Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book III: On the Truth of the Body of the Lord, from Reason
Chapter 19: Transubstantiation Is Proved from the Word of God
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. IV, De Sacramento Eucharistiae, Book III: On the Truth of the Body of the Lord in the Eucharist (from Reason). The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
Now at length the opinion of the Catholic Church is to be confirmed, which teaches that the bread is converted into the body of the Lord, and that this conversion is the proper reason of the presence of the body of the Lord in the Eucharist: from which at the same time will be confuted the first opinion of the Berengarians, which the Lutherans also follow, concerning the simple conjunction of the bread with the body of the Lord in this Sacrament.
The first argument is drawn from those words of the Lord: Take and eat, for this is my body. For these words necessarily infer either a true change of the bread, as the Catholics will, or a metaphorical change, as the Calvinists will, but in no way do they admit the opinion of the Lutherans. For the Lord took bread in His hands, and blessed it, and gave it to the disciples, and of it said, This is my body. And so He took bread, blessed bread, gave bread, and of the bread said, This is my body. Either therefore by blessing He changed it into His body really, truly, and properly, or He changed it improperly and figuratively, by adding a signification which it did not have; or He did not change it in any way. If He changed it really, truly, and properly, then He gave the changed bread, and of the changed bread most truly said, This is my body. That is, what is contained under the species of bread is no longer bread, but a body; and this is what the Catholics say. But if anyone say that the bread was changed figuratively, still bread will have been given to the Apostles, which figuratively will be the body of the Lord, and those words, This is my body, will have this sense, This bread is a figure of my body. But this is the opinion of the Sacramentarians, which both we and the Lutherans by common consent reject. If finally anyone say that no change is made, he will be compelled to say that unchanged bread was given to the Apostles, and of it was said, This is my body, that is, This true and wheaten bread is truly and properly my body. But this can in no way be admitted, whether we treat of the thing itself or of the proposition: for it can in no way come about that one thing be not changed and yet become another; for it would be itself and not be itself. And in an affirmative proposition it is necessary that the subject and predicate stand for the same thing; otherwise the predication would be false. It cannot therefore come about that a proposition be true in which the subject stands for bread and the predicate for the body of Christ: for bread and the body of the Lord are things most diverse.
To this argument Luther answered, in the book on the Babylonian Captivity, chapter on the Eucharist, that Aristotle ought not to be made the judge of things so sublime. Then he adds that if, on account of that philosophical rule, the bread must be transubstantiated, it will also on account of the same have to be transaccidentated; otherwise we shall say, This white thing, and this round thing, is the body of Christ. Finally he sets down an example in which it appears that diverse things can be predicated of diverse without transubstantiation: for we say in Christ, This man is God, and This God is man; and yet no transubstantiation of the man into God, or the contrary, is made. From these he concludes this: “I indeed, if I cannot attain how the bread becomes the body of Christ, will nevertheless take my understanding captive into the obedience of Christ, and, simply cleaving to His words, firmly believe not only that the body of Christ is in the bread, but that the bread is the body of Christ.”
But these are refuted without any trouble. For as to the first, if we called Aristotle as judge in a dialectical or philosophical question, such as this is concerning the nature of an affirmative enunciation, Luther ought not to take it so ill. But here we have no need of Aristotle, since common sense suffices. For if it be lawful to affirm disparate things of disparate, it will be lawful by the same right to affirm something of nothing, nothing of something, darkness of light, light of darkness, Belial of Christ, and Christ of Belial: nor does our faith oblige us to defend those things which evidently imply a contradiction. Add that nowhere did the Lord say in express words, This bread is my body; that there should be need in this matter so to take the understanding captive that, notwithstanding the evidence of contradiction, we be compelled to believe that wheaten bread is the body of Christ.
But what Luther brings forward in the second place concerning transaccidentation is most trifling. For we do not admit those propositions, This white thing, or this round thing, is the body of Christ; nor are we compelled to admit them, although we confess that the accidents of the bread remain in the Eucharist. For that, This is my body, does not signify, This white thing is my body; for the pronoun This does not stand for an accident, but for a substance. And so we are not compelled to say, This white thing is my body, but neither can we admit it. For “this white thing” before consecration stands for the bread, after consecration does not stand for the bread, which bread is not there; nor for the body of Christ, because the body of Christ is not the subject of those accidents, but it stands for the remaining quantity, which is the subject of the other accidents: and moreover that white and round quantity is not the body of Christ, as is clear.
