Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book IV: On the Sacrament of the Eucharist Itself
Chapter 25: The Objections Drawn from Scripture Are Resolved
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).
It remains now that we answer the arguments of the adversaries, which they draw partly from the Scriptures, partly from the Fathers, partly from reason. The first passage of Scripture is John 6: Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you. Which passage the Bohemians alone object: for the Lutherans and Calvinists do not think that in John 6 the Sacrament of the Eucharist is treated of.
Three solutions have been given by the Catholics. The first is the common one, which I touched also in the first book, when I expounded the passage of John: that the force of this precept consists in the thing which is received, not in the mode of receiving. For those words, Unless you eat, contain not a simple precept, but a means, or remedy, for preserving the life received through Baptism, and consequently a precept, because we are bound to preserve life. Whence those words do not bind the Catechumens, because they have not yet received through Baptism the life which they ought to preserve; nor baptized infants, because they do not need the preservation of life, since they cannot lose it without the use of reason. Moreover the remedy for preserving life does not consist in the species of bread and wine, nor in the mode of eating and drinking, but in the reception of the body and blood of the Lord: for in whatever mode they be received, provided they be truly received, they nourish and refresh the receiver. For the flesh of the Lord is truly food, and the blood is truly drink: to the reception alone, then, those words bind, not to the mode of receiving. But both body and blood are truly received under either species; therefore those satisfy the precept who receive the Sacrament under one species. There is added that the Lord Himself declared what He had said, Unless you eat and drink, when He said: He that eateth me shall live by me. For it is the same to eat the flesh of Christ and to drink His blood, and to receive the whole Christ: but we receive the whole by eating, as he himself confesses.
But if the adversaries altogether proved — which nevertheless they do not do — that the force of the precept consists in the mode of eating and drinking, and that reception under such or such a species plainly falls under the obligation of the precept, they would still obtain nothing; for then the second solution would have to be employed, which is of this kind: In the Scriptures often the conjunction “and” is taken for a disjunctive; as in Acts 3: Silver and gold I have none. For the sense is: Silver or gold I have none; or, neither silver nor gold have I: for St. Peter would not otherwise rightly have taught that he could not give a money alms. John 15: If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin. The sense is: If I had neither come nor spoken: for the preceding negation is understood, after the manner of the Hebrew tongue, which the translators sometimes imitate. For the Hebrews for the most part set down a simple conjunction, though they understand a preceding negation; as in Psalm 1 in the Hebrew it is: The wicked rise not in judgment, and sinners in the counsel of the just. But because a negation is understood, therefore the Latins rightly translated: The wicked shall not rise again in judgment, nor sinners in the counsel of the just. But, as I said, the translators not rarely imitate the Hebrew phrase: and in this way the words of the Lord, pronounced by the Lord in Hebrew or Syriac, John indeed wrote in Greek, but could keep the Hebrew phrase, so that this is the sense: Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and unless you drink His blood, that is, if you neither eat nor drink, etc.; or, if you eat not, or drink not. And that those words are to be understood in this way is proved from the following words. For the Lord a little after adds: He that eateth me shall live by me. And again in the same place: He that eateth this bread shall live forever. Which indeed would be false, if those words, Unless you eat, etc., were understood conjunctively and not disjunctively.
But even if the adversaries could confute these two solutions, which hitherto they have not done, and altogether prove that the words of the Lord are to be understood of the mode of eating and drinking, and conjunctively, not disjunctively: we should still have the aid of the third solution. For there are many precepts in the Scriptures which are given to the whole Church, but to be fulfilled by some, not by each individual: which blessed Augustine warns is to be observed in the explanation of the Scriptures, Book 3 of Christian Doctrine, chapter 17. Such is that: Increase and multiply; for this is said to the human race, yet so that it is enough if by some the human species be propagated, and all are not compelled to give attention to procreating children. In this way, then, these words can be explained, Unless you eat, etc., that is, unless there be in the Church some who receive this Sacrament under both species, you shall not have life in you. For if there be none such, consequently there will be none who confect the Sacrament, none who administer it: and thus the whole fruit of the most healthful Sacrament will perish. But of this passage enough has been said.
The second passage, which is plainly the Achilles of Luther, Bucer, Philip, Calvin, Kemnitz, Hamelmann, and all the others, is those words of Matthew 26: Drink of this all of you; for this Calvin says is the edict of the eternal God, by which all are compelled to receive both species of the Sacrament.
I answer: These words are said to the Apostles alone, who then sat at table with Christ. This I prove by this reasoning: The particle all is not always in Scripture taken most universally for all of some certain kind. Otherwise that of Paul, All seek the things that are their own, would include even the most holy; and that, All have sinned, would comprise Christ too; and that, They all cried out, Crucify Him, and the like, would fit the Apostles of the Lord.
It must be seen, then, whether that, Drink of it all of you, be taken most universally, or for some certain kind. And indeed most universally, that is, for all men, it cannot be taken: for it would follow that the Sacrament ought to be given to Turks, Jews, heathens; for they too are men. It must, then, be taken for a certain kind of men: I ask, therefore, what that kind of men is. If they say all males, women will be excluded: if all the faithful, infants will be included, whom nevertheless even the adversaries exclude. They will say, all adult faithful. But first they will say this gratis; for they cannot easily prove it. Then the abstemious will be included, whom nevertheless they generally are wont to except. Finally Mark most openly opposes, who says thus, chapter 14: And they all drank of it; for these words answer to those, Drink of it all of you. Wherefore all is taken in the same way in Matthew and in Mark. But in Mark by all are not understood all adult faithful: for it would not be true, They all drank of it; therefore in Matthew either cannot all adult faithful be understood. And if perhaps they say that in Mark by all are understood all adult faithful, because in the Apostles all drank: we now gather that the faithful are not bound to drink the chalice of the Lord, because they have already fulfilled the mandate; for they have already drunk, as had been commanded them.
It remains, then, that the mandate was given to the Apostles alone. Which can also be confirmed from the circumstances of that whole passage of the Evangelist Matthew. For all cry out that these words were said to the Apostles alone. As they were at supper, he says. What is they, but the Apostles? There follows: Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke, and gave to His disciples. To which disciples did He give, but to those who were at supper with Him? There follows: And He said, Take and eat, this is my body. Certainly He said to those, Take and eat, to whom He gave it to eat; but He gave to the Apostles alone, as we have shown. There follows: And taking the chalice, He gave thanks, and gave to them. To whom, to them? To the same to whom He had given the bread, that is, to the Apostles alone. There follows: Saying, Drink of this all of you. To whom did He say this, but to those to whom He gave the chalice? for He gave it saying. But He gave it to the Apostles alone; therefore He said it to the Apostles alone. There follows: And a hymn being said, they went out to the Mount of Olives; then He says to them: All you shall be scandalized in me this night, etc. Who said the hymn with Christ? who went out to the Mount of Olives? who were all those about to be scandalized on that night? were they not the Apostles alone? Most clearly, then, it is evident that those words pertain to the Apostles alone.
