Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book II: On the Real Presence, from the Testimonies of the Fathers
Chapter 6: The Testimony of St. Irenaeus
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. IV, De Sacramento Eucharistiae, Book II: On the Truth of the Body of the Lord in the Eucharist, from the Testimonies of the Fathers. 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).
There follows Irenaeus, who flourished in the same century as Justin, though a little later. He, then, in Book 4 against Heresies, chapter 34, disputing against the heretics who denied that Christ is the Son of the Creator and the Creator of this world, speaks thus: “But how will it be consistent for them that the bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the chalice His blood, if they do not say that He is the Son of the Maker of the world, that is, His Word, through which the wood bears fruit, the fountains flow, the earth gives first the blade, then the ear, then the full corn in the ear?” From this passage we make such an argument. Irenaeus proves that Christ is the Creator from this, that the bread by consecration becomes the body of Christ; therefore he believed that the bread is changed into the body of Christ really, and not by signification alone; for a real change plainly requires the omnipotence of the Creator, but not the imposition of a new signification.
To this argument Peter Martyr answers, in his book against Gardiner, objections 92 and 157: that Irenaeus does not prove Christ to be the Son of the Creator, or the Creator, from the transmutation of the bread into His body, but from this, that He uses bread to signify His body, and because He gives thanks to the Father when He uses that bread; for it was not fitting that the Son of that God who is contrary to the Creator should use the things of His adversary, and give thanks for them to His Father.
But on the contrary; for, in the first place, Irenaeus had made the argument from the use of the Creator’s things in the immediately preceding words; for he had said that the Church alone rightly offers to God an oblation with thanksgiving from His creature, but that the heretics cannot offer, since they do not acknowledge Him to be the Creator. What need, then, was there to repeat the same argument again? Add that those words, “But how will it be consistent for them,” and so forth, indicate that a new argument is begun; otherwise he would have said, “For how,” if this reasoning pertained to the preceding argument. Then, Irenaeus in this place proves from the Eucharist that Christ is not only the Son of the Creator, but also the Creator Himself, since he says that it cannot be consistent that the bread of the Eucharist is the body of their Lord unless they confess that He is that Word through which the wood bears fruit, the fountains flow, and so forth. But this argument concludes nothing unless we posit that a true and real change is made in the bread. For Christ could use bread to signify His body, even though He were not the Creator of that bread; just as we use ivy, which we did not create, to designate wine. Nay, this argument does not even prove that Christ is the Son of the Creator; for even one who is not the Son of the Creator can use the Creator’s things. If it proves anything, it is only that Christ is not the adversary of the Creator; for He would not use the things of His adversary. But Irenaeus affirms that Christ is the Son of the Creator, and the Creator, from this change of the bread into His body.
The second testimony is in the same chapter, in those words: “But how again do they say that the flesh comes into corruption and does not partake of life, which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord?” And a little below: “For just as the bread which is from the earth, receiving the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two things, an earthly and a heavenly, so also our bodies, receiving the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of resurrection.”
From these words we gather three arguments. The first is: Our bodies become incorruptible because they are nourished by the body of Christ; therefore the body of Christ is received not only by the soul, but also by the body, in Irenaeus’s opinion. But the body cannot ascend into heaven to taste there the flesh of Christ; therefore the very flesh of Christ is truly present in the Eucharist. The second is: The earthly bread, after the invocation of God, or the mystical prayers, is no longer common bread, but a food consisting of two things, one earthly, the other heavenly. But that heavenly thing cannot be anything but the body of Christ; therefore the body of Christ is truly in the Eucharist. The third: The bread is so changed from earthly into heavenly by the invocation of God, as our bodies will be changed by the Eucharist from mortal into immortal. But our bodies will really become immortal, not by signification alone; therefore the earthly bread really becomes the body of Christ, not by signification alone.
To all these the heretics attempt to answer. To the first Beza answers, in the Cyclops, that through the Eucharist bodies become immortal, because through it we are joined by faith to the very body of Christ, from which both the soul and the body are quickened. A little more plainly Peter Martyr explains this, in his book against Gardiner, objection 151, where he says that through the Eucharist our bodies become immortal, because through it we apprehend Christ by faith; from that faith the soul is renewed; that renewal redounds to the body, and makes it gradually a fit instrument of God, and capable of eternal life.
