Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book IV: On the Sacrament of the Eucharist Itself
Chapter 21: That the Whole Christ Is Under Each Species
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).
To come, then, to the first question, the Sacramentarians openly laugh at the concomitance of the Lord's body with the blood in the chalice, and of the blood with the body in the bread, or the species of bread. See Calvin, Book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 17, sections 18, 35, and 47, where he attacks that concomitance: and Peter Martyr in his book on the Lord's Supper against Gardiner, in the defense of objection 36. Nor is it a wonder if the Sacramentarians do not admit concomitance, since they will that the body and blood be only in a sign, and not really, in the Sacrament of the Eucharist: for a sign of the body, without any injury or harm to Christ, signifies only the body, and a sign of the blood only the blood.
Luther speaks very variously of this matter. For in his Assertion, article 16, he openly confesses that the whole Christ is received under each species: but in his information to a certain friend on Communion under both kinds, he laughs at concomitance. In his book to the Waldenses on the Eucharist, he dissembles the question as less necessary; for he says that some torment themselves with empty questions, how the soul of Christ and the divinity are in the Sacrament.
But the Lutherans are divided in three ways. Some, with the Sacramentarians, boldly deny concomitance, although they contend that the true body and blood are present in the Eucharist. Among these is Tilmann Heshusius, in his book on the six hundred errors of the Papists, title 17, errors 4 and 18: for he numbers among errors that we say the whole Christ is contained under each species. Hermann Hamelmann too, in his book on Communion under both species, says that concomitance is a diabolical invention. Illyricus, in his book against the Sacramentarians, part 2, argument 25, and part 3, in the solution of the third objection, openly denies that the whole Christ is under each species.
Others, on the contrary, with the Catholics confess that the whole Christ plainly is received under each species, as John Brenz in the Wurttemberg Confession, article on the Eucharist, and Kemnitz at the end of his disputation on both species; and the same all are compelled to teach who defend Ubiquity. For if the whole Christ is everywhere, certainly He will be whole in the bread and whole in the chalice.
Others finally, more prudent, dissemble that question, as Luther often did, and among these is Philip Melanchthon in the Apology, article 10 of the Augsburg Confession. For when the Catholics had asked to be explained whether the Augsburg Confession posits the whole Christ under each species, Philip would answer nothing to this expressly and in form; but only at the end of that Apology said that he spoke of the living body.
But the truth is, and that necessarily to be believed, that the whole Christ plainly is contained under the species of bread, and whole under the species of wine: for so expressly define three general Councils, the Council of Constance, session 13; the Florentine, in the instruction of the Armenians; and the Tridentine, session 13, chapter 3, and session 21, chapter 3. And that this truth is not an invention of the Schoolmen, as the heretics lie, is proved first from the word of God, secondly from the consent of the Fathers.
But before we bring forward the solid foundations, the opinion of some is to be briefly refuted. For there are those who think that from the words of the Lord's Supper, This is my body, which shall be delivered for you, it is gathered that under the species of bread is the entire Christ. For they say that by the word body, in that place, is signified a living body, and therefore a body with soul and blood. And that a living body is signified they prove because the Lord speaks of the body which He had when He said those words; and then He had a living body, not a dead one. And moreover, because He speaks of the body which was to be delivered, namely to death; therefore He spoke of a body about to die, and therefore then living.
But this opinion is repugnant to the Council of Trent, session 13, chapter 3, where the Council teaches that by force of the words there is under the species of bread only the body: but the soul and the divinity and the blood by concomitance. Which St. Thomas too teaches, Part 3, question 76, article 1, reply to the first, and the Catechism of the Council of Trent: although the concomitance of the soul is taken from the force of the natural union, but the concomitance of the divinity from the force of the hypostatic union. But if in the words of the Lord the word (body) signified a living body, by force of the words there would be there the body with soul and blood. Then it is repugnant to the mystery of the Eucharist. For the Eucharist is a representation of the death of the Lord; and therefore under the species of bread is represented the body separated from the blood, and under the species of wine the blood separated from the body: therefore what is under the species of bread, by force of the sacramental words, is nothing but the body.
Nor do those arguments conclude. For even though the Lord was living when He said, This is my body, and therefore spoke of a body which was then living, yet by the word (body) He signified nothing but the body, that is, that part of human nature which with the soul composes a man; for that part was the body of the Lord both when He was living and when He was dead.
