Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book II: On the Real Presence, from the Testimonies of the Fathers
Chapter 14: The Testimony of St. Ambrose
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).
Saint Ambrose is rightly joined to Cyril, both because he flourished at the same time, and because he wrote similar Catecheses—namely the books On the Sacraments, and On those who are initiated into the mysteries—and speaks no less openly than Cyril; that we may see that at the same time the opinion of the West concerning the Eucharist was the same as that of the East.
First, then, Ambrose, in his book On the Mysteries for the Initiated, chapter 9, and Book 6 On the Sacraments, chapters 3, 4, and 5, teaches at length that a far more excellent food is given to us in the Eucharist than the Jews of old had in the manna, since to them the body of Christ was given in figure, to us in truth; of which argument we spoke above, when we treated of the figures of this Sacrament.
Secondly, the same Ambrose in the same places says that the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ, and are no longer bread and wine, but body and blood.
To this argument the adversaries answer in two ways. First, they call into doubt whether the books entitled On the Sacraments are Ambrose’s. Secondly, they say that the change of which Ambrose speaks is not real, but sacramental, so that the bread and wine, from common and profane things, by an added new signification, become sacraments of religion. See Peter Martyr, book against Gardiner, part 1, objection 190 and following, and part 4, in the explanation of the words of Ambrose.
But the former solution is timidly proposed by them, and rightly. For these books are cited under the name of Ambrose by Lanfranc, Guitmund, and others, who flourished more than 500 years ago. Then it is established that the book On the Mysteries for the Initiated is Ambrose’s; for in the preface he says that he had treated moral matters from the vices of the Patriarchs and from Solomon; which works no one ever denied to be Ambrose’s. And that the books On the Sacraments are of the same author whose is the book On the Mysteries, the thing itself cries out of itself, so great is the likeness of style and of sentences. Finally, even if they were not Ambrose’s, they would still be of some ancient author. But it is foolish to doubt of the author of these books, since the adversaries bring forward no argument why we ought to doubt.
The latter solution is refuted from the very words of Ambrose. For in Book 4 On the Sacraments, chapter 4: “Thou,” he says, “perhaps sayest: My bread is ordinary; but this bread is bread before the words of the Sacraments; when the consecration has come, from bread it becomes the flesh of Christ.” So he. But if the bread were only changed sacramentally, it would not cease to be bread after consecration. In the same place he proves by many examples of miracles that the words of Christ are operative, and of such a kind that they can truly change natures; all which are adduced without cause if no real change is made in the bread of the Eucharist. But let us adduce a testimony to prove the same from the undoubted book On the Mysteries for the Initiated, chapter 9: “Perhaps,” he says, “thou sayest: I see something else; how dost thou assert to me that I receive the body of Christ? And this it yet remains for us to prove. By how many examples, then, do we use, to prove that this is not what nature formed, but what the blessing consecrated; and that the force of the blessing is greater than that of nature, since by the blessing even nature itself is changed? Moses held a rod; he cast it down, and it was made a serpent.” So he. And after he had narrated many other miracles of Moses, Elijah, and Elisha, he concludes: “But if a human blessing was so powerful as to convert nature, what do we say of the divine consecration itself, where the very words of the Lord and Saviour operate? For that Sacrament which thou receivest is confected by the word of Christ. But if the word of Elijah was so powerful as to bring down fire from heaven, shall not the word of Christ be powerful to change the species of the elements? Of the works of the whole world thou hast read: For He spoke, and they were made; He commanded, and they were created. The word of Christ, then, which could make out of nothing what was not, can it not change the things which are into that which they were not? For it is no less to give things new natures than to change natures.” So he; where he speaks so openly of a real change that it is excessive impudence to deny it. In the same place, a little below, he proves the same from the mystery of the Incarnation: “It is clear,” he says, “that the Virgin generated beyond the order of nature; and this which we confect, the body, is from the Virgin. Why dost thou here seek the order of nature in the body of Christ, since the Lord Jesus Himself was born of the Virgin beyond nature?” So he. How ineptly would all these be said, if no real change were made? For what need was there to prove that the body of Christ cannot be made naturally from bread, just as neither that a Virgin should bring forth, if the bread becomes the body of Christ not really, but only significatively?
