Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book I: On the Real Presence of Christ the Lord, from the Word of God
Chapter 1: On the Heresies Opposed to the Real Presence
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. IV, De Sacramento Eucharistiae, Book I: On the Real Presence of Christ the Lord in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, from the Word of God. 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).
Before we come to the questions proposed concerning the presence of the body of the Lord in the Eucharist, we must explain the contrary heresies, against which we must contend, and the teaching of the Church, for which we must contend.
The first who denied that the body of Christ is in the Eucharist seem to have been those very men who first began to sow the tares of heresies in the Church: the Simonians, the Menandrians, and the like. Speaking of these, Saint Ignatius, in his epistle to the Smyrnaeans, says thus: “They admit not Eucharists and oblations, because they confess not that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ.” This sentence is cited by Theodoret in his third Dialogue from the epistle to the Smyrnaeans, where nevertheless it is not now found.
But lest the Calvinists boast that their opinion is very ancient, this must be observed: that those most ancient heretics assailed not so much the Sacrament of the Eucharist as the mystery of the Incarnation. For on that account (as Ignatius there indicates) they denied the Eucharist to be the flesh of the Lord, because they denied that the Lord had flesh. Wherefore none of the ancients who wrote on heresies placed this error in his catalogue, as is clear from Irenaeus, Tertullian, Philastrius, Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodoret, and Damascene; nor does any of the ancients dispute against this error in the first six hundred years. Passing over these, then, the first who called into question the truth of the body of the Lord in the Eucharist were the Iconomachs, after the year of the Lord 700, in a certain conventicle of theirs at Constantinople, which they falsely called the seventh synod. For these (as is reported in the seventh Synod, act 6) said that there was one only image of Christ instituted by Christ Himself, namely the bread and wine in the Eucharist, which represent the body and blood of Christ. On which account, from that time the Greek writers often warn that the Eucharist is not a figure or image of the body of the Lord, but the true body itself, as is clear from the seventh Synod in the place cited, from Damascene, Book 4, chapter 14, and from Theophylact on chapter 26 of Matthew and on chapter 2 of the first to the Corinthians.
The second author of this error was John Scotus—not the subtle doctor, but another more ancient one, who wrote in the time of Charlemagne, about the year of the Lord 800. For he was the first in the Latin Church to begin to write doubtfully on this matter; and Lanfranc, in his book On the Truth of the Body and Blood of the Lord in the Eucharist, testifies that his book on the Eucharist was condemned in the Council of Vercelli.
The third was Bertram, in the time of Charles the Fat, about the year of the Lord 886, whose book is still extant. He again began to call into controversy whether that very body of the Lord which had been born of the Virgin was truly in the Eucharist. This error was most learnedly refuted by Paschasius, abbot of Corbie, who flourished at that very time.
The fourth was Berengarius, archdeacon of the Church of Angers, about the year of the Lord 1050, who is held to be the author of this error—not because he first invented it, but because he first openly defended it and strove to propagate it, and in fact did propagate it. Berengarius was refuted by three notable writers, who were published together with Paschasius: Lanfranc, Guitmund, and Alger. Of whom Peter of Cluny, at the beginning of his book On the Sacrifice, judged thus, saying that Lanfranc wrote against the heresy of Berengarius well, fully, perfectly; Guitmund better, more fully, more perfectly; Alger best, most fully, most perfectly. Now Berengarius taught four errors, through which he seems to have been the parent of all the sects which flourish in this age. First, he taught that infants are not to be baptized, as Guitmund testifies in Book 1 against Berengarius; and hence he may be called the father of the Anabaptists. Secondly, he taught that the body of the Lord is not in the Eucharist except as a thing signified is in its sign, as Lanfranc, Guitmund, and Alger, authors of that time, report; and hence he is the father of the Sacramentarians—which Calvin acknowledges in his last admonition to Joachim Westphal. Thirdly, after his second recantation (for he thrice recanted his errors, as we shall say below) he taught that the body of the Lord is indeed truly in the Eucharist, but together with the bread and wine; whence he is the parent of the Lutherans. That this was an error of Berengarius is gathered from Book 1 of Guitmund, who writes that certain disciples of Berengarius, who taught that the body of the Lord is truly in the Eucharist but together with the bread, were wont to say that this was the more subtle doctrine of Berengarius. The same is also gathered from the Roman Council under Gregory VII, of which council Thomas Waldensis makes mention, volume 2, On the Sacraments, chapter 43. For in that council Berengarius was compelled to confess not only the real presence of the body of the Lord in the Eucharist, as he had before been compelled to do in the Roman Council under Nicholas II, but also the transmutation of the bread into the body of the Lord. Fourthly, the same Berengarius taught, according to the same Guitmund in the same place, that lawful marriages can be dissolved, wherein also he was the father of all the heretics of this time. But of this elsewhere.
The fifth champion of this error was a certain Henry, together with Peter of Bruys, about the year of the Lord 1140, who asserted that only once—that is, in the Lord’s own last supper with the Apostles—was the body of Christ truly given under the species of bread; but that thereafter it is a mere deception, what is said or believed to be done by the ministry of priests. The witness and refuter of this error is Peter of Cluny, who flourished at the same time, in his treatise On the Sacrifice.
The sixth was the author of the sect of the Albigensians, about the year of the Lord 1208; for these, among very many other errors, held this one also, that the Sacrament of the Eucharist is not the true body of the Lord. The witness is Saint Antoninus in his Summa Theologica, part 4, title 11, chapter 7, section 5.
The seventh was the author of the sect of the Flagellants, about the year of the Lord 1350, according to Bernard of Luxemburg in his Catalogue of Heretics.
The eighth was John Wyclif, about the year of the Lord 1370; for he again began to teach that the body of the Lord is not in the Eucharist except as in a sign, as is clear from Book 4 of the Trialogus, chapter 2 and following, up to chapter 10. His books, after the year of the Lord 1400, being carried into Bohemia, infected that whole kingdom, as Aeneas Sylvius writes in his book On the Origin of the Bohemians, chapter 35, and Thomas Waldensis, volume 11, doctrine 10. For although John Hus always abhorred this error, as John Cochlaeus shows in his History of the Hussites, nevertheless the Jacobites and very many others in Bohemia gladly drank in this error along with the rest from the books of Wyclif. Against Wyclif wrote Thomas Waldensis in the second volume On the Sacraments.