This opinion, then, being dismissed, the solid foundations from the word of God are three. The first is in John, first epistle, chapter 4: Every spirit that dissolveth Jesus is not of God, and this is Antichrist. For although John was speaking against the heresy of Ebion, who dissolved Jesus, because he denied Him to be God and man; yet the sentence is general, and condemns all those who in any way dissolve the hypostatic union of God and man, or the natural union of soul and flesh. Wherefore the holy Fathers are wont to confute various heretics from this testimony, as is clear from Irenaeus, Book 3, chapter 18; Augustine, tract 6 on the epistle of John; and Leo, letter 10. But those who deny concomitance most openly dissolve Jesus, when they place somewhere the body without soul and blood and deity.
The other foundation is had in John 6. For that that chapter pertains to the Sacrament of the Eucharist was proved in the first book on the Eucharist. The Lord, then, John 6: He that eateth me, He says, shall live by me. But the Lord is not eaten except under the species of bread; therefore under the species of bread is not only the body, but the whole Christ; for He would not say of the body alone, He that eateth me. In the same place: I am the living bread which came down from heaven. And below: This is the bread which came down from heaven.
The third foundation depends on three principles of faith which are evidently had in the word of God. The first is that the body of the Lord is truly and really in the Eucharist, on account of that testimony of Matthew 26: This is my body. On which principle we agree with the Lutherans.
The second is that Christ after the resurrection lives, and will in no way ever die again, according to that of Romans 6: Christ rising from the dead dieth now no more, death shall no more have dominion over Him. From this second principle it is manifestly gathered that under the species of bread is not the body of Christ without soul and blood. For if it were without soul and without blood, it would be dead: but Christ dies now no more. Nor does it much matter whether God could of His absolute power effect that only the body of Christ without the soul should exist under the species of bread, and therefore be at once living in heaven and dead on earth: for we do not dispute what God could absolutely do if He willed, but what He is going to do, and what He really does. But He does not, nor is He going to do forever, that the body of Christ be found anywhere dead: which we know, because His Spirit revealed it by the hand of Paul in the noted place.
The third principle is that Christ is one divine person subsisting in two natures, according to that of John 1: The Word was made flesh. And from this principle it is manifestly gathered that the body of Christ, wherever it be, has no other than the divine subsistence of Christ; and because the subsistence is really the same as the divine essence, nor can in any way be separated from it, hence it comes that where the body of Christ is, there too is the divinity of Christ. We have, therefore, from the principles of faith and from the word of God, manifestly proved that under the species of bread, with the body of Christ, is also the soul and the blood and the divinity, and likewise in the chalice.
Let there now be added the consent of the Fathers. St. Andrew (as the presbyters of Achaia write in his life, which we proved to be authentic in the second book) openly says that on the altar the immaculate lamb is offered and immolated and eaten by the people, and yet remains living and whole. Origen, in his homily 6 on various passages of the Gospel, mentions that rite by which we say, when about to communicate: Lord, I am not worthy. Cyprian, Book 4, letter 6, says that those who receive the body of the Lord embrace in it their Lord. The Nicene Synod, in the canon cited in the second book, which canon all the heretics too admit, says that on the sacred table is placed the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. Nor can it be answered that the lamb itself is on the altar, but partly in the bread, partly in the wine. For those who so think do not really place the whole lamb; for they place not the soul, but the body only and the blood: but the body and blood without the soul do not make the Lamb of God, that is, Christ.
Hilary, Book 8 on the Trinity, writes, and often repeats, that by the eating of the Eucharist it comes about that the Son of God Himself is in us. Cyril of Jerusalem, catechesis 4 of the Mystagogics, says that we are Christ-bearers when we have communicated, because we have Christ Himself in us. In the fifth mystagogical he says that under the species of bread the highest King is received, and therefore is to be received with the greatest reverence, and care must be taken that none fall to the ground. Ambrose, in his book on those to be initiated in the mysteries, chapter 9, says that Christ is in that Sacrament, because there is the body of Christ: for he rightly gathers that the whole Christ is where one part is, from which the rest cannot be torn away. Basil in his Liturgy addresses Christ lying hidden in the Eucharist: “Thou who above sittest with the Father, and here invisibly art with us.” Jerome, in his letter to Hedibia, question 2: “He Himself is the guest and the banquet, He Himself the eater and He who is eaten”; and in his Apology for the books against Jovinian, reprehending those who after the conjugal act did not dare to receive the Eucharist in church, and yet received it at home: “Is Christ one in public,” he says, “and another at home?” John Chrysostom, homily 83 on Matthew: “Him thou seest, Him thou touchest, Him thou eatest”; and homily 24 on the first to the Corinthians: “Not a royal boy, but the only-begotten Son of God Himself thou receivest, etc.”; and Book 6 on the priesthood he says that in that hour the common Lord of all is handled by the hands. Augustine, Book 3 on the Trinity, chapter 10, says that infants, when they see the sacred host, know not how that species was made, yet rightly believe that the Lord appeared in that species to the eyes of mortals; and tract 11 on John, concerning the Catechumens, because they do not communicate, says that they believe in Jesus, but Jesus does not entrust Himself to them; and on Psalm 33 he says that Christ carried Himself in His own hands when He said, This is my body. Cyril of Alexandria, Book 5 on John, chapter 13, teaches that through the sacred Eucharist Christ remains and dwells in us not only by affection, but also really.
