Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book III: On the Truth of the Body of the Lord, from Reason
Chapter 8: It Is Shown That God Willed and Brought It About That the Body of the Lord Should Be Really Present in the Eucharist
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. IV, De Sacramento Eucharistiae, Book III: On the Truth of the Body of the Lord in the Eucharist (from Reason). 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).
We have thus far demonstrated that it is not impossible for God to constitute the body of the Lord truly and really in the Sacrament of the Eucharist: it follows that we see whether He willed to do it. And the Sacramentarians indeed with one mouth say that God was unwilling, whatever be the case concerning His power; but this they prove in no other way than that it seems neither useful nor fitting. But we have, even setting aside the Scriptures and the Fathers, testimonies more than credible, and to which nothing at all can be answered by those who have given their name to the Christian faith.
And the first argument is taken from the nature and condition of heresy. For that condition so aptly fits the opinion of the Sacramentarians that there is no heresy in the world, if that is not a heresy. And if that is a heresy, the truth of the faith will be the contrary, and therefore a truth revealed by God: and thus it will be established that God willed this and did it.
The primary condition of heresy is novelty of doctrine, as antiquity is of Catholic truth. Now novelty is proved by these tokens: if its author, place, and time can be marked; if it begins with few followers; if it appears with the astonishment and perturbation of the faithful; and if it be contradicted, brought to judgment and examination, and at length condemned by a council of bishops, and consequently by the faithful peoples. For this is found in all the graver heresies, as in the Arian, Nestorian, Eutychian, Pelagian, and the like.
Now the opinion of the Sacramentarians has its own certain author, Berengarius, a Tourainer by nation and Archdeacon of Angers. This is clear from Paschasius, who in his book on the words of the Institution of the Sacrament affirms that in his time there were not lacking some who raised questions about the truth of the Lord's body in the Eucharist (for there had been John Scotus and Bertram), yet that there was none who openly denied it: “And therefore,” he says, “although in this they err from ignorance, yet there is as yet none in the open who contradicts, that this is so which the whole world believes and confesses.” So he. Therefore in the time of Paschasius there had as yet been none who dared openly to profess that the body of Christ is not truly and really in the Eucharist. And after the time of Paschasius there was none before Berengarius who wrote openly or obscurely on this matter; but he first dared to vaunt himself as a doctor of a new dogma. Wherefore Adelmann, Bishop of Brixen, and Hugh, Bishop of Langres, in their letters to Berengarius write to him as to the first assertor of his heresy, and seriously warn him not to trouble the Church, and to remember what end the heresiarchs had who were before him. Finally Guitmund, in Book III not far from the end, says: “It is most well known that at this time, before Berengarius went mad, madnesses of this kind were nowhere.” Therefore the author is most well known.
The time is equally known; for it is noted by the historians and chronologers and other writers of those times. Sigebert writes in his Chronicle that in the year 1051 Berengarius began to trouble Gaul with his new dogma; which the same is indicated by Lanfranc and Guitmund and others, among whom especially is to be read William the Librarian of Malmesbury, in Book III of the deeds of the English, who flourished at that very time.
The place likewise is most well known; for it was in Gaul that he began to preach his heresy, as all the cited authors write.
The fewness of his followers at the beginning is described by Guitmund in Book I, where he says that Berengarius began to be heard by certain poor scholars, whom he enticed to himself by giving alms. The astonishment and perturbation of the Church, which is an evident token of novelty, is described by the same authors, and especially by Adelmann in his letter to Berengarius, and by Lanfranc at the beginning of his book against Berengarius, where he says that in the Roman Council under Leo IX a letter of Berengarius to himself was read; in which letter, when there was written only “Sacrament,” all the bishops were astonished that those words were opposed to the most usual faith of the Catholic Church.
Finally the contradiction, examination, judgment, and condemnation are had in the same place. For thus Lanfranc writes: “In the time of the holy Pope Leo your heresy was brought to the Apostolic See. Who, when he presided over a Synod, and there sat with him no small multitude of bishops, abbots, and religious persons of diverse orders from diverse regions, ordered to be recited in the hearing of all the letters which you sent me concerning the body and blood of the Lord.” And below: “Understanding that you held things adverse to the common faith concerning the Eucharist, a sentence of condemnation was promulgated against you, depriving you of the communion of holy Church, which you were striving to deprive of its holy communion.” So he.
