum, non disputat eo loco Augustinus. Sed de toto ,hoc argumento tractabimus infra suo loco. Ex tertio tomo objiciunt primo cap. 9. lib. in. de doctrina Christiana ubi dicit Augu¬ stinus, Christum 'instituisse pauca quaedam signa, ut Baptismum et Eucharistiam. Sed locus non est ad rem, quia non negamus Eu¬ charistiam esse Sacramentum, et proinde signum. Sed negamus nihil esse nisi signum. Secundo objiciunt- cap. 16. lib. m. de doctr. Christiana ubi dicit, figurate accipien¬ dam manducationem carnis Christi. Sed lmc explicatum est supra ubi tractavimus cap. 6 Joan. Tertio proferunt cap. 19. libri de fide ad Petrum, ubi vocatur Eucharistia Sacramen¬ tum panis et vini. Sed nulla est in hac re difficultas : siquidem a materia rectissime potest eo modo Eucharistia nominari. Quarto proferunt cap. 4. lib. m. de Trini t. ubi sic legimus : « Apostolus potuit signifi¬ cando prie dicare Dominum Jesum, aliter per linguam, aliter per epistolam, aliter per Sa¬ cramentum corporis, et sanguinis ejus.» At¬ qui hic etiam nulla difficultas est. Nunquam enim Catholici non asseruerunt per Sacra¬ mentum corporis Domini significari ipsum corpus Domini ; sed praesens, non absens : id quod Augustinus ibidem aperte asseruit, cum ait, aliter significari per hoc Sacramen¬ tum, aliter per sonos et litteras ; ista enim sunt nuda signa rei absentis, illud est signum rei praesentis. Unde ibidem dicit, nec litteras nec sonos dici corpus Christi, licet illud si¬ gnificent, sed tantum pariem consecratum, corpus Christi dici. Quinto proferunt cap. 10. ejusdem lib. m. de Trinit. ubi Augustinus dicit, panem in altari positum, peracta pietatis celebratione consumi : « At corpus Christi verum, in¬ quiunt, non consumitur ; igitur verus panis est, qui sumitur, cum Eucharistia sumitur. » Respondeo : Panis, qui in altari ponitur, peracta celebratione consumitur ; nam con¬ sumitur, quoad interiorem substantiam per¬ acta consecratione ; quoad externam vero formam consumitur, dum manducatur. Nec enim dubium est, quin Augustinus loquatur de symbolo tantum visibili : nam loquitur de corporalibus formis, in quibus Deus, vel An¬ geli apparebant, et cum cis comparat sym¬ bola Eucharistiae. Ex quarto tomo nihil habent. Profert qui¬ dem Petrus Martyr unum locum ex lib. de catechiz. rudib. cap. xxvi. ubi Sacramenta dicuntur signacula visibilia rerum invisibi¬ lium. Sed neque constat an loquatur eo loco Augustinus de Eucharistia, an de Baptismo, an de pane benedicto, qui dabatur Catechu¬ menis, et praeterea numquam negavimus Sa¬ cramentum Eucharistia! signaculum esse vi¬ sibile rei invisibilis, sed praesentis tamen. Ex quinto tomo nihil etiam habent solidi. Proferunt illud lib. x. de civitate Dei, cap. v. « Sacrificium visibile invisibilis sacrificii Sacramentum, id est, sacrum signum est. » At locus iste non facit ad rem, quia loquitur 110 LIBER 11. Augustinus de sacrificiis testamenti veteris. Item illud lib. xxi. cap. xxv. ubi Augustinus dicit impios non comedere corpus Christi. Sed loquitur de corpore mystico, ut supra ostendimus, cum explicaremus locum Pauli i. Corinth. xi. Ex tomo sexto producunt Calvinus, Petrus Martyr, et alii locum illum ex lib. contra Adimantum, cap. xii. « Non dubitavit Do¬ minus dicere : Hoc est corpus' meum ; cum signum daret corporis sui. » Ad hunc locum respondent nostri multis modis. Dicunt aliqui, nec male, Augustinum loqui ex Manichasorum sententia, ut eos ex