Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book IV: On the Sacrament of the Eucharist Itself
Chapter 10: On the Tempering of Wine with Water in the Sacred Chalice
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).
The other controversy concerning the matter of the Eucharist is about the mixture of wine and water. And first the opinions of others, or rather the errors, are to be reported. Then the truth is to be confirmed. And lastly the arguments and lies of the adversaries are to be confuted.
As to the first, there were not lacking of old those who, under pretext of sobriety, said that water alone was to be offered in the chalice: as the Ebionites in Epiphanius, heresy 30. And the Tatians in the same, heresy 46. The Aquarians in Augustine, Book on heresies, chapter 64. But that opinion was immediately exploded by the Fathers, because it was sufficiently established that the Lord taught that not water alone, but wine also, was to be placed in the sacred chalice. See Cyprian, Book 2, letter 3 to Caecilius, and Chrysostom, homily 83 on Matthew, who dispute expressly against that opinion.
Where too is not to be omitted the most impudent calumny of the Magdeburgers, who, Centuries 3, chapters 6 and 7, affirm that that error about offering water alone in the chalice was devised by the Roman Bishops, and refuted by Cyprian in his letter to Cornelius the Roman Pontiff; which indeed the Centuriators affirm without any foundation, from the sole lust of lying. For the letter of Cyprian is not to Cornelius, as they lie, but to Caecilius, nor in it is any mention made of the Roman Bishops.
There were not lacking, again, those who held that wine alone was to be offered: these were the Armenians, as the Fathers of the Council in Trullo affirm, canon 32. And the reason why the Armenians descended into that opinion Nicephorus reports, Book 18 of his history, chapter 33, where he writes that the Armenians do not mix water with wine in the sacrifice, lest they seem to signify the union of the two natures in Christ, which they do not believe. Of the same error the Greeks are accused by Guido the Carmelite in his catalog of heretics, and by Innocent III, Book 4 on the office of the Mass, chapter 32. But we gather the contrary from their own writings, both of the ancients and of the more recent, as we shall show below. Wherefore it is credible that Innocent, and perhaps Guido too, understood by the Greeks any Orientals whatever, and not those who are properly called Greeks.
The Lutherans and Calvinists imitate the Armenians: for they use wine without water. Luther, in his first writing against the King of England, published in the year 1522, calls those foolish and stupid who think it a sin to celebrate without water; and there he adds thus: “In my judgment it would be better and safer not to mix water with the wine, since it is a mere human figment, and has a sinister, nay a worst, signification.” And in the formula of the Mass, or communion, for the Church of Wittenberg published in the year 1523: “I have not yet determined with myself,” he says, “whether water should be mixed with wine, although I incline hither, that pure wine be prepared without a mixture of water.” Martin Kemnitz, in Part 2 of the Examination of the Council of Trent, session 22, chapter 7 and canon 9, teaches that the mixture of water in the chalice is altogether indifferent; and by many arguments he tries to show that it is not certain what the Lord did, that is, whether He mixed water with the wine; and moreover that it is not necessary, nor can be commanded by the Church: and at length he adds that the Churches of the Lutherans wished really and by their deeds to show this liberty. Tilmann Heshusius, in his book on the six hundred errors of the Papists, title 17, ascribes three errors to the Papists. One, that they say water is to be mixed with wine in the chalice. Another, that they teach that without mortal sin water cannot be omitted. Third, that they will have it to be an Apostolic tradition that water ought to be mixed with wine.
The Calvinists go further. For Peter Richer the Calvinist (as reported by Nicholas Villegagnon, Book 1 against certain Calvinian articles, chapter 73) affirms that those are heretics, blasphemers, sacrilegious, forgers, who mix water with the wine of the Supper; because they add their own inventions to the purity of the Gospel: and he confesses that he learned all these things from Calvin. Wherefore it is no wonder if Calvin, neither in the Institutes, nor in the Catechism, nor in the formula of administering the Sacraments, makes any mention of water in the mystery of the Lord's Supper.