See on that question, whether this white thing be the body of Christ, the marvelous frauds of Wyclif in Thomas Waldensis, tome 2, chapter 52. For he bade that it be answered in one word whether this white and round thing (the sacred host being pointed to) be the body of Christ. For if it were granted, he inferred: Then the body of Christ is white and round, etc. If it were denied, the simple faithful were troubled, who thought that the truth of the Lord's body in the Eucharist was denied. But it ought to have been answered: This white thing is not the body of Christ, but is a quantity of round figure and white color; yet under this white and round thing truly and really the body of Christ lies hidden.
Finally, that example about the Incarnation is not to the point. For in Christ, on account of the hypostatic union, those propositions are most true, This God is man, and This man is God; because in each both subject and predicate stand for the same person. But in that proposition, This bread is the body of the Lord, subject and predicate stand for diverse things, as was said above.
Moreover Martin Kemnitz, in Part 2 of the Examination, session 13, chapter 4, attempts to answer this same argument of ours. And first he answers that the bread in the Eucharist is changed, because, as Irenaeus says, out of common bread the Eucharist is made, consisting of two things, one earthly, the other heavenly. And this he says suffices, that we may rightly and truly say, The bread is the body of Christ; although the bread be not converted into the body, but remain together with it.
Then a little below, having repeated Luther's trifles about the philosophy of Aristotle, he says that according to the custom of holy Scripture those things are predicated of each other which by a divine ordinance are united in a peculiar manner, although to propositions of this kind the rule of Aristotle does not fit. And for the truth of these propositions he says there is required only that the union and presence of one thing with another be signified.
And he brings forward these examples. The first about Christ, in whom we rightly say, This man is God; although that proposition does not agree with the rules of the predicables. Where however he warns that he does not posit a personal union between the bread and the body of Christ, but only uses the likeness of the Incarnation, as some of the ancients used it in the same cause. The second example, John 20: the Lord breathed and said, Receive the Holy Spirit, where He called the very breath of His body the Holy Spirit, to signify that with that breath the Holy Spirit was given. The third example, Matthew 3: the dove is called the Holy Spirit, when it is said that John saw the Spirit, who nevertheless had seen only a dove. The fourth example he says can be those visible species in which the Angels, or God, were of old shown: for no one dared to make an article of the fact that those species were accidents without a subject. The fifth example: when the ark went forward, Moses said, Let the Lord arise, nor was it needful that the wood or the gold of the ark be transubstantiated. The sixth example in common speech. For of the cask and the wine we say, This is wine; of the purse and the money we say, This is money; of the swaddling-bands and the infant we say, This is the infant of my womb. By these examples Kemnitz boasts that with the sword of the Spirit he has happily dissolved, or cut through, the web of our argument.
But truly we have no need of a sword to destroy the web of his solution: for it is most like a spider's web, which can be dissipated by a light breath; for he says many things, but nothing to the point. To that, then, about the change from common bread into the Eucharist consisting of two things, I say that that change, according to the true opinion of Irenaeus (as we showed in Book 2, chapter 6), is a substantial change of the bread into the flesh of Christ, the accidents remaining; and therefore the earthly thing is the sensible accidents of the bread, the heavenly thing the glorious flesh of Christ: and in this way the body of Christ is truly predicated of the bread of the Eucharist, because that bread is not common, that is, wheaten, bread, but heavenly bread. But according to the Lutherans, who by the earthly thing expound the bread, by the heavenly thing understand the body of Christ, there is no true change of the bread there, but only the adjunction of the body of the Lord to the bread, which does not suffice for it to be truly said, The bread is the body of Christ: otherwise we could also truly say in man, The soul is the body; and in Christ, The humanity is the Divinity; and in red-hot iron (which is Luther's example in the place cited above to illustrate the conjunction of the bread with the body of Christ in the Eucharist), The iron is fire, or the fire is iron; which nevertheless no one would grant.
