Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book IV: On the Sacrament of the Eucharist Itself
Chapter 2: It Is Proved from the Words of the Lord's Institution That the Sacrament of the Eucharist Is a Permanent Thing, and That the Body of the Lord Exists in It Permanently
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. IV, De Sacramento Eucharistiae, Book IV: On the Sacrament of the Eucharist Itself. 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 all Catholics agree that the bread duly consecrated, or the body of the Lord contained under the species of bread, is truly and properly a Sacrament, whether it be received or kept in a pyx. Which is had expressly in the Council of Trent, session 13, chapters 3 and 6, and canons 4 and 7.
And that this is most true is proved first from the words of the Lord uttered in the institution of the Sacrament. The words of the Lord (This is the body, This is the blood) were spoken before the action of eating and drinking took place; therefore before that action the body of the Lord was present in the Supper, and consequently the Sacrament of the Eucharist was confected. The consequence is proved in two ways. First, because according to Augustine, tract 80 on John, “the word comes to the element, and it becomes a Sacrament.” But before the action of eating and drinking, the word came to the element; therefore before the action of eating and drinking the Sacrament was made. Secondly, the words of the Lord, as soon as they were uttered, were true. But they were uttered before that action of eating and drinking; therefore before it they were true; therefore the body of the Lord, and consequently the Sacrament, was truly there before that action.
To this argument Illyricus, Calvin, and Kemnitz answer. Illyricus denies the antecedent: for he says that the Lord spoke of bread existing in act, that is, while it was being eaten. And this could be confirmed from the words of the Lord: for the Evangelists say that the bread was given to the disciples, and afterward it was said, This is my body. For in Matthew 26 we read thus: Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke, and gave to His disciples, and said: Take and eat, this is my body. And so we see that the utterance of the Lord's words and the action of eating concurred together: for just as after the distribution of the bread the utterance of the words immediately followed, so also after the same distribution the eating immediately followed.
I answer: There is no need in this matter to attend to which words the Evangelists set down first and which afterward: for they, for certain causes known to themselves, sometimes change the order of the words. For Mark, chapter 14, says thus of the chalice: And taking the chalice, giving thanks, He gave it to them; and they all drank of it, and He said to them: This is my blood of the new Testament. Where, if we attend to the order of the Evangelist's words, we shall gather that those words (This is the blood) were spoken after the action of drinking; which no one admits: because then the pronoun (This) would point to nothing, and the words would be false; or it would be necessary that after the action of drinking some part of the consecrated wine remained, and of it were said, This is the blood; which would openly fight with the opinion of the adversaries. It is necessary, therefore, to gather from the sense and signification of the words, not from the order in which they are written, what was done first and what afterward in the sacred Supper.
Moreover the sense of the words compels us to say that those words, This is the body, and This is the blood, were uttered by the Lord before He gave to the disciples that food and drink. For those words, This is the body, contain the reason why that food ought to be eaten: and likewise those words, This is the blood, contain the reason why that drink ought to be drunk. Whence in Matthew 26 a causal particle is set, when it is said, For this is the blood, etc. But that reason ought to have been explained by the Lord, and also perceived by the hearers, before that bread was given them to eat, namely that they might know what they received. Moreover, if they are invited to drink because it is blood, then it was blood before they drank. Besides, Luke chapter 22 and Paul 1 Corinthians 11 write: This chalice is the new Testament in my blood. Therefore in the chalice was blood, and not only in the mouth of those receiving; and indeed in the chalice before it was in the mouth of those receiving; for it passed from the chalice to the mouth, not the contrary. Add the words of Paul, 1 Corinthians 10: The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of the Lord? and the chalice which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of the Lord? For here Paul openly indicates that the bread is consecrated and changed into the body of the Lord before it is broken and distributed: for he says that that which is broken is not going to be, but already is, the body of the Lord. Whence Chrysostom, in his commentary on that place: “What is in the chalice,” he says, “which flowed from the side of Christ?” Hither too pertain those words of chapter 11: Not discerning the body of the Lord: where, while he accuses the Corinthians for not discerning the body of the Lord from the other foods which were placed on the table, he signifies that it could be discerned, and therefore was there before the eating. Finally, in all the Liturgies even the most ancient, of James, Basil, and Chrysostom, and in our Latin one, which is deemed to be of St. Peter and Clement, the words of the Lord, This is the body, This is the blood, are pronounced long before the sanctified bread is distributed and eaten.