Moreover the Catholic Church always believed that it is so necessary that water be mixed with wine in the chalice that it cannot be omitted without grave sin. But whether the Sacrament can subsist without water is not so certain; yet the common opinion inclines to the affirmative part. Wherefore Kemnitz falsely attributes to Catholics in common that they assert water in the Eucharist to be of the necessity of the Sacrament, since very few affirm this. The opinion of the Church is proved. First from the deed of Christ. The Lord consecrated wine mixed with water; therefore we too ought to do so.
The antecedent of this argument Kemnitz confesses to be probable, but not certain, and therefore contends that an uncertain conclusion is gathered from it. Then, even if the antecedent were certain, he will have the consequence to be weak. For the Lord, if He mixed water, did it after the custom of that region; for in the East wine is stronger than in these parts, and therefore ordinarily it is wont in those places to be tempered with water. But if the Lord had been in this region of ours, or in colder parts, when He instituted the Sacrament, He would not, after the custom of the country, have mixed water.
But Kemnitz errs much in both. For that antecedent is no less certain than that the Lord consecrated wine, not strong drink or water alone: which indeed no one denies to be most certain. For from the Gospel and from Paul it is not had expressly except that a chalice of blood was given to the Apostles; there is no mention of wine when the Eucharistic chalice is treated of. Let all the passages be read, Matthew 26, Mark 14, Luke 22, John 6, 1 Corinthians 10 and 11; there will be found no mention of wine, except in those words: Amen I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine, until I drink it new in the kingdom of God, which are had in the three cited passages of the Gospels. But those words, as in Book 1, chapter 11, we taught at length, pertain not to the chalice of the Eucharist, but to the chalice which was given after the eating of the Paschal lamb, as is manifestly gathered from Luke. Nor does it stand in the way that some Fathers expounded those words of the chalice of the Eucharist: for others, who treated the matter more expressly, taught the contrary, as we then showed: and we cannot gather anything certain from the opinions of the Fathers when they do not agree among themselves. And this especially has place in the opinion of Kemnitz, who (as we saw above in the controversy on transubstantiation) will not have efficacious arguments to be drawn from the Scriptures which are expounded in various ways. What, then, was in the chalice before the consecration, whether pure wine, or wine mixed with water, or strong drink, or water alone, is not had expressly from Scripture alone, but recourse must necessarily be had to the tradition of those who learned these mysteries from the Apostles and their disciples. And tradition holds that it was wine mixed with water; therefore it must be so certainly believed, or we have nothing certain about the matter of the chalice.
St. James in his Liturgy (of which Liturgy the Council in Trullo makes mention, canon 32, nine hundred years ago) has thus: “Likewise after He had supped, taking the chalice, and mingling it of water and wine, and blessing it, He gave, etc.” St. Clement, Book 8 of the Apostolic Constitutions, chapter 17, relates that the Lord in the supper mixed water with wine before He consecrated it. St. Irenaeus, Book 4, chapter 57: “The Lord confirmed the tempered mixture of His chalice to be His blood.” St. Cyprian, Book 2, letter 3: “Know that we are admonished that in offering the chalice of the Lord the tradition of the Lord be observed, and that nothing be done by us other than what the Lord first did for us, that the chalice which is offered in commemoration of Him be offered mixed with wine.” St. Basil in his Liturgy says that Christ, having taken the chalice, mixed it, and afterward said, This is the chalice, etc. Theodoret, Dialogue 1, says that Christ made His blood that which was mixed in the chalice. Eusebius of Emesa, in sermon 5 on the Pasch, which is on the body of the Lord, says that Christ by His own example taught us to consecrate the chalice of wine mixed with water. Finally the Third Council of Carthage, canon 24 (at which Augustine too was present), says thus: “That in the Sacrament of the body and blood of the Lord nothing more be offered than what the Lord Himself delivered, that is, bread and wine mixed with water.” These testimonies make a certain argument, both because they are of the weightiest and most ancient authors, and because no one of the Fathers wrote the contrary.
And what Kemnitz says about the custom of the Orientals makes not much to the point. For if that were the chief cause why the Lord mixed the chalice, certainly the Fathers of various places would never with so great consent, and absolutely, have said that water is to be mixed with wine in the chalice.