The third testimony is in the same Book 4 On the Sacraments, chapter 5, where he proves that we must not doubt of the truth of the body of the Lord. Which proof is superfluous if what the adversaries hold is true; for no one is wont to doubt whether the bread can be the body of Christ significatively: “Then,” he says, “the Lord Jesus Himself testifies to us that we receive His body and blood; can we doubt of His faith and testimony?” And in the same place a little below: “The priest says to thee, The body of Christ, and thou sayest, Amen, that is, it is true. What the tongue confesses, let the affection hold.” Here certainly he speaks of that which is offered by the hands of the priest, which indeed, unless it be truly the body of Christ, Ambrose deceives us, who wills us both to confess it with the tongue and to feel it with the affection. And Book 6, chapter 1: “As our Lord Jesus Christ is the true Son of God—not as men are by grace, but as Son from the substance of the Father—so it is true flesh, as He Himself said, which we receive.”
The fourth testimony, from Book 1 on Luke, where, expounding those words of chapter 1, An angel appeared to him: “Doubt not,” he says, “that an angel is present, when Christ is present, when Christ is immolated.” But certainly an angel would not be present if only a figure of the body of the Lord, not Christ Himself, were present on the altar.
The fifth testimony is Book 3 On the Holy Spirit, chapter 12, where, treating that of Psalm 97, Adore His footstool: “And so,” he says, “by the footstool the earth is understood, but by the earth the flesh of Christ, which even today we adore in the mysteries, and which the Apostles, as we said above, adored in the Lord Jesus.” This passage admits no solution; for the book is undoubted, and the discourse is of the adoration of latria; and Ambrose openly says that the flesh of Christ, united to the Word, is adored by us in the mysteries, that is, in the Eucharist.
Let us now briefly dissolve what Peter Martyr brings forward from Ambrose, book against Gardiner, objection 188 and following. First, then, he objects, from the commentary on chapter 11 of the first to the Corinthians, that Ambrose says that in the mysteries are signified the flesh and blood which were offered for us, and that the mystical chalice is a type of the blood of the Lord.
I answer that neither are those commentaries Ambrose’s, nor have they anything against us; for we confess, nay we teach, that the Eucharist is a sign and type of the death of Christ, that is, of the flesh and blood, as they were visibly fixed and shed on the cross.
Secondly, he objects from Book 4 On the Sacraments, chapter 4, those words of Ambrose: “Let us establish this, then, how that which is bread can be the body of Christ by consecration.” Hence Peter Martyr argues thus: “That which is bread is also the body of Christ through consecration. But bread cannot be the body properly; therefore only significatively.” He confirms the same from those words which are had in the same place: “If there is so great force in the word of the Lord that things which were not begin to be, how much more is it operative that things be what they were, and be changed into another thing?” where we seem to see the bread so changed into the body that yet it remains bread.
To the former passage I answer that Ambrose does not say that the bread remains after consecration, but rather that it does not remain; for those words, “How can that which is bread be the body of Christ?” make this sense: How can that which is now bread, a little after be the body of Christ? And he answers: “By consecration”; for consecration brings it about that what is bread before consecration is body after consecration. That this is the sense is clear from those words of the book On the Mysteries for the Initiated, chapter 9: “Let us prove that this is not what nature formed, but what the blessing consecrated”; where you see that there is not bread after consecration. Nay, in that very Book 4 On the Sacraments, chapter 4, does not Ambrose say: “This bread is bread before the words of consecration; when the consecration has come, from bread it becomes the flesh of Christ”?