Another solution (if indeed it is another) is that of John Calvin, Institutes Book 4, chapter 17, § 37, where he does not dispute what the Lord first uttered, but contends that the words of the Lord, This is my body, are not fulfilled and verified before the eating itself is really performed. And this he proves because the Lord joined together the precept and the promise; for the precept was, Take and eat; and the promise, This is my body; but the promise ought not to be fulfilled unless the precept be fulfilled. And so, to those receiving and eating according to the Lord's command, that bread becomes the body of Christ: but outside that use it does not become so, because the promise is annexed only to such a command. Calvin illustrates the whole matter by a likeness: “God gave a command,” he says, “when He said, Call upon me; He added a promise: I will hear thee. If anyone, having called upon Peter or Paul, should glory in this promise, will not all cry out that he does wrong?”
This solution of Calvin can be refuted without great trouble. For first, if those words, This is the body, contained a promise, certainly they would have been expressed by a verb of future time, as we see done in like promises: for thus of Baptism we read, Mark last: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. And in Calvin's example: Call upon me, and I will hear thee. But in this place Christ did not say, This will be, but, This is my body.
Then, if those words contained a promise annexed to a precept, the fulfillment of that promise would not accompany, but follow, the eating; and therefore the faithful would not have the Sacrament and the very body of the Lord while they ate, but only after they had eaten: and thus they would not eat the body of the Lord, not even in the Sacrament, which is most absurd and repugnant even to the Calvinists themselves. And that this follows is proved, because we see it in all like promises; for always the action which was commanded proceeds, and at length the fulfillment of the promise follows. And a reason too can be rendered of this order, because the fulfillment of the promise is the effect of the commanded action, and always the cause is prior to its effect, at least in nature. And so, just as Baptism is prior to the remission of sins, and invocation is prior to the being heard, so eating will be prior to the presence of the body of the Lord, whether in reality or in the Sacrament. And that this is absurd, even according to Calvin's opinion, is proved. For when the Communion of the impious is treated of, concerning whom the Apostle says, 1 Corinthians 11, He that eateth unworthily eateth judgment to himself, Calvin says that this is the difference between the pious and the impious, that the pious, while they receive the Sacrament by the bodily mouth, at the same time receive by the mouth of faith the very true body of the Lord: but the impious so receive the Sacrament by the bodily mouth that they do not receive the body of the Lord by the mouth of faith. See Calvin, Institutes Book 4, chapter 17, § 34. All, therefore, who communicate, eat the Sacrament by the bodily mouth: but how do they eat it, if the Sacrament does not begin to be before the eating is completed?
Thirdly, Scripture and the Fathers acknowledge the body of the Lord not only in the mouth of the faithful, but also on the altar and in the sacred vessels; therefore those words are verified outside the eating, and the Sacrament does not consist in the eating alone. The antecedent is proved from those passages of Paul: The bread which we break, and The chalice of blessing, and This chalice is the new Testament, and Not discerning the body of the Lord, 1 Corinthians 10 and 11. The Nicene Council says that on the sacred table the Lamb of God is placed: which Calvin confesses to be of the Canons of the Nicene Council, Book 4, Institutes, chapter 17, § 36. Optatus of Milevis, Book 6 against Parmenian, calls the altar the seat of the body of Christ, and the chalices the bearers of the blood of Christ. Chrysostom, homily 24 on the first to the Corinthians, says that the same Christ now stands on the altar who was once adored by the Magi in the manger. Cyprian, in his sermon on the lapsed, says that the body of the Lord was in a chest. Cyril of Jerusalem, catechesis 5 of the Mystagogics, bids it be received with the right hand. Augustine, in his first and second discourse on Psalm 33, says that Christ carried His own body in His hands, when of that which He had in His hands He said, This is my body. And whether He carried His true and natural body, as we believe, or only in the Sacrament, as the Calvinists will, it makes no difference to what we now treat of: for always we conclude that the Sacrament was confected before the eating, and therefore that it is false what Calvin says, that those words, This is my body, are not fulfilled except while the bread is eaten. And because testimonies of this kind occur everywhere, not only in the Fathers, but even in the writings of the heretics themselves, we manifestly gather that Calvin's opinion is most improbable and fights with its own author.