Finally, it is the common sense of Christians to believe that in the Eucharist, under the species of bread, they receive not some corpse, but the very living and whole Christ. But among the heretics who deny concomitance, not only is a corpse received in their opinion, but also their very ministers, as often as they perform the Supper, so often really kill Christ, or at least believe that they kill Him: which indeed are most absurd.
There is added too the reasoning of the Schoolmen. For whenever some things are, and remain, joined together, unless a new miracle be made, one cannot be anywhere where the other is not also, that union remaining. But the body of the Lord, the soul, the blood, and the divinity are joined together, nor can that union now be dissolved; therefore where the body is, there are the rest, and likewise where the blood is, there are the rest.
You will say: This reasoning does not seem solid: for thence it would be proved that wherever the divinity is, there also is the body and blood of Christ, which is the heresy of the Ubiquitarians. I answer: That rule must be understood in a sound sense. For in those things which are adequately united, so that one is not more extensive than the other, in these the rule is simply true. But if one be more extensive, then wherever the lesser is, there is also the greater, not conversely. As for example, because a gem and a ring, the sun and the sky, the soul and the eye are not adequately united, hence it is that wherever the gem is, there is the ring; and where the sun is, there is the sky of the sun; where the eye is, there is the soul; not conversely. Since therefore the divinity far surpasses the humanity, wherever the humanity of Christ is, there with it is also the divinity; but not wherever the divinity is, there is the humanity.
Let there be added the miracles shown by God; for that we may believe that under the species of bread is the body with the blood, more than once from the breaking of the bread copious blood flowed. Examples stand in the commentary of Surius, of the years 1310 and 1330. Likewise in Vincent in his Historical Mirror, Book 30, chapter 24, and in Alexander of Hales, part 4, question 33, member 1, and in the new edition question 11, member 2, article 4, § 3.
Add that the arguments of the heretics are most trifling. Calvin, Book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 17, § 18: “What they hold out,” he says, “that by concomitance the blood is in the body, and in the blood in turn the body, is indeed too frivolous, since the symbols by which they are included are so distinct.”
I answer: The consequence is indeed too frivolous: The symbols are distinct; therefore the things themselves are disjoined and separated from each other. For it only follows that the things which are signified by those symbols are diverse; for to two signs two things signified correspond: but it does not follow that those things signified are distant from each other, and that one is without the other.
The same Calvin, § 35: “First,” he says, “if that concomitance of theirs which they hold out be denied them, what will they do? Who, sound and sober, would persuade himself that the body of Christ is Christ?”
I answer: If concomitance be denied, the Scriptures and the most certain principles of faith and the consent of all the Fathers will have to be denied. Nor are we so foolish as to say that by concomitance it comes about that the body of Christ is Christ, but that the body of Christ is nowhere without His soul and blood; and therefore that where the body of Christ is, there is the whole Christ.
The same finally, § 47: “The Lord, showing the bread, says it is His body; the chalice, when He holds it out, He calls His blood; the audacity of human reason cries out against this, that the bread is blood, the wine is body; as if the Lord for no cause had distinguished His body from the blood both by words and by signs: and as if it were ever heard of that the body of Christ, or the blood, were called God and man. Surely if He had wished to designate Himself whole He could have said, I am; not, This is my body.”
I answer: No one of us says that the bread is blood and the wine is body, but that under the species of bread is the body with its blood, and under the species of wine is the blood in its body. Moreover the Lord not without cause distinguished by words and signs the body and the blood, because so it behooved His passion and death to be represented. But the body and blood are not therefore really torn from each other, because they are distinguished by words and signs: otherwise the head of someone could not be painted on one panel, and the feet on another, unless really the head were torn from the feet. And although it was not heard of that the body of the Lord is God and man, which neither do we say: yet that He who lies hidden under that species of bread is God and man all the Fathers say whom we cited above. Finally the Lord did not say, I am, but, This is my body, because He wished to express only that which is represented by that sign. For otherwise in John 6 He said openly enough: He that eateth me shall live by me.
