Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book II: On the Real Presence, from the Testimonies of the Fathers
Chapter 20: The Testimony of St. Epiphanius
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 Epiphanius, the equal of all the foregoing (for he was familiar even with Athanasius, though he outlived them all), in the Ancoratus, about the middle, when he wished to teach that man was truly made to the image of God, although it is not easily apparent in what the likeness between God and man consists, since man is corporeal, finite, mutable, God incorporeal, immense, immutable, says that there are many such things which are one thing and seem to be another, and sets the example of the Eucharist, which is truly the body of Christ, and yet seems to be nothing less; since that which appears outwardly is round and insensible, and consequently very unlike the body of Christ. “We see,” he says, “what the Saviour took into His hands, as the Evangelist has it, that He rose from supper and took these things, and when He had given thanks, said: This is mine, This and This. And we see that it is not equal, nor like, not to the image in the flesh, not to the invisible Deity, not to the lineaments of the members; for this is of round form and insensible as to power. And He willed to say, by grace: This is mine, This and This; and there is no one who does not give faith to the saying; for he who believes not that it is truly Himself has fallen from grace and salvation.” So he.
This passage certainly wholly convinces. For that Epiphanius says one must believe that it is truly Himself excludes tropes, and especially since he adds that those fall from salvation who do not believe it. That he also adds that this must be believed although the senses repugn, most plainly testifies that he speaks not of a signification, but of the reality; for the senses not only do not repugn, but even help us to believe that the Sacrament signifies.
The adversaries answer, and especially Peter Martyr in his book against Gardiner, objection 186, that Epiphanius speaks of the representation of the body of the Lord, and means that it must be believed that the bread of the Eucharist truly is the body of Christ representatively, although no likeness appears in the bread with the body of Christ. And this he gathers chiefly from this, that Epiphanius says the bread is the body of Christ; for he affirms that that which the Lord took into His hands, and which he says is round and insensible, that same, I say, was called by Christ, by grace, His body. But round and insensible bread, that is, true and material bread, cannot be the body of the Lord except representatively.
But this solution can easily be refuted by a twofold reasoning. First, because Epiphanius not without cause changed the conclusion in the comparison of the Eucharist with man. For when he had said that man is the image of God, although the likeness between God and man does not appear, he ought consequently to have said that the bread of the Eucharist is the image of the body of the Lord, although the likeness between the bread and the body of the Lord does not appear; for the reasoning of the example adduced seemed to require this. But he did not so say, but says that the bread of the Eucharist is the very true body of the Lord. And certainly he would not have said of man that he is the very true God, as he said of the Eucharist that it is the very true body; and yet man is no less the true God representatively, since he is His image, than the Eucharist is, by the adversaries, the true body representatively. To what purpose, then, this change, unless that we might understand that the Eucharist is not compared, as an image, with man, but the Eucharist inasmuch as in it the body of the Lord is truly contained?
Secondly, the solution of the adversaries is refuted, because if Epiphanius meant only to say that the bread of the Eucharist is the body of the Lord representatively, his example would be worth nothing. For the Sacraments are indeed signs representing some sacred thing, but they do not represent by reason of figure or colors, as painted or sculptured images represent, but they represent partly as signs by convention, partly on account of the natural analogy between the effects of the signs themselves and of the thing signified; just as words too are signs of things, and ivy is a sign of wine. Wherefore it is nothing new or wonderful that the Sacrament of the Eucharist represents Christ, although it be not like Him or equal to Him as to figure and form; for it does not represent as an image. And just as he would be foolish who marveled how words can be signs of things, since they are not like them in figure or color, or equal in magnitude, so too he would be foolish who marveled how the bread of the Eucharist can represent Christ, since it is not equal to Christ, nor has the lineaments of the body of Christ. But Epiphanius brings forward, as a marvelous thing comprehensible by faith alone, that the bread of the Eucharist is said truly to be the body of Christ, although it is not like Him, nor equal, nor refers any lineaments of that body; Epiphanius, therefore, does not speak of the bread representing the body of the Lord, but of the very true body, which is truly present in that sacred host which we see with the eyes and touch with the hands, although all the senses cry out against it.