And we have the testimonies of the Fathers of all regions. And first from Syria we have the cited testimonies of St. James and Theodoret: for each was a Bishop in Syria. And moreover of the more recent the same teaches Samonas, Bishop of Gaza, in his disputation with Achmet the Saracen, which stands in the fourth tome of the Library of the holy Fathers.
From Italy we have Justin Martyr: for he wrote his Apologies at Rome, and speaks of the custom of the Roman Church in his second Apology near the end, when he says that a cup tempered with wine and water is offered. We have likewise Alexander I in his first letter, where he altogether bids that neither wine nor water alone, but both together, be offered. We have also Julius I in Gratian, on consecration, distinction 2. We have moreover Ambrose, who wrote in that part of Italy where certainly the wines are not so strong, and yet in Book 4 on the Sacraments, chapter 4, and Book 5, chapter 1, affirms that wine and water are to be placed in the chalice.
From Africa we have the cited passages of St. Cyprian and of the Council of Carthage: and there can be added the testimony of Augustine, tract 120 on John.
From Gaul we have St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, who, Book 5, chapter 1: “When the mixed chalice and the broken bread receive the word of God, it becomes the Eucharist of the blood and body of the Lord.” Eusebius of Emesa too, whose passage we cited before, wrote in Gaul: for he was, as we said elsewhere, Abbot of the Monastery of Lerins. Add also Bernard, letter 69.
From Spain we have St. Isidore, Book 1 on the divine offices, chapter 18, where he treats copiously enough of this matter.
From Lusitania we have the Third Council of Braga, canon 1, where the same is had.
From England we have Bede in his commentary on chapter 14 of Mark, on those words, This is the chalice of my blood. Likewise Anselm, Bishop of Canterbury, on chapter 26 of Matthew, where he transcribed the very words of Bede.
From Germany we have Amalarius of Treves, Book 3 on the ecclesiastical offices, chapter 19; Rabanus, Book 1 on the Instruction of Clerics, chapter 31. Likewise the Council of Tribur, celebrated 700 years ago in the middle of Germany, namely near Mainz, canon 19, asserts that it was delivered by Pope Alexander I, which he too had received from his fathers, that is, from the Apostles, that in the chalice wine be mixed with water, and then the Council subjoins thus: “The truth of which thing in this holy Synod we confess, believe, and confirm, that no one perform the sacred mysteries without a mixture of wine and water.”
Finally from Greece we have, besides Basil above cited, the testimony of Gregory of Nyssa in his Catechetical Oration, chapter 37; of John Chrysostom in his Liturgy. Likewise of Proclus, Bishop of Constantinople, who was a little younger than Chrysostom, in his treatise on the tradition of the divine Liturgy. Likewise of the Synod in Trullo, canon 32, and in the chapters of the Greek Synods collected by Martin of Braga, chapter 53; and moreover of St. John Damascene, Book 4 on the faith, chapter 14; of Theophylact on chapter 19 of John, where he reprehends the Armenians for not keeping this custom; and of St. Germanus, Bishop of Constantinople, in his contemplation of Ecclesiastical things. And St. Germanus flourished at the same time as Damascene, about the year of the Lord 700. Moreover there stand testimonies even of the more recent Greeks, as of Nicholas of Methone, Bishop, in his book or oration on the Eucharist; of Nicholas Cabasilas in his book on the sacrifice of the altar, chapter 8; of Mark of Ephesus in his book on the words of consecration; of Nicephorus, Book 18 of his history, chapter 53. From which testimonies it appears that this error is falsely imputed to the Greeks, that they use wine alone in the sacrifice of the altar.
Add that the Council of Florence, at which Greeks and Latins were present, in the instruction of the Armenians bids the Armenians that henceforth in the chalice they temper wine with water, since all the other Churches of the Latins and Greeks always did so.
Finally the vanity of Kemnitz can be refuted from the reasons which the Fathers render of this mixture of wine and water: for no one ever dreamed, much less brought forward, that reason, that in the East the wines are strong. The reasons, then, which the Fathers bring forward are six. The first and chief, because the Lord did so. This very many Fathers render, and the more recent Councils, of Florence and of Trent.