But on the contrary. For Irenaeus (as the adversaries confess) strives to prove to the heretics of his time the true future resurrection of our flesh; and this he proves because our very flesh is joined, through the Eucharist, to the immortal and life-giving flesh of Christ. But if the opinion of the adversaries were true, the argument of Irenaeus would either conclude nothing, or certainly be superfluous. For those who deny the resurrection of the flesh do not admit that redundance of grace from the soul into the body, in which Peter Martyr places the whole force of Irenaeus’s argument; nor will they admit what Beza says, that the body of Christ apprehended by the soul quickens the soul and the body; nay, they will say that thence it follows that it quickens not the body, but the soul alone, since that alone apprehends Christ. Then, what need was there to press the Eucharist so strongly to prove the resurrection, as Irenaeus does, both in this place and in Book 5 and elsewhere? For it was enough to say that Christ, apprehended by faith, would quicken our souls and bodies; but it is irrelevant whence that faith is excited, whether by the receiving of the Eucharist, or of Baptism, or by the word of God alone, or by some miracle; for all these are nothing among the adversaries but instruments of exciting faith.
To the second Martyr answers, in his book against Gardiner, objections 132 and 133, that the Eucharist is called bread not common because it is a certain sacrament, and therefore ought to be called sacred bread, not vulgar. And that it consists of an earthly and a heavenly thing, that is, of the symbol and the thing signified; although the thing signified is far off; or of the bread and the sanctification. For the bread is an earthly thing, but the sanctification, by which the bread is made a Sacrament, is a heavenly thing.
Either explanation is absurd. And first, that the earthly thing is the symbols, and the heavenly thing is the thing signified, but absent, can in no way be. For nothing is said to consist of that which is not in it; but Irenaeus says that the Eucharist consists of two things, one earthly, the other heavenly; he means, therefore, that both things are in the Eucharist itself.
Martyr answers that something can altogether consist of that which is not in it: “For our speech,” he says, “consists of the voice and the thing signified; and yet the thing signified is often very far distant from the voice. Besides, Paul says that the Sacraments of the Old Testament consisted of the symbols and the body of Christ; for they ate the same food with us, 1 Corinthians 10; but the body of Christ was so far off that it was not even yet born.”
But here Peter Martyr betrays his ignorance. For who ever said that speech consists of the voice and the thing signified? Are not the sign and the thing signified relatively opposed? How, then, can anything consist of opposites? Perhaps he was deceived by what is wont to be said, that speech consists of voice and signification. But signification is in the voice itself, as a relation in its subject; and therefore Peter Martyr cannot from it prove that anything consists of that which is not in it. But what he adds about the old sacraments from Paul is an impudent lie. For Paul nowhere said that the old Sacraments consisted of the symbols and the body of Christ; nor did he say that the Fathers of the Old Testament ate the same food with us, as we have often demonstrated above.
Now that other exposition, by which they understand by the heavenly thing the consecration or sanctification, can just as easily be refuted. For they themselves acknowledge no true consecration of the bread; for that which we use they call an incantation; but to them the consecration is only that the bread is appointed by God to the use of the sacrament, that is, that it may represent the body of Christ; which consecration puts nothing real in the bread, but a mere respect of reason. Now Irenaeus speaks of things, not of beings of reason, when he says that the Eucharist consists of two things, one earthly, the other heavenly. And the argument is confirmed from the very testimony of the adversaries. For when it is asked what the earthly thing is, and we say it is the sensible accidents of the bread, they cry out that the earthly thing must be a substance, not accidents alone. If, then, the earthly thing, to be truly called a thing, must be a substance, must not the heavenly thing too, to be truly called a thing, be a substance? How then do they expound by the heavenly thing the consecration, which in reality is nothing? Besides, no one so speaks of the other sacraments as to say that the water of Baptism consists of two things, one earthly, the other heavenly; and yet the water of Baptism is the symbol of the sacrament, as the bread of the Eucharist. Finally, the consecration has not that force which Irenaeus attributes to the heavenly thing in the Eucharist; for he will have the Eucharist, because it consists of a heavenly thing, make our bodies immortal from mortal. But consecration alone has not this power, and especially according to the adversaries, who attribute no power to the sacraments but that of exciting faith by representing. The true exposition, then, is that the earthly thing is that which is perceived by sense in the Eucharist (for that, although in reality it be not a substance, yet is a true thing, and truly earthly, otherwise it could not be apprehended by the bodily senses); and the heavenly thing is that which is believed, namely the glorious and immortal body of Christ.