But let us now see what the adversaries bring forward to prove that those words are said to all the faithful. Luther, in his book on the Babylonian Captivity, chapter on the Eucharist, proves by three arguments that that, Drink of this all of you, was not said to the Apostles alone.
The first is that not without mystery the Lord did not say, Eat of this all of you, as He said, Drink of this all of you; namely He foresaw that there would be those who would say the bread was given to all, the chalice not. The same argument Calvin has in his Antidote to the Parisian articles, article 7.
I answer: We deny that Christ did not say, Eat of this all of you. For although the Evangelists did not write it, yet the Church, taught by Apostolic tradition, in the sacred Canon of the Mass sets down in express words that Christ said, Eat of this all of you. Which part of the Canon St. Ambrose too reports, Book 4 on the Sacraments, chapter 5, and after him Paschasius in his book on the body of Christ, chapter 15. But what if it were even certainly established that it was not said by Christ, Eat of this all of you, as it is established was said by Him, Drink of this all of you, what would our adversaries thence gain? Altogether nothing: for the cause of that diversity would be at hand. For the Lord broke the bread and gave to each his own part, but did not give an entire bread which they should divide among themselves; therefore it would not have been necessary to say, Eat of this all of you. But He gave one and the same chalice, that all should drink of it; therefore He said, Drink of this all of you, that the first might understand that he was not to drain the whole for himself, but only to leave what would suffice for all.
The second argument. To the same it was said, Eat, to whom it was said, Drink. Either, then, the whole Sacrament was given to the presbyters alone, or at the same time to the laity too. If to the laity too, then it was said to all, Eat and drink. If to the presbyters alone, then it is not lawful to give any part of the Sacrament to the laity, nor will it have been said to them, Eat; for it is not to be rashly given to him to whom Christ in the first institution did not give it. Of this reasoning Luther boasts thus: “I confess,” he says, “that I am by this reasoning invincibly overcome, nor have I read, nor heard, nor found what to say against it.”
I answer: Christ in that first institution gave the whole Sacrament to the Apostles alone, as was before proved. Nor yet is that consequence of Luther valid: Christ did not give to the laity, therefore it cannot be given by us. For although He did not give it, yet He did not forbid it to be given: and elsewhere He even bade it be given, when He said, Do this, of which passage we shall speak afterward.
The third argument. Christ said: This is my blood, which shall be shed for you and for many. Here you most clearly see that the blood is given to all for whose sins it was shed. But who would dare to say that it was not shed for the laity? therefore it is given to all, and to all it is said, Drink. Of this argument Luther thus triumphs: “This,” he says, “presses most of all, and utterly concludes me.”
I answer: This argument truly concludes not for Luther, but against him. For if the blood of the Lord ought to be given to all for whom it was shed, it ought to be given to absolutely all men, even to Turks, Jews, heathens, and any impious whatever. For that blood was shed for all, as the Scriptures everywhere deliver, Colossians 1, 1 Corinthians 15, 1 John 2, and elsewhere.
Philip, in the Augsburg Confession, in the article on both species, proves that that, Drink of this all of you, was said not only to the Apostles, but also to others, because the Church of the Corinthians, instituted by Paul, who had been taught by the Lord, used both species.
I answer: The argument is too weak. For the Church of the Corinthians used both species because Paul, either by the example of the Lord or otherwise, showed and delivered that Communion under both species is lawful. But neither did Paul cite that mandate, Drink of this all of you; nor did he by any word teach that Communion under both species is necessary for all.
John Calvin, Book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 17, §§ 48, 49, and 50, before he refutes our solution, thus prefaces: “The other refuge,” he says, “is that the Apostles alone were admitted by Christ to the participation of this Supper, whom He had already chosen and enrolled into the order of sacrificers. Yet I would have them answer me to five demands, from which they will not be able to slip away without being easily convicted with their lies.” So he. But neither do those five demands have anything of weight to refute what we assert.
The first demand is: “By what oracle has that solution been revealed to us?” I answer: By the oracle of the Holy Spirit through the Scripture of Matthew and Mark, as we showed above.
The second: “Why in that better age, from the Apostles for a thousand years after, were all without exception made partakers of both symbols? Was the ancient Church ignorant whom Christ had admitted as guests to His Supper?” I answer: Most false is what Calvin assumes; for we have already shown that in domestic Communion, and of the sick, and lay Communion of clerics, and even in the public assembly in the churches, Communion under one species was practiced in the most ancient Church. Then, if what he assumes were true, it would not therefore follow that those words, Drink of this all of you, were said to others than the Apostles. For the Church could use both species, because the Lord did not forbid it, even though He did not command it.
The third demand: “Why did He say of the bread simply that they should eat, of the chalice that all should drink?” The fourth: if the Lord gave the Sacrament to the Apostles alone, as to priests, by what right is it now given, even in part, to the laity? To these it was answered a little before; for these are the first and second arguments of Luther.
The last demand: “Was Paul lying, when he said to the Corinthians that he had received from the Lord what he had delivered to them? For afterward he declares the tradition, that all should indifferently communicate under both symbols.” I answer: The Apostle was by no means lying: but Calvin plainly lies, when he attributes to him what he himself does not say. For Paul does not so declare the tradition of the Lord that he says all ought by divine mandate to communicate under both species. But of the passage of Paul we shall say more below; and we have already said something in the solution of Philip's argument.
Martin Kemnitz, in the cited place in the Examination, page 635, adds this argument, which after his manner he pursues most verbosely. Christ said, Take, eat, drink; but the first two the Synod of Trent will have to pertain to the laity too; therefore that third also, Drink, pertains to the laity: for no cause of diversity can be assigned.
I answer: Let the lies be removed, and the argument of itself will fall. For nowhere did the Synod of Trent leave written that those words, Take, eat, pertain to the laity, but that, Drink, does not pertain. The Council only teaches this, that those who do not confect the Sacrament, whether they be laymen or priests, are not bound by divine right to both species: but why those who do confect are bound to both species, the reason is that the sacrifice ought to be entire and entirely consumed.