But to the argument of Peter Martyr I answer that Epiphanius never said that material bread is the body of Christ; but only said that the Lord, having taken bread, gave thanks, and made the Eucharist, and said: This is my body. Where the pronoun This does not demonstrate the bread, but that which was in the hands of the Lord, or which was contained under those species, as we said above; which indeed had before been bread, but, those words being uttered, was the body of the Lord.
But, says Peter Martyr, of that thing which he calls round and insensible, of the same he pronounces that it is the body of the Lord. But that thing is without doubt bread. I answer that that round and insensible thing is not bread in that place, but something bearing before it the species of bread; for Epiphanius means to say that the sacred Eucharist is truly the body of the Lord, although in exterior form and species it is round and insensible, so that it seems mere bread. Nay, in this consists (as we said) the whole opinion of Epiphanius, namely that we ought to believe that we receive the true body of the Lord in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, when nevertheless we see nothing but the accidents of material bread.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XX. Testimonium S. Fpiphanii. Sanctus Epiphanius omnium superiorum «aqualis ( nam etiam Athanasio familiaris fuit, licet omnibus supervixerit) in Ancorato , circa medium, cum docere vellet, hominem vere esse factum ad imaginem Dei, licet non facile appareat, in quo consistat similitudo inter Deum, et hominem, cum homo sit cor¬ poralis, finitus, mutabilis ; Deus incorpo¬ ralis, immensus, immutabilis, dicit, multa esse ejusmodi, quae aliud sunt, aliud viden¬ tur esse, et ponit exemplum de Eucharistia, quae vere est corpus Christi, et tamen nihil minus esse videtur ; cum id, quod apparet exterius, sit rotundum, et insensibile, et proinde valde dissimile corpori Christi. «Videmus, inquit, quod accepit Salvator in manus suas, voluti Evangelista habet, quod surrexit a ccena, et accepit haec, et cum gratias egisset, dixit : Hoc meum est, IIoc et Hoc. Et videmus quod non aequale est, neque simile, non imagini in carne, non in¬ visibili Deitati, non lineamentis membrorum : hoc enim est rotundae formas, et insensibile, quantum ad potentiam. Et voluit, per gratiam dicere : Hoc meum est, Hoc, et Hoc ; et nemo non fidem habet sermoni ; qui enim non credit esse ipsum verum, excidit a gra¬ tia, et salute ». llaec ille. Hic sane locus omnino convincit. Nam quod dicit Epiphanius oportere credere esse ipsum verum, excludit tropos, et praesertim cum addat excidere a salute, qui id non credunt. Quod etiam addit esse id creden¬ dum , licet sensus repugnent , apertissime testatur non loqui eum de significatione, sed de reipsa : nam sensus non modo non repugnant, sed etiam juvant ut credamus Sacramentum significare. Respondent adversarii, ac praecipue Petrus Martyr in lib. contra Gardinerum , objecto 186. Epiphanium loqui de repraesentatione corporis Domini, ac velle dicere, credendum esse panem Eucharistiae vere esse corpus Christi repraesentative, licet nulla appareat in pane similitudo cum corpore Christi. Id vero ex eo potissimum colligit, quod Epi¬ phanius panem dicit esse corpus Christi : affirmat enim id, quod Dominus accepit in manus, quodque ait rotundum, et insensi¬ bile esse ; illud, inquam, ipsum vocatum a Christo per gratiam corpus ipsius. Panis autem rotundus, et insensibilis, id est, panis verus, ac materialis non potest esse corpus Domini, nisi repraesentative. Sed haec