There remains the answer of Kemnitz. He, noticing that what his elders had answered, that the Sacrament consists in the reception alone, could in no way be defended, thought that he must enter by another way. And so he taught that what the Lutherans say, that this Sacrament consists in its use alone, ought not to be restricted to the use of eating alone, but to every use, or every action, which is performed in the Supper. And in the Supper there were five actions: the taking of the bread in the hands, the blessing, the breaking, the distribution, the eating; and of all these can be understood that, This is my body, so that the sense is: This which I took, which I blessed, which I broke, which I distributed, which you eat, is my body. From which he deduces that the Sacrament of the Eucharist, and the very body of the Lord, was on the sacred table before the eating, yet was not before every action of the Supper, nor is left over after every action of the Supper, and in that way consists in the action alone.
But this answer is of all the most absurd. For either Kemnitz will have this Sacrament consist in those five actions taken together, or in each severally. If in all taken together, then the opinion of Calvin and Illyricus returns: for it will not be a perfect and entire Sacrament until the eating is performed, and thus it will be false what Kemnitz says, that before the eating the body of the Lord is on the table. If in each severally, then there will be five Sacraments of the Eucharist, and those most diverse.
Moreover, either it is so in each that it is formally each of those actions, or that it only coexists with each. It cannot be formally each of those actions, which I prove thus. The action of taking, which is the first of all, cannot be formally the Sacrament of the Eucharist; for what is formally a taking does not exist except while the taking is done. But this Sacrament exists after the taking, while it is broken, distributed, eaten; therefore, etc. Again, the action of eating, which is the last, cannot be formally this Sacrament, because then it would not exist except while it is eaten: but it exists before the eating, while it is taken, broken, etc. Finally the intermediate actions, the blessing, the breaking, the distribution, cannot be formally this Sacrament, because then it would not exist except while those actions are done.
But it exists before them and after them; therefore it is not any of them, but only coexists with them; therefore it is a permanent thing: for what is something, and is not a transient action, is necessarily a permanent thing.
Thirdly, I prove that this Sacrament is necessarily a permanent thing from the doctrine of Kemnitz, and by this I prove that his doctrine destroys itself. The Sacrament of the Eucharist and the presence of the body of the Lord last during the whole time in which the sacred Supper is done. But between one action and another there often intervenes, or at least can intervene, time (for who forbids that the minister, after the breaking of the bread, should rest a little before he begins to distribute it? Or that he who received the Sacrament from the hand of the minister should retain it for some time before he sets about eating?). I ask, therefore, whether in that time interposed between two actions the Sacrament and the body of the Lord persevere or not. It cannot be said that they do not persevere, for then the Sacrament and the body of the Lord would not be present during the whole time of the Supper, which is against the adversary: and moreover it would be necessary that the body of Christ during the time of the Supper come and go often, which is altogether ridiculous. For who would believe that the body of Christ is present while the bread is taken in the hands, and immediately vanishes, then again is present while the bread is broken, and, the breaking finished, vanishes; then again returns while the bread is distributed, and again immediately departs? Therefore it is necessary to confess that the Sacrament and the body of the Lord are present in that time interposed between two actions, and therefore that it is a permanent thing: for what remains, all action ceasing, cannot be called a transient thing, but a remaining one.
Fourthly, from the foundation laid in the preceding argument, I prove also that after every action of the Supper the Sacrament and the body of the Lord persevere in that part of the Sacrament which has not been consumed by the communicants. For the Sacrament and the body of the Lord persevere in that time which is interposed between the distribution and the eating, if anyone should wish (as we said) to linger and rest a little before the eating; therefore they would persevere also, if anyone should defer that eating to another day or month. For if it can persevere for a quarter of an hour, why not for a whole hour? And if for an hour, why not for a day? And if for a day, why not for a month? And if for a month, why not for a year? And at length always so long as those species are not consumed.
From these things is resolved the primary argument of the adversaries, which, taken from Scripture, is of this kind: “The Sacraments depend on the divine institution, so that they are not Sacraments if in confecting them the rite and institution of the Lord be not observed. But the Lord bade the bread be blessed, broken, distributed, eaten, and did not bid it be kept in a pyx, carried in procession, exhibited to be adored in the Church; therefore it is not a Sacrament when it is kept in a pyx, carried, adored, but only when it is blessed, broken, distributed, eaten.”