Hermann Hamelmann, in his book on both species, part 2, brings forward two arguments, besides the arguments of Luther. The first is: If it was said to the Apostles alone, Drink of this all of you, then only the Bishops ought to communicate under both; for they alone succeed the Apostles. I answer: The priests too succeed the Apostles, inasmuch as to them too pertains the precept of confecting the Eucharist, which was given to the Apostles by those words, Do this in commemoration of me. Wherefore the priests too, on account of the perfection of the Sacrament, are bound to receive both species when they confect the Eucharist.
The second argument of Hamelmann. The Lord says, Mark 13: What I say to you, I say to all; therefore that, Drink of this, said to the Apostles, is to be deemed said to all. I answer: Mark did not set down absolutely and simply, What I say to you, I say to all, but added, Watch. This, then, was said to all, that we should watch and prepare for the judgment, of which the Lord had been discoursing in that place, and had said many things useful to all. Otherwise, if all things which were said to the Apostles pertained to all, all would have to go through the whole world and preach the Gospel to every creature, and other things of that kind, which no one of sound mind would grant. And these things concerning the primary foundation of the adversaries.
The third testimony of Scripture is that of Luke: Do this; for the Lord bids them do what He Himself did. But He did three things: He consecrated, received, and distributed both species to all present: therefore the Apostles, and those who succeed them, ought not only to consecrate and receive, but also to give both species to all present. And the argument is confirmed from that particle, In like manner the chalice. For that particle (as Kemnitz bids be diligently observed, pages 533 and 535) signifies that the reasoning of the bread and of the chalice is the same; and that, as the Lord took and gave the bread and said, Do this, so also in like manner He took and gave the chalice and said, Do this.
I answer: Wonderful is the providence of God in the sacred writings: for, that the heretics might not have a just excuse, He took from them all occasion of shuffling. For Luke set that, Do this, after the Sacrament was given under the species of bread, but after the chalice was given he did not repeat it, that we might understand that the Lord bade the Sacrament be distributed to all under the species of bread; but under the species of wine not so.
Nor has that, in like manner, which Kemnitz so presses, any weight: for that in like manner refers only to the taking; for the sense is, in like manner after He had supped He took the chalice. And that it does not refer to all which Christ did about the bread, as Kemnitz would have it, is clear, because Christ not only took the bread and blessed and gave it, but also broke it, and, broken, divided it among those reclining: but the chalice He did not break, nor divide Himself among those reclining, but gave it entire, that one should hold it out to another. Moreover Paul, 1 Corinthians 11, although he has the same particle, in like manner, yet has not gave, but only took. That in like manner, then, cannot be referred to the word gave. And that it does not refer to that mandate, Do this, is clear from the very context; for thus we read: In like manner also the chalice, after He had supped, saying: This chalice, etc. Where there ought to be understood a verb with which that accusative, the chalice, well coheres: but such a verb is not Do this. For what sort of sentence would this be, In like manner also the chalice do this? The meaning, then, is that which we said: In like manner also the chalice He took, saying, etc.
The fourth testimony of Scripture is in those words of blessed Paul, 1 Corinthians 11: I received from the Lord that which also I delivered to you, etc. The Apostolic tradition without doubt binds all: but Paul delivered that both species are to be received by all. And moreover Paul both after the species of bread and after the species of wine repeats the Lord's mandate, Do this. And finally afterward he subjoins: Let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. In this argument the adversaries marvelously please themselves. Luther, in his book on the Babylonian Captivity, chapter on the Eucharist: “Lastly,” he says, “stands Paul invincible, stopping the mouths of all, etc.” And below: “He does not say, I permitted you.” And below: “To have delivered is to have commanded.” And in his book against the King of England: “This argument,” he says, “said to the assertor of the Sacraments, Touch me not.”
I answer: In the last words there is no difficulty; for that, Let him eat of that bread, etc., follows after those words, Let a man prove himself, and so of that bread, etc. By which words the Apostle does not bid that the faithful eat the bread or drink the chalice absolutely; but prescribes the mode which they ought to use, if they wish to eat and drink usefully.
Moreover those words, I delivered to you, in no author ever signified, I commanded, or enjoined. And then, how beautiful would that connection of Paul's words be, if it were rendered thus: I delivered to you, that is, I commanded, that the Lord Jesus, in the night in which He was betrayed? And that of 1 Corinthians 15: I delivered to you, that Christ died, how beautifully should we in this way interpret it: I commanded you, that Christ died? Add that Kemnitz, in Part 2 of the Examination, page 541, did not fear to resist to his face the German Prophet Luther. For he wrote that that I delivered does not signify I commanded, the contrary of which, as we cited above, Luther had said.
But yet in another way Kemnitz argues from the same word, and, as he himself says, makes a most beautiful argument. For Paul, when he says I delivered, does not command; for he did not dare to command anything in the use of the Sacraments, but delivers the precept of Christ. And lest we think that he delivers the precept to the presbyters alone who were at Corinth, at the beginning of the epistle he says that he writes to all who were at Corinth; nay even to all other Christians. For he added: With all that invoke the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
But all these are false, frivolous, and most inept. For first it is false that Paul delivered a precept of Christ concerning receiving under both species. For what he delivered he explains, when he says: That the Lord Jesus, in the night in which He was betrayed, took bread, etc. Where we see that a history of the institution of the Sacrament is delivered, not a precept about receiving under both species.
Then it is false that Paul dared to command nothing concerning the use of so great a Sacrament; for that, Let a man prove himself, is a precept of Paul, for it is not read in the Gospel. And those, When you come together, wait for one another; and, He that is hungry, let him eat at home, are of the same Apostle: who also asserts that he will ordain more, when he says, The rest I will set in order when I come. Wherefore Augustine, letter 118, says that it is a precept of the Apostles that this Sacrament be received by those who are fasting.
Lastly it is false that the epistle to the Corinthians was written to all the faithful, so that all things which are had there pertain to all. For does that pertain to all: There is heard among you fornication, such as is not among the Gentiles? and: One says, I am of Paul, I of Apollo, I of Cephas? Moreover that in the inscription, With all that invoke the name of the Lord, does not signify that the epistle is written to all, but signifies that it is written to the Corinthians, for whom the Apostle prays peace and grace with all who invoke the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Nor yet do we deny that that epistle in some way pertains to all; for the doctrine which is there delivered is common to all; but not therefore do all things which are said there pertain to all, as if they were written to all.