Hermann Hamelmann, besides the arguments of Calvin, which he too repeats, argues from those verses of St. Thomas: “A dogma is given to Christians, that the bread passes into flesh, and the wine into blood.” But no dogma is given that the body and blood pass into bread. And again he brings forward that: “Flesh is food, blood is drink, yet the whole Christ remains under each species.” For if He is whole under each, then not under one only.
I answer: These are the testimonies of the word of God which they boast to have against the dogmas of the Catholic Church; for unless St. Thomas had written that verse, Hermann would have no argument by which to reprove the diabolical invention (as he calls it) of concomitance. But he is too stupid, if he thinks that the verse of St. Thomas fights with the doctrine of the same and of all Catholics. I say, then, that there is no dogma that the body and blood pass into bread: nor does the verse have, Into bread the body passes, but, Into a body the bread passes. For truly (as St. Thomas says) the bread passes into flesh, and the wine into blood: not the bread into flesh and blood, nor the wine into blood and flesh: yet what is not under the species of bread by force of the conversion is there by force of natural concomitance; and what is not under the species of wine by force of the conversion is there likewise by force of concomitance.
And what Hermann trifles, that the whole Christ is under both species, but not under one alone, arises from mere unskillfulness or impudence. For when St. Thomas says that the whole Christ is under both, he understands under both disjunctively and separately: for otherwise he would not set down the adversative particle (yet), but the conjunctive (and). And moreover flesh and blood do not make the whole Christ, unless soul and divinity be added: therefore St. Thomas does not signify (as Hermann dreams) that the whole Christ is in the Eucharist because in the bread is flesh, and blood in the wine.
We have, therefore, that the principal foundation of those who judge Communion under both species to be necessary is utterly useless and plainly rotten. Whence the Council of Constance, session 13, and of Basel, session 30, when they define that one species is enough, use this argument, that the whole Christ is received under one, as under both. Now let us proceed to the other foundation, concerning the nature of the Sacrament.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XXL Totum esse Christum sub utraque. specie. Ut igitur ad primam quaestionem venia¬ mus, Sacra me ntarii aperte i’ident concomi- tantiam corporis Domini cum sanguine in calice, et concomitantiam sanguinis cum corpore in pane, seu panis specie. Vide Cul- vinumlib. iv. Institut. cap. 17. 18. 35. et 47. ubi oppugnat istam concomitantiam : et Petrum Martyrem in lib. de coena Domini contra Gardinerum in defensione objecti 36. Neque mirum est, si Sacramentarii concomitantiam non admittant, cum corpus, et sanguinem tantum in signo, non autem reipsa in Sacra¬ mento Eucharistice esse velint : signum enim corporis sine ulla Christi injuria, vel laesione solum corpus significat, et signum sanguinis solum sanguinem. Lutherus varie admodum de hac re loqui¬ tur. Nam in Assertione art. 16. fatetur aperte totum Christum accipi sub qualibet specie : in informatione autem ad qu m am amicum de Communione sub utraque, ridet- conc uni- tantiam. In libro ad Waldenses de Euchari¬ stia, dissimulat quaestionem tanquam minus necessariam ; dicit enim quosdam se torquere inanibus quaestionibus, quomodo anima Christi, et divinitas sit in Sacramento. Lutherani autem tripliciter sunt divisi. Quidam cum Sacramentariis audacter conco¬ mitantiam negant, cum tamen verum corpus, et sanguinem in Eucharistia adesse conten¬ dant. In iis est Tilmannus Heshusius in libro de sexcentis erroribus Pontificiorum tit. 17. errore 4. et 18. numerat enim inter errores, quod totum Christum sub utraque specie contineri dicamus. Hermannus quoque Ha- melmannus in libro de Communione sub utraque specie, dicit