To that which Kemnitz subjoins about the custom and usage of Scripture, I say it is false that any such propositions are found in the Scriptures as he feigns. And in the first example indeed Kemnitz sins twice. First, because he says that that proposition, This man is God, is not true according to the rules of Aristotle: wherein he sufficiently shows that he has not read, or, what is more credible, has not understood, the rules of Aristotle. For the assumption of human nature to the person of the Word being posited, that proposition is most true according to all the rules of philosophy, since both “this man” and “this God” stand for the same suppositum. Unless perhaps Kemnitz does not acknowledge in Christ a true and hypostatic union of the two natures; which indeed he insinuates, when he says that propositions of this kind signify only the union and presence of one thing with another. But if he will this, he openly signifies that he favors the Nestorians: for they would have between the man and God in Christ only a union and a certain mutual presence.
Secondly, because he says that between the bread and the body of the Lord there is no personal union; and yet contends that that, This bread is the body of Christ, is as true as that, This man is God. For either he will have there not to be a personal union between God and man in Christ, which is openly Nestorian; or certainly he knows not what he says, since he sets down a likeness and meanwhile takes away the foundation of the likeness. For the whole reason why that, This man is God, is true, is the personal unity. Since therefore this unity is posited in Christ, and is not posited in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, it can in no way come about that they be equally true, that, This man is God, and that, This bread is the body of Christ.
The second example is not to the point. For the Lord did not say, This breathing is the Holy Spirit; but breathing He said, Receive the Holy Spirit: where He only showed that by an exterior sign He represented that which He was doing by an internal and invisible operation. Whence those words, Receive the Holy Spirit, do not make this sense, Receive this breathing, which is the Holy Spirit, but this, Receive in this breathing, or through this breathing, as through a sign and instrumental cause, the gift of the Holy Spirit.
The third example is like the former. For nowhere do we read expressly, The dove is the Holy Spirit; but only we read that the Holy Spirit was seen by John descending like a dove: for all the Evangelists, Matthew chapter 3, Mark chapter 1, Luke chapter 3, John chapter 1, added the particle of likeness, either “as,” or “like,” or “as it were.” From which we understand that the dove was only a sign of the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit was seen in the dove as in a sign.
The fourth example is a mere by-work. For we do not now dispute whether the accidents of the bread remain without a subject, but whether the proposition be true in its proper sense, This bread is the body of Christ: but nowhere will Kemnitz find in the whole Bible this proposition, The body assumed by the Angel is the Angel himself.
The fifth example is like the second. For when the ark was lifted up, Moses said, Let the Lord arise, not that he called the ark the Lord, but because together with the ark the Lord went forward with the children of Israel and showed the way.
The sixth example indicates the wisdom of Kemnitz. For before he had said, with Luther, that propositions of this kind do not agree with the rules of philosophy, and are proper to the Scriptures, and that the understanding must be taken captive if they are to be believed; but now he will have them to be so vulgar, common, and easy that in common speech they are daily used. This forsooth is to be wise. But not even in those vulgar examples could he find anything like our proposition. For although we simply name a cask full of wine, and a purse full of money, and an infant wrapped in swaddling-bands, wine, money, and the infant, yet no one would say, The cask is wine, the purse is money, the swaddling-band is the little infant; as they will have it truly said, The bread is the body of Christ.
But although the adversaries are most evidently convicted from the fact that they will have that pronoun This to signify “this bread”; yet someone will demand to say that in the Eucharist the bread indeed remains with the body of the Lord, but that those words, This is my body, were said only of the body of the Lord, so that the pronoun This stands confusedly for that which is contained under the species (as we said above), and yet by force of the predicate is determined to the body of the Lord, and no mention is made of the substance of the bread, although it remain there. For to abstract is not to lie: and the examples can be those which Kemnitz brought forward. For of a cask of wine we rightly say, This is wine, although there be there two substances, one of the wine, the other of the cask: and likewise of the purse and the money it can be said, This is money.
I answer that absolutely from the words of the Lord transubstantiation is gathered. For in propositions concerning the containing and the contained thing, the pronoun This can indeed point to either, that is, both to the containing thing and to the contained thing: for we rightly say of a cask of wine, This is a cask, and also, This is wine. But when the contained thing is pointed to, one thing only is pointed to, and all the others are excluded which could be contained there; and therefore by the common mode of speaking the demonstration is false if more things are contained. For example, if anyone say of a cask where there is wine and oil, This is wine, he is deemed a cheat. For that (This is wine) by the common mode of speaking signifies, In this cask there is nothing but wine. By like reason, if anyone say of a purse full partly of gold, partly of silver, This is gold; or of a sack full partly of wheat, partly of sand, should say, Take and use, for this is wheat; he would rightly be held a deceiver. In the same way, then, those words, This is my body, by the common mode of speaking, whatever be the case with metaphysical subtleties, signify that under those species there was nothing other than the body of the Lord; for if there had been also bread, the Lord ought to have said, Here, that is, in this bread, is my body, or certainly, this is not only bread, but also my body.