To our third argument Peter Martyr answers, in his book against Gardiner, objection 152, that from the words of Irenaeus is gathered the contrary of what we will. For he says that the bread is so changed by consecration, and from common becomes sacred and heavenly, in the manner in which, through the Eucharist itself, our bodies become immortal from mortal. But our bodies are not changed substantially, but only accidentally; therefore that bread too is not changed except accidentally; because, namely, it is a sacrament of religion, whereas before it was only vulgar food.
I answer in two ways. First, that things which are brought as similar ought to be similar in the matter under dispute, but not in all respects. Now Irenaeus wished to show that our bodies truly rise, and become immortal from mortal; and this he shows by this similitude: As common bread, and therefore corruptible, becomes by consecration heavenly and incorruptible bread, so our corruptible bodies become incorruptible by the reception of the Eucharist. In which similitude this is required, and suffices: that as our bodies are truly changed and become incorruptible from corruptible, so that bread is truly changed and becomes incorruptible; but whether this be done through a change of substance or of accidents is irrelevant, as is clear.
Secondly, however, I answer with John of Louvain in his book On the Eucharist, that Irenaeus speaks of a substantial change, both of the bread and also of our bodies. For he speaks of the change which will be made in the resurrection, when the dust or ashes of our bodies will be changed into glorious and immortal human bodies; for this Irenaeus most plainly demonstrates in Book 5, chapter 2. For there, when he had said that it cannot be but that our flesh rise immortal, since it is nourished by the body and blood of Christ, namely by immortal things, he thus subjoins: “And just as the wood of the vine, laid in the earth, bears fruit in its time, and the grain of wheat, falling into the earth and dissolved, rises manifold through the Spirit of God who contains all things, which then, through wisdom, come into the use of men, and, receiving the word of God, become the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ, so also our bodies, nourished by it, and laid in the earth and dissolved in it, will rise in their time, the Word of God granting them the resurrection, unto the glory of God the Father.” So Irenaeus beautifully compares our bodies with the grain of wheat, which is dissolved and corrupted in the earth, and the power of the Eucharist with that spirit or generative power which makes the corrupted grain rise. For just as the grain of wheat, although it be changed into rottenness, yet, on account of that generative power which it has, rises into an ear, so our bodies, although they be dissolved into dust, yet, on account of the power received from the communication of the flesh and blood of the Lord, rise glorious and immortal. And this too is what Irenaeus signifies when he says that our bodies subsist and are increased from the body and blood of Christ; because, namely, the Eucharist brings it about that the bodies not only do not perish, but also rise increased with more gifts than they had before; just as the grain too does not rise simply into a grain, but into an ear, that is, multiplied and increased.
One argument from Irenaeus Peter Martyr adduces for himself, in his book against Gardiner, objections 154, 156, 157. For Irenaeus writes that the bread itself is the body of Christ, which cannot be true unless the body of Christ be taken tropically, Book 4, chapter 32: “He took,” says Irenaeus, “that bread which is from the creature, and gave thanks, saying: This is my body; and the chalice likewise, which is from that creature which is according to us, He confessed to be His blood.” And in the same book, chapter 34: “How will it be consistent that the bread over which thanks have been given is the body of the Lord?” and so forth. And in the same book, chapter 57 [37]: “Taking bread, He confessed it to be His body.”
I answer: Irenaeus does not signify that the bread simply is the body of Christ, but the bread over which thanks have been given, that is, the bread sanctified and made the Eucharist, as Justin spoke, [arton eucharistētheisan]. For it is altogether credible that Irenaeus used the same Greek word which the translator could not render by a single word, but expressed by a circumlocution. Now bread made the Eucharist truly and properly is the body of Christ. A similar expression would be if someone said: The rod of Moses, turned into a serpent, walked and ate; and the water turned by Christ into wine had the color and taste of wine.