propriis ipsorum sententiis refellat. Ipsi enim cum Christo non tribuerent corpus verum, sed externa tantum specie, et apparentia ; et quidquid Christus passus est, dicant, in signo et apparentia passum : illa etiam ver¬ ba : Hoc est corpus meum , in eo sensu acci¬ piebant, ac si dictum esset : Hoc est signum, et apparentia corporis mei. Consuevisse au¬ tem Augustinum disputare cum Manichaeis ex eorum principiis, constat ex lib. n. de bono perseverantiae, cap. ii, ctxn. Ubi cum Augustino objiceretur, quod scripsisset in libris de libero arbitrio, naturalem esse igno¬ rantiam, et difficultatem, cum qua nascimur ; cum ipse contra Pelagianos contrarium asse¬ reret, nimirum non esse naturalem, sed ex peccato primi parentis ortam : respondit se locutum in libris de libero arbitrio ex mente Manichaeorum, ut eorum errorem redargue¬ ret ex ipsa ipsorum sententia. Alia solutio est, Augustinum hoc loco per signum intelligere non nudum signum, sed cum quo rcipsa conjuncta sit res significata. Nam explicat illa verba Deuteron. xii. San - c/uisesl anima (I) ; ac docet, sanguinem dici animam, non quia sit anima, sed quia signum sit animae ; et ad hoc illustrandum affert il¬ lam sententiam. Eucharistiam appellari cor¬ pus Domini, quia est signum corporis Do¬ mini. Porro sanguis non est signum animae absentis, sed praesentis : longe enim aliter sanguis animan demonstrat, quam statua principem. Quare idem Augustinus quaest. 57. in Leviticum, explicans, quomodo san¬ guis dicatur anima, docet animan dici, quia continet animam. Sic igitur sanguis animam significat, ut simul eam contineat, et cum ea reipsa conjunctus sit : eodem autem modo Eucharistiam signum esse corporis Domini, omnes Catholici fatentur. (!) Dcut. XII, 23. Tertia solutio est, loqui Augustinum de signo corporis, ut in cruce immolati : quo¬ modo panis Eucharistia*, de quo Dominus ait : Hoc est corpus meum , et est vere corpus Domini, et signum ejusdem corporis. Sic respondet ad alium similem locum Guitmun- dus lib. ii. Vide qure supra diximus ad testi¬ monium ex epist. 23. nam eadem est. meo judicio sententia utriusque loci. Et hinc etiam solvitur, quo proferunt ex lib. xx. contra Faustum, cap. xxr. ubi sic ait Augustinus : « Hujus sacrificii caro, et san¬ guis ante adventum Christi per victimas simi¬ litudinum promittebatur : in passione Christi per ipsam veritatem reddebatur : post ascen¬ sum Christi per sacramentum memoriae ce¬ lebratur. » Haic illc.Yidemusautem hoc loco Augustinum manifeste loqui de memoria passionis, et mortis Domini. Denique ex eodem tomo sexto profert Pe¬ trus Martyr, et alii testimonium Augustini lib. m. « Christus adhibuit Judam ad convi¬ vium, in quo corporis sui figuram discipulis commendavit. » Respondemus, quod ad su¬ periora respondimus, loqui Augustinum de figura corporis in cruce suspensi, id est, de repraesentatione Do mini cie passionis; eodem enim modo Augustinus Eucharistiam figu¬ ram corporis vocavit, quo veteres Graeci an- titypa, de qua voce diximus in testimoniis Basilii. Alterum locum proferunt ex commcnt. in Ps. xcviii. « Non hoc corpus, quod videtis, manducaturi estis, et bibituri illum sangui¬ nem, quem fusuri sunt, qui me crucifigent. Sacramentum aliquod commendavi vobis etc. » Respondit olim Lantfrancus lib. contra Berengarium, voluisse Augustinum dicere, non idem corpus manducandum, id est, non eodem modo. Nam corpus in specie mortali et visibili aderat