The ninth patron of this heresy, already in our own age, was Andreas Karlstadt, archdeacon of Wittenberg and a chief disciple of Luther. For Luther never openly taught this heresy—nay rather, he at one time most fiercely resisted it; yet without doubt he sowed the seeds of this error, as also of Anabaptism, of which we spoke above; although afterward he attempted to refute both the Sacramentarians and the Anabaptists, since he taught many things from which he gave the Sacramentarians occasion to renew this heresy. First, in his epistle to the Strasbourgers, he asserts that he had been much inclined to that opinion which recognizes nothing but bread in the Eucharist, and had striven with all his might to assert this, but had not been able to satisfy the Scriptures which were objected against it. What wonder, then, if his disciples dared to attempt what they thought would be most pleasing to their master? Then, in the book On the Babylonian Captivity, in the chapter on Baptism, he asserted that the Sacraments do not justify, but are bare signs. From which it seems rightly to be gathered that Christ is not really in the Eucharist; for to what purpose would He be there, if He was to confer nothing on us? In the same book, in the chapter on the Eucharist, he had denied that chapter 6 of John pertains to the Eucharist. But this was the chief cause why the Sacramentarians denied the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. In the same place he wrote that the words of the Evangelist, This is my body, make this sense: This bread is my body. Which opinion must either be taken tropically, so that the bread is the body of Christ significatively, or is plainly absurd and impossible; for it cannot be that bread is the body of Christ. And so Luther’s disciples preferred to have recourse to a trope than to admit a manifest absurdity.
Finally, in the book On the Eucharist, to the Waldenses, he denies that the Eucharist is to be adored, and calls into doubt whether, together with the body, the soul and divinity are also in the Eucharist. But certainly from these things it manifestly follows that Christ is not really in the Eucharist. For wherever He really is, He is to be adored, nor can the soul and divinity in any way be separated from the body of Christ, as is most well known. Instructed then by these opinions of Luther, Karlstadt in the year 1525—or, as others will have it, 1524—published a book in which he openly denied the presence of the body of the Lord in the Eucharist. See concerning Karlstadt John Cochlaeus in the Acts of Luther, year 1525.
The tenth patron of this error was Huldrych Zwingli, pastor of Zurich, who, after he had for some years taught the heresy of Luther and openly asserted that in the Eucharist the body of Christ truly is, but with the bread, at length, in the same year as Karlstadt, published a book On True and False Religion; and in it he retracts his opinion and strives to establish a certain new one, namely that the body of the Lord is not in the Sacrament except as in a sign. Nor must it be passed over how excellently Zwingli excuses his own inconstancy. For he says that he had long before recognized what was true, but had served the time; and that in this he is praised by Christ as a prudent and faithful servant who gives food to the household in its season. But it is too cold an excuse; for Christ does not praise those who, in order to serve the time, lie in matters of such moment. Nay, Zwingli does not so much cleanse himself as befoul himself by this his defense; for while he seeks to cover his ignorance, he betrays his dishonesty.
To Zwingli was joined as companion John Oecolampadius, an apostate from a Bridgettine monk, who at the same time wrote a book On the Genuine Exposition of the Words: This is my body, where, although in substance he agrees with Zwingli, yet he attempted to expound the words of the supper more conveniently, as we shall say below. Zwingli and Oecolampadius were followed by very many of their disciples, and especially Henry Bullinger, Zwingli’s successor in the see of Zurich, who wrote an Apology for Zwingli against the Lutherans; and Bernardino Ochino, who also wrote a book On the Supper of the Lord against Westphal; and Peter Martyr, who wrote a huge volume On the Eucharist against Stephen Gardiner, in which he refutes Gardiner’s solutions to the 255 arguments of the Sacramentarians.
The eleventh notable patron of the Berengarian error was John Calvin. He therefore, in the year of the Lord 1536, first published his Institutes, as appears from the dedicatory epistle to Francis, king of the French, which he afterward published again, enlarged, in the year 1539, and at length in the year 1559, published a third time in a changed form and comprised in four books.
He published also, in the year 1540, a book On the Supper of the Lord in French, which after five years Nicolas Des Gallars rendered into Latin; in which book, toward the end, he openly and by name reproves both Luther and Zwingli, sets himself up as their judge, and introduces a new opinion, which nevertheless in reality differs nothing from the opinion of Zwingli.
Whence a little after, that is, in the year 1549, he published a little book On his Agreement with the Zurichers in the matter of the sacraments. He wrote besides many things on this matter, in the book On Reforming the Church, in his commentaries both on chapter 26 of Matthew and on chapter 11 of the first to the Corinthians, and in his replies to Joachim Westphal.
Calvin is followed by William Klebitz, who wrote a book against Heshusius, which he entitled The Victory of Truth, and the Ruin of the Saxon Papacy—namely when in the dominion of the Count Palatine Calvinism prevailed. Likewise Peter Boquin, who wrote an Examination of the Book of Heshusius on the Body of the Lord, in which he notably defends Calvin. Finally Theodore Beza, who still survives, Calvin’s successor in the pestilential chair at Geneva, wrote much for the Calvinian error, such as: a Sum of Doctrine on the Sacramental Matter; a book On the Supper of the Lord against Westphal; a Dialogue entitled [Kreophagia], or The Cyclops, against Tilemann Heshusius.
Now Calvin’s opinion must be briefly explained, because it is deliberately proposed by him obscurely, so that it may seem to contain something of a mystery. First, then, Calvin with his followers teaches that the symbols of the supper are only on earth, but the body of Christ is only in heaven; and consequently that the body of Christ is as far distant from the bread and wine in the supper as the earth is distant from the highest heavens. Namely that the body of Christ is nowhere except in a certain and determined place of heaven; this he has in express words at the end of the Agreement with the Pastors of Zurich; the same Beza also has in express words in the Sum of Doctrine on the Sacramental Matter, question 6.