The second reason is that from the side of the Lord went out blood and water, John 19. For in the chalice we represent the blood of Christ as shed, just as in the consecrated bread we represent the body of Christ as dead. Wherefore Chrysostom, homily 24 on the first to the Corinthians: “What is in the chalice?” he says, “that which flowed from the side”; and Augustine, Book 3 on the Trinity, chapter 11, says that from the pierced side of the Lord flowed that liquor which is in the chalice. By which words is signified that in the chalice is the true blood of the Lord as to substance, and is in that manner in which it flowed from the side, that is, shed, as to representation. Since therefore in the chalice we represent that which flowed from the side; and what flowed from the side was blood and water; therefore not with wine alone, but also with water, we represent that thing. And this reason touch Pope Alexander, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Eusebius, Germanus, Rabanus, and others.
The third reason is that in the mystery of the Eucharist is signified the union of Christ with the Church: and this is most aptly done when water is mixed with wine. For wine signifies Christ, the water the peoples: as the same is also signified by the mixture of flour with water in confecting the bread. This reason have Cyprian, Pope Julius, Eusebius, Isidore, Rabanus, and the cited Councils of Braga and Tribur. Wherefore that reason, although it be laughed at by the Lutherans, has great and very many authors.
The fourth reason is that the chalice of the Eucharist was figured in the Old Testament not only by the wine which the Hebrews used in various sacrifices, and in the wine which Melchisedech brought forth with bread, Genesis 14, but also in the water which flowed from the rock, as blessed Paul teaches, 1 Corinthians 10. And this reason touch Ambrose and Eusebius in the noted places.
The fifth reason is that the Eucharist is spiritual food and drink, and therefore ought to be given under the species of bodily food and drink. Moreover the bodily drink most befitting human nature is wine mixed with water, as Gregory of Nyssa teaches in his Catechetical Oration in Euthymius, title 21 of the Panoply: and before him Clement of Alexandria, Book 2 of the Paedagogue, chapter 2.
The sixth reason can be that which Nicephorus sets down, Book 18, chapter 53, to signify the conjunction of the two natures in Christ.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT X. De vino temperando aqua in sacro calice. Altera controversia de materia Euchari- stisc, est de mixtione vini et aquae. Ac pri¬ mum referendae erunt sententiae aliorum, seu potius errores. Deinde confirmanda ve- LIBER IV. 228 ritas. Ac demum confutanda argumenta, et mendacia adversariorum. Quod ad primum attinet, non defuerunt olim, qui praetextu sobrietatis solam aquam in calice offerendam dicerent : ut Ebionita) apud Epiphanum, haeresi 30. Et Tatiani apud eumdem, lucrosi 46. Aquarii apud Au¬ gustinum lib. de haeresibus, cap. 64. Sed ea ' opinio continuo a Patribus explosa fuit, quod satis constaret, Dominum non aquam solam, sed vinum etiam in sacro calice ponendum esse docuisse. Vide Cyprianum lib. ii. epist. 3. ad Caecilium, et Chrysostomum homil. 