But someone will say: the whole bread is a containing thing with respect to the body of the Lord; therefore, etc., just as of a cask of wine we say, This is wine, although the cask be a substance, and just as of an Angel appearing in human form it could be said, This is the Angel Raphael, although that bodily form were also a substance.
I answer: In the Eucharist the accidents alone hold the place of the containing thing; but the substance of the bread either is not there (as the Catholics believe), or, if it be there, as the Lutherans will, is a contained thing together with the body of Christ, and therefore the proposition is false, This is a body, if there be there two substances. And that the accidents alone are the containing thing is clear from this, that the body of Christ is not in the bread as in a vessel or in a place, but is as a substance under accidents. For hence it is that by the nature of the thing, consecration being posited, at the motion of those accidents the body of Christ is moved, and at their elevation is elevated, at their depression is depressed, and at their corruption the body of Christ ceases to be there, in the way the substance of the bread would cease, if it had been there. Which we do not see in the examples brought forward of the wine and the Angel, because those do not remain as substances under accidents, but as things in a vessel or in a place: for the Angel is not moved at the motion of the assumed body necessarily and by the nature of the thing, but could be not moved, and when he is moved, is moved voluntarily, nay it is he who moves that body; and when that body is dissolved, the Angel does not necessarily cease to be in that place, but can remain, if he will.
Add that although in the words of the Lord there were some obscurity or ambiguity, yet it has been removed by the many Councils of the Catholic Church and the consent of the Fathers.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XIX Probatur ex verbo Dei transubstantiatio. Nunc tandem confirmanda est sententia Catholicae Ecclesiae, quae docet, panem con¬ verti in corpus Domini, et eam conversio¬ nem esse propriam rationem praesentiae cor¬ poris Domini in Eucharistia : ex quo simul confutabitur prima sententia Berengariano- rum, quam etiam Lutherani sequuntur de simplici conjunctione panis cum corpore Domini in hoc Sacramento. Primum autem argumentum ducitur ex illis Domini verbis : Accipite , et manducate , hoc est enim corpus meum (1). Haec enim ver¬ ba necessario inferunt, aut veram mutatio¬ nem panis, ut volunt Catholici, aut muta¬ tionem metaphoricam, ut volunt Calvinistae, nullo autem modo sententiam Lutheranorum admittunt : nam Dominus accepit in mani¬ bus panem, eumque benedixit, et dedit di¬ scipulis, et de eo ait : Hoc est corpus meum. Itaque panem accepit, panem benedixit, pa¬ nem dedit, et de pane dixit : Hoc est corpus meum. Vel igitur benedicendo mutavit in corpus reipsa vere, et proprie, vel mutavit improprie , et figurate , addendo significa¬ tionem, quse non habebat; vel nullo modo mutavit. Si mutavit reipsa, vere, et proprie ; ergo panem mutatum dedit, et de pane mu¬ tato verissime dixit : Hoc est corpus meum. Id est, quod sub specie panis continetur, non est amplius panis, sed corpus, et hoc est quod dicunt Catholici. Si vero quis dicat, panem mutatum esse figurate, tamen datus erit Apostolis panis, qui figurate erit corpus Domini, et illa verba : Hoc est corpus meum , hunc sensum habebunt, Hic panis est figura corporis mei. Haec autem est sententia Sa- cramentariorum, quam et nos, et Lutherani communi consensu rejicimus. Si quis deni¬ que dicat nullam fieri mutationem, is coge¬ tur dicere, panem non mutatum datum esse Apostolis, et de illo esse dictum : Hoc est corpus meum , id est, Hic panis verus ac tri¬ ticeus, vere, et proprie est corpus meum. Atqui hoc nullo modo admitti potest, sive agamus de re ipsa, sive de propositione : nec enim ullo modo fieri potest, ut una res non mutetur, et tamen fiat alia ; esset enim ipsa, et non esset ipsa. In propositione autem af¬ firmativa, necesse est, ut pro eodem suppo¬ nant subjectum, et praedicatum ; alioqui esset falsa praedicatio. Non igitur potest fieri, ut vera sit propositio, in qua subjectum suppo¬ nit pro pane, praedicatum autem pro corpore Christi : panis enim et corpus Domini res diversissimae sunt. (I) Mattii XXVI, 26. CAPUT XIX. ITT Ad hoc argumentum respondit Lutherus in lib. de Babyl. captivit. cap. de Eucha¬ ristia, non oportere Aristotelem facere re¬ rum tam sublimium. Deinde addit, si, propter istam regulam philosophicam, oportet pa¬ nem transubstantiari, oportebit etiam propter eamdem transaccidentari ; alioqui dicemus, IIoc album, et hoc rotundum est corpus Christi. Denique ponit exemplum, in quo apparet posse praedicari diversum de diverso sine transubstantiatione : dicimus enim in Christo, Hic homo est Deus, et Hic Deus est homo : et tamen nulla fit transubstantiatio hominis in Deum, vel contra. Ex his ista concludit : « Ego sane, si non possum con¬ sequi, quomodo panis fit corpus Christi, captivabo tamen intellectum meum in obse¬ quium Christi, et verbis ejus simpliciter in¬ haerens credo firmiter, non modo corpus Christi esse in pane, sed panem esse corpus Christi. » Sed haec nullo negotio refelluntur. Nam quod ad primum attinet, si Aristotelem judi¬ cem vocaremus in quaestione dialectica, seu philosophica, qualis est haec de natura enun- ciationis affirmativae, non deberet Lutherus id tantopere aegre ferre. Sed non hic opus habemus Aristotele, cum sensus communis sufficiat. Nam si liceat affirmare disparata de disparatis, licebit eodem jure affirmare de nihilo aliquid, de aliquo nihil, de luce te¬ nebras, de tenebris lucem, de Christo Be- lial, et de Belial Christum : neque fides nostra ad id nos obligat, ut ea defendamus, quae evidenter implicant contradictionem. Adde, quod nusquam Dominus disertis verbis dixit : Hic panis est corpus meum ; ut opus sit in ea re ita captivare intellectum, ut non ob¬ stante evidentia contradictionis, cogamur credere panem triticeum esse corpus Christi. Quod vero Lutherus secundo loco adfert de transaccidentatione, levissimum e^t. Non enim admittimus illas propositiones : Hoc album, vel hoc rotundum est corpus Christi ; neque cogimur eas admittere, licet fateamur panis accidentia in Eucharistia remanere. Nam illud : Hoc est c rpus meum, non signi¬ ficat, Hoc album est corpus meum ; prono¬ men enim, Hoc, non supponit pro accidente, sed pro substantia. Itaque non cogimur dicere, Hoc album est corpus meum, sed nec possumus admittere. Nam «Hoc album» ante consecrationem supponit pro pane, post con¬ secrationem non supponit pro pane, qui pa¬ nis ibi non est ; nec pro corpore Christi, quia corpus Christi non est subjectum illorum accidentium, sed supponit pro quantitate remanente, qua) est subjectum accidentium reliquorum : porro quantitas illa alba et ro¬ tunda non est corpus Christi, ut patet. Vide de ista qua)stione, an hoc album sit corpus Christi, miras fraudes Wiclefi apud Thomam Waldensem, tom. n. cap. o2. Ille enim jubebat uno verbo responderi, an hoc album, et rotundum (demonstrata sacra hostia) sit corpus Christi. Si enim concede¬ retur, inferebat : Ergo corpus Christi est album, et rotundum etc. Si negaretur, tur¬ babantur simplices fideles , qui puthbant negari veritatem corporis Domini in Eucha¬ ristia. Sed respondendum fuit : Hoc album non est corpus Christi, sed est quantitas quaedam rotundae figurae , et albi coloris ; tamen sub hoc albo et rotundo, vere et rea- liter corpus Christi latet. Denique illud exemplum de Incarnatione