To the other passage Lanfranc of old answered, in his book against Berengarius, in two ways. First, that in other codices of Ambrose those words, “that things be what they were,” are not had, but it is read thus: “How much more is it operative that the things which were be changed into another thing?” Which reading seems the truer, because it is more conformable to the book On the Mysteries for the Initiated, chapter 9, where we read thus: “The word of Christ, then, which could make out of nothing what was not, can it not change the things which are into that which they were not?” Secondly he answers that those words, “that they be what they were,” make this sense: “that they be what they were,” namely as to the external species, and yet be truly changed as to the interior substance. It could also be answered that Ambrose meant to say: If Christ could make something out of nothing, why can He not make something out of something, not by annihilating that which was before, but by changing it for the better? Whence he did not say, “that they be that which they were”—for then the bread would have to remain—but, “that they be what they were,” that is, let them not be annihilated, but remain, though changed.
Thirdly, he objects from Book 4 On the Sacraments, chapter 5, and On those who are initiated into the mysteries, chapter 8, and On the Blessing of the Patriarchs, chapter 9, where Ambrose says that to those receiving the body of the Lord there comes about the remission of sins. And thence he gathers that the body of the Lord is not received by the wicked, and by this that it is not received by the bodily instrument, which is common with the wicked, but only by the spiritual mouth, which the wicked lack.
But these things have already often been dissolved; for the body of the Lord, as regards itself, brings to all the remission of sins, although in certain persons, on account of their indisposition, this does not come about.
Fourthly, he objects from the book On the Mysteries for the Initiated, chapter 9, those words: “Before the blessing of the heavenly words another species is named; after the consecration the body of Christ is signified.” And Book 4 On the Sacraments, chapter 4, he says that we drink the likeness of the precious blood; and chapter 5 he says that the oblation of the altar is a figure of the body of Christ; and Book 1 On the Offices, chapter 48, he says that there was a shadow in the law, an image in the Gospel, the truth in the heavenly things.
I answer that in the first words cited that word “is signified” means the same as “is called” or “is said.” For he does not speak of the signification of things, but of words; nor does he teach what the Eucharist signifies, but how it is called. And so the sense is: “Before the blessing another species is named,” that is, bread is called that which is on the altar; “after the consecration the body of Christ is signified,” that is, we signify or say that it is no longer bread, if anyone ask us what is on the altar, but we signify or say that it is the body of the Lord. Whence in the same place: “Before consecration,” he says, “it is called one thing; after consecration it is named blood.” To the other words, I confess that we drink the likeness of the gore, but under which the truth is contained. For Ambrose teaches that we receive the blood not in the species of blood, lest, as he himself says in the same place, there be a horror of the gore, but in the likeness of blood, that is, in the species of wine, which has a likeness to blood; we drink the very blood. To that, “and a figure of the body,” although it would not be absurd to call the Sacrament of the Eucharist a figure of the body by reason of the external species, yet in that place Ambrose speaks of the bread before consecration, as is clear from his words. Nor is it absurd that the bread be called a figure of the body of the Lord before consecration, although it be not yet a sacrament; for the bread has a natural analogy to the body of Christ, and besides, from this, that it is placed on the altar to be consecrated, it begins to represent the very body of the Lord, although it does not yet have the sacramental signification. To the other, from the book On the Offices, Ambrose distinguishes the image from the truth, not as to the substance or presence of the thing, but as to the knowledge; for now we have Christ, but veiled with signs and an image; in heaven we shall see Him without any sign, face to face. This is clear from his words, by which he explains what he had said: “Here, then,” he says, “we walk in an image, we see in an image; there face to face, where there is full perfection, because all perfection is in the truth.” Whence too, a little before, distinguishing the shadow from the image: “Before,” he says, “a lamb was offered, a calf was offered; now Christ is offered, but He is offered as a man receiving the passion.”
Fifthly, he objects that from Book 5 On the Sacraments, chapter 4: “This is not the bread that goes into the body, but that bread of eternal life which supports the substance of our soul.” “From these words,” says Peter Martyr, “even a blind man can see that Ambrose did not think so grossly of the body of Christ as to suppose that it enters and is received into our body.”