tunc praesens ; comeden¬ dum autem erat in aliena specie, et impas- gibiliter, ac invisibiliter se habens. Itaque idem erat (ut ait Lantfrancus) et non erat idem ; idem quoad substantiam, non idem quoad modum, speciem, et qualitatem. Nam et Apostolus i Corinth. : xv. « Non corpus, inquit, quod futurum est, seminas, sed nu¬ dum granum. » Ubi similiter intelligit, non idem corpus humanum mori, et seminari in sepulchro, quod postea resurrecturum est : nou quod non sit idem corpus numero futu¬ rum, quoad substantiam (idem enim maxime probare volebat) sed quia non erit idem, CAPUT XXIV. Ii7 quoad qualitates ; seminatur enim, ut ipse explicat, corruptibile, et surget incorrupti¬ bile. Et hunc moclum loquendi notavit Au¬ gustinus in epist. 146. Et Ambrosius lib. ii. de Poenitentia cap. x. refert quemdam recte dixisse : « Ego non sum ego, » quia muta¬ verat vitam, et mores. Et Hieronymus in cap. T. ad Ephesios, dicit, aliam esse carnem in Eucharistia, aliam fuisse in cruce ; cum ta¬ men evidenter probatum sit, eum in Eucha¬ ristia ponere veram carnem, et eamdem cum illa, qua? fuit in cruce, quoad substan¬ tiam, licet non qualitate. Denique Dominus ipse Luc. xxiv. distinguit se ipse a se, cum ait : « Haec locutus sum vobis, cum adhuc essem vobiscum. » Porro hanc fuisse mentem Augustini, ex illo ipso loco colligimus. Nam verum corpus Domini sumi in Eucharistia, ibidem docet, cum ait, esse ipsam carnem, in qua Dominus ambulavit, et a nemine manducari, nisi prius adoretur. Quomodo autem non idem corpus manducetur, expli¬ cat ibidem cum ait, putasse Capharnaitas scindendam in particulas Christi carnem, et sic manducandam : addianc enim absurdam cogitationem respondet Dominus, cum ait : « Non hoc corpus, quod videtis etc. » Sed objicit Petrus Martyr in lib. contra Gardinerum objecto 220. unum dilemma : « Cum Dominus in ultima ccena corpus suum discipulis dedit, vel erat mortale illud corpus, vel immortale. Si mortale, non ergo differebat qualitate ab eo, quod tunc videba¬ tur : nec poterat recte dici : Non hoc corpus quod videtis etc. Si immortale, quomodo paulo post mortuum est ? » .Respondeo : In ultima coma corpus da¬ tum discipulis, fuisse mortale, sed datum illis modo immortali, et impassibili ; ut enim erat sub specie panis, loedi non poterat, licet alioqui in propria forma pati, et mori posset. Ex tomo nono multa proferunt testimonia, sed vel levissima, vel alibi explicata. Primo illud tractatu 25. inJoan. : «Quid paras den¬ tem, et ventrem? crede, et manducasti.» Ad hunc locum supra respondimus in expli¬ catione cap. 6. Joannis, loqui Augustinum de manducatione Christi spirituali per fidem Incarnationis, non autem de Eucharistia. Secundo addunt illud tract. 26. in Joan. quod manducarint Hebraei eamdem escam Mobiscum. Ad hoc respondimus supra in explicatione figurarum Testamenti veteris, quod manducarint eadem significatione, non re ipsa. Tertio proferunt illud tractat. 30. in Joan. « Corpus Christi in quo resurrexit, uno in loco esse potest : veritas ejus ubique diffusa est. » Sed non negat hoc loco Augustinus, corpus Domini, pluribus in locis esse posse, sed negat ejus veritatem posse restringi ad unum locum, cum sit ubique diffusa : quod verissimum est. Quale etiam esset, si quis di¬ ceret, Christi humanitas uno in loco esse po¬ test, divinitas non potest. Quarto proferunt illud tract. 