Peter Martyr brings forward also another argument, from this, that Irenaeus says our bodies are nourished and increased by the body of Christ. But this is already solved.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT YI. Testimonium sancti Irenxi. Sequitur Irenmus, qui eodem smculo flo¬ ruit, quo Justinus, licet paulo posterius. Is igitur in lib. iv. contra lunreses, cap. 34. disputans contra hameticos, qui negabant Christum esse Filium Creatoris, et Creato¬ rem mundi hujus, ita loquitur : « Quomodo autem constabit eis, eum panem, in quo gra¬ tiae actae sint, corpus esse Domini sui, et ca¬ licem sanguinis ejus, si non ipsum fabricato¬ ris mundi Filium dicant, id est, Verbum ejus, per quod lignum fructificat, defluunt fontes, dat primum quidem fornum, post deinde spicam, deinde plenum triticum in spica? » Ex hoc loco nos tale argumentum facimus. Irenaeus probat Christum esse Creatorem, ex eo, quod panis per consecrationem fit corpus Christi : igitur credebat reipsa, ct non sola significatione mutari panem in corpus Christi; nam mutatio realis requirit plane omnipo¬ tentiam Creatoris, non autem impositio nova) significationis. Respondet ad hoc argumentum Petrus Martyr, libro contra Gardinerum , objecto 02. et 157 : Irenaeum non probare Christum esse Filium Creatoris, vel Creatorem ex transmu¬ tatione panis in corpus suum, sed ex eo, quod utitur pane ad corpus suum significan¬ dum, et quia Patri gratias agit, cum pane illo utitur : non enim decebat, ut Filius illius Dei, qui est contrarius Creatori, uteretur re¬ bus adversarii sui, et de illis Patri suo gra¬ tias ageret. At contra ; nam in primis argumentum ex usu rerum Creatoris fecerat Irenseusin proxi¬ mis verbis superioribus : dixerat enim solam Ecclesiam recte offerre Deo oblationem cum gratiarum actione ex creatura ejus; haereti¬ cos autem offerre non posse, cum non agno¬ scant eum esse Creatorem. Quid ergo opus erat, ut rursus idem argumentum repeteret ! Adde, quod- illa verba : « Quomodo autem constabit eis c-tc. » indicant novum argumen¬ tum inchoari ; alioqui dixisset : Quomodo enim, si heee ratio ad argumentum praece¬ dens pertineret. Deinde, Irenreus hoc loco ex Eucharistia probat Christum non solum esse Filium Creatoris, sed etiam ipsum Crea¬ torem, cum ait, non posse constare panem Eucharistia) esse corpus Domini sui, nisi fa¬ teantur ipsum esse Verbum illud, per quod lignum fructificat, defluunt fontes etc. At hoc argumentum nihil concludit, nisi pona¬ mus veram, et realem mutationem in pane fieri. Posset enim Christus uti pane ad cor¬ pus suum significandum, etiamsi non esset Creator illius panis ; quemadmodum nos utimur hedera, quam non creavimus, ad vi¬ num designandum. Imo ncc probat hoc argumentum Christum esse Filium Creato¬ ris : potest enim uti rebus Creatoris etiam is, qui non est Filius Creatoris. Si quid autem probat, id solum est, Christum non esse ad¬ versarium Creatoris; nec enim uteretur re¬ bus adversarii sui. At Irenreus Filium Crea¬ toris, ct Creatorem affirmat esse Christum ex hac mutatione panis in corpus suum. Secundum testimonium est in eodem cap. in illis verbis : « Quomodo autem rursus di¬ cunt, carnem in corruptionem devenire, ct non percipere vitam, qua) a corpore Domini, ct sanguine alitur?» Et paulo infra : « Quem admodum enim qui est a terra panis per¬ cipiens vocationem Dei, jam non communis panis est, sed Eucharistia ex duabus rebus constans, terrena, et coelesti : sic et corpora nostra percipientia Eucharistiam, jam non sunt corruptibilia, spem resurrectionis ha¬ bentia. » Ex his verbis tria argumenta colligimus. Primum est : Corpora nostra incorruptibilia fiunt, qnia aluntur corpore Christi : ergo 70 LIBER II. corpus