I answer: Ambrose does not deny that the body of Christ enters into our body, but denies that it is converted into the substance of our body after the manner of bodily foods. This is manifestly clear from the adversative, “but supports the substance of the soul”; for the sense is: This bread does not go into the body, that is, does not pass into the body by nutrition, but refreshes the soul. For otherwise, how would Ambrose deny that the body of Christ enters into our body, when he says in his sermon on Saint Agnes, “Now His body is associated with my body”? And when he has so openly taught in so many places cited by us that what we receive, when we receive the Eucharist, is the true flesh of the Lord? This concerning Ambrose.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XIV. Testimonium S. Ambrosii. Sanctus Ambrosius recte adjungitur Cyrillo, quia et eodem tempore floruit, et similes Catecheses conscripsit, nimirum libros de Sacramentis, de iis, qui initiantur mysteriis, et non minus aperte loquitur, quam Cyrillus, ut videamus eodem tempore, camdem fuisse Orientis sententiam de Eucharistia. Primo igitur Ambrosius in lib. de Myste¬ riis initiandis, cap. 9. ct^ lib. vi. de Sacra¬ mentis, cap. 3. 4 et 3. fuse docet longe excel¬ lentiorem escam nobis dari in Eucharistia, quam olim in manna Juda)i habuerint, cum illis Christi corpus in figura, nobis detur in veritate : de quo argumento supra diximus, cum ageremus de figuris hujus Sacramenti. Secundo, idem Ambrosius in iisdem locis dicit, mutari panem et v inum in corpus et sanguinem Christi ; et non esse amplius pa¬ nem et vinum, sed corpus et sanguinem. Ad quod argumentum dupliciter adversarii respondent. Primo revocant in dubium, sintno Ambrosii libri, qui inscribuntur de Sacramentis. Secundo dicunt mutationem, de qua loquitur Ambrosius, non esse realem, sed sacramentalem, ita ut panis et vinum, ex communibus et prophanis rebus adjuncta nova significatione, fiant sacramenta reli¬ gionis. Vide Petrum Martyrem lib. contra Gardinerum, par. i, object. 190. et seq. et par. 4. in explicatione verborum Ambro¬ sii. Sed prior solutio timide ah illis proponi¬ tur, ct merito. Nam citantur hi libri sub nomine Ambrosii a Lantfranco, Guitmundo et aliis, qui ante annos 500. floruerunt. Deinde constat, librum de mysteriis initian¬ dis esse Ambrosii : nam in pra)fatione dicit, se tractasse moralia quanlam ex vitiis Pa¬ triarcharum, ct ex Salomone; quee opera nemo negavit unquam esse Ambrosii. Libros autem de Sacramentis ejusdem auctoris esse, UBER II. cujus esi liber de Myster. init, res ipsa per se clamat, tanta est styli, et sententiarum simi¬ litudo Denique, etiamsi non essent Ambrosii, essent tamen antiqui alicujus auctoris. Sed stultum est ambigere de auctore hoium librorum, cum nullum adversarii argumen¬ tum afferant, cur ambigere debeamus. Posterior solutio refellitur ex ipsis Am¬ brosii verbis. [Nam inlib.iv. de Sacram, cap. 4. « Tu, inquit, forte dicis meus panis est usitatus; sed panis iste, panis est ante verba Sacramentorum ; ubi accesserit con¬ secratio, de pane fit caro Christi ». Ilacc ille* At si panis tantum mutaretur sacramenta- liter, non desineret esse panis post conse¬ crationem. Ibidem probat multis miraculo¬ rum exemplis, Christi verba esse operatoria; et ejusmodi, ut naturas vere mutare pos¬ sint, qufe omnia sine causa adducuntur, si nulla realis mutatio fit in pane Eucharistia?. Sed afferamus testimonium ad idem proban¬ dum ex lib. indubitato de Myster.. init. cap. 0. « Forte, inquit, dicas : Aliud video, quomodo tu mihi asseris, quod Christi