I answer in two ways. First, by denying the consequence, because the keeping in a pyx, the carrying, and the adoration in no way are repugnant to the divine institution. For the Lord bade the bread be blessed and eaten; but He did not bid it be eaten immediately after the blessing, especially whole and by all: whence the deferring of the eating is not repugnant to the institution, provided the blessing or consecration be ordered to that end.
And this the Church has done: for she always consecrates the Eucharist with a view to eating, but preserves some part of the Sacrament, not that it may not be eaten, but that it may be eaten at a fitting time, namely that it may be carried to the sick whenever it shall be necessary. For on account of various and especially sudden cases the Eucharist must always be ready: and in that time in which it is preserved, nothing hinders that it may be either carried or shown to excite the devotion of the people.
Secondly I say that if some lawful priest should consecrate the Eucharist, those things being observed which are required for the essence of the Sacrament, yet not with a view to eating, but to any other end whatever, he indeed would do ill, yet he would confect a true Sacrament, and that Sacrament would persevere so long as those species of bread persevered. The reason is that the institution of the Lord comprises not only the essence of this Sacrament, but also the use of the Sacrament: for the blessing, or consecration, pertains to making the Sacrament; the distribution and eating to its use. Moreover a thing does not depend, as to its being, on its use. Just as, therefore, if anyone make a chair, whose use is for sitting, and yet no one ever sit there, it will not therefore cease to be a chair; nay even if anyone make a chair, not that one may sit there, but that it may be exhibited in a show, it will still be a most true chair: so also the most holy Sacrament does not cease to be a Sacrament, although no one use it for that for which it was instituted.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT II. Probatur ex verbis institutionis Dominion , Sacramentum Eucharistiae esse rem per¬ manentem, et in eo corpus Domini perma- nenter existere. . Jam vero Catholici omnes conveniunt, pa¬ nem rite consecratum, sive corpus Domini sub specie panis contentum vere, et proprie esse Sacramentum, sive sumatur, sive ser¬ vetur in pyxide. Id quod expresse habetur in. Concilio Tridentino, sess. xm. cap. 3 et 6. et can. 4. et 7. Esse autem hoc verissimum, probatur primo ex verbis Domini in institutionc-Sacra- menti prolatis. Verba Domini (Hoc est cor¬ pus, Hic est sanguis) prius dicta sunt, quam fieret actio manducandi, et bibendi ; ergo ante illam actionem fuit corpus Domini pr as¬ sens in crena, et proinde etiam Sacramen¬ tum Eucharistiae confectum. Consequentia probatur dupliciter. Primo, quia juxta Au¬ gustinum tractat. 80. in Joan. « accedit verbum ad elementum , et fit Sacramen¬ tum. » Sed ante actionem comedendi, et bi¬ bendi, verbum ad elementum accessit ; ergo ante actionem comedendi, et bibendi factum est Sacramentum. Secundo, verba Domini mox atque prolata fuerunt, vera fuerunt. Sed prolata sunt ante illam actionem man¬ ducandi, et bibendi : ergo ante illam vera fuerunt ; ergo fuit vere corpus Domini, et proinde Sacramentum, ante illam actionem. Ad hoc argumentum Illyricus, Calvinus, et Kemnitius respondent. Illyricus negat an¬ tecedens : dicit enim Dominum locutum esse de pane in actu existente, id est, dum come¬ debatur. Et posset id confirmari ex verbis Domini : nam Evangelistse dicunt, panem datum discipulis, et postea dictum esse : Hoc est corpus meum. Nam Matth. xxvi. sic legimus : Accepit Jesus panem, et benedixit , ac fregit , deditque discipulis