Christi non solum animis percipitur, sccl etiam corpore ex Irentei sententia. At corpus non potest in coelum conscendere, ut ibi gustet Christi carnem ; ergo vere praesens est in Eucharistia ipsa Christi caro. Secun¬ dum est- : Panis terrenus post invocationem Dei, seu mysticas preces, non est amplius communis panis, sed est cibus constans dua¬ bus rebus, una terrena, altera coelesti. Non potest autem res illa coelestis esse, nisi cor¬ pus Christi ; igitur vere est in Eucharistia corpus Christi. Tertium : Ita panis mutatur ex terreno in coelestem per invocationem Dei, sicut corpora nostra mutabuntur per Eucharistiam ex mortalibus in immortalia. Sed corpora nostra reipsa fient immortalia, non autem sola significatione : igitur panis terrenus reipsa fit corpus Christi, non sola significatione. Ad omnia respondere conantur haeretici. Ad primum Beza respondet in Cyclope , per Eucharistiam corpora fieri immortalia, quia per eam fide conjungimur ipsissimo corpori Christi, ex quo tam animus, quam corpus vi¬ vificatur. Paulo planius id explicat Petrus Martyr, libro contra Gardinerum , objecto 151. ubi dicit, per Eucharistiam corpora nostra fieri immortalia, quia per eam fide apprehendimus Christum' ex ea fide reno¬ vatur anima ; ea renovatio redundat in cor¬ pus, illud que facit paulatim aptum instru¬ mentum Dei, et vitee aeternae capax. At contra. Nam Irenseus ut adversarii fa¬ tentur) contendit probare haereticis sui tem¬ poris veram carnis nostrae resurrectionem aliquando futuram; idque probat, quia ipsa caro nostra per Eucharistiam conjungitur immortali, et vivificatrici Christi carni. At si esset vera adversariorum sententia, Irensei argumentum vel nihil concluderet, vel certe esset supervacaneum. Nam qui negant resur¬ rectionem carnis, non admittunt illam re¬ dundantiam gratiae ex anima in corpus, in qua ponit Petrus Martyr totam vim argu¬ menti Irenaei; neque admittent, quod dicit Beza, Christi corpus animo apprehensum, animam et corpus vivificare, imo dicent inde sequi, corpus non vivificare, sed solam animam, cum illa sola Christum apprehen¬ dat. Deinde, quid erat opus urgere tantopere Eucharistiam ad probandam resurrectionem, quod Irenseus facit, tum hoc loco, tumlib. v. et alibi ? Nam satis erat dicere, Christum per fidem apprehensum vivificaturum animas, et corpora nostra : impertinens autem est, unde excitetur illa fides, utrum sumptione Eucha¬ ristiae, aut Baptismi, aut solo Dei verbo, aut aliquo miraculo : ista enim omnia nihil sunt apud adversarios, nisi instrumenta excitandae fidei. Ad secundum respondet Martyr, lib. con¬ tra Gardinerum , objecto 132. et 133. Eucha¬ ristiam vocari panem non communem, quia est sacramentum quoddam, proinde panem sacrum non vulgarem dici debere. Constare autem, ait, re terrena, et coelesti, id est, symbolo, et re significata; licet res signifi¬ cata procul absit, sive pane, ct sanctifica¬ tione. Est enim panis res terrena, sanctifica¬ tio autem, qua panis Sacramentum efficitur, res est coelestis. Utraque absurda est explicatio : ac pri¬ mum rem terrenam esse symbola, rem coe¬ lestem esse rem significatam, sed absentem, nullo modo fieri potest. Nam nihil constare dicitur ex eo, quod in ipso non est : Eucha¬ ristiam autem constare dicit Irenseus ex duabus rebus, terrena una, altera coelesti ; vult ergo utramque rem esse in ipsa Eucha¬ ristia. Respondet Martyr, omnino constare posse aliquid ex eo, quod in ipso non est : « Nam sermo noster, inquit, constat ex voce, et re significata ; et tamen res significata ssepe longissime abest a voce. Praeterea Paulus dicit, Sacramenta veteris testamenti consti¬ tisse ex symbolis, et corpore Christi : man¬ ducabant enim eamdem escam nobiscum, » i