corpus acci¬ piam? Et hoc nobis adhuc superest, ut pro¬ bemus. Quantis igitur utimur exemplis, ut probemus, non hoc esse, quod natura for¬ mavit, sed quod benedictio consecravit ?ma- joremque vim esse benedictionis , quam naturae, quia benedictione etiam natura ipsa mutatur? virgam tenebat Moyses, pro¬ jecit eam, et facta est serpens ». Haec ille. Qui posteaquam multa aliamiracula narravit Moysis, Eliae, et Elisaei, concludit : « Quod si tantum valuit humana benedictio, ut natu¬ ram converteret, quid dicimus de ipsa con¬ secratione divina, ubi verba ipsa Domini Salvatoris operantur ? Nam Sacramentum istud, quod accipis, Christi sermone confi¬ citur. Quod si tantum valuit sermo Eliae ut ignem de coelo deponeret, non valebit Christi sermo, ut species mutet elementorum? De to¬ tius mundi operibus legisti : Quia ipse dixit, et facta sunt ; ipse mandavit, et creata sunt. Sermo ergo Christi, qui potuit ex nihilo facere, quod non erat ; non potest ea, quae sunt, in id mutare, quod non erant? non enim minus est novas rebus dare, quam mutare natu¬ ras ». Iltec il-e : ubi tam aperte loquitur de reali mutatione, ut nimia impudentia sit id negare. Ibidem paulo infra idem probat ex mysterio Incarnationis : « Liquet, inquit, quod praeter naturae ordinem Virgo gene¬ ravit : et hoc quod conficimus, corpus, ex Virgine est. Quid hic quaeris naturae ordinem in Christi corpore, cum praeter naturam sit ipse Dominus Jesus partus ex Virgine?» Haec ille. Quam inepte ista omnia dicerentur, si nulla fieret realis mutatio ? Quid enim opus erat probare, non posse naturaliter fieri, ex pane corpus Christi, quemadmodum nec ut Virgo pariat ; si non reipsa, sed solum signi ficativc panis fit corpus Christi. Tertium testimonium est in eodem lib. iv. de Sacrament. cap. 5. ubi probat, non esse dubitandum de veritate corporis Domini. Quae probatio supervacanea est; si verum est, adversarii sentiunt : nemo enim dubitare solet , utrum panis possit esse corpus Christi significative : « Deinde, inquit, ipse Dominus Jesus testificatur nobis, quod corpus suum accipiamus, et sanguinem; numquid debemus de ejus fide, et testifica¬ tione dubitare ? » Et ibidem paulo infra : « Dicit tibi sacerdos, Corpus Christi, et tu dicis, Arnen : hoc est, verum. Quod confite¬ tur lingua, teneat affectus ». Hic certe lo¬ quitur de eo, quod offertur manibus Sacer¬ dotis, quod quidem, nisi vere sit corpus Christi, decipit nos Ambrosius, qni vult nos id, et confiteri lingua, et affectu sentire. Et lib. vi. cap. i. « Sicut verus est Dei Filius, Dominus noster Jesus Christus : non quem¬ admodum homines per gratiam, sed quasi Filius ex substantia Patris; ita vera caro sicut ipse dixit, quam accipimus » . Quartum testimonium ex lib. i. in Lucam , ubi exponens illa verba cap. i. Apparuit illi Angelus: «Non dubites, inquit, assistere Angelum, quando Christus assistit, Christus immolatur». At certe non assisteret Angelus, si sola figura corporis Domini, non ipse Chri¬ stus in altari adesset. Quintum testimonium est lib. m. de Spi¬ ritu sancto, cap. 12. ubi tractans illud Psalm. xcvii : Adorate scabellum pedum ejus. « Ita¬ que, inquit, per scabellum terra intelligitur, per terram autem caro Christi; quam hodie quoque in mysteriis adoramus, et quam Apostoli in Domino Jesu, ut supra diximus, adorarunt. » Hic locus nullam admittit solu¬ tionem : nam et liber est indubitatus, et sermo est adoratione latria? ; et aperte Am¬ brosius dicit, carnem Christi verbo unitam adorari a nobis in mysteriis, id est, in Eu¬ charistia. Diluamus nunc breviter, qua? PetrusMartyr ex Ambrosio