non est ad rem. Nam in Christo propter unionem hypostaticam verissimae sunt illae propositiones : Hic Deus est homo, et hic homo est Deus ; quia in utraque tam subje¬ ctum, quam praedicatum, pro eadem persona supponit. At in ista propositione, Hic panis est corpus Domini, pro diversis supponunt subjectum, et praedicatum, ut supra dictum est. Porro Martinus Kemnitius in 2. par. Exam. sess. xm. cap. 4. ad idem nostrum argumentum respondere conatur. Ac pri¬ mum respondet, panem in Eucharistia mu¬ tari, quia, ut dicit Irenaeus, ex pane communi fit Eucharistia, duabus rebus constans, una terrena, altera- coelesti. Atque hoc dicit suf¬ ficere, ut recte et vere dicamus, Panis est corpus Christi; licet panis non convertatur in corpus, sed simul cum illo maneat. Deinde paulo infra repetitis Lutheri nugis de philosophia Aristotelis, dicit secundum morem Scripturae sanctae illa invicem prae¬ dicari, quae divina ordinatione peculiari modo uniuntur, licet in ejusmodi propositio¬ nes non quadret regula Aristotelis. Ad veri¬ tatem autem harum propositionum dicit requiri tantum, ut significetur unio, et prae¬ sentia unius rei cum altera. Exempla vero haec adfert. Primum de Christo, in quo recte dicimus. Hic Homo est !2 (i) Joan VX, 25. Tome IV, 178 LIBER IIT. Deus; tametsi ad regulas praedicabilium non congruat ea propositio» Ubi tamen monet se non ponere unionem personalem inter pa¬ nem, et corpus Christi, sed tantum uti simi¬ litudine Incarnationis, ut ea usi sunt nonnulli veterum in eadem causa. Secundum exem¬ plum Joan. xx. Dominus insufflavit, et dixit : Accipite Spiritum sanctum, ubi ipsum corpo¬ ris flatum, Spiritum sanctum vocavit, ut significaret cum eo flatu dari Spiritum san¬ ctum. Tertium exemplum Matth. 3. Columba vocatur Spiritus sanctus, cum dicitur Joan- nes Spiritum vidisse, qui tamen non viderat, nisi columbam. Quartum exemplum dicit esse posse illas visibiles species, in quibus Angeli, vel Deus olim ostendebantur : nemo enim ausus fuit articulum inde facere, quod species illas fuerint accidentia sine subjecto. Quintum exemplum : Progrediente arca di¬ cebat Moses Exurgat Dominus , nec tamen opus fuit transubstantiari lignum, vel aurum arere. Sextum exemplum in vulgari locutio¬ ne. Nam de dolio et vino, .dicimus, Hoc est vinum ; de marsupio et pecuniis dicimus, HtD sunt pecunia? ; de fasciis et infante dici¬ mus, Hic est infans uteri mei. His exemplis jactat Kemnitius gladio Spiritus se feliciter dissolvisse, vel pra?cidisse telam nostri argu¬ menti. Sed profecto nos non egemus gladio, ut telam solutionis ejus destruamus : est enim ea telae aranearum simillima, quae levi flatu dissipari queat; nam multa dicit, sed nihil ad rem. Ad illud igitur de mutatione ex pane communi in Eucharistiam duabus re¬ bus constantem, dico illam mutationem se¬ cundum veram Ircnaci sententiam (ut nos lib. ji. cap G. ostendimus) substantialem mutationem esse panis in carnem Christi, manentibus accidentibus, et proinde rem terrenam esse accidentia panis sensibilia, rem coelestem, carnem Christi gloriosam : et hoc modo vere praedicari corpus Christi de pane Eucharistiae, quia panis ille non est panis communis, id est, triticeus, sed panis coelestis. At secundum Lutheranos, qui per rem terrenam exponunt panem, per rem coelestem intelligunt corpus Christi, nulla est ibi vera mutatio panis, sed sola adjunctio corporis Domini ad panem, quae non est satis ut possit vere dici , Panis est corpus Christi : alioqui etiam vere dicere possemus in homine, Anima est corpus ; et in Christo, Humanitas est Divinitas ; et in ferro ignito (quod est exemplum Lutheri loco supra citato ad illustrandam conjunctionem panis cum corpore Christi in Eucharistia), Ferrum est ignis, vel ignis est ferrum ; quae tamen nemo concederet. Ad illud quod subjungit Kemnitius de more, et usu