suis , et ait : Ac¬ cipite , et comedite , hoc est corpus meum (l). Itaque videmus simul concurrisse probatio¬ nem verborum Domini, et actionem mandu¬ candi : nam sicut post panis distributionem immediate secuta est prolatio verborum, ita etiam post eamdem distributionem imme¬ diate secuta est manducatio. , Despondeo : Non oportet attendere in hac re, quae verba Evangelistse prius posuerint, et quae posterius : illi enim certis de causis sibi notis aliquando mutant ordinem verbo¬ rum, Nam Marcus cap. xiv. sic ait de calice : Et accepto calice gratias agens dedit cis ; cl biberunt ex illo omnes, et ait illis : Hic est sanguis meus novi Testamenti (2). Ubi si at¬ tendamus ordinem verborum Evangel istae, colligemus verba illa ( Hic est sanguis) dicta esse post actionem bibendi ; quod nemo ad¬ mittit : quia tunc nihil demonstraret prono- (1) Matth. XXVI. 26. — (2) Mare. XIV, 23 et 24. LIBER IV. 20 i men (Hic) et verba essent falsa, vel oporteret post actionem bibendi remansisse partem aliquam vini consecrati, et de ea dictum esse : Hic est sanguis ; quod aperte pugnaret cum sententia adversariorum. Oportet igitur col¬ ligere ex verborum sensu, et significatione, non ex ordine, quo sunt scripta, quid prius, et quid posterius in sacra ccena factum sit. Porro sensus verborum cogit, ut dicamus prius fuisse a Domino prolata illa verba: Hoc est corpus, et Hic est sanguis ; quam de¬ derit discipulis cibum illum, et potum. Nam illa verba : Hoc est corpus , continent ratio¬ nem, cur debuerit comedi ille cibus : et si¬ militer illa verba : Hic est sanguis, continent rationem, cur debuerit bibi ille potus. Unde Matth. xxvi. ponitur particula causalis, cum dicitur: Hic est. enim sanguis, etc. Prius au¬ tem debuit ratio illa a Domino explicari, et etiam percipi ab audientibus, quam eis da¬ retur panis ille comedendus, nimirum et sci¬ rent, quid acciperent. Praeterea si invitantur ad bibendum, quia, est sanguis ; ergo prius fuit sanguis, quam illi biberent. Ad ha)c Lucus cap. xxii. et Paulus i. Corinth. xi. scribunt : Hic est calix novum Testamentum in sanguine meo (1), Ergo in calice fuit sanguis, et non solum in ore sumentium ; et sane prius in calice, quam in ore sumentium ; nam ex calice ad os pervenit, non contra. Adde verba Pauli i. Corinth. x : Panis quem frangimus , nonne communicatio corporis Do¬ mini est ? et calix cui benedicimus, nonne com¬ municatio sanguinis Domini est ? (2) Hic enim aperte Paulus indicat, panem prius conse¬ crari, et mutari in corpus Domini, quam frangatur, et distribuatur : dicit enim id, quod frangitur, non esse futurum, sed jam esse corpus Domini. Unde Chrysostomus in commentario ejus loci : «Quid est, inquit, in calice, quod ex latere Christi fluxit » ? Huc etiam pertinent illa capitis xi : Non di¬ judicans corpus Domini : ubi, dum arguit Co¬ rinthios, quod non discernerent corpus Do¬ mini ab aliis cibis, qui in mensa ponebantur, significat potuisse discerni, et proinde ibi fuisse ante manducationem. Denique, in om¬ nibus Liturgiis etiam antiquissimis, Jacobi, Basilii, et Ghrysostomi, et in nostra Latina, qua} S. Petri et Clementis esse censetur, verba Dominica : Hoc est corpus, Hic est san¬ guis, multo ante pronuntiantur, quam panis sanctificatus distribuatur, et manducetur. Alia solutio (si tamen alia) est Joannis Calvini lib. iv. Instit. cap. 17. §. 