Now that, Do this, which in this epistle is set down twice, does nothing against our cause. For after the consecration of the bread it is set down absolutely, Do this in commemoration of me; but after the chalice the same is repeated, but with a condition, Do this, he says, as often as you shall drink. And certainly not without cause did the Holy Spirit change the mode of speaking. These latter words, then, do not signify that the chalice ought to be given or received necessarily, but prescribe the mode, that if it be done, it be done in memory of the Lord's Passion.
It is asked by the Doctors what properly that This points to when the Lord says, Do this: whether it point to that which the Lord did, that is, the consecration and distribution, or to what the disciples did, that is, the eating and drinking, or to both together. But to our matter this does not pertain, since it is established that that precept is not given absolutely except of one species.
Yet the opinion of John of Louvain seems very probable, who teaches that the words of the Lord in Luke are referred to all, that is, both to what Christ did and to what the Apostles did, so that the sense is: That which we now do, I in consecrating and holding out, and you in receiving and eating, do frequently henceforth to the consummation of the world. For the aforesaid author brings forward ancient Fathers who refer those words now to the action of Christ, as Cyprian, letter 3, Book 2, and Damascene, Book 4 on the faith, chapter 14; now to the action of the disciples, as Basil, in his book of moral rules, rule 21, and Cyril of Alexandria, Book 12 on John, chapter 58. And the same author teaches that Paul refers those words chiefly to the action of the disciples, which is gathered from the following words. For as often, he says, as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord. And moreover the same can be made plain from the design and purpose of blessed Paul. For the Apostle in that place was correcting the error of the Corinthians, but the Corinthians did not err in the consecration, but in the reception, because they received without due reverence: wherefore he accommodates those words to his purpose, and teaches that Christ commanded that the action of the Supper be celebrated in memory of His Passion, and therefore that so great mysteries ought to be received attentively and reverently.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XXV.
Solvuntur objectiones ex Scriptura 'petitie.
Restat nunc, ut ad argumenta adversa¬
riorum respondeamus, qua) illi partim ex
Scripturis, partim ex Patribus, partim ex
ratione desumunt. Primus Scriptura) locus
est Joan. vi : Nisi manducaveritis carnem
Filii hominis , et biberitis ejus sanguinem, non
habebitis vitam in vobis ( 1). Quem locum soli
Bohcmi objiciunt : Lutherani enim, et Cal-
vinistcC non existimant Joan . vi. de Sacra¬
mento Eucharistia? tractari.
(I) Joan. VI, 54.
LIRER IV.
278
Tres solutiones a Catholicis datae sunt.
Prima est communis, quam etiam in i. lib.
attigi, dum locum Joannis exponerem ;vim
hujus praecepti in re, quae sumitur, non in
modo sumendi consistere. Continent enim
verba illa : Nisi manducaveritis , non sim¬
plex praeceptum, sed medium, seu reme¬
dium conservandae vitae per Baptismum
acceptae, et consequenter praeceptum, quia
tenemur conservare vitam. Unde non obli¬
gant ista verba Caitechumenos, quia nondum
vitam per Baptismum acceperunt, quam
conservare debeant ; neque infantes ba-
ptizatos, quia non egent conservatione vitae,
cum eam non possint amittere sine usu ra¬
tionis. Porro remedium conservandae vitae
non consistit in speciebus panis, et vini, neque
in modo manducandi, et bibendi, sed in
sumptione corporis, et sanguinis Domini :
quocumque enim modo illa sumantur, modo
vere sumantur, sumentem nutriunt, et refi¬
ciunt. Caro enim Domini vere est cibus, et
sanguis vere est potus : ad solam igitur
sumptionem illa verba obligant, non ad mo¬
dum sumendi. Sumuntur autem vere tam
corpus quam sanguis sub qualibet specie ;
igitur praecepto satisfaciunt, qui sub una
specie Sacramentum percipiunt. Accedit,
quod ipse Dominus quod dixerat : Nisi man¬
ducaveritis ;, et biberitis , declaravit cum di¬
ceret : Qui manducat me, vivet propter me (1).
Idem enim est manducaro carnem Christi,
et bibere sanguinem ejus ; et totum Christum
sumere : totum autem manducando suminus,
ut ipse fatetur.
Quod si adversarii omnino convincerent,
quod tamen non faciunt, vim praecepti con¬
sistere in modo manducandi et bibendi, et
plane sub praecepti obligationem cadere sum¬
ptionem sub talivel tali specie, adhunc nihil
obtinerent; tunc enim adhibenda esset se¬
cunda solutio, quae ejusmodi est ; in Scri¬
pturis saepenumero conjunctio, et accipitur
pro disjunctiva ; ut Actorum m : Argentum
et aurum non est mihi. Est enim sensus : Ar¬
gentum, vel aurumnon est mihi ; sive, neque
argentum, neque aurum est mihi : non enim
aliter recte S. Petrus docuisset, se pecunia¬
riam eleemosynam facere non potuisse.
Joan. xv : Sinon venissem , et locutus fuissem
eis , peccatum non haberent { 2). Sensus est: Si
neque venissem, neque locutus fuissem: sub
intelligitur enim negatio praecedens, more
Hecbraicse linguae, quam aliquando interpre¬
tes imitantur. Hebraei enim ut plurimum
simplicem conjunctionem ponunt, cum tamen
subintelligant negationem praecedentem ;
ut Psalm. i. in Hebraeo est : Non surgunt
impii in judicio, et peccatores in concilio ju¬
storum. Sed quia subintelligitur negatio, ideo
recte Latini verterunt : Non resurgunt impii
in judicio, neque peccatores in concilio justo¬
rum (3). Caeterum, ut dixi, interpretes non
raro imitantur phrasim Hebraicam : et hoc
modo verba Domini Hebraice, vel Syriace a
'Domino pronuntiata, Joannes quidem Graece
scripsit, sed phrasim Hebraicam servare po¬
tuit, ut hic sit sensus : Nisi manducaveritis
carnem Filii hominis , et nisi biberitis ejus san¬
guinem, id est, si neque manducaveritis, ne¬
que biberitis etc. vel, si non manducaveritis,
aut non biberitis. Esse autem hoc modo ista
verba intelligenda, probatur ex verbis se¬
quentibus. Nam Dominus paulo post addit :
Qui manducat me vivet propter me. Et rursus
ibidem : Qui manducat hunc panem, vivet in
aeternum. Quae sane falsa essent, si conjun¬
ctive, et non disjunctive intelligerentur illa
verba : Nisi manducaveritis, etc.