Secondly, he teaches that the symbols and the body of Christ, although in place they are very far distant from one another, are nevertheless conjoined, not only by reason of the sign, because one is the sign of the other, but also because with the sign God truly exhibits to us the very true body and blood of Christ, whereby our souls are truly nourished unto eternal life. This Calvin has in all the places cited above. On chapter 26 of Matthew he speaks thus: “Truly in the supper the body of Christ is given to us, that it may be to our souls a salutary food; that is, our souls are fed by the substance of the body of Christ, so that we are truly made one with Him.” And below: “Not therefore is an empty and void sign set before us, but they truly become partakers of the flesh and blood of the Lord who receive this promise by faith.” And in Book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 17, section 5, he teaches that to eat the flesh of Christ is not only to believe, but truly to become a partaker of His flesh; and he gives an example: “For just as,” he says, “not the sight, but the eating of bread suffices for the nourishment of the body, so it is fitting that the soul be truly and thoroughly made a partaker of Christ.” And section 32: “In His sacred supper He bids me, under the symbols of bread and wine, take His body and blood: I doubt not but that He Himself truly presents them, and that I receive them.” And in the book On the Supper of the Lord, chapter 2, he gives the example of the dove in which the Holy Spirit appeared.
For as that dove was called the Holy Spirit by John the Baptist, in the first chapter of John, because it was a most certain sign of the presence of the Holy Spirit, so the bread is called, by metonymy, the body of Christ, because it is a most certain sign of the presence of the body of Christ, which is given to us in the supper.
Whence in the same place he affirms that Christ, in the supper, gives us the true and proper substance of His flesh and blood. Beza also has similar things in the place noted, On the Sacramental Matter, question 6. Whence also, in question 7, he admits those propositions of the Lutherans: that the body of Christ is in the bread, or under the bread, or beside the bread; if they are understood in a sound manner, that is, if they signify that together with the bread the body of Christ is truly given to us. But because this second point seems to conflict with the first (for how is the body of Christ truly given to us with the bread, and present in the supper, if the body of Christ is only in the highest heaven, and the bread is only on earth?), therefore he sets down a third statement.
Thirdly, then, he says that it cannot be comprehended by the understanding, but by faith alone, how this conjunction of things so distant comes about. Thus he speaks in Book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 17, section 7: “Nothing remains,” he says, “but that I break forth into admiration of that mystery, to which neither the mind by thinking, nor the tongue by explaining, can be equal.” And section 10: “And although it may seem incredible that in so great a distance of places the flesh of Christ should penetrate to us so as to be our food, let us remember how far the hidden power of the Holy Spirit surpasses all our senses, and how foolish it is to wish to measure His immensity by our measure. What therefore our mind does not comprehend, let faith conceive: that the Spirit truly unites things which are separated in place.” And section 32: “Moreover,” he says, “if anyone ask me concerning the manner, I shall not be ashamed to confess that it is a secret too sublime to be comprehended by my understanding, or set forth in words.” Beza has similar things On the Sacramental Matter, question 9: “But,” he says, “nevertheless we confess that it is an incomprehensible mystery of God; whereby it comes about that what is and remains in the heavens, and not elsewhere, is truly communicated to us, who are now on earth, and not elsewhere.” And below: “Whence it comes about that this whole action is very properly called [soterion].” But because Calvin understood that this his mystery was plainly incredible and involved a most manifest contradiction, therefore he adds a fourth point.
Fourthly, he says that the body of Christ itself does not descend to us, but that a certain substantial power is derived from the flesh of Christ to us through His Spirit, as through a certain channel. Where he seems to say that not the substance, but a certain quality is given to us. For thus he speaks in Book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 17, section 12: “The bond,” he says, “of that conjunction is the Spirit of Christ, by whose knot we are coupled; and it is a certain channel, as it were, through which whatever Christ Himself both is and has is derived to us. For if we see that the sun, darting its rays upon the earth to generate, cherish, and quicken its offspring, in a manner transmits its own substance to it, why should the irradiation of the Spirit of Christ be less able to convey to us the communion of His flesh and blood?” And section 32: “I frankly confess that I reject a mixture of the flesh of Christ with our soul, or a transfusion, such as is taught by them; because it suffices us that Christ breathes life into our souls from the substance of His flesh, nay pours His own life into us, although the very flesh of Christ does not enter into us.” What therefore he had said above, in section 10, that the flesh of Christ penetrates even to us, though so far distant, must be understood not of itself, but of its power. Yet let him have seen how rightly this coheres with the things he had said above of the presence of Christ in the supper; unless he also understands the presence according to power, not according to substance.
But because, if some real quality were to descend from the body of Christ to us, there would be danger lest we attribute too much to this Sacrament, therefore he adds: fifthly, that this communication, whether of the body of the Lord or of His power, comes about only through faith. For faith apprehends Christ existing in heaven, and makes Him ours, that we may be able to partake of His goods. And so no real conjunction of Christ with us comes about, but only through thought. In which there is certainly no mystery, no miracle, no difficulty of understanding. For who would not most easily grasp that Christ can be apprehended by faith—nay even the whole Trinity? Thus, then, Calvin has it in Book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 17, section 3: “Meanwhile we confess that this is no other than an eating of faith, since no other can be imagined.” And section 31: “Christ,” he says, “does not seem present to them unless He descend to us; as though, if He raise us up to Himself, we did not equally enjoy His presence.” So he.
Where he seems to correct or explain what he had said in section 10, that the flesh of Christ penetrates to us by a great miracle; for now, all miracle being removed, he says that we ascend to Him by faith. Likewise in section 32 he says that it is faith which is fed by the body of Christ; and further, faith eats in no other way than by believing. He repeats the same in other books; and Beza has the same in the book On the Sum of Doctrine in the Sacramental Matter, questions 9, 10, 11, and 13. Nor ought we to be moved because Calvin, in Book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 17, sections 5 and 11, denies that Christ is eaten by thought or understanding alone, and says that it is not altogether the same thing to believe in Christ and to eat Christ.
For in the same place he asserts that to eat Christ is not indeed to believe itself, but is nevertheless its effect; for by believing we eat, since from the act of faith it follows that Christ is in us and communicates His goods to us. Whence Beza, in the book On the Supper of the Lord against Westphal, chapter 9, says that there is the same difference between faith and the eating of Christ as between the hand and the apprehension which is made by the hand. But because Christ is not in us except through faith, as Calvin and Beza perpetually say, hence it comes about that He is not in us except objectively, in the manner in which everything of which we actually think is in us.