We see, therefore, all the signs of novelty found in the opinion of Berengarius: of which not even one is found in our opinion. For hitherto no one of the heretics has been able to say who was the author of our opinion: whence also Berengarius called it the opinion of the common people, as Lanfranc there testifies. Nor could the adversaries ever bring forth against it the time, or the place, or the fewness of the first followers, or the astonishment of the peoples, or finally any public judgment.
And indeed that our opinion concerning the Eucharist is not an invention of the Papists (as the adversaries call us), but a most ancient thing, is evidently clear from the consent of the Greeks. For the Greeks began to dissent from the Roman Pontiffs a very long time ago, and therefore would not easily have received their new dogmas: and yet in this matter they never dissented from the Latins, nor do they dissent at this time, as is clear from the censure of the Orientals upon the Confession of the Lutherans. This whole argument is confirmed by the easiness of the adversaries' opinion and the difficulty of ours. For since the adversaries' opinion is most easy and accommodated to the human senses, it could easily have crept in secretly and been continually admitted by very many, so that those signs of novelty were hidden. But our opinion, which is most difficult, and repugns the senses, and surpasses reason, could not creep in secretly, nor could it be easily persuaded to so great a multitude. Since therefore we see in our opinion no signs of novelty appearing, which nevertheless could in no way have secretly entered; and on the contrary we find all the signs of novelty in the adversaries' opinion, which nevertheless could easily have secretly insinuated itself: it is evidently shown that ours is most ancient, and therefore true; but the contrary new, and therefore false and heretical.
The second argument for the truth of our faith is the consent of the Church. For we have the consent of the whole Church, Latin, Greek, and Barbarian. For Paschasius writes in his book on the Institution of the Sacrament, where he explains the words of the Lord, This is my body, that there was absolutely none who called himself a Christian who would dare to deny that the flesh of the Lord is truly in the Eucharist. And Lanfranc writes thus of his own time at the end of his book against Berengarius: “Ask all who have received a knowledge of the Latin tongue or of our letters, ask the Greeks, the Armenians, or any Christians of whatever nation, they will testify with one mouth that they hold this faith.” And in our own time so great was the consent in our world, before Karlstadt and Zwingli had begun to appear, that Zwingli writes in his commentary on the true and false religion, in the chapter on the Eucharist, that he acted very secretly at the beginning, and conferred with a few friends the business of proposing this new dogma: for he feared to offend all, since he knew that there was absolutely none of that opinion which he himself was thinking to bring into the Church.
This consent being laid down, it necessarily follows that either our faith concerning the Eucharist is true; or there was never a Church in the world; or there was, but it perished; or it remained in the Berengarians alone; or there abide together the Church of God and the highest and public sacrilege, and the highest and public idolatry. But that the Church never existed in the world fights with the Scriptures and with the Creed, and was never asserted by any heretic. That the Church existed but wholly perished fights with the most manifest promises of God. Luke 1: Of His kingdom there shall be no end. Matthew 16: The gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Matthew last: And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world. That it remained in the Berengarians alone cannot be said, because then, before Berengarius, it would not have existed. For at least for two hundred years before Berengarius it is established, from the testimony of Paschasius and all the histories, that the whole Church believed what we believe. Moreover the Berengarians were very few, and scarcely anywhere but in Gaul, and in a short time reduced to nothing. And although after about 300 years the Berengarian heresy was renewed by John Wyclif, yet it set no foot outside England and Bohemia; and even in those places it was so extinguished that for about a hundred years before Zwingli it was nowhere. But the Church always lives, is always conspicuous, nor can it (as this heresy did) now perish, now be reborn, unless the promises cited above are false. Finally, that the Church should exist and at the same time be engaged in the highest error, sacrilege, and idolatry, can in no way come about: for otherwise no heretics would be outside the Church, and Paul would falsely say, 1 Timothy 3, that the Church is the pillar and ground of truth.
Peter Martyr seems, in his prayer to God with which he concludes his book against Stephen Gardiner, to have thought that the true Church could be where heresy and idolatry reign: but that very prayer of his fights so against him that it is a wonder he himself did not notice it. For thus he addresses Christ: “If the wound is desperate,” he says, “and there is to be no longer any public and open place for Thy truth in Thy Church, in which to exercise judgment, come as soon as possible.” So he; than which prayer I have never read one more foolish. For if by truth he understands the opinion of Zwingli, which throughout that whole book he tried to assert, he is compelled to confess that with us is the true Church of Christ, and therefore that he himself is outside the Church: for ours is the Church in which no place is permitted to the opinion of Zwingli. But if he calls his own congregation the Church of Christ, then he is compelled to confess that our opinion concerning the Eucharist is the truth of God: for ours is the opinion to which no place is given in the congregation of the Zwinglians. Wherefore whithersoever he turns, he strikes himself with his own sword; to say nothing that it is excessive stupidity to say that in the Church of God there is no place for the truth of God. For where will the truth of God be, if it is not in the Church of God? But by the just judgment of God, those who have lost the Church of God can no longer even see of what sort it is.
