Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book II: On the Real Presence, from the Testimonies of the Fathers
Chapter 10: The Testimony of the Council of Nicaea (Fourth Age of the Church)
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 now the fourth age of the Church, in which we have notable testimonies, namely of the First Council of Nicaea, of Athanasius, Hilary, Cyril of Jerusalem, Ambrose, Basil, Optatus, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory Nazianzen, Ephrem, and Epiphanius. And first there exists a testimony of the First Council of Nicaea, in the Acts of that council in the Vatican Library, in these words: “Likewise here also, at the divine table, let us not be lowly-mindedly intent upon the bread and chalice set forth, but, lifting up the mind, let us understand by faith that on that sacred table is placed that Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world, immolated unbloodily by the priests; and, truly receiving His precious body and blood, let us believe these to be the symbols of our resurrection. For on this account we receive not much, but little, that we may know that it is received not for satiety, but for sanctification.”
This testimony the adversaries too acknowledge, as John Oecolampadius in his Dialogue with Nathanael, John Calvin, Book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 17, section 36, Peter Boquin in his book On the Supper of the Lord against Heshusius, William Klebitz in his book On the Victory of Truth in the solution of the third argument; and they strive to draw this most weighty testimony to establish their heresy, as though the council admonished that we should not seek the body of Christ on the sacred table under the species of bread, but ascend into heaven with the mind, and there eat the body of Christ by faith. But they are most plainly deceived. For the council commands that we should not cling to the species of bread and wine as if there were nothing there but what the eyes announce to us, but that we should understand by faith that there is truly the body of Christ there, although it be not seen by the bodily eyes.
That this is the opinion of the council can be proved thus. First, because the council, after it had said that we must not lowly-mindedly cling to the bread and wine, but must lift up the mind, adds that by faith the Lamb of God is to be beheld placed on the sacred table. But, according to the adversaries, it ought to have said that by faith Christ is to be beheld in heaven at the right hand of the Father. The council wills, therefore, that we attend to the table itself, but in it consider not so much the external symbols as what lies hidden under them. Klebitz understands by the sacred table heaven; for he says the council wills that we seek the Lamb of God on the heavenly table, not on the stone altar. But he is most plainly deceived. For the council places the symbols of bread and wine on the same divine and sacred table on which it places the Lamb of God, as is clear from the first words: “Here at the divine table let us not be lowly-mindedly intent upon the bread set forth.” But the symbols of bread are not in heaven, but on the stone altar; therefore the divine table is not heaven, but the altar on earth. And lest perhaps they say that on the altar the body of Christ is present significatively, and that the council wills that we attend not to the symbols inasmuch as they are material things, but inasmuch as they represent Christ, the council added that word ‘placed’. For when it says that the Lamb of God is placed on the sacred table, and opposes that same Lamb to the symbols, it manifestly declares that the Lamb of God is truly and properly and really on the table, and not only inasmuch as He is represented through the symbols.
Secondly, the same is proved from this, that the council says that the Lamb of God is immolated by the priests on the sacred table; for by the Lamb all understand Christ Himself, as distinguished against the symbols, whom the adversaries say to be only in heaven. But He cannot be immolated by the hands of the priests if He is only in heaven; for the priests have not hands so long as to reach to heaven.