37. ubi non disputat , quid Dominus prius pronuntiave¬ rit, sed contendit verba Domini : Hoc est corpus meum, non ante impleri, et verificari quam ipsa manducatio reipsa exerceatur. Id vero probat, quia Dominus simul conjunxit piceceptum, et promissionem ; preeeeptum enim fuit : Accipite , et comedite ; promissio autem : Hoc est corpus meum, non debet au¬ tem promissio impleri, nisi praeceptum im¬ pleatur. Itaque accipientibus, et manducan¬ tibus, juxta Domini mandatum, panis ille fit corpus Christi : sed extra illum usum non fit, quia non est annexa promissio, nisi tali mandato. Illustrat rem totam Calvinus simi¬ litudine : <t Mandatum, inquit, dedit Deus, cum diceret : Invoca me ; promissionem ad¬ didit : Exaudiam te. Si quis invocato Petro, aut Paulo, hac promissione glorietur, nonno omnes clamabunt eum perperam facere ? » Htcc Calvini solutio non magno negotio refutari potest. Nam in primis, si verba illa, Iloc est corpus, promissionem continerent, certe per verbum futuri temporis expressa fuissent, ut factum videmus in similibus promissionibus : sic enim de Baptismo legi¬ mus Marci ult. : Qui crediderit, et baptizatus fuerit, salvus erit (3). Et in exemplo Calvini : « Invoca me, et exaudiam te. » Iloc autem loco non dixit Christus, Iloc erit, sed, Hoc est corpus meum. Deinde, si ista verba promissionem prae¬ cepto annexam continerent, impletio ejus promissionis non comitaretur, sed sequere¬ tur manducationis ; proinde non haberent fideles Sacramentum, et ipsum corpus Do¬ mini, dum manducarent, sed solum postea- quam manducassent : atque ita non mandu¬ carent corpus Domini, ne in Sacramento qui¬ dem, quod est absurdissimum, et ipsis etiam Galvinistis repugnans. Id autem sequi proba¬ tur, quia id videmus in omnibus similibus promissionibus ; semper enim actio proce¬ dit, qiue imperata fuit, et tandem sequitur impletio promissionis. Et ratio etiam reddi potest hujus ordinis, quia impletio promis¬ sionis est eflcctus actionis imperata), et sem¬ per causa est prior suo effectu, saltem natu¬ ra. Itaque sicut prior est Baptismus, quam remissio peccatorum, et prior est invocatio, quam exauditio, ita prior erit manducatio, quam preesentia corporis Domini, sive in re, (1) Lur. XII, 20; I Cor. XI. 25. - (2) 1 Cor. X, 10. — (3) Mare. XVI, 16. CAPUT II. 205 sive in Sacramento. Quod autem hoc sit ab¬ surdum, etiam ex Calvini sententia, proba¬ tur. Nam cum tractatur de Communione impiorum, de quibus Apostolus ait i. Co- rinth. xr. Qui manducat indigne, judicium si¬ di manducat (i), Calvinus dicit, hoc interesse inter pios, et impios, quod pii, dum sumunt ore corporali Sacramentum, simul sumunt ore fidei ipsum verum Domini corpus : im¬ pii autem sic sumunt ore corporali Sacra¬ mentum, ut non sumant ore fidei corpus Do¬ mini. Vide Calvinum lib. iv. Institut. cap. 17. §. 34. Omnes igitur, qui communicant, Sacramentum manducant ore corporali : at quomodo manducant, si non prius incipit esse Sacramentum, quam absoluta sit man¬ ducatio ? Tertio, Scriptura, et Patres corpus Domi¬ ni non solum in ore fidelium, sed etiam in altari, et vasis sacris agnoscunt; ergo verba illa extra manducationem verificantur, et non in sola manducatione Sacramentum con¬ sistit. Antecedens probatur ex illis Pauli ocis : Panis quem frangimus, et Calix bene¬ dictionis , et Hic calix novum Testamentum est, et Non dijudicans corpus Domini, i. Corinth. x. et xi. Concilium Nicaenum dicit, in sacra mensa Agnum Dei situm esse: quem Cano¬ num Nicaeni Concilii esse fatetur Calvinus lib. iv. Institut. cap. 17. §. 3fi. Optatus Milevi- tanus lib. vi. contra Parmenianum, vocat al¬ tare sedem corporis Christi, et calices, Christi sanguinis portatores. Chrysostomus liorn. 