profert, libro contra Gardine- rum , objecto 188. et seq. Primo igitur obji¬ cit ex commentario in it. cap. T. ad Corinth. CAPUT XIV. 03 quod Ambrosius in mysteriis dicat significari carnem et sanguinem, qua; oblata sunt pro nobis, et mysticum calicem typum esse san¬ guinis Domini. Respondeo, neque ea commentaria sunt Ambrosii, neque quidquam habent contra nos : fatemur enim, imo et docemus, Eu¬ charistiam signum ac typum esse mortis Christi, seu carnis et sanguinis, ut visibiliter in cruce il.a suffixa, ille effusus est. Secundo objicit ex lib. iv. de Sacram, cap. iv. illa Ambrosii verba : « Hoc igitur astrua¬ mus, quomodo potest, qui panis est, esse cor¬ pus Christi consecratione ». Ilinc ita Petrus Martyr argumentatur: « Qui panis est, corpus etiam Christi est per consecrationem. At panis non potest esse corpus proprie ; ergo solum significative ». Idem confirmat ex illis verbis, quae ibidem habentur : « Si tanto vis est in sermone Domini, ut ea incipiant C8;e, quae non erant, quanto magis operatorius est, ut sint, qua; erant, et in aliud commuten¬ tur? ubi videmus sic mutari panem in corpus, ut tamen maneat panis. Ad priorem locum respondeo, non dicere Ambrosium panem manere post consecra¬ tionem , sed potius non manere; illa enim verba : « Quomodo potest qui panis est, esse corpus Christi? » hunc sensum faciunt : Quo¬ modo potest, qui nunc est panis, paulo post esse corpus Christi? et respondet : « Conse¬ cratione » ; consecratio enim facit, ut qui panis est ante consecrationem, corpus sit post consecrationem. Istum esse sensum patet ex illis verbis lib. de Myster. init. cap. 9. « Probemus, non hoc esse quod natura formavit, sed quod benedictio consecravit» : ubi vides non esse panem post consecratio¬ nem. Imo in ipso lib. iv. de Sacram, cap. 4. nonne Ambrosius ait : « Panis iste panis est ante verba, consecrationis; ubi accesserit consecratio, de pane fit caro Christi. » Ad alterum locum respondit olimLantfran- cus in libro contra Berengarium, dupliciter. Primo, in aliis codicibus Ambrosii non ha¬ beri illa verba : «Ut sint qua; erant » ; sed hoc modo legi : « Quanto magis operatorius est ut qua; erant, in aliud commutentur ? » Qua; lectio verior, esse videtur, quia est con¬ formior lib. de Myster. init. cap. 9. ubi sic le¬ gimus : « Sermo ergo Christi ; Qui potuit ex nihilo facere, quod non erat, non potest ea qua; sunt, in id mutare, quod non erant? » Secundo respondet illa verba : «Ut sint qua; erant », hunc sensum facere : « Ut sint qua; erant », nimirum quoad speciem exteriorem, et tamen vere mutentur, quoad interiorem substantiam. Posset etiam responderi, Am¬ brosium voluisse dicere ; Si potuit Christus ex nihilo aliquid facere, cur non poterit ex aliquo aliquid facere, non annihilando id, quod antea erat, sed in melius commutando? unde non dixit : « Ut sint id, quod erant » : tunc enim panis manere deberet, sed : « Ut sint quo; erant », id est, non annihilentur, sed maneant, quamvis mutata. Tertio objicit ex lib. iv. de Sacram, cap. 5. et de /us qui init. myst. cap. 8. et de bene- dict. patriarc. cap. 9 ubi Ambrosius dicit, corpus Domini accipientibus fieri peccatorum remissionem. Atque inde colligit non sumi corpus Domini ab impiis, ac per hoc non sumi corporali instrumento, quod est com¬ mune cum impiis, sed ore tantum spirituali, quo impii carent. Sed hc.ee saepius jam dissoluta sunt : cor¬ pus enim Domini, quod ad se attinet, omni¬ bus affert peccatorum remissionem, licet in quibusdam ob eorum indispositionem id non (iat. Quarto objicit ex lib. de Myster. init. cap. 9. illa verba : « Ante