83. in Matth. qui ex instituto disputant contra eam sententiam. Ubi etiam non est omittenda impudentis- tima calumnia Magdcburgensium, qui Ceu- sur. iii. cap. 6 et 7, affirmant, errorem istum de sola aqua in calice offerenda, ab Episco¬ pis Romanis excogitatum esso, et a Cypriano refutatum in epistola ad Cornelium Roma¬ num Pontificem ; quod quidem sine ullo fundamento ex sola mentiendi libidine Ccn- turiatores affirmant. Nam epist. Cypriani non c st ad Cornelium, ut ipsi mentiuntur, sed ad Caicilium, nec in ea ulla mentio fit Epi- scop orum Roman oru m . Non defuerunt rursus, qui solum vinum offerendum censerent : ii fuerunt Armcni, ut Patres Trullani Concilii affirmant, can. 32. Causam aut An, cur Armeni in eam senten¬ tiam descenderint, refert Nicephorus lib. xvin. liistor. cap. 33. ubi scribit Armcnos non miscere aquam vino in sacrificio, ne signifi¬ care videantur unionem duarum naturarum in Christo, quam ipsi non credunt. Ejusdem erroris accusantur Graici a Guidone Carme- lita in catalogo hcereticorum, et ab Innocen- lio III. lib. iv. de officio Missa), cap. 32. Sed contrarium tamen colligimus ex ipsorum scriptis, tum veterum, tum recentiorum, ut infra ostendemus. Quare credibile est, Inno¬ centium, et fortasse etiam Guidonem per Graecos intellexisse quosvis Orientales, non autem eos, qui proprie Giaeci dicuntur. Lutherani et Calvinista) Armcnos imitan¬ tur: nam absque aqua vino utuntur. Luthe- rus in primo scripto contra Regem Angiiay anno 1322. edito, fatuos et stolidos vocat eos, qui peccatum esse putant sine aqua cele¬ brare; et ibidem sic addit : « Meo sensu me¬ lius, et tutius foret, aquam non miscere vino, cum sit merum figmentum humanum, et sinistram, imo pessimam habeat signi¬ ficationem. » Et in formula Missa), seu com¬ munionis pro Ecclesia Wirtembergcnsi anno 1323. edita : « Nondum constitui, inquit, niecum, miscendane esset aqua vino, quam¬ quam huc inclino, ut merum vinum paretur absque aqua) mixtura. » Marti nus Kemnitius in 2. par. Examinis Concilii Trident. sess. xxii. cap. 7. et can. 9. docet, rem esse om¬ nino indifferentem, aqua) mixtionem in ca¬ lice ; et multis conatur ostendere non esse certum, quid Dominus fecerit, id est, an vino aquam admiscuerit; et pra)terea non esse id necessarium, nec posse praecipi ab Ecclesia : et tandem addit Ecclesias Lutheranorum reipsa, et factis ostendere voluisse hanc li¬ bertatem. Tilmannus Heshusius in lib. de sexcentis erroribus Pontificiorum, tit. 17. tres errores Pontificiis adseribit. Unum, quod dicant aquam miscendam vino in ca¬ lice. Alterum, quod doceant sine peccato mortali non posse omitti aquam. Tertium, quod velint Apostolicam esse traditionem, misceri debere aquam vino. Calvinista) longius progrediuntur. Nam Petrus Richerus Calvinista (referente Nicolao Villagagnonio libro i. contra articulos quos¬ dam Calvinianos, cap. 73.) affirmat esse luereticos, blasphemos, sacrilegos, falsarios, qui vino coena) aquam admiscent ; quod ad puritatem Evangelii adjiciant sua commen¬ ta: et a Calvino se ha)c omnia didicisse fate¬ tur. Quare non est mirum, si Calvinus, nec in Institutione, nec in Catechismo, nec in formular Sacramentorum ministrandorum ul¬ lam aqua) mentionem facit in mysterio coeme Domini. Porro Ecclesia Catholica semper credidit ita necessarium esse aqua vinum misceri in calice, ut non possit id sine gravi peccato omitti. Utrum autem sine aqua Sacramentum consistere possit, non est adeo certum ; com¬ munis tamen opinio in partem affirmativam propendet. Quare falso Kemnitius Catho¬ licis in commune tribuit, quod asserant, aquam in Eucharistia esse de necessitate Sacramenti, cum paucissimi id affirment. Probatur Ecclesiae sententia. Primum ex facto