Sed etiamsi adversarii has duas solutiones
confutare possent, quod hactenus non fece¬
runt, et omnino convincerent, verba Domini
intelligenda esse de modo manducandi, et
bibendi, et conjunctim, non disjunctim : ad¬
huc haberemus praesidium tertiae solutionis.
Multa enim praecepta sunt in Scripturis, quae
dantur universae Ecclesiae, sed implenda per
aliquos, non per singulos : quod observan¬
dum esse monet B. Augustinus in explica¬
tione Scripturarum, lib. m. doctrinae Chri¬
stianae, cap. 17. Tale est illud: Crescite , et
multiplicamini ; id enim dicitur humano
generi, sic tamen, ut satis sit, si per aliquos
species humana propagetur, et non cogan¬
tur omnes liberis procreandis operam dare.
In hunc igitur modum possunt haec verba
explicari : Nisi manducaveritis etc. id est,
nisi sint in Ecclesia aliqui, qui hoc Sacra¬
mentum sub utraque specie sumant, non ha¬
bebitis vitam in vobis. Si enim nulli tales
sint, consequenter nulli erunt, qui Sacra¬
mentum conficiant, nulli qui ministrent :
atque ita peribit totus fructus saluberrimi
Sacramenti. Sed de hoc loco satis dictum
est.
Secundus locus, qui est plane Achilles
(1) Joan. VI, 58. — (2) Act 111, 6; Joan. XV, 22. — (3) Psalm. I, 5.
CAPUT XXV.
Lutheri, Buceri, Philippi, Culvini, Kemnitii,
Hamelmanni, et omnium aliorum, sunt illa
verba Matth. xxvi : Bibite ex hoc omnes ; id
enim edictum esse dicit Calvinus, aeterni
Dei, quo omnes coguntur ad utramque spe¬
ciem Sacramenti percipiendam.
Respondeo : Haec verba dicuntur solis
Apostolis, qui tum ad mensam cum Christo
sedebant. Id probo hac ratione : Particula,
omnes , non semper in Scriptura accipitur
universalissime pro omnibus certi alicujus
generis.. A lio qui illud Pauli : Omnes quserunt
quae sua sunt , includeret etiam sanctissimos
quosque, et illud : Omnes peccaverunt, Chri¬
stum quoque comprehenderet; et illud •.Cla¬
maverunt ommes , Crucifige cum, et similia,
in Apostolos Domini convenirent.
Videndum igitur est, an illud : Bibite ex eo
omnes, universalissime capiatur, an pro ali¬
quo certo genere. Et quidem universalissime,
id est, pro omnibus hominibus capi non pot¬
est : nam sequeretur debere Sacramentum
dari Tureis, Judseis, Ethnicis ; et illi enim ho¬
mines sunt. Oportet igitur pro certo genere
hominum illud accipere : quajro igitur quod
sit illud hominum genus. Si dixerint omnes
viros, excludentur fcemime : si omnes fide¬
les, includentur infantes, quos tamen etiam
adversarii excludunt. Dicent, esse omnes
fideles adultos. Sed in primis gratis hoc di¬
cent ; nec enim id facile probare poterunt.
Deinde includentur abstemii, quos tamen
ipsi plerumque excipere solent. Denique re¬
pugnat Marcus apertissime, qui sic ait cap.
xiv : Et biberunt ex eo omnes ; ista enim verba
respondent illis : Bibite ex eo omnes. Quare
eodem modo accipitur, omnes, apud Mat-
thamm, et apud Marcum. Apud Marcum
autem non intelliguntur per omnes omnes
fideles adulti : nec enim verum esset : Bibe¬
runt ex eo omnes ; ergo nec apud Matthaeum
intelligi possunt omnes fideles adulti. Quod
si forte dicant apud Marcum per, omnes, in¬
telligi omnes fideles adultos, quia in Aposto¬
lis biberunt omnes : colligimus jam non obli¬
gari fideles ad calicem Domini bibendum,
quia mandatum jam impleverunt ; jam enim
biberunt, ut eis fuerat imperatum.
Restat igitur, ut mandatum solis Aposto¬
lis datum fuerit. Id quod potest etiam confir¬
mari ex circonstantiis totius illius loci Evan-
gelistse Matthaei. Omnes enim clamant, haec
verba solis Apostolis dicta esse . Coenantibus ,
inquit, eis. Quid est, eis, nisi Apostolis ? Se¬
quitur : Accepit Jesus panem, et benedixit, ac
i7fi
fregit , deditque discipulis suis. Quibus disci¬
pulis dedit, nonne illis qui cum ilio coenabant?
Sequitur : Et ait , Accipite, et comedite, hoc
est corpus meum. Certe illis dixit : Accipite,
et comedite, quibus dedit comedendum ; de¬
dit autem Apostolis solis, ut jam ostendimus.
Sequitur :A7 accipiens calicem, gratias egit, et
dedit illis. Quibus illis ? iisdem, quibus de¬
derat panem, id est, solis Apostolis. Sequi¬
tur : Dicens, Bibite ex hoc omnes. Quibus
hoc dixit, nisi illis, quibus dedit calicem ?
nam dedit dicens. Dedit autem solis Aposto¬
lis ; ergo solis Apostolis dixit. Sequitur :
Et hymno dicto exierunt in montem Oliveti,
tunc dicit illis : Omnes vos scandalum patie¬
mini in me ctc. Qui dixerunt hymnum cum
Christo ? qui exierunt in montem Oliveti ?
qui erant omnes illi scandalum passuri in
illa nocte ? nonne soli Apostoli ? Clarissime
igitur patet, verba illa ad solos Apostolos
pertinere.
Sed videamus nunc quid afferant adver¬
sarii, ut probent illa dici ad omnes fideles.
Lutherus in lib. de captiv. Babyl. cap. de
Eucharistia tribus argumentis probat, illud :
Bibite ex hoc omnes, non ad solos Apostolos
dictum esse.
Primum est, quia non sine mysterio Do¬
minus non dixit, Manducate ex hoc omnes ;
sicut dixit : Bibite ex hoc omnes ; nimirum
prsevidebat futuros, qui dicerent, panem
omnibus datum, calicem non item. Idem
argumentum habet Calvinus in antidoto ar¬
ticulorum Parisiensium, art. 7.
Respondeo : Negamus, Christum non
dixisse : Manducate ex hoc omnes. Tametsi
enim id Evangelistee non scripserint, Eccle¬
sia tamen ex Apostolica traditione edocta,
in sacro Canone Missre disertis verbis ponit,
Christum dixisse : Manducate ex hoc omnes.