benedictionem verbo¬ rum coelestium *ilia species nominatur : post consecrationem corpus Christi significatur.» Et lib. iv. de Sacram, cap. 4. dicit, nos bibero similitudinem pretiosi sanguinis, et cap. o. dicit, oblationem altaris esse figuram corpo¬ ris Christi, et lib. i. de Officiis cap. 48. dicit, umbram fuisse in lege, imaginem in Evange- lio, veritatem in coelestibus. Respondeo in primis verbis citatis illud « significatur », idem valet, « appellatur », seu « dicitur ». Non enim loquitur de signi¬ ficatione rerum, sed vocum; nec docet quid Eucharistia significet, sed quomodo appelle¬ tur. Itaque sensus est : « Antcbenedictionem alia species nominatur », id est, panis voca¬ tur id, quod est in altari : « Post consecratio¬ nem corpus Christi significatur», id est, non amplius panem esse significamus, seu dici¬ mus, si quis nos interroget, quid sit in altari, sed corpus Domini esse significamus, seu di¬ cimus. Undeibidem : « Ante consecrationem, inquit, aliud dicitur, post consecrationem sanguis nuncupatur». Ad alia verba fateor nos bibere similitudinem cruoris, sed sub qua veritas contineatur. Docet enim Ambro¬ sius, nos non in specie sanguinis sanguinem sumere, ne ut ipse ibidem dicit, horror esset' cruoris ; sed in similitudine sanguinis, id est 94 LIBER I. specie vini, quod habet sang uinis similitudi¬ nem ; ipsum sanguinem bibere. Ad illud et figura corporis, quamvis non esset absurdum, Sacramentum Eucharistia? vocare figuram corporis ratione specierum externarum, ta¬ men eo loco Ambrosius loquitur de pane ante consecrationem, ut ex ejus verbis patet. Neque est absurdum, panem vocari figuram corporis Domini ante consecrationem, licet nondum sit sacramentum : nam panis natu¬ ralem habet analogiam ad corpus Christi, et praeterea ex eo, quod ponitur super altare, ut consecretur, incipit repraesentare ipsum Domini corpus, licet nondum habeat sacra- mentalem significationem. Ad aliud ex libro de officiis, Ambrosius distinguit imaginem a veritate, non quoad substantiam, seu prae¬ sentiam rei, sed quoad notitiam : nunc enim habemus Christum, sed signis, et imagine velatum ; in coelo videbimus sine ullo signo facie ad faciem. Id patet ex verbis ejus, qui¬ bus explicat, quod dixerat : « Hic ergo, in¬ quit, in imagine ambulamus, in imagine vi¬ demus ; illic facie ad faciem, ubi plena per¬ fectio, quia peifectio omnis in veritate est » . Unde etiam paulo ante distinguens umbram ab imagine : « Ante, inquit, agnus offereba¬ tur, offerebatur vitulus : nunc Christus offer¬ tur, sed offertur quasi homo recipiens passio¬ nem » . Quinto objicit illud ex lib. v. de Sacram. cap. -4. « Non iste panis est, qui vadit in cor¬ pus, sed ille panis vita? a?tcrn a?, qui anim nostra? substantiam fulcit ». <i Ex his verbis, inquit Petrus Martyr, vel ca?cus videre po¬ test Ambrosium non tam ci-asse sensisse de corpore Christi, ut putaverit illud ingredi, et recipi in corpus nostrum ». Respondeo : Non negat Ambrosius corpus Christi ingredi in corpus nostrum, sed negat illud converti in substantiam corporis nostri more ciborum corporalium. Id patet mani¬ feste ex adversativa : « Sed anima? substan¬ tiam fulcit ; » est enim sensus: iste panis non vadit in corpus, id est, non transit in corpus per nutritionem, sed anirqam reficit. Aiioqui enim quomodo negaret Ambrosius corpus Christi in corpus nostrum ingredi, cum dicat in serm. deS. Agnete : «Jam cor¬ pus ejus corpori meo sociatum est ? » et cum tam aperte docuerit in tot locis a nobis cita¬ tis, id quod suminus, dum sumimus Eucha¬ ristiam, veram esse carnem Domini? IIa?c dc Ambrosio.