concomitantiam esse diabolicum inventum. Illyricus in libro con¬ tra Sacramentarios parte 2. argumento 25. et par. 3. in solutione tertiae objectionis, 259 aperte negat totum Christum esse sub quali¬ bet specie. Alii contra, cum Catholicis fatentur totum plane Christum sumi sub qualibet specie, ut Joannes Brentius in Confessione Wirtember- gensi artic. de Eucharistia, et Kemnitius in fine disputationis de utraque specie ; et idem coguntur docere omnes, qui defendunt Ubiquitatem. Si enim Christus totus ubique est, certe totus in pane, et totus in calice erit. Alii denique prudentiores quaestionem istam dissimulant, ut saepius Lutherus fecit, et in iis est Philippus Melanchthon in Apo¬ logia art. 10. Confessionis Augustanae. Nam cum Catholici petiissent explicari, an totum Christum sub qualibet specie Confessio Au¬ gustana ponat : Philippus nihil ad hoc ex¬ presse, et in forma respondere noluit ; sed in fine tantum illius Apologiae dixit, se loqui de corpore vivo. Cseterum veritas est, eaque necessario cre¬ denda, totum plane C iristum in specie panis, et totum in specie vini contineri : ita enim expresse definiunt tria generalia Con¬ cilia, Constantiense sess. xm. Florentinum in instruet. Armenorum, et Tridentinum sess. xm. cap. 3. et sess. xxi. cap. 3. Ac non esse istam veritatem inventum Scholasf eorum, ut haeretici mentiuntur, probatur primo ex verbo Dei, secundo ex consensu Patrum. Sed antequam fundamenta solida profera¬ mus, breviter refellenda est opinio quorum¬ dam. Sunt enim qui existimant, ex verbis Crenae Domini: Hoc est corpus meum, quod pro vobis tradetur , colligi, sub specie panis esse integrum Christum. Dicunt enim voce corporis, eo loco significari corpus vivum, et proinde corpus cum anima, et sanguine. Significari autem corpus vivum probant, quia Dominus loquitur de corpore, quod habebat, cum illa diceret; tunc autem vivum corpus habebat non mortuum. Et prseterera, quia loquitur de corpore, quod tradendum erat, nimirum ad mortem ; ergo de corpore morituro, et proindre.tunc vivo loquebatur. Sed haec sententia repugnat Conciiio Tri¬ dentino sess. xm. cap. 3. ubi Concilium docet, vi verborum non esse in specie panis, nisi corpus : animam autem et divinitatem, et sanguinem, per concomitantiam. Quod etiam docet S. Thomas in 3. part. quaest. lxxvi. art. 1. ad primum, et Catechismus Concilii Tridentini : quamvis concomitantia LIBER IV. 260 animae sumatur cx vi naturalis unionis, con¬ comitantia autem divinitatis, ex vi unionis hypostatica}. At si in verbis Domini, vox ( corpus ) significaret corpus vivum ; vi ver¬ borum esset ibi corpus cum anima, et san¬ guine. Deinde repugnat mysterio Euchari¬ stia?. Eucharistia enim estrepraesentatio mor¬ tis Domini ; et proinde sub specie panis repraesentatur corpus a sanguine separatum, et sub specie vini sanguis separatus a cor¬ pore : ergo quod est sub specie panis, vi sacramentalium verborum, non est nisi cor¬ pus. Neque argumenta illa concludunt. Nam etiamsi Dominus vivus esset cum dicebat : Hoc est corpus meum , et proinde loqueretur de corpore, quod tunc vivum erat, tamen per vocem ( 'corpus j non significabat nisi cor¬ pus , id est, illam partem natura; huma¬ na;, qua; cum anima componit hominem ; illa enim pars corpus Domini erat, et quando vivebat, et quando mortua erat. Hac ergo opinione dimissa, solida fun¬ damenta ex verbo Dei sunt tria. Primum est apud Joannem in epist. 1. cap. iv. ; Omnis spiritus, qui soluit Jesum , ex Deo non est, ct hic est Actichristus (1). Nam et si loquebatur Joanncs contra liseresimEbionis, qui solvebat Jesum, quia negabat esse Deum, et ho¬ minem ; tamen sententia generalis est, et omnes illos damnat, qui quoquo modo sol- vunt hyspotaticam unionem Dei, et hominis, vel naturalem anima?, et carnis. Quare S. Patres ex hoc testimonio varios haereticos confutare solent, ut patet ex Irenceo lib iit. cap. 18. Augustino tract. G. in epist. Joan- nis, et Leone, epist. 