Scripturas, dico falsum esse in Scripturis ullas tales propositiones inveniri, quales ipse fingit. Acin primo quidem exem¬ plo bis peccat Kemnitius. Primo, quia dicit illam propositionem, Hic homo est Deus, non esse veram secundum regulas Aristote¬ lis : in quo satis ostendit, se non legisse, vel quod est credibilius, non intellexisse regulas Aristotelis. Posita enim assumptione huma¬ nae naturae ad personam Yerbi, illa proposi¬ tio verissima est secundum omnes regulas philosophiae, cum pro eodem supposito sup¬ ponant tam hic homo , quam hic Deus. Nisi forte Kemnitius non agnoscat in Christo ve¬ ram, et hypostaticam unionem duarum naturarum ; quod sane insinuat, cum ait ejusmodi propositiones tantum significare unionem, et praesentiam unius rei cum altera. Sed si hoc velit, aperte se Nestorianis favere significat : illi enim volebant inter hominem et Deum in Christo, esse tantum unionem et praesentiam quamdam mutuam. Secundo, quia dicit inter panem, et corpus Domini non esse personalem unionem ; et tamen contendit, ita esse veram istam, Hic panis est corpus Christi, ut est illa, Hic homo est Deus. Nam aut vult non esse etiam per¬ sonalem unionem inter Deum et hominem in Christo, quod est aperte Nestorianum; aut certe nescit quid loquatur, cum similitudi¬ nem ponat, et interim tollat fundamentum similitudinis. Tota enim ratio cur illa sit vera, Hic homo est Deus, est unitas perso¬ nalis. Cum igitur haec unitas ponatur in Christo, et non ponatur in Sacramento Eu¬ charistias, nullo modo fieri potest, ut sint reque vtfrae, illa : Hic homo est Deus, et illa : Hic panis est corpus Christi. Secundum exemplum non est ad rem. Non enim Dominus dixit, Haec insufflatio est Spiritus sanctus ; sed insufflando dixit : Accipite Spiritum sanctum : ubi solum osten¬ dit, se signo exteriori repraesentare id, quod interna, et invisibili operatione faciebat. Un¬ de illa verba : Accipite Spiritum sanctum , non faciunt hunc sensum : Accipite hanc insuffla¬ tionem, quae est Spiritus sanctus, sed hunc: Accipite in hac insufflatione, seu per hanc insufflationem, ut per signum et causam instrumentalera, donum Spiritus sancti. CAPUT XIX*. 479 Tertium exemplum simile est superiori Nusquam enim expresse legimus, Columba est Spiritus sanctus; sed solum legimus, visum a Joanne Spiritum sanctum descen¬ dentem sicut columbam : nam omnes Evan- gelistee, Matth. cap. m, Mare. cap. i, Luc. cap. m, Joan. cap. i, addiderunt particulam similitudinis, vel tanquam, vel sicut, vel quasi. Ex quo intelligimus, columbam sig¬ num duntaxat Spiritus sancti fuisse, et Spi¬ ritum sanctum in columba, ut in signo vi¬ sum. Quartum exemplum, est merum parergum. Nec enim disputamus nunc, an accidentia panis maneant sine subjecto, sed an sit vera propositio in proprio sensu : Hic panis est corpus Christi : nusquam autem inveniet Kenmitius hanc propositionem in totis Bibliis, Corpus ab Angelo assumptum est ipse An¬ gelus. Quintum exemplum simile est secundo. Cum enim elevabatur arca, dicebat Moses: Exurgat Dominus , non quod arcam appella¬ ret Dominum, sed quia simul cum arca Dominus procedebat cum filiis Israel, et viam demonstrabat. Sextum exemplum indicat sapientiam Kemnitii. Nam antea dixerat cum Luthero, ejusmodi propositiones non convenire cum regulis philosophiae, et esse Scripturarum proprias, et oportere intellectum captivare, si eae credendae sint ; nunc autem vult esse adeo vulgares, tritas et faciles, ut in com¬ muni sermone quotidie usurpentur. Istud nimirum est sapere. Sed nec in istis vulga¬ ribus exemplis aliquid simile nostrae propo¬ sitioni invenire potuit. Nam etsi dolium vino plenum, et marsupium plenum pecuniis, et infantem fasciis circumligatum, simpliciter vinum, pecunias, et infantem nominamus, tamen nemo diceret, Dolium est vinum, marsupium est pecunia, fascia est