24. in priorem ad Corinthios, dicit cumdcm Christum nunc in altari consistere, qui ali¬ quando in prajsepi a Magis fuit adoratus, Cyprianus in sermone de lapsis dicit, corpus Domini fuisse in arca. Cyrillus Hierosolymi¬ tanus catechesi quinta mystagogica, jubet accipi dextera manu. Augustinus concione prima et secunda, in Psal. xxxui. dicit, Christum portasse in manibus corpus suum, quando de eo, quod in manibus habebat, dixit : Hoc est corpus meum. Sive autem por¬ taverit corpus suum verum, et naturale, ut nos credimus, sive in Sacramento tantum, ut CalvinisUe volunt, nihil interes t ad id, quod nunc tractamus : semper enim conclu¬ dimus, Sacramentum ante manducationem confectum fuisse, et proinde falsum esse, quod ait Calvinus, verba illa : Hoc est corpus meum, non adimpleri, nisi dum panis man¬ ducatur. Et quia ejusmodi testimonia passim occurrunt, non modo in Patribus, sed etiam in ipsis haereticorum scriptis, manifeste col¬ ligimus Calvini sententiam improbabilissi¬ mam esse, et cum ipso suo auctore pug¬ nantem. Restat Kemnitii responsio. Is animadver¬ tens , non posse ullo modo defendi, quod majores sui responderant, in sola sumptione Sacramentum consistere : alia via sibi ingre¬ diendum esse consuit. Itaque docuit quod Lutherani dicunt, Sacramentum hoc in solo usu consistere, non debere restringi ad solum usum manducationis, sed ad omnem usum, sive omnem actionem, qum exercetur in co> na. In ccena autem quinque actiones fuisse, acceptionem panis in inanibus, benedictio¬ nem, fractionem, distributionem, manduca¬ tionem; et de his omnibus intelligi posse illud : Hoc est corpus meum , ut sit sensus : Hoc quod accepi, quod benedixi, quod fregi, quod distribui, quod manducatis, est corpus meum. Ex quo deducit Sacramentum Eucha¬ ristico, et ipsum corpus Domini fuisse ante manducationem in sacra mensa, tamen non fuisse ante omnem actionem coeme ; nec su- peresse post omnem actionem coeme, et eo modo in sola actione consistere. At Jucc responsio est omnium absurdis¬ sima. Nam aut vult Kemnitius in istis quin¬ que actionibus simul sumptis consistere hoc Sacramentum, aut in singulis seorsim. Si in omnibus simul sumptis, tunc redit opinio Calvini, et Illyrici : Nam non erit perfectum, et integrum Sacramentum, nisi peracta man¬ ducatione, atque ita falsum erit, quod dicit Kemnitius, ante manducationem esse corpus Domini in mensa. Si in singulis seorsim ; ergo quinque erunt Sacramenta Eucharistia} ; eaque diversissima. Praeterea, vel ita est in singulis, ut sit for- maliter quaelibet illarum actionum, aut ut tantum coexistat singulis. Non potest esse formaliter quaelibet illarum actionum, quod sic probo. Actio accipiendi, quae est omnium prima, non potest esse formaliter Sacramen¬ tum Eucharistiae ; nam quod est formaliter acceptio, non existit, nisi dum accipitur. At hoc Sacramentum existit post acceptionem, dum frangitur, distribuitur, manducatur; ergo etc. Rursus, actio manducandi, quae est ultima, non potest esse formaliter hoc Sacra¬ mentum, quia tunc non existeret, nisi dum manducatur : existit autem ante manduca¬ ti) l Cor. XT, 99. tionem, dum accipitur, frangitur e tc. Denique actiones intermedia; , benedictio , fractio , distributio, non possunt esse formaliter hoc Sacramentum, quia tunc non existeret, nisi dum ilice actiones fiunt. Atqui existit ante illas, et post ilLas ; ergo non est aliqua illarum, sed tantum coexistit illis ; ergo est res permanens : nam quod est aliquid, et non est actio transiens, neces¬ sario est res permanens. Tertio probo, Sacramentum hoc necessa¬ rio esse rem permanentem ex doctrina Kem- nitii, ac per hoc probo doctrinam ipsius se- ipsam destruere. Sacramentum Eucharistia), et praesentia corporis Domini durant toto tempore, quo fit sacra caena. Sed inter unam actionem, et aliam, srepe intercedit, aut certe intercedere potest tempus (quis enim prohi¬ bet quominus minister post fractionem panis aliquantulum quiescat, antequam illum dis¬ tribuere incipiat ? Vel qui Sacramentum de manu ministri accepit, aliquamdiu retineat, antequam manducare aggrediatur?) Queero igitur, utrum illo tempore interjecto inter duas actiones, Sacramentum, et corpus Do¬ mini perseverent, an non. Dici non potest non perseverare, nam tunc non in toto tem¬ pore coma: Sacramentum, et corpus Domini adessent, quod