Quam partem Canonis refert etiam S. Am¬
brosius lib. iv. de Sacram, cap. 5. et post
eum Pachasius in lib. de corpore Christi,
cap. 15. Sed quid si etiam certo constaret, a
Christo dictum non fuisse: Manducate ex hoc
omnes , ut ab eo dictum fuisse constat : Bibite
ex hoc omnes , quid inde adversarii nostri
lucrarentur? omnimo nihil : causa enim ejus
diversitatis esset in promptu. Dominus enim
panem fregit, et unicuique partem suam
dedit, non autem dedit panem integrum,
quem inter se dividerent, ideo non fuisset
necesse dicere : Manducate ex hoc omnes.
At calicem unum et eumdem dedit, ut ex
eodem biberent omnes; dixit igitur : Bibite
280
LIBER IV.
ex hoc omnes , ut intelligeret primus, non to¬
tam sibi exhauriendum, sed tantum relin¬
quendum, quod omnibus sufficeret.
Secundum argumentum. Iisdem dictum
est : Manducate , quibus dictum est : Bibite.
Vel igitur totum Sacramentum datum est
solis presbyteris, vel simul etiam laicis. Si
laicis etiam, ergo omnibus dictum est : Man¬
ducate et bibite. Si solis presbyteris, ergo
non licet laicis dare ullam partem Sacra¬
menti, nec eis dictum erit, Manducate ; non
enim temere dandum est, cui Christus pri¬
ma institutione non dedit. De hac ratione ita
gloriatur Lutherus : « Ego, inquit, fateor,
ista me ratione mihi invicta superatum, nec
legisse, nec audivisse, nec invenisse, quid
contra dicam. »
Respondeo : Christus prima illa institutio¬
ne, Apostolis solis dedit totum Sacramentum
ut ante probatum est. Nec tamen valet illa
Lutheri consequentia ; Christus non dedit
laicis, ergo non potest dari a nobis. Nam
etsi non dedit, non tamen prohibuit dari : et
alibi jussit etiam dari, cum ait : Hoc facite,
de quo loco postea dicemus.
Tertium argumentum Christus dixit : Ilie
est sanguis meus, qui pro vobis, et pro multis
effundetur (1). Hic clarissime vides, sangui¬
nem dari omnibus, pro quorum peccatis
fusus est. Quis autem audeat dicere pro lai¬
cis non esso fusum? ergo omnibus datur, et
omnibus dicitur : Bibite. De hoc argumento
sic Lutherus triumphat: « Hoc, inquit,
maxime omnium urget, penitusque me con¬
cludit. »
Respondeo : Argumentum hoc vere con¬
cludit non pro Luthero, sed contra ipsum.
Nam si sanguis Domini dandus esset omni¬
bus, pro quibus fusus est, dandus esset omni¬
bus omnino hominibus, etiam Tureis, Ju¬
dicis, Ethnicis, et quibuscumque impiis.
Sanguis enim ille pro omnibus fusus est, ut
Scripturae passim tradunt, Coloss. i., I Co-
rinth. xv., I Joan. ii, et alibi.
Philippus in Confess. August. in artic. de
utraque specie, probat illud : Bibite ex hoc
omnes , dictum esse non solum Apostolis, sed
etiam aliis, quia Ecclesia Corinthiorum a
Paulo, qui a Domino edoctus fuerat, instituta
utraque specie utebatur.
Respondeo : Argumentum est nimis infir¬
mum. Ecclesia enim Corinthiorum utebatur
utraque specie , quia Paulus, vel Domini
exemplo, vel aliunde ostendit, et tradidit,
licitam esse Communionem sub utraque spe¬
cie. Sed nec Paulus citavit illud mandatum:
Bibite ex hoc omnes ; nec ullo verbo docuit,
esse necessariam omnibus Communionem
sub utraque specie.
Joannes Calvinus lib. iv. Institui, cap. 17.
§ 18. 19. et 50. antequam solutionem nostram
refellat, ita praefatur : « Alterum, inquit,
effugium est, solos Apostolos in hujus Coena:
participationem a Christo admissos, quos
jam in sacrificiorum ordinem allegerat, et co¬
optaverat. Velim tamen mihi ad quinque
postulata respondeant : quibus elabi non po¬
terunt, quin facile cum suis mendaciis revin¬
cantur. » Haec ille. Sed nec postulata illa quin¬
que aliquid momenti habent ad refellendum
id quod asserimus.
Primum postulatum est : « Quo oraculo
revelata sit nobis ea solutio. » Respondeo :
Oraculo Spiritus sancti per Scripturam Mat¬
thaei, et Marci, ut supra ostendimus.
Secundum: «Cur meliore illo saeculo ab
Apostolis ad mille usque annos postea sine
exceptione omnes fiebant utriusque symboli
participes? Ignorabatne vetus Ecclesia, quos
Christus convivas ad ccenam suam admisis¬
set ? » Respondeo : Falissimum est, quod
Calvinus assumit ; jam enim ostendimus in
Communione domestica, et aegrotorum, et
laica clericorum, et in ipso etiam publico
coetu in templis sub una specie fuisse com¬
municatum in antiquissima Eci lesia. Deinde
si esset verum, quod ipse assumit, non pro-
pterea sequeretur verba illa : Bibite ex hoc
omnes , dicta esse aliis, quam Apostolis. Nam
Ecclesia uti potuit utraque specie, quia Do¬
minus id non prohibuit, etiamsi non jus¬
sor it.
Tertium postulatum : « Cur de pane sim¬
pliciter dixit, ut ederent, de calice, ut omnes
biberent?» Quartum: si Dominus solis Apo¬
stolis, ut sacerdotibus Sacramentum dedit,
quo jure datur nunc, vel ex parte, laicis?
.Ad hoec responsum est Paulo ante ; sunt
enim hiec Lutheri argumenta, primum et
secundum.
Ultimum postulatum : « An mentiebaiur
Paulus, cum dicebat Corinthiis se accepisse
a Domino, quod illis tradiderat? Nam postea
traditionem declarat, ut omnes promiscue
utroque symbolo communicarent. » Respon¬
deo : Apostolus nequaquam mentiebatur :
' 1) Mattii XXVI. 28.
CAPUT XXV.
sed plane mentitur Calvinus, dum ei tribuit,
quod ipse non dicit. Non enim Paulus ita
declarat traditionem Domini, ut dicat decere
omnes divino mandato sub utraque specie
communicare. Sed de loco Pauli infra plura
dicemus; et jam aliquid diximus in solutione
argumenti Philippi.