infantulus ; ut ipsi vere dici volunt, Panis est corpus Christi. Sed licet adversarii evidentissime convin¬ cantur ex eo, quod volunt illud pronomen, Hoc, significare, Hic panis ; poscet tamen aliquis dicere, in Eucharistia manere quidem panem cum corpore Domini, sed illa verba : Hoc est corpps meum , dicta esse solum de corpore Domini, ita ut pronomen, Hoc. sup¬ ponat in confuso pro eo, quod continetur sub speciebus sut nos supra diximus) et tamen virtute preedicati determinetur ad corpus Domini, et nulla mentio fiat subtantiee panis, licet ibi maneat. Nam abstrahentium non est mendacium : et exempla esse possunt illa, quse attulit Kemnitius. Nam de dolio vini, recte dicimus, Hoc est vinum ; cum tamen sint ibi duae substantiae, una vini, altera dolii: et similiter de marsupio, et pecuniis dici potest, Hae sunt pecunite. Respondeo, absolute ex verbis Domini colligi transubstantiationem. Nam in propo¬ sitionibus de re continente, et contenta pro¬ nomen, Hoc, potest quidem demonstrare alterutrum, id est, tam rem continentem , quam rem contentam : recte enim dicimus de dolio vini, Hoc est dolium, et etiam, Hoc est vinum. At cum demonstratur res con¬ tenta, demonstratur una res tantum, et ex¬ cluduntur omnes aliae, quae ibi continer- possent, et proinde ex modo communi loi quendi falsa est demonstratio, si plura con¬ tineantur. Verbi gratia, si quis de dolio, ubi sit vinum et oleum, dicat, Hoc est vinum, fraudator censetur. Illud enim (Hoc est vi¬ num) ex modo communi loquendi significat, In hoc dolio nihil est, nisi vinum. Pari ra¬ tione, si quis de marsupio pleno partim auro, partim argento, dicat : Hoc est aurum ; vel de sacco pleno partim tritico, partim arena, diceret : Accipe et utere, hoc enim est triti¬ cum ; deceptor juro haberetur. Eodem igitur modo ilia verba : Hoc est corpus meum , ex modo communi loquendi, quidquid sit de metaphysicis subtilitatibus, significant sub illis speciebus non fuisse aliud quam corpus Domini ; si enim fuisset etiam panis, debuis¬ set Dominus dicere : Hic, id est, in hoc pane, est corpus meum, aut certe, hoc non tantum est panis, sed etiam corpus meum. Sed dicet aliquis : totus panis est res con¬ tinens respectu corporis Domini ; ergo etc. sicut de dolio vini dicimus, Hoc est vinum, licet dolium sit substantia, et sicut de Angelo Apparente in forma humana, dici posset : Hic est Angelus Raphael, licet illa forma corporalis esset etiam substantia. Respondeo : In Eucharistia sola accidentia locum habent rei continentis ; substantia autem panis, aut ibi non est (ut Catholici credunt) aut si ibi est, ut volunt Lutherani, est res contenta simul cum corpore Christi, et proinde falsa est propositio ; Hoc est cor¬ pus, si ilii sint duee substantiae. Quod autem sola accidentia sint res continens, ex. eo pa¬ tet, quod corpus Christi non est in pane, ut in vase, aut in loco, sed est ut substantia sub accidentibus. Nam inde est, quod ex 180 LIBER W. natura rei, posita consecratione, ad motum illorum accidentium movetur corpus Christi, et ad illorum elevationem elevatur, ad illo¬ rum depressionem deprimitur, et ad illorum corruptionem desinit ibi esse corpus Christi, quomodo desineret substantia panis, si ibi fuisset. Quod non videmus in exemplis alla¬ tis de vino, et Angelo, quia illa non manent ut substantiae sub accidentibus ; sed ut res in vase, vel in loco : non enim ad motum corporis assumpti, movetur Angelus neces¬ sario, et ex natura rei, sed posset non moveri, et quando movetur, voluntarie movetur , imo ipse est qui movet illud corpus : et quando dissolvitur illud corpus, non neces¬ sario Angelus desinit esse in eo loco, sed potest manere, si velit. Adde, quod licet in verbis Dominresset aliqua obscuritas, vel ambiguitas, ea tamen sublata est, per multa Concilia Catholicae Ecclesiae, et Patrum consensum.