10. Qui autem conco¬ mitantum negant, apertissime solvant Jesum, cum ponant alicubi corpus sine anima, et sanguine, et deitate. Alterum fundamentum Joan. vi. habetur. Nam illud caput ad sacramentum Euchari¬ stia; pertinere probatum est in i libro de Eu¬ charistia Dominus igitur Joan. vi : Qui man¬ ducat mc, inquit, vivet propter me. At non manducatitr Dominus, nisi specie panis ; ergo in specie panis, non est solum corpus, sed totus Christus ; neque enim de solo corpore diceret : Qui manducat mc. Ibidem : Ego sum panis vivus, qui de ccelo descendi. Et infra : Ilie est panis, qui de coelo descendit (2). Tertium fundamentum pendet cx tribus principiis fidei, qua; evidenter habentur in verbo Dei. Primum est, corpus Domini vere, ct realiter esse in Eucharistia, propter illud testimonium Mattii, xxvi. ; Hoc est corpus meum. De quo principio convenimus cuni Lutheranis. Secundum est, Christum post resurrectio¬ nem vivere, nec ullo modo amplius mori¬ turum, juxta illud Rom. vi. : Christus re¬ surgens ex mortuis, jam non moritur, mors illi ultra non dominabitur (fi). Ex hoc secun¬ do principio manifeste colligitur, in specie panis non esse corpus Christi sine anima, et sanguine. Nam si exanimum, et exsangue esset, mortuum esset : at Christus jam non moritur. Neque multum refert, utrum possit Deus de potentia absoluta efficere, ut solum corpus Christi sine anima in specie panis existet, ct proinde simul in coelo sit vivus, in terra sit mortuus : nam non disputamus, quid Deus absolute posset facere si vellet, sed quid sit facturus, et quid reipsa fa¬ ciat. Ille autem non facit, nec est facturus in feternuin, ut Christi corpus alicubi reperia- tur mortuum : id quod scimus, quia reve¬ lavit Spiritus ejus per manum Pauli loco no¬ tato. Tertium principium est, Christum esse unam personam divinam in duabus naturis subsistentem, juxta illud Joan. : i. Verbum caro factum est. Ex hoc autem principio ma¬ nifeste colligitur, corpus Christi, ubicumque sit, non habere aliam, quam divinam subsi¬ stentiam Christi ; et quia subsistentia idem est re cum divina essentia, nec ullo modo ab ea reparari potest, inde efficitur, ut ubi est corpus Christi, ubi sit etiam divinitas Christi. Habemus igitur cx principiis fidei, et ex verbo Dei manifeste probari, in specie panis cum corpore Christi esse etiam ani¬ mam, et sanguinem, et divinitatem, et similiter in calice. Accedat nunc Patrum consensus. S. An- dreas (ut in vita ejus scribunt presbyteri Achaia?, quam authenticam esse in ii. lib. probavimus) aperte dicit, in altari agnum immaculatum offerri, ct immolari, et a po¬ pulo manducari, et tamen vivum, et inte¬ grum permanere. Origenes in diversa loca Evangclii hom. 0. meminit ejus ritus, quo dicimus communicaturi : Domine non sum dignus. Cyprianus lib. iv. epist. 6. dicit eos, qui corpus Domini sumunt, in ipso Dominum suum amplecti. Nicsena Synodus in cano- (1) I Joan, IV, fi, — (2) Joan. VI, 58, il, 51, 59. - (3) Rom. VI, 9. CAPUT XXI. ne citato in ii. libro, quem canonem om¬ nes etiam hseretici admittunt, dicunt , in sacra mensa situm esse agnum Dei , qui tollit peccata mundi. Neque responderi pot¬ est ipsum agnum esse in altari, sed par- tim in pane, partim in vino. Nam qui ita sentiunt , non ponunt revera integrum agnum ; non enim ponunt animam, sed cor¬ pus tantum, et sanguinem : corpus autem, et sanguis sine anima non efficiunt agnum Dei, id est, Christum. Hilarius lib. vm. de Trinitate, scribit, et saepius repetit, per manducationem Eu¬ charistia} heri, ut ipse Filius Dei in nobis sit. Cyrillus Hierosolymitamus catechesi -i. my- stagogica dicit, nos esse Christiferos, quando communicavimus, quia Christum ipsum in nobis habemus. 5. mystagogica dicit sub specie panis summum regem sumi , et ideo maxima reverentia sumendum, et cavendum ne in terram cadat. Ambrosius lib. de initiandis mysteriis cap. 9. dicit Christum in Sacramento illo esse, quia ibi corpus est Christi : colligit enim recte totum esse Chri¬ stum, ubi pars est una, a qua cmterce divelli nequeunt. Basilius in Liturgia alloquitur Christum in Eucharistia latentem : a Qui su¬ pra, inquit, cum Patre sedes, et hic invisibi¬ liter nobiscum es ». Hieronymus in epist. ad Hedibiarhqusest. 