Christi. Dominus vinum aqua mix¬ tum consecravit ; igitur et nos ita facere de¬ bemus. Antecedens hujus argumenti Kemnitius fatetur esse probabile, sed non certum, et ideo incertam conclusionem ex eo colligi contendit. Deinde etiamsi certum esset ante¬ cedens, infirmam esse vult consecutionem. Nam Dominus si aquam admiscuit, id fecit CAPI T X. -2-21) pro more illius regionis ; in Oriente enim vi¬ num est fortius, quam in his partibus, et ideo ordinarie solet in illis locis aqua tem¬ perari. At si in hac regione nostra, vel in partibus frigidioribus Dominus fuisset, cum Sacramentum instituit, pro more patria? aquam non miscuisset. Geeterum multum in utroque errat Kemni- tius. Antecedens enim illud non minus cer¬ tum est, quam quod Dominus vinum conse¬ craverit, non siceram, aut aquam solam : quod sane nemo negat esso certissimum. Nam ex Evangclio, et ex Paulo expresse non habetur, nisi calicem sanguinis Apostolis pro¬ pinatum, vini nulla mentio est, cum agitur de calice Eucharistico. Legantur omnia loca Matth. xxvi. Marci xiv. Luc xxn. Joan vi. i. ad Corinth. x. et xi. non invenietur mentio vini, nisi in illis verbis : Anien dico vobis , non bibam de hoc genimine vitis, donec illud bibam novum in regno Dei (1), qua? habentur in tri¬ bus locis citatis Evangeliorum. Sed ea verba, ut lib. i. cap. 11. fuse docuimus, non perli¬ nent ad calicem Encharistue, sed ad cali¬ cem qui datus fuit post agni Paschalis man¬ ducationem, ut exLuca manifeste colligitur. Neque obstat, quod aliqui patres ea verba de calice Eucharistia? exposuerint : nam alii, qui magis ex professo rem tractarunt, con¬ trarium docuerunt, ut tunc ostendimus : non possumus autem ex Patrum sententiis ali¬ quid certi colligere, quando inter se non con¬ veniunt. Atque id potissimum locum habet in sententia Kcmnitii, qui (ut supra vidimus in controversia de transubstantiatione) non vult argumenta efficacia posse duci a Scri¬ pturis, qua? variis modis exponuntur. Quid ergo in calice fuerit ante consecrationem, an vinum purum, an vinum aqua mixtum, an sicera, an aqua sola, ex sola Scriptura ex¬ presse non habetur, sed necessario recur¬ rendum est ad traditionem eorum, qui ab Apostolis, et eorum discipulis haec mysteria didicerunt. Traditio autem habet, fuisse vi¬ num aqua mixtum ; ergo ita certo creden¬ dum est, aut nihil certi de materia calicis habemus. S. Jacobus in sua Liturgia (cujus Liturgi eo mentionem facit Concilium Trullanum, can. 32. ante annos nongentos) ita habet : « Si¬ militer postquam coenavit, accipiens calicem, et permiscens ex aqua, et vino, et benedi¬ cens dedit etc. » S. Clemens lib. viit. Consti- (1) Matth. XXVI, 29 ; Mare. XIV, 25; Luc. XXII tut. Apostol. cap. 17. refert Dominum in •coena vinum aqua miscuisse, antequam illud consecraret. S. Irenaeus lib. 4. cap. 57. (( Dominus, inquit, temperamentum calicis sui sanguinem confirmavit. » S. Cyprianus lib. ii. epist. 3. «Admonitos, inquit, nos scias, ut in calice Domini offerendo Domi¬ nica traditio servetur, neque aliud fiat a no¬ bis, quam quod pro nobis prior fecit, ut ca¬ lix, qui in commemorationem ejus offertur, mixtus vino offeratur. » S. Basibus in sua Liturgia dicit Christum acceptum calicem miscuisse, et postea dixisse : Hic est calix etc. Theodoretus Dialog. i. ait Christum suum sanguinem fecisse id, quod in calice com¬ mixtum erat. Eusebius Emissenus in serm. 5. de Paschatc, qui est de corpore Domini, dicit Christum ipsum exemplo suo nos do¬ cuisse, ut calicem ex vino aqua mixto conse¬ craremus. Denique Concilium III. Cartha¬ giniense, con. 21. (in quo etiam Augustinus interfuit) sic ait : «Ut in Sacramento corporis, et sanguinis Domini nihil amplius offeratur, quam ipse Dominus tradidit, hoc est panis ct vinum aqua mixtum. » Ila?e testimonia certum argumentum faciunt, tum quia gra¬ vissimorum, et antiquissimorum auctorum sunt, tum quia nullus Patrum contrarium scripsit. Quod autem Kemnitius ait de consuetudine Orientalium, non multum facit ad rem. Nam si illa esset potissima causa, cur Dominus calicem miscuisset, certe Patres variorum locorum numquam tanto consensu, et abso¬ lute dixissent, miscendam vino aquam in calice. Habemus autem testimonia Patrum om¬ nium regionum. Ac primum ex Syria habe¬ mus testimonia citata S. Jacobi et Thcodo- reti: uterque enim in Syria Episcopus fuit. Et praeterea ex recentioribus idem docet Samona Episcopus Gaza? in disputatione cum Achmct Saraceno, qua? exstat in iv. tom. Bibliotheca? sanctorum Patrum. Ex Italia habemus Justinum martyrem: is enim Roma? scripsit Apologias suas, et de Romana? Ecclesia? consuetudine loquitur in ii Apolog. prope finem, cum dicit offerri poculum vino et aqua temperatum. Habemus item Alexandrum i . in epist. i. ubi omnino jubet, ut nec vinum, nec sola aqua, sed utrumque simul offeratur. Habemus quoque Julium I. apud Gratianum de consecrat. 18. LIBER IV. dist. 2. Habemus praeterea Ambrosium, qui in ea parte Italice scripsit, ubi certe vina non scnt adeo fortia, et tamen lib. iv. de Sacra- ment. cap. 4. et lib. v. cap. d. vinum et aquam in ccdice ponenda esse affirmat. Ex Africa habemus loca citataS. Cypriani, et Concilii Carthaginiensis : et potest addi testimonium Augustini tract. 120. in Joan. Ex Gallia habemus S. Irenceum, Episco¬ pum Lugdunensem, qui lib. v. cap. 1. « Quando, inquit, mixtus calix, et fractus panis percipit verbum Dei, fit Eucharistia sanguinis et corporis Domini. » Eusebius quoque Emissenus, cujus locum ante cita¬ vimus, in Gallia scripsit : fuit enim is auctor, ut alias diximus, Abbas Monasterii Lirinen- sis. Adde etiam Bernardum epist. 69. Ex Hispania habemus S. Isodorum lib. i. de offic. divinis, cap. 18. ubi satis copiose de hac re agit. Ex Lusitania habemus Concilium Braca- rense III. can. 1. ubi idem habetur. Ex Anglia habemus Bedam in comment. cap. 14. Marci, in illa verba : Hic est calix sanguinis mei. Item Anselmum Episcopum Cantuariensem in cap. xxvi. Matth. ubi ipsa Bedie verba transcripsit. Ex Germania habemus Amalarium Trevi- rensemlib. m. de officiis Ecclesiast. cap. 19. Rabanum lib. i. de Institut. Clericorum, cap. 31. Item Triburiense Concilium ante annos 700. in media Germania celebratum, nimi¬ rum prope Moguntiam, can. 19. asserit a Papa Alexandro I. traditum, quod et ipse a Patribus suis, id est, ab Apostolis acceperat, ut in calice vinum aqua misceretur , et postea Concilium ita subjungit : <c Cujus rei veritatem in hae sancta Synodo confitemur, credimus, et confirmamus , ne ullus sine commixtione vini, et aquae mysteria sacra perficiat. » Denique ex Grcecia habemus praeter Basi- lium supra citatum testimonium Gregorii Nysseni in sermone Catechetico, cap. 37. Joannis Chrysostomi in sua Liturgia. Item Procli Episcopi Constantinopolitani, qui pau¬ lo junior Chrysostomo fuit, in tractatu dc traditione divina) Liturgia) . Item Synodi TrullanEO, can. 32. et in capitulis Graecarum Synodorum a Martino Bracarensi collectis, cap. 53. et praeterea S. Joannis Damasceni lib. iv. de fide, cap. 14. Thcophylacti