Martinus Kemnitius loco cit. in Exam.
pag*. 635. addit hoc argumenum, quod more
suo verbosissime persequitur. Christus dixit:
Accipite, edite, bibite; sed priora duo Syno¬
dus Tridentina vult ad laicos etiam pertine¬
re; ergo et tertium illud, liibite , ad laicos
pertinet : nulla enim assignari potest causa
diversitatis.
Respondeo : Removeantur meandacia, et
argumentum per se corruet. Nusquam enim
Synodus Tridentina scriptum reliquit, illa
verba : Accipite , edite , ad laicos pertinere ;
illud autem, Bibite , non pertinere. Conci¬
lium id solum docet, non teneri eos, qui
Sacramentum non conficiunt, sive laici sint,
sive sacerdotes, jure divino ad utramque
speciem : curautem qui conficiunt, ad utram¬
que speciem teneantur, ratio est, quia sacri- -
ficium integrum esse, et integre consumi
debet.
Hermannus Hamelmannus in lib. de utra¬
que specie par. 2. duo argumenta profert,
praeter argumenta Lutheri. Primum est : Si
solis Apostolis dictum esset : Bibite ex hoc
omnes; ergo soli Episcopi communicare de¬
berent sub utraque ; illi enim soli Apostolis
succedunt. Respondeo : Etiam Sacerdotes
succedunt Apostolis quatenus ad illos etiam
pertinet praeceptum conficiendae Euchari¬
stiae, quod datum fuit Apostolis per illa verba:
Hoc facite in meam commemorationem. Quare
Sacerdotes etiam, propter perfectionem Sa¬
cramenti, tenentur sumere utramque spe¬
ciem cum conficiunt Eucharistiam.
Secundum argumentum Hamelmanni. Do¬
minus ait. Mare, xm : Quod vobis dico, omni¬
bus dico (1) ; ergo illud : Bibite ex hoc, dictum
Apostolis, omnibus dictum esse censendum
est. Respondeo : Marcus non absolute, et
simpliciter posuit: Quod vobis dico, omnibus
dico, sed addidit. Vigilate. Id ergo omnibus
dictum est, ut vigelemus, et ad judicium
praeparemur, de quo in eo loco Dominus con-
cio natus fuerat, et multa omnibus utilia dixe¬
rat. Alioquisi omnia quae dicta sunt Aposto¬
lis, ad omnes pertinerent, oporteret omnes
281
ire per mundum universum, et praedicare
Evangelium omni creaturae, et alia id ge¬
nus, qua) nemo sana) mentis concederet.
Atque haec de primario adversariorum fun¬
damento.
Tertium testimonium Scripturae est illud
Lucae: Hoc facite; jubet enim Dominus, ut
faciant, quod ipse fecit. Ipse autem tria fecit :
consecravit, sumpsit, et distribuit omnibus
praesentibus utram que speciem : debent igi¬
tur Apostoli, et qui eis succedunt, non tan¬
tum consecrare et sumere, sed etiam omni¬
bus praesentibus dare speciem utramque. Et
confirmatur argumentum ex illa particula :
Similiter et. calicem. Nam ista particula (ut
Kemnitius diligenter observari jubet pag.
533 et 535). Significat eamdem esse rationem
panis, et calicis ; et sicut Dominus accepit,
et dedit panem, et dixit : Hoc facite ; ita quo¬
que similiter accepisse et dedisse calicem, et
dixisse, Hoc facite.
Respondeo : Mirabilis est providentia Dei
in sanctis litteris : nam ut non haberent haere¬
tici justam excusationem, sustulit eis omnem,
tergiversandi occasionem. Nam Lucas illud
Iioc facite , posuit post datnm Sacramentum
sub specie panis, post datum autem calicem
illud non repetivit, ut intell. geremus jus-
sisse Dominum, ut sub specie panis omnibus
distribueretur Sacramentum ; sub specie au¬
tem vini non item.
Nec quidquam momenti habet illud, simili¬
ter, quod tantopere Kemnitius urget : nam
non refert illud, similiter , nisi acceptionem;
est enim sensus, similiter postquam coenavit
accepit calicem. Quod autem non referat
omnia, qua) Christus fecit circa panem, ut
vellet Kemnitius, patet, quia Christus panem
non solum accepit, et benedixit, et dedit,
sed etiam fregit, et fractum divisit inter ac¬
cumbentes : calicem autem non fregit, nec
divisit ipse discumbentibus, sed dedit inte¬
grum, ut unus alteri porrigeret. Praeterea
Paulus I Corinth. xr. cum habeat eamdem
particulam, similiter, non tamen habet, dedit,
sed solum, accepit. Non igitur illud, similiter
referri potest ad verbum, dedit. Quod autem
non referat illud mandatum, Hoc facite, per¬
spicuum est ex ipso contextu ; sic enim legi¬
mus ; S aniliter et calicem, postquam coenavit,
dicens : Hic calix, etc. Ubi decet subintclligi
verbum, cum quo bene cohaereat ille accusa¬
tivus, calicem : tale autem verbum non est,
(i) Mare NTJJ, 37.
282
UBER IV.
Hoc facite. Quse enim esset hsec oratio, Simi¬
liter et calicem hoc facite? Sententia ergo
illa est, quam diximus: Similiter et calicem
accepit dicens, etc.
Quartum testimonium Scripturae est in ver¬
bis illi B. Pauli. I Corinth. xi. E(jo accepi a
Domino, quod et tradidi vobis, etc (1). Traditio
Apostolica sine dubio omnes obligat : tradi¬
dit autem Paulus omnibus utramque speciem
esse sumendam. Et praeterea Paulus tam post
speciem panis, quam post speciem vini repe¬
tit Domini mandatum : Hoc facite. Et deni¬
que postea adjungit: De pane illo edat, et de
calice bibat. In hoc argumento mire sibi pla¬
cent adversarii. Lutherus in lib. de captivit.
Babylon, cap. de Eucharistia: «Ultimo, in¬
quit, stat invictus Paulus, omnium obstruens
ora, etc. » Et infra: « Non dicit, inquit, per¬
misi vobis. » Et infra : « Tradidisse est prae¬
cepisse. » Et in libro contra Anglise Regem:
« Hoc argumentum, inquit, dixit assertori Sa¬
cramentorum, Noli me tangere. »
Respondeo : In ultimis verbis nulla est
difficultas ; illud enim : De pane illo edat, etc.
sequitur post ea verba : Probet seipsum homo,
et sic de pane illo, etc. Quibus verbis non ju¬
bet Apostolus, ut fideles edant panem, vel
calicem bibant absolute ; sed modum prae¬
scribit, quo uti debent, si edere, et bibere
velint utiliter.