2. : « Ipse, inquit, conviva, et convivium, ipse comedens, ct qui comedi¬ tur» , et in Apologia pro libris in Jovinianum, reprehendens illos, qui post actum con juga¬ lem non audebant in Ecclesia sumere Eu¬ charistiam, et tamen domi sumebant : « An, inquit , alius in publico , alius in domo Christi est ? » Joannes Chrysostomus hom. 83. in Matthamm : « Ipsum, inquit, vides, ipsum tangis, ipsum comedis» ; et homil. 24. in priorem ad Corinth. : a Non regium pue¬ rum , inquit , sed ipsum unigenitum Dei Filium accipis, etc. » et lib. vi de sacerdotio dicit, in illa hora communem omnium Domi¬ num manibus tractari. Augustinus lib m. de Trinit. cap. 10. dicit, infantes, cum sacram hostiam vident, nescire quomodo facta sit illa species, tamen recte credere Dominum in illa specie oculis apparuisse mortalium, et tract. 11. in Joan. de Catechumenis, quia non communicant, dicit eos credere in Jesum, sed Jesum non se credere ipsis, et in Psalm. xxxm. dicit, Christum seipsum portasse ma¬ nibus suis, quando dicebat : Hoc est corpus meum. Cyrillus Alexandrinus lib. v. in Joan. cap. 13. docet per sacram Eucharistiam 261 Christum in nobis manere, et habitare non solum per affectum, sed etiam reipsa. Denique communis est Christianorum sen¬ sus, ut in Eucharistia sub specio panis se accipere credant non aliquod cadaver, sed ipsum vivum atque integrum Christum . Apud hecreticos autem, qui concomitantium negant, non solum sumitur cadaver ipsorum opinione, sed etiam ipsi eorum ministri quo¬ ties Camam faciunt, toties Christum reipsa occidunt, vel certe occidere se credunt : qua* sane absurdissima sunt. Accedit etiam ratio Scholasticorum. Nam quandocumque aliqua sunt, et manent inter se conjuncta, nisi novum miraculum fiat, non potest unum alicubi esse, ubi non sit etiam alterum, manente illa conjunctione. Seal corpus Domini, anima, sanguis, et divinitas inter se conjuncta sunt, nec potest jam solvi illa conjunctio ; ergo ubi est corpus, ibi sunt reliqua, et similiter ubi est sanguis, ibi sunt reliqua. - Dices : Ista ratio non videtur solida : nam inde probaretur, ubicumque est divinitas, ibi etiam esse Christi corpus, et sanguinem, qumest hecresis Ubiquistarum. Respondeo : Regula illa debet intolligi sano modo. Qua; enim adaquate uniuntur, ita ut unum non pateat latius, quam alterum, in iis regula es! simpliciter vera. Si vero unum latius pateat, tunc ubicumque est minus, ibi est etiam ma¬ jus, non e contrario. Ut causa exempli, quia gemina et annulus, sol et ccelum, anima et oculus non adaequate uniuntur, inde est, quod ubicumque est gemma, ibi est annulus; et ubi est sol, ibi est coelum solis, ubi est o- culus, ibi est anima ; non contra. Quoniam igitur divinitas longe superat humanitatem, ubicumque est humanitas Christi, ibi est cum ea etiam divinitas ; non autem ubicum¬ que est divinitas, ibi est humanitas. Accedant miracula a Deo ostensa ; nam ut credamus in specie panis esse corpus cum sanguine, non semel ex fractione panis, copiosus sanguis manavit. Exempla exstant in commentario Surii anni 1310. ct 1336. Item apud Vincentium in speculo historiali lib. xxx. cap. 24. et apud Alexandrum Alen- sem 4. par. qusest. 33. lnemb. 1. et in nova editione queest. 11. memb. 2. art. 4. §. 3. Adde, quod argumenta hsereticorum le¬ vissima sunt. Calvinus lib. iv. Insfitut. cap. 17. §. 18. « Quod obtendunt, inquit, percon- comitantiam in corpore esse sanguinem, et in sanguine vicissim corpus, nimis sane fri- 2G2 LIBER IV. volam est; cum symbola, quibus includun¬ tur, ita distincta sint » . Respondeo : Nimis sano frivola consequen¬ tia est, Symbola sunt distincta ; ergo et res ipsae sunt disjunctae atque ab invicem sepa¬ ratae. Solum enim sequitur diversa esse, quae symbolis illis significantur; duobus enim sig¬ nis duo significata respondent : non tamen sequitur res illas significatas a se invicem distare, et unam esse sine alia. IdemCalvinus §. 