Further, from this follows their sixth pronouncement, whereby they assert that wicked men do not receive the body of Christ, although they receive the symbols. For (as Beza says in the Sum of Doctrine on the Sacramental Matter, question 13): “Just as the symbols are received by the mouth of the body alone, so the body of Christ by the mouth of faith alone: since therefore the wicked have not the mouth of faith, they receive nothing but the symbols of the body of the Lord.” This same thing Calvin teaches, Book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 17, sections 33 and 34. Nay, in the little book On the Agreement with the Zurichers, he says that the predestined alone receive the external symbols together with the thing signified by the symbol, just as the predestined alone have true faith.
Their seventh and last pronouncement is: that there is not such a power in the Sacrament of the Eucharist that it should give the very body of Christ, or faith, to one not having it, but only that it should testify and confirm that it is already had. So Calvin has it, Book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 17, section 2: “Great fruit,” he says, “of confidence and sweetness can pious souls gather from this Sacrament, in that they have a testimony that we have grown into one body with Christ, so that whatever is His we may call ours.” And section 5: “The Sacrament,” he says, “does not make Christ first begin to be the bread of life, but recalls to memory that He was made the bread of life, on which we continually feed.” And below: “For it promises us that whatever Christ did or suffered was done to give us life.” And in the book On the Supper of the Lord, chapter 3, he teaches that, for preparation to receive this Sacrament, it is required that one previously have true faith, and through faith have been made a member of Christ, and so have Christ in himself. Finally, unless Calvin said that the Eucharist is only a testimony of grace received, and as it were a seal sealing and confirming the promise made by the word, he would destroy all that he had before taught concerning the Sacraments.
From this, however, we ought to gather three things. First, that Calvin falsely boasted that his opinion of the Eucharist was most difficult and incomprehensible to human understanding, and so the highest mystery. For it is no greater mystery that the symbols of bread and wine recall to our memory that Christ suffered and died for us, than that an image of the Crucified should do this, especially if there be added this inscription from the word of God: Behold the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sins of the world. For such an image with such an inscription does altogether the same as the Eucharist of Calvin, and without any miracle both the image and the inscription act naturally, when they excite the memory of the Lord’s passion endured for us.
Next, that all those magnificent encomiums of the Eucharist are mere mockeries; when, namely, Calvin says in so many places that together with the symbols the very true and real body of Christ is given to us, and that our souls are nourished by it, and so forth. For in the end he leaves us nothing but a bare symbol of a thing already had.
Finally, that from this opinion of Calvin follows this absurdity: that to hand someone the supper of the Lord is to testify that he to whom it is handed has already before taken the supper and eaten the body of Christ. Which is both intolerable, if we regard the use of words, and is very often false, since these symbols are handed to very many who nevertheless have not eaten the body of Christ, according to the rules of Calvin, since they are wicked. Wherefore the ministers falsely testify that they have eaten the body of Christ; and yet they so rely on this their testimony, that Calvin, in Book 4 [of the Institutes, chapter 17]—that is, in the manner in which bodies exist by their own nature, not sensibly, movably, and so forth—nay, in chapter 17, section 2, says that from this Sacrament he can securely promise himself that the kingdom of heaven can no more fall away from him than from Christ Himself. But of these things thus far.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT PRIMUM. De hseresibus. Antequam veniamus ad quaestiones pro¬ positas de praesentia corporis Domini in Eu¬ charistia, explicandae erunt haereses contra¬ riae, contra quas pugnandum est, et sententia Ecclesiae, pro qua pugnandum. Primi qui negarunt, Christi corpus esse in Eucharistia, videntur fuisse illi ipsi, qui pri¬ mi heeresum zizania in Ecclesia serere coe¬ perunt. Simoniani, Menandriani, et similes ; de his loqucns sanctus Ignatius in epistola ad Smyrnenses, sic ait: «Eucharistias, et obla¬ tiones non admittunt, eo quod non confi¬ teantur Eucharistiam esse carnem Salvatoris nostri Jesu Christi, » quae sententia citatur a Theodoreto in 3 Dialogo ex epistola ad Smyr¬ nenses; uhi tamen nunc non habetur. Ne autem glorientur Calvin istae sententiam suam valde antiquam esse, illud est obser¬ vandum, antiquissimos illos haereticos, non tam sacramentum Eucharistiae, quam myste¬ rium Incarnationis oppugnasse. Idcirco enim (ut Ignatius ibidem indicat) negabant Eu¬ charistiam esse carnem Domini, quia nega¬ bant Dominum habere carnem. Quare nullus veterum, qui de hseresibus scripserit, hunc errorem in catalogo posuit, ut patet ex Ire- nseo, Tertulliano, Ph Rastri o, Epiphanio, Au¬ gustino, Theodoreto, Damasceno : neque ullus veterum