Thirdly, it is proved from those words: “Truly receiving His precious body.” For to what purpose that word ‘truly’, unless it be opposed to a figure? “But,” they say, “we truly receive the body of the Lord, but with the heart, not with the body.” But the following words repugn this, where the symbols of our resurrection are called the body and blood of the Lord. For because our mortal bodies are truly joined with the immortal body of the Lord, thence is most aptly signified the future resurrection of our bodies; but if there were only a conjunction of the souls with the body of the Lord, only the soul would be signified as about to rise.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT X. Quarta .et as ecclesia ab anno Domini 300. ad 400. Testimonium Nicxni Concilii. Sequitur nunc atas Ecclesice quarta, in qua habemus insigna testimonia, videlicet Nicaeni. I. concilii, Athanasii, Hilarii, Cyrilli Hierosolymitani, Ambrosii, Basilii, Optati, CregQrii Nysseni, Gregorii Nazianzeni, E- phrem, et Epiphanii. Ac primum exstat te¬ stimonium Nicaeni concilii I, in Actis ejusdem concilii in Vaticana Bibliotheca his verbis : « Item etiam hic in divina mensa ne humili¬ ter intenti simus ad propositum panem, et calicem, sed attollentes mentem, fide intelli- gamus situm in sacra illa.mensa agnum illuni Dei, tollentem peccata mundi, incruente a sacerdotibus immolatum, et pretiosum ipsius corpus, et sanguinem vere nos sumentes credere haec esse nostra) resurrectionis sym¬ bola : propter hoc enim neque multum acci¬ pimus, sed parum, ut sciamus non ad satie¬ tatem, sed ad sanctificationem sumi. » II c testimonium agnoscunt etiam adver¬ sarii, ut Joannes OEcolampadius in Dialogo cum Nathanaele, Joannes E alvinus lib. iv. Instit. cap. 17. §. 3t>, Petrus Boquinus in lib. de Cmna Domini contra Ilesliusium, Wilhel- mus Klebitius in lib. de Victor, veritatis in so¬ lutione tertii argumenti : ac nituntur ipsi gravissimum hoc testimonium ad suam lue- resim stabiliendam trahere, quasi concilium admoneat, ut non quieramus Christi corpus in sacra mensa sub speciebus panis, sed in coelum mente conscendamus, atque ibi fide Chi isti coipus comedamus. Sed falluntur apertissime. Jubet enim concilium, ut non h screamus in speciebus panis, et vini quasi nihil ibi sit, nisi quod oculi nobis renuntiant, sed fide intelligamus ibi vere esse corpus Christi, licet corporalibus oculis non videa¬ tur. Hanc esse concilii sententiam, ita probari potest. Primo, quoniam concilium, postquam dixerat non humiliter haerendum esse in pane et vino, sed mentem attollendam, adjungit, fide conspiciendum agnum Dei situm in sacra mensa. Debuisset autem secundum adversa* rios dicere, fide conspiciendum esse Christum in coelo ad dexteram Patris . Vult igitur con¬ cilium, ut ad ipsam mensam attendamus, sed in ipsa non tam symbola externa, quam quod sub ipsis latet consideremus. Klebitius per sacram mensam intelligit coelum ; dicit enim* concilium velle, ut in coelesti mensa, non in altari lapideo agnum Dei queeramus. At fallitur apertissime. Nam concilium in ea¬ dem divina, et sacra mensa ponit symbola panis et vini, in qua ponit agnum Dei, ut patet ex primis verbis : « Hic in divina men¬ sa ne humiliter intenti simus ad propositum panem ». Atqui symbola panis non sunt in coelo, sed in altari lapideo : ergo divina men¬ sa non est coelum, sed altare in terris. Ac ne forte dicant in altari esse corpus Christi si¬ gnificative, et concilium velle, ut non atten¬ damus ad symbola, quatenus sunt res mate¬ riales, sed quatenus Christum repraesentant, addidit concilium illam particulam, situm. Cum enim dicit agnum Dei situm esse in sa¬ cra mensa, et eumdem agnum opponit sym¬ bolis, manifeste declarat, agnum Dei vere et proprie ac reipsa esse in mensa; et non so¬ lum quatenus per symbola repraesentatur. Secundo idem probatur ex eo, quod con¬ cilium dicit, agnum Dei in sacra mensa a sa¬ cerdotibus immolari ; nam per agnum om¬ nes intelligunt ipsum Christum, ut distingui¬ tur contra symbola, quem adversarii solum in coelo esse dicunt. At non potest manibus sacerdotum immolari, si tantum est in coelo; neque enim tam longas manus habent sacer¬ dotes, ut ad coelum pertingant. Tertio probatur ex illis verbis : « Pretio¬ sum corpus ejus nos vere sumentes ». Quor¬ sum enim illud, vere, nisi ut opponatur fi¬ gura' ? « At, inquiunt, nos vere sumimus 8fi UBER IT. corpus Domini, sed corde, non corpore». Sed repugnant verba sequentia, ubi symbola resurrectionis no st reo dicuntur corpus , et sanguis Domini. Quia enim mortalia corpora nostra, cum immortali corpore Domini vere conjunguntur, inde aptissime significatur fu¬ tura corporum nostrorum resurrectio : si au¬ tem sola esset conjunctio animorum cum corpore Domini, solus animus resurrecturus significaretur.