50. in Joan. ubi dicit, nunc non adesse' Christum secun¬ dum praesentiam carnis. Ad hunc locum re¬ spondimus, cum tractaremus locum illum : Meantem non habebitis ; ac diximus loqui Au¬ gustinum de praesentia visibili. Quinto proferunt illud tract. 59. «Illi man¬ ducabant panem Dominum, Judas autem panem Domini. » Ad quem locum respondi¬ mus, cum tractaremus cap. ii. prioris ad Co¬ rinthios, ubi demonstravimus corpus Domini ab impiis etiam manducari. Sexto proferunt illud tract, 10. in epist. Joan. ubi Augustinus dicit corpus Christi na¬ turale esse in coelo, quo sublatum est per ascensionem ; in terra autem relictum esse corpus Christi mysticum, id est, Ecclesiam. At ipse se explicat Augustinus. Nam sic ait : Jam non invenis loqui Christum in terra . et ibidem : « Ascensurus dixit verba novissima; post ipsa verba non est locutus in terra. » Itaque loquitur de prmsentia Christi visibili et more humano cum hominibus conversan¬ tis : hoc enim modo non est in terra, nisi in corpore suo mystico. • Ex decimo tomo, primo profert Petrus Martyr, et etiam Calvinus ex sermone de verbis Apostoli, quod impii non vere sumant corpus Domini. Sed ad hoc respondimus su¬ pra, cum exponeremus cap. ii. prioris ad Corinthios, ubi diximus, impios dici non manducare, quia non nutriuntur spiritualiter: nam idem ait Augustinus : « Illud mandu¬ care refici est, illud bibere, quid est, nisi vi¬ vere?» Ex eodem fundamento solvitur quod Petrus Martyr citat ex Augustino in senten¬ tiis Prosperi, ubi legimus non manducare pa¬ nem Domini, nec bibere ejus sanguinem, qui ab illo discordat, licet Sacramentum ejus ac¬ cipiat. Secundo profert ex lib. 50. homil. serm. 26. quod Augustinus dicat, aequale esse pec¬ catum, si quis corpus Domini in terram ca¬ dere sinat, et si quis verbum Dei sibi ex corde permittat effluere, Qme comparatio non videtur vera, si corpus Domini verum, et naturale sit in Eucharistia : majus enim peccatum esset sinere corpus Domini in ter¬ ram cadere, quam verbum Christi ex corde perire. Respondeo : Non comparat Augustinus verbum Christi ratione soni, aut characte¬ rem cum corpore Christi, sed ratione veri¬ tatis divinse, qua? illis sonis, et characteribus significatur. Unde non dicit verbum Dei ex auribus effluere, sed ex corde : neque dicit idem esse peccatum, si quis Eucharistiam, et si quis Biblia in terram cadere sinat. Si enim hoc Augustinus dixisset, tum vere Pe¬ tri Martyris argumentum aliquid valeret. Porro veritas divini verbi in multis similis et sequalis est corpori Christi. Nam ut illud est immortale, impassibile, Deo unitum : ita veritas verbi Christi est te terna, immutabilis divina. Et sicut illud corpus datur nobis in specie rerum visibilium, ac terrenarum : ita litec veritas datur nobis in signis externis lit¬ terarum, et sonorum. Quare ista collatio Au¬ gustini nobis maxime favet. Nam hinc se¬ quitur, vere esse peccatum, et grave pecca¬ tum, sinere Eucharistiam in terram cadere, sicut est peccatum, et grave peccatum, con¬ ceptam in corde veritatem extingui sinere > non autem est peccatum, aquam Baptismi in terram projicere, qutc tamen apud adver¬ sarios non minus sancta est, quam Eucha¬ ristia. Ultimo proferunt sermonem ad infantes, cujus fragmentum recitat Beda in cap. x. prioris ad Coijnthios : « Quod vidistis, in¬ quit, panis est, et calix, quod nobis etiam oculi renuntiant : quod autem fides vestra postulat instruenda, panis est corpus Christi, et calix est sanguis. » Et infra, cum dixisset