Corinth. x. «At corpus Christi tam procul aberat, ut ne natum quidem esset ». Hic vero prodit suam imperitiam Petrus Martyr. Quis enim unquam dixit, sermonem constare ex voce, et re significata ? nonne relative opponuntur signum, et res signifi¬ cata? quomodo igitur potest aliquid ex oppo¬ sitis constare ? fefellit eum fortasse, quod dici solet, sermonem constare ex voce, et significatione. Sed significatio in ipsa voce est, ut relatio in suo subjecto ; ac proinde non potest ex ea probare Petrus Martyr ali¬ quid constare ex eo, quod in ipso non est. Quod vero addit de sacramentis veteribus ex Paulo, impudens mendacium est. Nusquam enim Paulus dixit, Sacramenta vetera con¬ stitisse ex symbolis, et corpore Christi : nec dixit Patres veteris Testamenti manducasse eamdem escam nobiscum, ut supra saepius demonstiavimus. Jam vero illa altera expositio, qua per rem coelestem intelligunt consecrationem, sive CAPUT VI. 71 sanctificationem, ceque facile refelli potest. Nam nullam ipsi agnoscunt veram consecra¬ tionem panis ; quam enim nos adhibemus, incantationem vocant ; sed solum illis conse¬ cratio est panem deputari a Deo ad sacra¬ menti usum, id est, ut repraesentet corpus Christi : quae consecratio nihil reale ponit in pane, sed merum respectum rationis. Porro Irenseus de rebus loquitur, non de entibus rationis, cum dicit Eucharistiam constare duabus rebus, una terrena, altera coelesti. Et confirmatur argumentum ex ipso adver¬ sariorum testimonio. Nam cum quaeritur, quid sit res terrena, et nos dicimus esse ac¬ cidentia panis sensibilia; illi clamant, rem terrenam debere esse substantiam, non sola accidentia. Si ergo res terrena, ut vere dici possit res, debet esset substantia ; res coele¬ stis, ut res vere dici possit, nonne debet esse etiam substantia ? quomodo igitur exponunt per rem coelestem, consecrationem, qua) in re nihil est ? Praeterea nemo ita loquitur de aliis sacramentis, ut dicat aquam Baptismi constare duabus rebus, una terrena, altera coelesti; et tamen aqua Baptismi, symbolum est sacramenti, ut panis Eucharistia). Deni¬ que consecratio non habet eam vim, quam tribuit Irenseus rei coelesti in Eucharistia : ipse enim vult Eucharistiam, quia re coelesti constat, facere corpora nostra immortalia ex mortalibus. At non habet sola consecratio istam virtutem, et praesertim secundum ad¬ versarios, qui nullam v(m tribuunt sacra¬ mentis, nisi ad fidem excitandam repra)sen~ tando. Vera igitur expositio est, rem terre¬ nam esse id, quod sensu percipitur in Eucha¬ ristia (illud enim etsi revera substantia non sit, tamen vera res, et vere terrena est, alio- qui sensibus corporalibus apprehendi non posset) rem coelestem esse id, quod creditur nimirum Christi corpus gloriosum et immor¬ tale. Ad tertium nostrum argumentum respon¬ det Petrus Martyr, lib. contra Gardinerum , objecto lo2. ex verbis Irenaei colligi contra¬ rium ejus, quod nos volumus. Ille enim dicit, sic mutari panem per consecrationem, et ex communi fieri sacrum, et coelestem, quomo¬ do per ipsam Eucharistiam corpora nostra fiunt immortalia ex mortalibus. At nostra corpora non mutantur substantialiter, sed accidentaliter tantum; ergo et panis ille non mutatur nisi accidentaliter ; quia nimirum sit sacramentum religionis, cum antea cibus es-set tantum vulgaris. Despondeo dupliciter. Primo, quse affe¬ runtur ut similia, debere esse similia in re, de qua disputatur, non autem in omnibus. Volebat autem Irenseus ostendere, corpora nostra vere resurgere, et fieri ex mortalibus immortalia : id ostendit hac similitudine. Sicut panis communis et proinde corruptibi¬ lis per consecrationem fit panis coelestis, et incorruptibilis, ita corpora nostra corrupti¬ bilia per Eucharistise perceptionem fiunt in¬ corruptibilia. In qua similitudine id requiri¬ tur, et sufficit!, ut sicut corpora nostra vere mutantur, et fiunt incorruptibilia ex corru¬ ptibilibus, ita panis ille communis vere mu¬ tetur et fiat incorruptibilis : utrum autem id fiat per mutationem substantiae, aut acciden¬ tium, impertinens est, ut patet. Secundo tamen respondeo cum Joann. a Lovanio in lib. de Eucharistia , Irenseum loqui de mutatione substantiali, tam panis, quam etiam corporum nostrorum. Nam lo¬ quitur de mutatione, quae fiet in resurrectio¬ ne, quando pulveres, seu cineres corporum nostrorum mutabuntur in corpora humana gloriosa, et immortalia: id enim apertissime Ireneeus demonstrat lib. v. cap. 2. Ibi enim cum dixisset non posse fieri, quin caro nostra resurgat immortalis, cum nutriatur corpore ef sanguine Christi, rebus nimirum immorta¬ libus ; ita subjungit : « Et quemadmodum lignum vitis depositum in terra suo fructifi¬ cat tempore, et granum tritici decidens in terram, et dissolutum, multiplex surgit per Spiritum Dei, qui continet omnia, quae deinde per sapientiam in usum hominibus veniunt, et percipientia verbum Dei fiunt Eucharistia, quod est corpus, et sanguis Christi : sic et nostra corpora ex ea nutrita, et reposita in terram, et resoluta in ea, re¬ surgent in suo tempore Verbo Dei resurre¬ ctionem eis donante, ingloriam Dei Patris. » Ut pulchre Irenseus comparat corpora nostra cum grano tritici, quod in terra dissolvitur, et corrumpitur , virtutem autem Eucharistiae cum spiritu illo, seu genitali virtute, qua) cor¬ ruptum granum resurgere facit. Nam quem' admodum granum frumenti, etiamsi mu¬ tatum fuerit in putredinem, tamen propter illam vim genitalem, quam habet, resurgit in spicam : ita corpora nostra, quamvis in pul¬ verem resolvantur, tamen propter virtutem receptam a communicatione carnis, et san¬ guinis Domini, resurgunt gloriosa, et immor¬ talia. Et hoc est etiam, quod Irenseus signi¬ ficat, cum ait, corpora nostra consistere, 72 LIBER II. et augeri ex corpore et sanguine Christi; quia nimirum Eucharistia facit, ut corpora non solum non pereant, sed etiam ut resur¬ gant aucta pluribus donis, quam antea ha¬ berent : sicut etiam granum non resurgit simpliciter in granum, sed in spicam, id est, multiplicatum et auctum. Unum argumentum ex Irenseo pro se ad¬ ducit Petrus Martyr in lib. contra Gardine- rum objecto 154. 156. 157. Nam Irenreus scribit, ipsum panem esse corpus Christi, quod non potest esse verum, nisi tropice ac¬ cipiendo corpus Christi, lib. iv. cap. 32. «Eum, inquit Iremeus, qui est ex creatura, panem accepit, et gratias egit, dicens : Hoc est corpus meum ; ct calicem similiter, qui est ex ea creatura, quic est secundum nos, suum sanguinem confessus est. » Et libro eo¬ dem, cap. 34 : « Quomodo constabit eum panem, in quo grati re actce sunt, esse corpus Domini etc. » Et libro eodem, cap. 57 : « Accipiens panem, suum corpus confiteba¬ tur. » Respondeo : Ircnrcus non significat panem simpliciter esse corpus Christi, sed panem in quo gratiae actae sunt, id est, panem sanctifi- catum, et factum Eucharistiam, ut Justinus loquebatur, xp oortv Eu/aptcr/jOeTaav. Credibile enim omnimo est, Lenaeum eadem voce graeca usum, quam interpres non potuit red¬ dere unica voce, sed per circumlocutionem expressit. Porro, panis factus Eucharistia, vere, et proprie est corpus Christi. Similis locutio esset, si quis diceret : Virga Mosis versa in draconem ambulabat, ct comede¬ bat : et aqua a Christo in vinum conversa, colorem, ct saporem vini habebat. Profert etiam aliud argumentum Petrus Martyr ex eo, quod Irenaeus dicit, corpore Christi ali, ct augeri corpora nostra. Sed hoc jam est solutum.