est contra adversarium : et prmterea oporteret Christi corpus tempore coeme scepius accedere, et recedere, quod est omnino ridiculum. Quis enim credat Christi corpus adesse, dum panis accipitur in mani¬ bus, et statirn evanescere, deinde iterum adesse, dum panis frangitur, et finita fra¬ ctione evanescere ; tum iterum redire, dum distribuitur panis, et rursus continuo abire? Ergo necesse est confiteri Sacramentum, et corpus Domini preesens adesse tempore illo interjecto inter duas actiones, et proinde rem esse permanentem : quod enim manet omni actione cessante, non potest dici res transiens, sed manens. Quarto, ex posito fundamento in argu¬ mento superiori, probo etiam post omnem actionem coeme, Sacramentum, et corpus Domini perseverare in ea parte Sacramenti, qua: non fuerit a communicantibus con¬ sumpta. Nam perseverat Sacramentum, et corpus Domini in eo tempore, quod est in¬ terjectum inter distributionem, et manduca¬ tionem, si quis velit (ut diximus) aliquantu¬ lum lifcrerc, et quiescere ante manducatio¬ nem ; ergo perseveraret etiam, si quis dif¬ ferret manducationem illam in alterum diem vel mensem. Si enim perseverare potest per quadrantem horte , cur non per integram horam? Et si per horam, cur non per diem? Et si per diem, cur non per mensem? Et si per mensem, cur non per annum ? Et tandem semper dum species ilhe non consumuntur. Ex his solvitur argumentum primarium adversariorum, quod ex Scriptura petitum hujusmodi est : « Sacramenta pendent a di¬ vina institutione, ita ut Sacramenta non sint, si non servetur in illis conficiendis ritus, et institutio Domini. At Dominus jussit panem benedici, frangi, distribui, manducari, non autem jussit servari in pyxide, gestari in sup¬ plicatione, exhiberi adorandum in Ecclesia ; ergo non est Sacramentum, cum servatur in pyxide, gestatur, adoratur, sed solum cum benedicitur, frangitur, distribuitur, mandu¬ catur. i) Respondeo dupliciter. Primo , negando consequentiam, quia asservatio in pyxide, gestatio, et adoratio non repugnant ullo mo¬ do divina) institutioni. Dominus enim jussit panem benedici, et manducari ; sed non jus¬ sit continuo post benedictionem manducari, prsesertim totum, et ab omnibus : unde non repugnat institutioni dilatio manducationis, modo ad eum finem benedictio, seu conse¬ cratio ordinetur. Atque hoc fecit Ecclesia : semper enim consecrat Eucharistiam in ordine ad man¬ ducationem, sed conservat aliquam partem Sacramenti, non ut non manducetur, sed ut tempore opportuno manducetur, nimirum, ut deferatur ad aegrotos, quandocumque ne¬ cesse fuerit. Oportet enim ob varios, et ma¬ xime repentinos casus Eucharistiam semper esse paratam : eo autem tempore, quo con¬ servatur, nihil impedit, quominus possit vel gestari, vel ostendi ad devotionem populi excitandam. Secundo dico , si quis legitimus Sacerdos existens Eucharistiam consecraret, iis ser¬ vatis, qua) ad Sacramenti essentiam requi¬ runtur, non tamen in ordine ad manduca¬ tionem, sed ad quamvis alium finem is qui¬ dem male faceret, tamen verum Sacramen¬ tum conficeret, et perseveraret Sacramentum illud, quamdiu species illa) panis persevera¬ rent. Ratio est, quia institutio Domini non complectitur solum essentiam Sacramenti hujus, sed etiam Sacramenti usum : bene¬ dictio enim, seu consecratio ad Sacramen¬ tum faciendum pertinet; distributio, et man¬ ducatio ad usum. Porro res non pendet quoad ti CAPU esse suum, ab usu. Sicut ergo, si quis faciat sedem, cujus sedendo usus est, et tamen nemo unquam ibi sedeat, non propterea de¬ sinet esse sedes; imo etiam si quis faciat sedem, non ut ibi sedeatur, sed ut in specta¬ culo exhibeatur, adhuc erit verissima sedes : sic etiam sacrosanctum Sacramentum non desinit esse Sacramentum, licet nemo illo utatur ad id, ad quod est institutum.