Porro illa verba : Ego tradidi vobis, in nul¬
lo auctore significarunt unquam, Ego prae¬
cepi, seu imperavi. Et deinde, quam esset
pulchra illa verborum Pauli connexio, si ita
efferretur: Ego tradidi vobis, id est, manda¬
vi, quoniam Dominus Jesus, in qua nocte tra¬
debatur? Et illud I Corinth. xv : Tradidi vo¬
bis, quoniam Christus mortuus est (2), quam
pulchre hoc modo interpretaremur : Praecepi
vobis, quod Christus mortuus est? Adde,
quod Kemnitius in 2. par. Exam. pag. 541.
non est veritus Prophetae Germanico Luthe-
ro in faciem resistere. Scripsit enim illud
tradidi, non significare Praecepi, cujus tamen
contrarium, ut supra citavimus, Lutherus di¬
xerat.
Sed tamen alio modo ex eodem verbo
Kemnitius argumentatur, et ut ipse dicit,
pulcherrimum conficit argumentum. Paulus
enim cum ait, tradidi , non prxcipit ; non
enim ausus fuit in usu Sacramentorum ali¬
quid praecipere, sedtradit Christi praeceptum.
Et ne putemus eum tradere praeceptum
solis presbyteris, qui erant Corinthi, in prin-,
cipio epistolae dicit se scribere omnibus qui
erant Corinthi ; imo etiam omnibus aliis
Christianis. Nam addidit : Cum omnibus qui
invocant Nomem Domini nostri Jesu Christi.
Sed haec omnia falsa, frivola, et ineptissi¬
ma sunt. Nam in primis falsum est, Paulum
tradidisse praeceptum Christi de utraque
specie sumenda. Quid enim tradiderit, ex¬
plicat, cum ait : Quoniam Dominus Jesus in
qua nocte tradebatur, accepit panem , etc. Ubi
videmus tradi historiam de institutione Sa¬
cramenti, non autem praeceptum de utraque
specie sumenda.
Deinde falsum est, Paulum nihil fuisse au¬
sum praecipere circa usum tanti Sacramenti ;
illud enim : Probet seipsum homo , prae¬
ceptum Pauli est, nec enim dn Evangelio
legitur. Et illa : Cum convenitis invicem ex¬
spectate ; et, Qui esurit , domi manducet, ejus¬
dem Apostoli sunt : qui etiam plura se ordi¬
naturum asserit, cum ait : C vetera cum venero
disponam. Quare Augustinus epistol. 118.
Apostolorum praeceptum esse dicit, ut hoc
Sacramentum a jejunis sumatur.
Postremo falsum est, epistolam ad Corin¬
thios scriptam esse ad omnes fideles, ita ut
omnia, queo ibi habentur, ad omnes perti¬
neant. Num enim ad omnes pertinet : Audi¬
tur inter vos fornicatio, qualis nec inter Gen¬
tes ? et : Alius dicit : Ego sum Pauli, ego Apol¬
lo, ego Cephsel Porro illud in inscriptione :
Cum omnibus qui invocant nomen Domini, (3)
non significat scribi epistolam ad omnes, sed
significat scribi ad Corinthios, quibus Aposto¬
lus precatur pacem, et gratiam cum omnibus,
qui invocant nomen Domini nostri Jesu Chri¬
sti. Nec tamen negamus, quin epistola illa
aliquo modo ad omnes pertineat; doctrina
enim, quee 'ibi traditur, communis est om¬
nibus ; sed non ideo omnia, qua) ibi dicuntur,
ad omnes pertinent, ac si ad omnes scripta
essent.
Jam vero illud, Hoc facite , quod in hac
epistola bis ponitur, nihil causa) nostree of¬
ficit. Nam post panis consecrationem abso¬
lute ponitur : Hoc facite in meam commemo¬
rationem ; post calicem autem idem repetitur
sed cum cpnditione, Hoc, inquit, facite quo¬
tiescumque bibetis. Et certe non sine causa
Spiritus sanctus modum loquendi mutavit.
Non significant igitur hsec verba posteriora
ut calix debeat dari, vel sumi necessario, sed
(1) 1 Cor. XI. - (2) I Cor. XV, 3. — (3) I Cor. V. 1 : III, 4; I, 2.
CAPUT XXVI.
modum praescribunt, ut si id fiat, fiat in me¬
moriam Dominicae passionis.
Quaeritur a Doctoribus, quid proprie de¬
monstret illud, Hoc cum Dominus ait : Hoc
facite ; an demonstret id quod Dominus egit,
id est, consecrationem, et distributionem, an
quod egerunt discipuli, id est, manducatio¬
nem, et bibitionem, an utrumque simul. Sed
ad rem nostram id non refert, quando con¬
stet illud praeceptum non dari absolute, nisi
de una specie.
Videtur tamen sententia Joannis a Lova-
nio valde probabilis, qui docet, verba Do¬
mini apud Lucam, ad omnia referri, id est,
ad id, .quod fecit Christus, et id, quod ege¬
runt Apostoli, ut sensus sit : Id quod nunc
agimus, ego dum consecro et porrigo, et vos
dum accipitis, et comeditis, freqtientate dein¬
ceps usque ad mundi consummationem.
Profert enim praedictus auctor veteres Pa¬
tres, qui illa verba modo referunt ad Christi
actionem, ut Cyprianum epist. 3. lib, n. et
Damascenum lib. iv. de fide, c. 14. modo
ad actionem discipulorum, ut Basilium lib.
regularum moralium, regul. 21. et Cyrillum
Alexandrinum lib. xn. in Joan. c. 58. Pau¬
lum autem idem auctor docet referre potis¬
simum illa verba ad actionem discipulorum,
id quod ex verbis sequentibus colligitur.
Quotiescumque enim , inquit, manducabitis pa¬
nem hunc , et calicem bibetis , mortem Domini
annunciabitis (1). Et praeterea idem planum
fieri potest ex instituto, et proposito B. Pau¬
li. Nam Apostolus eo loco emendabat erro¬
rem Corinthiorum, Corinthi autem non erra¬
bant in consecratione, sed in sumptione,
quia non debita cum reverentia sumebant :
quare accommodat ea verba ad suum usum,
ac docet, Christum praecepisse, ut actio ece-
nae celebraretur in memoriam passionis, et
ideo attente, et reverenter sumenda esse
' tanta mysteria.