disputat contra hunc errorem primis sexcentis annis. His igitur omissis, primi, qui veritatem corporis Domini in Eu¬ charistia in qusestionem vocarunt, fuerunt Iconomachi post annum Domini 700, in quo¬ dam suo conciliabulo Constantinopolitano, quod ipsi septimam synodum falso vocabant. Hi enim (ut refertur in septima Synodo, ac¬ tor. 6.) dicebant unicam esse imaginem Chri¬ sti ab ipso Christo institutam, nimirum panem, et vinum in Eucharistia, quse repra3sentant Christi corpus, et sanguinem. Quocirca ab eo tempore Grreci scriptores sa}pe monent, Eucharistiam non esse figuram, sive imagi¬ nem corporis Domini, sed ipsum verum cor¬ pus, ut patet ex ipsa Synodo septima loco ci¬ tato, ex Damasceno lib. iv. cap. 14, ex Theo- phylacto in cap. 26 Matth. et in cap. 2 prioris ad Corinthios. Secundus auctor hujus erroris fuit Joan. Scotus, non ille doctor subtilis, sed alius an¬ tiquior, qui tempore Caroli Magni, circa an¬ num Domini 800, scripsit. Is enim primus in Ecclesia Latina de hac re dubie scribere ccepit, cujus librum de Eucharistia damnatum fuisse in concilio Vercellensi, testatur Lantfrancus in' suo libro de Veritate corporis et sanguinis Domini in E ucharistia. Tertius fuit Bertramus tempore Caroli Crassi, circa annum Domini 886, cujus liber adhuc exstat. Is rursum in controversiam vo¬ care empit, an esset vere in Eucharistia illud ipsum corpus Domini, quod de Virgine na¬ tum erat. Confutavit hunc errorem doctissi¬ me Paschasius, abbas Corbeiensis, qui illo ipso tempore floruit. Quartus fuit Berengarius, archidiaconus Ecclesiae Andegavensis, circa annum Domini 1050, qui auctor habetur hujus erroris, non quod primus eum invenerit, sed quod primus aperte defenderit, et propagare studuerit, et re ipsa propagaverit. Refutarunt Berenga- rium tres insignes scriptores, qui simul cum Paschasio editi sunt, Lantfrancus, Guitmun- dus, et Algerus : de quibus ita censuit Petrus Cluniacensis initio libri de Sacrificio , ut di¬ ceret Lantfrancum scripsisse contra hseresim Berengarii bene, plene, perfecte ; Guitmun- dum melius, plenius, perfectius ; Algerum optime, plenissime, perfectissime. Porro quatuor errores Berengarius docuit, per quos parens videtur fuisse omnium sectarum, quee hoc saeculo vigent. Primo docuit, par¬ vulos non esse baptizandos, ut Guitmundus testatur lib. i. contra Berengarium ; atque hinc pater dici potest Anabaptistarum. Se¬ cundo docuit, corpus Domini non esse in Eu¬ charistia, nisi ut res significata est in suo signo, ut referunt Lantfrancus, Guitmundus, Algerus, auctores illius temporis ; hinc vero pater est Sacramentariorum ; quod agnoscit Calvinus in ultima admonitione ad Joachi- muttt Wesphalum. Tertio docuit, post alte¬ ram palinodiam (nam ter revocavit errores suos, ut infra dicemus) corpus Domini esse CAPUT 1. 3 quidem vere in Eucharistia, sed simul cum pane, et vino ; unde parens est Lutherano- rum. Fuisse autem hunc errorem Berengarii, colligitur ex lib. i. Guitmundi, qui scribit nonnullos Berengarii discipulos, qui doce¬ bant, corpus Domini vere esse in Eucharistia, sed simulcum pane, dicere solitos hanc fuisse subtiliorem doctrinam Berengarii. Idem etiam colligitur ex concilio Romano sub Gregorio VII, cujus concilii meminit Thomas Walden- sis tom. ii. de Sacrament. cap. 43. Nam in eo concilio coactus est Berengarius confiteri non solum praesentiam realem corporis Do¬ mini in Eucharistia, ut antea coactus fuerat in concil. Romano, sub Nicolao II, sed etiam transmutationem panis in corpus Domini. Quarto docuit idem Berengarius, teste eodem Guitmundo ibidem, legitima matrimonia pos¬ se dissolvi, in quo etiam pater fuit omnium hujustemporis haereticorum. Sed de hoc alias. Quintus propugnator hujus erroris fuit Henricus quidam cum Petro Bruis, circa an¬ num Domini 1140, qui asserebat semel tan¬ tum, id est, in ipsa ultima Domini coena cum Apostolis, Christi corpus vere datum sub specie panis : deinceps autem meram esse deceptionem, quod sacerdotum ministerio dicitur aut creditur. Testis est, et refutator hujus erroris Petrus Cluniacensis, qui eodem tempore floruit, in tractatu de Sacrificio. Sextus fuit auctor sectae Albigensium, cir¬ ca annum Domini 1208, ii enim inter alios plurimos errores, hunc etiam habuerunt, sa¬ cramentum Eucharistiae, non esse verum cor¬ pus Domini. Testis est S. Antoninus in Sum¬ ma theologica part. 4. tit. xi. cap. 7. §. 5. Septimus fuit auctor sectae Flagellantium, circa annum Domini 1350, teste Bcrnardo Lutzemburgensi, in Catalogo haereticorum. Octavus fuit Joannes Wiclef, circa annum Domini 1370, is enim rursus docere coepit non esse corpus Domini in Eucharistia, nisi ut in signo, ut patet ex iv. lib. Trialogi cap. 2. et sequentibus, usque ad 10. Hujus libri post annum Domini 1400, delati in Bohe- miam, totum illud regnum infecerunt, ut scri¬ bit iEneas Sylvius lib. de Origine Bohemorum cap. 35, et Thomas Waldensis tom. xi. doc¬ trina 10. Tametsi enim Joan. Huss ab hoc errore semper abhorruit, ut ostendit Joan. Gophlaeus in Historia Hussitarum , tamen Ja- cobitae, et alii permulti in Bohemia hunc er¬ rorem cum cceteris ex libris Wicleffi libenter hauserunt. Contra Wicleffum scripsit Tho¬ racis Waldensis in n tomo de Sacramentis. Nonus patronus hujus haeresis jam nostro saeculo fuit Andreas Carolstadius, archidia- conus Wirtembergensis, ac Lutheri discipu¬ lus primarius. Lutherus enim nunquam aperte hanc haeresim docuit, quin potius acerrime illi restitit aliquando : tamen sine dubio semina jecit hujus erroris, ut etiam Anabaptismi, de quo supra diximus ; licet postea, tum Sacramentarios, tum Anaba- ptistas confutare conatus sit : siquidem multa docuit, ex quibus ansam praebuit Sacramen- tariis hujus haeresis renovandae. Primum in epist. ad Argentinenses asserit se valde pro¬ pensum fuisse in eam sententiam, quae in Eu¬ charistia nihil praeter panem agnoscit, et co¬ natum totis viribus hoc asserere, sed non potuisse Scripturis satisfacere, quae contra objiciebantur. Quid igitur mirum, si discipuli ejus id tentarc ausi sunt, quod magistro gra¬ tissimum fore putabant ? Deinde lib. de Ca¬ ptivate babylonica cap. de Baptismo , asseruit Sacramenta non justificare, sed esse nuda signa. Ex quo recte colligi videtur in Eucha¬ ristia non esse revera Christum : quorsum enim ibi esset, si nihil nobis conferre debe¬ bat ? In eodem lib. cap. de Eucharistia , ne¬ gaverat, caput vi. Joannis ad Eucharistiam pertinere. At haec fuit praecipua causa cur Sacramentarii negaverint realem praesen¬ tiam Christi in Eucharistia. Ibidem scripsit, verba Evangelistae : Hoc est corpus meum , hunc facere sensum : Hic panis est corpus meum. Quae sententia aut accipi debet tro¬ pice, ut panis sit corpus Christi significative; aut est plane absurda, et impossibilis : nec enim fieri potest, ut panis sit corpus Christi. Itaque maluerunt Lutheri discipuli recurrere ad tropum, quam admittere manifestam ab- surditatem. Denique in libro de Eucharistia ad Wal- denses, negat Eucharistiam adorandam, et in dubium revocat, an cum corpore sit etiam anima, et divinitas in Eucharistia. At certe ex his manifeste sequitur, non esse revera Christum in Eucharistia. Nam ubicumque re¬ vera est, adorandus est, nec potest ullo mo¬ do separari anima, et divinitas a Christi cor¬ pore, ut notissimum est. His ergo Lutheri sententiis edoctus Carolstadius anno 1525, vel, ut alii volunt 1524, librum edidit, in quo aperte negavit praesentiam corporis Domini in Eucharistia. Vide de Carolstadio Joan. Co- chleeum in Actis Lutheri anno 1525. Decimus patronus hujus erroris fuit IIul- dricus Zwinglius, Tigurinus pastor, qui cum -i L1BEB I. aliquot annis docuisset Lutheri haeresim, ac palam asseruisset, in Eucharistia vere esse corpus Christi, sed cum pane; tandem eodem anno, quo Carolstadius, librum edidit de Ve¬ ro 5 et falsa Religione : at que in eo retractat sententiam suam, ac novam quamdam sta¬ tuere nititur, nimirum, corpus Domini non esse in Sacramento, nisi ut in signo. Non est autem praetereundum, quam egregie purget Zwinglius inconstantiam suam. Dicit enim se multo antea agnovisse id quod verum erat, sed tempori servivisse ; et in hoc laudari se a Christo tanquam servum prudentem, et fide¬ lem, qui dat cibum familiae in tempore suo. Sed nimis frigida excusatio est : non enim laudat Christus eos qui, ut tempori serviant, mentiuntur in rebus tanti momenti. Imo Zwin¬ glius non tam se purgat, quam inquinat hac sua defensione : ut enim ignorantiam tegat, improbitatem prodit. Zwinglio comes accessit Joannes OEcolam- padius apostata ex monaco Birgittano, qui eodem tempore librum scripsit, de genuina expositione verborum : Hoc est corpus meum , ubi etsi in re conveniat cum Zwinglio, tamen commodius exponere conatus est verba camae, ut infra dicemus. Zwinglium, et QEcolampa- dium secuti sunt permulti eorum discipuli, ac praecipue Henricus Bullingerus Zwinglii suc¬ cessor, in sede Tigurina, qui scripsit Apolo- giam pro Zwinglio contra Lutheranos; et Bernaidinus Ochinus, qui scripsit etiam li¬ brum de cama Domini contra Westphalum, et Petrus Martyr, qui scripsit ingens volumen de Eucharistia contra Stephanum Gardine- rum, in quo refellit solutiones G ardi neri ad 255 argumenta Sacramentariorum. Undecimus patronus insignis erroris Be- rengariaui fuit Joan. Calvinus. Is igitur anno Domini lo3<3, edidit primo suas institutiones, ut apparet ex epistola dcdicatoria ad regem Gallorum Franciscum, quas postea iterum edidit auctas anuo 1539, et tandem anno 1559, tertio mutata forma, et quatuor libris comprehensas edidit. Edidit etiam armo 1510, librum decuma Domini gallice, quem post annos quinque Nicolaus Galasius latinum fecit; in quo libro extremo aperte, ac nominatim reprehendit tumLutherum,tum Zwinglium, et se judicem eorum constituit, ac novam opinionem intro¬ ducit, quae tamen revera nihil differt a sen¬ tentia Zwinglii. Unde paulo post, id est, anno 1519, edidit libellum de consensu suo cum Tigurinis in re sacramentaria. Multa praeterea dchac rescri¬ psit, in lib. de Reformanda Ecclesia , in com¬ mentariis tum ad cap. xxvi Matth. tum ad cap. xi. prioris ad Corinth. et in responsio ilibus ad Joachimum Westphalum. Calvinum sequitur Wilhelmus Klebitius, qui scripsit librum contra Heshusium, quem inscripsit : Victoria veritatis, et ruina Papatus Saxonici /quando videlicet in ditione comitis Palatini obtinuit Calvinismus. Item Petrus Boquinus, qui scripsit Examen libri Heshusii de corpore Domini ', in quo egregie Calvinum tuetur. Denique Theodorus Beza, qui adhuc superest, Calvini Genevae in cathedra pesti¬ lentia} successor, inulta scripsit pro errore calviniano, ut : Summam doctrinae de re Sa¬ cramentaria; librum de Coena Domini con¬ tra Westphalum ; Dialogum qui inscribitur Kpswcpcma, sive Cyclops contra Tilmannum Heshusium. Porro Calvini sententia breviter explicanda est, quia de industria obscure ab illo propo¬ nitur, ut mysterii aliquid continere videatur. Primo igitur docet Calvinus cum suis, sym¬ bola cceme tantum esse in terra : corpus au¬ tem Christi tantum esse in cado : proinde tanto intervallo abesse Christi corpus