3o. : «Primum, inquit, si sua illa, quam obtendunt, concomitantiaipsis negetur, quid facient? quis sanus, et sobrius Christi corpus Christum esse sib persuad¬ eat ? » Respondeo : Si negetur concomitantia, negandae erunt Scripturio, et principia fidei certissima, et Patrum omnium consensus. Neque sumus tam stulti, ut dicamus per con- comitantiam fieri, ut corpus Christi sit Christus, sed ut corpus Christi nusquam sit absque anima, et sanguine suo ; et ideo ubi corpus Christi est, ibi totum Christum esse. Idem denique §.74. : «Dominus panem o- stendens corpus suum esse dicit, calicem dum rs endit. sanguinem vocat; humanse rationis audacia cuntra reclamat, panem esse sangui¬ nem, vinum esse corpus ; ac si Dominus nulla causa corpus suum a sanguine, et verbis, et sigi is distinxisset : et unquam fando audi¬ tum esset, corpus Christi, aut sanguinem Deum, et hominem appellari. Sane si desi¬ gnare se totum voluisset dicere poterat, Ego sum ; non autem, IIoc est corpus meum. » Respondeo : Nemo nostrum dicit, panem esse sanguinem, et vinum esse corpus, sed sub specie panis esse corpus cum suo san¬ guine, et sub specie vini esse sanguinem in suo corpore. Porro Dominus non sine causa distinx.t verbis, et signis corpus, et sangui¬ nem, quia ita oportebat passionem, et mor¬ tem ejus repraesentari. Sed non ideo corpus, et sanguis reip*a ab invicem divulsa sunt, quia verbis, et signis distincta sunt : alioqui non posset pingi in una tabella caput alicu- jus, et in alia pedes, nisi reipsa caput a pe¬ dibus divelleretur. Etsi autem fando non est auditum, corpus Domini esse Deum, et ho¬ minem ; quod neque nos dicimus : tamen qui sub specie illa panis latet, esse Deum, et hominem, omnes Paties dicunt, quos supra citavimus. Denique non dixit Dom nus, Ego sum; sed, Hoc est cordus, quia id solum exprimere voluit, quod eo signo reprfesenta- tur. Nam alioqui Joan. vi. satis aperte dixit: Qui manducat me , vivet propter me. Ilermannus Hamelmannus prrnter Calvini argumenta, quae ipse etiam repetit, argu¬ mentatur ex illis rhythmis sancti Thomm : « Dogma datur Christianis, quod in carnem transit panis, et vinum in sanguinem. » Nul¬ lum autem datur dogma, quod in panem transit corpus, et sanguis. Et rursus profert illud: «Caro cibus, sanguis potus, manet tamen Christus totus sub utraque specie »>. Si enim sub utraque totus ; non ergo sub al¬ tera tantum. Respondeo : Haec sunt testimonia verbi Dei, quae se habere jactant contra dogmata Catholicae Ecclesiae , nisi enim S . Thomas rhythmum illum scripsisset, non haberetHer- mannus ullum argumentum, quo reprobaret inventum diabolicum (ut ipse vocat) conco- mitantiae. Sed nimis stupidus est, si existi¬ mat rhythmum S. Thomae pugnare cum do¬ ctrina ejusdem, et omnium Catholicorum. Dico igitur, nullum esse dogma, quod cor¬ pus, et sanguis in panem transeant : neque etiam rhythmus habet : In panem transit cor¬ pus, sed : « In corpus transit panis ». Vere enim (ut sanctus Thomas dicit) panis in car¬ nem, et vinum in sanguinem transit : non panis in carnem, et sanguinem, neque vinum in sanguinem, et carnem : tamen quod non est sub specie panis ex vi conversionis, est ex vi concomitantise naturalis; et quod non est sub specie vini ex vi conversionis, est ex vi similiter concomitantise. Quod autem nugatur Ilermannus, totum Christum esse sub utraque specie, non au¬ tem sub altera tantum; ex mera vel impe¬ ritia , vel impudentia nascitur. Dum enim sanctus Thomas dicit, totum Christum esse sub utraque, intelligit sub utraque disjun- ctirn, et seorsum : nam alioqui non poneret particulam adversativam (tamen) sed con¬ junctivam (et). Et praeterea caro, et sanguis non faciunt Christum totum, nisi addantur anima, et divinitas : non ergo significat san¬ ctus Thomas (ut Hermannus somniat) totum Christum esse in Eucharistia, quia in pane est caro, et sanguis in vino. Habemus ergo principale fundamentum eorum qui Communionem utriusque speciei necessariam esse judicant, prorsus inutile, et plane putridum esse. Unde Concilium Constantiense sess. xm. et Basileense sess. xxx. cum definiunt alteram speciem satis esse, hoc argumento utuntur, quia totus CAPUT XXII. 263 Christus in altera, sicut in utraque sumitur. Nunc ad alterum fundamentum de ratione Sacramenti accedamus.