in cap. xjx. Joannis, ubi reprehendit Armenos hunc morem non servantes ; et S. Germani Epi¬ scopi Constantinopolitani in theoria rerum Ecclesiasticarum. Floruit autem S. Germa¬ nus eodem tempore, quo Damascenus circa annum Domini 700. Praeterea exstant testi¬ monia etiam recentiorum Graecorum, ut Ni¬ colai Methonensis Episcopi in lib. sive ora¬ tione dc Eucharistia, Nicolai Cabasilae, in lib. de sacrificio altaris, cap. 8. Marci Ephe¬ sii in libro de verbis consecrationis, Nicepho- ri lib. xviii. hist. cap. 53. Ex quibus testi¬ moniis apparet, .falso imponi Graecis hunc errorem, quod solo vino utantur in sacrificio altaris. Adde, quod Concilium Florentinum, in quo Graeci et Latini aderant, in instruet. Ar- menorum, jubet Armenis, ut deinceps in ca¬ lice vinum aqua temperent, quoniam omnes aliae Ecclesiae Latinorum, et Graecorum ita semper fecerunt. Denique refelli potest Kemnitii vanitas ex rationibus, quas Patres reddunt hujus mix¬ tionis vini, et aquae : nullus enim somniavit unquam, necdum protulit, causam illam, quod in Oriente vina sint fortia. Rationes igitur, quas Patres afferunt, sex sunt. Prima et po¬ tissima, quia Dominus ita fecit. Hanc red¬ dunt plurimi Patres, et Concilia recentiora, Florentinum et Tridentinum. Secunda ratio est, quia de latere Domini exivit sanguis, et aqua, Joan. xix. Nos enim in calice repraesentamus Christi sanguinem, ut effusum, sicut in pane consecrato reprae¬ sentamus Christi corpus, ut mortuum. Quare Chrysostomus hom. 24. in priorem ad Co- rinth. : « Quid est, inquit, in calice? quod ex latere fluxit, » et Augustinus lib. m. de Tri- nit. c. 11. dicit, de latere Domini percusso, illum fluxisse liquorem, qui est in calice. Quibus verbis significatur in calice esse ve¬ rum Domini sanguinem, quoad substantiam, et esse eo modo, quo ex latere fluxit, id est, effusum, quoad repraesentationem. Quia igitur in calice repraesentamus id quod ex la¬ tere fluxit; et quod ex latere fluxit, fuit san¬ guis, et aqua ; ideo non solo vino, sed etiam aqua rem illam repraesentamus. Atque hanc rationem attingunt Alexander Papa, Ambro¬ sius, Chrysostomus, Eusebius, Germanus, Rabanus, et alii. Tertia ratio est, quia in mysterio Eucha¬ ristia) significatur unio Christi cum Ecclesia : id autem aptissime fit, cum admiscetur aqua vino. Vinum enim Christum, aquae populos significant : ut etiam idem significatur ex admixtione farinae cum aqua ia pane confi¬ ciendo. Hanc rationem habent Cyprianus, CAPUT XI. 231 Julius Papa, Eusebius, Isiclorus, Rabanus, et Concilia Bracarense, et Triburiense citata. Quare ea ratio, licet a Lutberanis rideatur, magnos auctores, et plurimos habet. Quarta ratio est, quia calix Eucharistiae non solum figuratus fuit in Testamento veteri per vinum, quo utebantur Hebraei in variis sacrificiis, et in vino, quod cum pane protu¬ lit Melchisedech Genes. xiv. sed etiam in a- qua, quae fluxit ex petra, ut B. Paulus docet I Corinth. x. Atque hanc rationem attingunt Ambrosius et Eusebius locis notatis. Quinta ratio est, quia Eucharistia est ci¬ bus, ac potus spiritualis, et proinde dari de¬ buit sub specie cibi, et potus corporalis. Porro corporalis potus maxime conveniens naturae humanae est vinum aqua admixtum, ut docet Grego rius Nyssenus in oratione Ca- techeticaapud Euthymium, tit. 21. Panopliae: et ante eum Clemens Alexandrinus lib. ii. Paedagogi, cap. 2. Sexta ratio esse potest, quam ponit Nice- phorus lib. xviii. cap. 53. ad significandam duarum naturarum in Christo conjunctio¬ nem.