Christum esse in coelo, qumrit : « Quomodo est panis corpus ejus? et calix, vel quod habet calix, quomodo est sanguis ejus?» deinde respondet : « Ista fratres ideo dicun¬ tur Sacramenta, quia in illis aliud videtur, aliud intclligitur : quod videtur, speciem habet corporalem : quod intclligitur, fru¬ ctum habet spiritualem. Corpus ergo Christi, si vis intelligere, audi Apostolorum dicen¬ tem : Nos estis corpus Christi etc. » Respondeo: Tota vis hujus testimonii in duobus, posita est. Primo in eo, quod Au¬ gustinus dicat, panem esse id, quod est in al¬ tari, ut oculi ipsi renuntiant. Secundo quod ad qu restionem, quomodo panis est corpus Christi, si Christus, est in coelo ? non respon¬ derit Augustinus per transmutationem, aut aliquid ejusmodi, sed dixerit, Sacramenta esse signa quaedam visibilia, et corporalia rerum spiritualium, et intelligibilium. Ad primum facile est respondere. Augus¬ tinus enim declarat, quod sit, quod est in al¬ tari, ac dicit, panem esse, quoad speciem ex¬ teriorem, ut oculi recte judicant ; quoad interiorem substantiam, esse corpus Christi, ut fides recte judicat. Nam si Augustinus vellet dicere in altari esse panem etiam quoad substantiam, et id probaret testimonio oculorum, ut verba ejus prima fronte sonare videntur, repugnaret apertissime Cyrillo, Ambrosio, Nysseno, Epiphanio, Gau dentio, Chrysosfomo, qui disertis verbis dicunt sen¬ sus falli, et non esse judicandum ex gustu, et denique non esse panem. Quis autem credat Augustinus in re tam magna tot Pa¬ tribus repugnasse? et praeterea si repugnas- set, quomodo nec ipse unquam eos reprehen¬ disset, nec ipse ab aliis reprehensus fuisset? Quare cum verba ejus dupliciter exponi pos¬ sint, et uno modo repugnent Patribus coete- ris, alio modo cum eis congruant, quis non videt uter sensus praeferendus sit? Adde quod non solum aliis Patribus, sed etiam sibi ipse repugnaret, si sensuum judicio in hoc mysterio locum dare vellet, ut patet ex. tot locis a nobis citatis. Ad secundum respondeo Augustinum ad quaestionem, Quomodo panis sit corpus Christi? noluisse directe respondere, quia non erant auditores capaces ; ho milia enim illa habebatur ad pueros recens baptizatos : ideo monuisse, ut simpliciter crederent, panem illum esse corpus Christi, et operajn darent, ut essent ipsi corpus Christi per fidem, et opera bona, quia postea ubi crevis¬ sent, et profecissent in via Dei, mysteria ista eis aperirentur. Id ita esse patet, quia cum esset propositum de corpore Christi naturali, quod est in ccelo, quomodo sit in Eucharistia, ipse, omisso corpore Christi naturali, transiit ad corpus mysticum, ac dixit, Eucharistiam esso signum societatis fidelium, et nos esse corpus Christi, et nos manducare quod sumus, et mysterium nostrum esse in mensa, et alia id genus : nunquam autem dixit, pa¬ nem esse signum corporis Christi naturalis, aut corpus naturale non esse in altari, aut esse symbolice, qua) certe dicere debuit, si directe ad qutestionem respondere voluisset, et in hseresi Calvinistarum fuisset. Sicut ergo illi a nobis qmerunt, quare Augustinus non CAPUT XXV. solvit quaestionem dicendo panem esse cor¬ pus per transubstantiationem ? sic et nos ab illis quaerimus, quare non solvit quaestionem dicendo, esse corpus Christi repreesentative ? et pro utrisque respondemus, Augustinum dedita opera dissimulasse quaestionem, et ad moralem cohortationem digressum. Ac de Augustino hactenus.