solutio facile refelli potest du¬ plici ratione. Primo, quia Epiphanius non sine causa mutavit conclusionem in compa¬ ratione Eucharistiae cum homine. Nam cum dixisset hominem esse imaginem Dei, licet non appareat similitudo inter Deum, et ho¬ minem : debuisset dicere consequenter, pa¬ nem Eucharistiae esse imaginem corporis Domini, licet non appareat similitudo inter panem, et corpus Domini ; id enim requi¬ rere videbatur ratio exempli allati. At non ita dixit, sed ait panem Eucharistiae, esse ipsum verum corpus Domini. Et certe non dixisset de homine, esse ipsum verum Deum, sicut dixit de Eucharistia, esse ipsum ve¬ rum corpus ; et tamen non minus homo est verus Deus repraesentative, cum sit ejus imago, quam sit per adversarios Eucharistia verum corpus repraesentative. Quorsum igi¬ tur haec mutatio, nisi ut intelligeremus, non conferri Eucharistiam, ut imaginem cum homine ; sed Eucharistiam, quatenus in ea vere continetur corpus Domini ? Secundo, refellitur solutio adversariorum, quia si Epiphanius vellet solum dicere panem Eucharistiae esse corpus Domini repraesenta¬ tive, exemplum ipsius nihil valeret. Nam Sacramenta signa quidem sunt repraesen¬ tantia rem aliquam sacram, sed non reprae¬ sentant ratione figurae, aut colorum, quemad¬ modum repraesentant imagines depictae, vel sculptae ; sed repraesentant partim ut signa ad placitum, partim ob analogiam naturalem inter effectus ipsorum signorum, et rei significatae, quemadmodum etiam verba sunt signa rerum, et hedera signum est vini. Quare nihil est novum, vel mirum, quod Sacramentum Eucharistiae repraesentet Christum, licet non sit illi simile, vel aequade, quoad figuram et formam : non enim reprae¬ sentat ut imago. Et quemadmodum stultus esset, qui miraretur, quomodo voces possint esse signa rerum, cum non sint illis in figura, vel colore similes, vel magnitudine aequales ; sic etiam stultus esset, qui miraretur quo¬ modo panis Eucharistiae possit Christum repraesentare, cum non sit Christo aequalis, nec habeat lineamenta corporis Christi. At- CAPUT XXII. 101 qui Epiphanias affert in medium, ut rem mirabilem, et sola lide comprehensibilem, quod panis Eucharistiae dicatur vere esse corpus Christi, cum non sit illi similis, nec sequalis, nec referat ulla corporis illius linea¬ menta ; non igitur Epiphanius loquitur de pane repraesentante corpus Domini, sed de ipso vero corpore, quod vere adest in illa sacra hostia, quam oculis videmus, et mani¬ bus tangimus, licet sensus omnes reclament. Ad argumentum autem Petri Martyris, respondeo , Epiphanium nunquam dixisse panem materialem esse corpus Christi ; sed tantum dixisse, Dominum, accepto pane, gratias egisse, atque Eucharistiam fecisse, et dixisse : Hoc est corpus meum. Ubi pro¬ nomen, Hoc , non demonstrat panem, sed id quod in manibus Domini erat, sive quod sub speciebus illis continebatur, ut supra dixi¬ mus : quod quidem antea fuerat panis, sed prolatis illis verbis, corpus Domini erat. At, inquit Petrus Martyr, de ea re, quam vocat rotundam, et insensibilem, de eadem pronuntiat, quod sit corpus Domini. Illa autem res panis sine dubio est. Respondeo, res illa rotunda, et insensibilis non est panis eo loco, sed aliquid speciem panis prae se ferens : vult enim Epiphanius dicere, sa¬ cram Eucharistiam vere esse corpus Domini, licet exteriori forma, ac specie rotunda, et insensibilis sit, ut panis merus videatur. Imo in hoc consistit (ut diximus) tota sen- tenlia Epiphanii, quod videlicet credere de¬ beamus, verum Domini corpus nos in Sa¬ cramento Eucharistiae percipere, cum tamen nihil videamus, nisi panis materialis acci¬ dentia.