a pane, et vino in coena, quanto abest terra ab adtissi- mis caelis. Quod videlicet Christi corpus nus¬ quam sit nisi in certo, ac determinato loco coeli ; id habet disertis verbis in fine Consen¬ sus cum pastoribus Tigurinis ; idem habet etiam disertis verbis Beza in Summa doctrinae de re Sacramentaria quaest. G. Secundo docet, symbola, et corpus Christi, licet loco inter se plurimum distent, tamen conjuncta esse, non solum ratione signi, quia unum est signum alterius, sed etiam quia cum signo Deus nobis vere exhibet ipsum verum Christi corpus et sanguinem, quo aniime no¬ stra} vere alantur in vitam aeternam. Id habet Calvinus in omnibus locis supra citatis. Iu cap. xxvi. Matth. sic loquitur : « Tere in coena datur nobis corpus Christi, ut sit animis nostris in cibum salutarem, hoc est, substan¬ tia corporis Christi pascuntur animae nostrae, ut vere unum efficiamur cum eo. » Et infra : « Non ergo vacuum et inane signum nobis proponitur, sed vere carnis et sanguinis Do¬ mini fiunt participes, qui fide promissionem hanc recipiunt.» Et lib. iv. Institui . cap. xvn. . § 5. docet, comedere Christi carnem, non esse solum credere, sed vere participem fieri car¬ nis ejus ; et ponit exemplum : o Q;. emadmo- dum, enim, inquit, non aspectus, sed esus CAPUT I. 5 panis alimentum corporis sufficit : ita vere, ac penitus participem Christi animam fieri con¬ venit. )> Et § 32 : « In sacra sua coena jubet me sub symbolis panis ac vini, corpus ac san¬ guinem suum sumere : nihil dubito, quin et ipse vero porrigat, et ego recipiam. » Et in libro de Ccenn Domini , cap. 2, ponit exem¬ plum de columba, in qua apparuit Spiritus sanctus. Ut enim illa columba dicta est Spiritus sanctus a Joanne Baptista, Joannis primo, quia certissimum signum erat praesentia) Spi¬ ritus sancti ; ita panis per metonymiam dici¬ tur corpus Christi, quia est certissimum sig¬ num praiscntiee corporis Christi, quod nobis datur in coena. Unde ibidem affirmat, Christum nobis in coena veram, propriamque carnis et sangui¬ nis sui substantiam donare. Similia habet etiam Beza loco notato, de re Sacramentaria , quffist. 6. Unde etiam quaest. 7. admittit illas propositiones Lutheranorum : Corpus Christi esse in pane, vel sub pane, vel juxta panem; si sano modo intelligantur, id est, quod si¬ gnificent simul cum pane vere donari nobis corpus Christi. Quia vero hoc secundum vi¬ detur pugnare cum primo (quomodo enim corpus Christi vere nobis datur cum pane, et est praesens in coena, si corpus Christi solum est in summo coelo, et panis tantum est in terra ?) ideo ponit tertium dictum. Tertio igitur dicit, non posse ingenio com¬ prehendi, sed sola fide, quomodo fiat ista conjunctio rerum tam distantium. Sic loqui¬ tur lib. IV. Institut. cap. xvn, § 7 : « Nihil, inquit, restat, nisi ut in ejus mysterii admi¬ rationem prorumpam, cui nec mens plane cogitando, nec lingua explicando par esse potest. » Et § 10 : <i Et si autem incredibile videatur in tanta locorum distantia penetrare ad nos Christi carnem ut nobis sit in cibum; meminerimus, quantum supra sensus omnes nostros emineat arcana Spiritus sancti virtus, et quam stultum sit ejus immensitatem modo nostro velle metiri. Quod ergo mens nostra non comprehendit, concipiat fides, Spiritum vere unire, quae locis disjuncta sunt. » Et § 32 : « Porro, inquit, de modo si quis me interroget, fateri non pudebit, sublimius esse arcanum, quam ut vel meo ingenio, compre¬ hendi, vel enarrari verbis queat. » Similia habet Beza de re S aer ament, quaest. 9 : « Sed, inquit, nihilominus fatemur incomprehensi¬ bile esse mysterium Dei ; quo fit, ut quod est et manet in coelis, et non alibi, nobis, qui nunc in terra sumus, et non alibi, vere com¬ municetur. » Et infra : « Quo fit ut tota haec actio valde proprie godTrjptov vocetur. » Sed quia intelligebat Calvinus hoc suum myste¬ rium plane esse incredibile, et apertissimam repugnantiam involvere, ideo addit quar¬ tum. Quarto dicit, non ipsum corpus Christi ad nos descendere, sed quamdam vim substan¬ tialem ex Christi carne ad nos derivari pev Spiritum ejus, tanquam per canalem quem¬ dam. Ubi videtur dicere non substantiam, sed qualitatem quamdam nobis dari. Sic enim loquitur lib. IV Institut. cap. xvn, §12 : « Vin¬ culum, inquit, istius conjunctionis est Spiri¬ tus Christi, cujus nexu copulamur : et qui¬ dam veluti canalis, per quem quidquid Chri¬ stus ipse et est, et habet, ad nos derivatur. Nam si solem conspicimus radiis in terram emicantem ad generandos, fovendos, vege¬ tandos ejus ftetus, suam quodammodo sub¬ stantiam ad eam trajicere; cur inferior Spiri¬ tus Christi esset irradiatio ad communionem carnis et sanguinis ejus in nos traducendam?» Et§ 32 :« Ingenue confiteor, mixturam carnis Christi cum anima nostra, vel transfusionem, qualis ab ipsis docetur, me repudiare; quia nobis sufficit, Christum e carnis substantia vitam in animas nostras spirare, imo propriam in nos vitam diffundere, quamvis in nos non ingrediatur ipsa Christi caro. » Quod ergo dixerat supra § 10. ad nos usque penetraro Christi carnem, licet tanto intervallo distan¬ tem, debet intelligi, non per se, sed per vir¬ tutem suam. Quod tamen ipse viderit, quam recte cohaereat cum iis, qua) supra dixerat de praesentia Christi in coena; nisi etiam pixescn- tiam intelligat, secundum virtutem, non se¬ cundum substantiam. Quia vero, si realis aliqua qualitas, ex Christi corpore ad nos descenderet, pericu¬ lum esset, ne nimis multum huic Sacramento tribueremus, ideo addit : Quinto, communi¬ cationem istam sive corporis Domini, sive virtutis ejus tantum fieri per fidem. Fides enim apprehendit Christum in ccelo existen- tem, et eum nostrum facit, ut participare pos¬ simus bona ipsius. Itaque nulla fit realis con¬ junctio Christi nobiscunqscd solum per cogi¬ tationem. In quo certe nullum est mysterium, nullum miraculum, nulla difficultas intelli- gendi. Quis enim non facillime capiat, fide apprehendi posse Christum, imo etiam totam Trinitatem? Sic igitur habet Calvinus lib. IV. Institut. cap. 17. § 3 : « Interim vero hanc 6 UBER T. non aliam esse, quam fidei manducationem, fatemur : ut nulla alia fingi potest. » Et § 31 : « Christus, inquit, prresens illis non videtur esse, nisi ad nos descendat : quasi vero, si ad se nos evehat, non seque potiamur ejus prse- sentia. » Hsec ille. Ubi videtur corrigere, vel explicare, quod dixerat, § 10, carnem Christi magno miraculo ad nos penetrare : nunc enim sublato omni miraculo, dicit, nos fide ad ipsum ascendere. Item § 32, dicit, fidem esse, quse pascitur Christi corpore : porro fides non aliter man¬ ducat, quam credendo. Idem repetit in aliis libris ; et idem habet Beza in lib. de Summa doctr. in re Sacrament. qusest.9, 10, 41 et 13. Neque moveri debemus quod Calvinus lib. IY. Instit. cap. 17. § 5 et 11. negat, Christum sola cogitatione, vel intelligentia, mandu¬ cari, ac dicit, non esse omnino idem credere in Christum, et manducare Christum. Nam ibidem asserit, manducare Christum non esse quidem ipsum credere, sed effectum tamen ejus esse: nam credendo manducamus; siquidem ex actu fidei sequitur, ut Christus sit in nobis, et nobis sua bona communicet. Unde Beza in lib. de Ccena Domini contra Westphalum cap. 9, dicit, hoc interesse inter fidem, et manducationem Christi, quod inter manum, et apprehensionem, quse manu fit. Quia vero non est in nobis Christus nisi per fidem, ut perpetuo Calvinus, et Beza dicunt; inde fit, ut non sit in nobis, nisi objecti ve, quomodo in nobis est id omne, de quo actu cogitamus. Porro ex hoc sequitur sextum eorum pro¬ nuntiatum, quo asserunt homines improbos non percipere corpus Christi, licet symbola percipiant. Nam (ut ait Beza in Summa doctr. de re Sacrament. qusest. 13) : « Sicut sym¬ bola accipiuntur solo ore corporis, ita corpus Christi solo ore fidei : cuin ergo non habeant impii os fidei, non percipiunt nisi symbola corporis Domini. » Docet hoc idem Calvinus lib. IV. Instit. cap. 17, § 33 et 34. Imo in libello de Consensu cum Tigurinis , solos prae¬ destinatos dicit, percipere symbola externa cum re per symbolum significata, sicut soli praedestinati habent veram fidem. Septimum ac postremum eorum pronun¬ tiatum est : non esse eam vim in sacramento Eucharistiae, ut det ipsum corpus Christi, aut fidem non habenti, sed solum ut testetur, et confirmet, jam haberi. Ita habet Calvinus lib. IY. Institut. cap. 17, § 2 : « Magnum, inquit, fiduciae, et suavitatis fructum ex hoc Sacramento colligere possunt piae animae, quod testimonium habent, in unum corpus nos cum Christo coaluisse, ut quidquid ipsius est, nostrum vocare liceat. » Et § 5 : « Non, inquit, facit Sacramentum, ut Christus panis vitae esse primum incipiat, sed in memoriam revocat panem vitae esse factum, quo assidue vescamur. » Et infra : « Pollicetur enim nobis quidquid fecit, aut passus est Christus, id ad nos vivificandos factum esse. » Et in lib. de Ccena Domini cap. 3, docet, ad praeparatio¬ nem ad hoc sacramentum percipiendum re¬ quiri, ut quis antea fidem veram habeat, et per fidem sit factus Christi membrum, atque adeo Christum in se habeat. Denique nisi Calvinus diceret, Eucharistiam tantum esse testimonium acceptae gratiae, et veluti sigil¬ lum obsignans, et confirmans promissionem verbo factam, destrueret omnia, quae antea docuit de Sacramentis. Hinc autem nos tria colligere debemus. Primum, falso jactasse Calvinum sententiam suam de Eucharistia esse difficillimam, et in¬ comprehensibilem humano ingenio , atque adeo summum mysterium. Non enim majus mysterium est, quod symbola panis, et vini revocent nobis in memoriam, Christum pro nobis passum, et mortuum esse, quam quod id faciat imago Crucifixi, praesertim si adda¬ tur haec inscriptio ex verbo Dei : Ecce agnus Dei , qui tollit peccata mundi. Nam ejusmodi imago cum tali inscriptione idem omnino facit, quod Eucharistia Calvini, et sine ullo miraculo tam imago, quam inscriptio natu¬ raliter agit, dum memoriam passionis Domini pro nobis toleratae excitat. Deinde, meras ludificationes esse illa omnia magnifica encomia Eucharistiae ; cum vide¬ licet tot in locis Calvinus dicit, nobis una cum symbolis dari ipsum verum, et reale Christi corpus, et eo nutriri animas nostras, etc. Nihil enim tandem nobis relinquit, nisi nudum symbolum rei jam habitae. Denique, ex hac Calvini sententia sequi illud absurdum, ut porrigere coenam Domini, sit testificari, illum cui porrigitur, jam antea sumpsisse coenam, et Christi corpus come¬ disse. Quod et est intolerabile, si respiciamus usum vocabulorum : et est scepissime falsum, cum plurimis porrigantur ista symbola, qui tamen non comederunt corpus Christi, se¬ cundum regulas Calvini, cum sint impii. Quo¬ circa falso testificantur ministri, illos come¬ disse corpus Christi ; et tamen ita nituntur ista sua testificatione, ut Calvinus lib. IV. I CAPUT II. 7 id est, eo modo quo suapte natura existunt corpora, nec sensibiliter, mobiliter etc. Imo cap. 17, § 2. dicat, ex hoc Sacramento sibi secure promittere posse, regnum coelorum non magis sibi excidere posse, quam ipsi Christo. Sed de his hactenus.