The third argument can be taken from the diligence which the Church employed in examining the present controversy, and from her constancy in retaining the truth. For if the Church had been unwilling to discuss the question, or had discussed it lightly, the heretics could hold out some pretext when they say that the Church is engaged in error. But no question was ever more often or more diligently examined.
First it was discussed in the Roman Council under Leo IX, and the heresy of Berengarius was condemned. Secondly at Vercelli, the same Leo being present and presiding, the same question was discussed and explained in the same way: to which also Berengarius was summoned, and when he was unwilling to come, it was disputed with his confederates who named themselves the legates of Berengarius. Thirdly, after the death of holy Leo, again in the Council of Tours, the legates of Pope Victor (who had succeeded Leo) presiding, it was most sharply disputed with Berengarius himself, and, he being convicted and abjuring the heresy, the same faith was confirmed. Fourthly, when Berengarius had returned to his vomit, again at Rome in a general Council, Nicholas II presiding and Berengarius present, the same question was proposed and most diligently discussed, and then a second time Berengarius abjured and himself burned his book before all. And of these four Councils Lanfranc makes mention in his book against Berengarius, who was present at all. Fifthly, when Berengarius, his second abjuration also despised, had returned to his heresy, a fifth Council was convened at Rome by Pope Gregory VII, and again the question was diligently discussed and the heresy condemned: where also Berengarius abjured a third time, and thereafter fell away no more. This Council Lanfranc and Guitmund did not mention, because it had not yet been celebrated when they wrote: but Thomas Waldensis mentions it, tome II on the Sacraments, chapter 43. Sixthly, in the most ample Council of the whole world under Innocent III, celebrated at Rome, again the same heresy was condemned. Seventhly, the same truth was explained in the general Council of Vienne, in the year of the Lord 1311, whence stands the single Clementine constitution on the relics and veneration of the Saints. Eighthly, the same was done in the general Roman Council under John XXIII, in the year of the Lord 1413, as John Cochlaeus testifies in Book I of the history of the Hussites. Ninthly, the same was done in the Council of Constance on account of the same heresy renewed by John Wyclif. Tenthly, in the Council of Trent in our own days on account of the Zwinglians and Calvinists: to say nothing of the Council of Florence and very many others in which the same was defined in passing.
Since these things are so, who can persuade himself that God would have permitted the Church to err in this matter? For what ought she to have done, and did not do? She gathered learned men, she sifted the matter, she invoked God, and that not once nor twice, but often. And if we can doubt whether the Church erred in this matter, we shall be able to doubt of all the other definitions against various heresies; nay even to doubt whether there is a God, or whether He cares for our affairs; for what does He care for, if He cares not for these things?
To this is added that the Catholic Church always remained in the same opinion, nor was she deterred by the various and difficult arguments which either the Berengarians, or afterward the Wyclifites, or the Zwinglians devised: for in all the cited Councils the same opinion is found. But on the contrary the adversaries had no Councils of bishops, nor ever agreed among themselves. For Guitmund writes in Book I, and Alger in the Prologue to his books on the body and blood of the Lord, that at the very beginning of the Berengarian heresy six diverse opinions and sects arose, which they themselves enumerate. And in our time (as we said above) there exist many more, especially if we join the errors of the Lutherans with the errors of the Zwinglians.
The fourth argument can be taken from the patrons of our opinion. For our opinion, from the time when on account of Berengarius it was most clearly explained, that is, from the year of the Lord 1031, has had for patrons very many men so illustrious in sanctity of life and in miracles that even by the heretics of this time they are held and named as saints. In this number are Saint Anselm, St. Bernard, St. Malachy, St. Dominic, St. Francis, St. Anthony of Padua, St. Peter Martyr, St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure, St. Nicholas of Tolentino, St. Louis the King, St. Bernardine, St. Vincent, St. Antoninus, St. Francis of Paola, and very many others. These were truly holy and friends of God, and now reign with Christ in heaven: for besides the common testimony of the Church, all were illustrious for miracles, and some of them for more and surer ones than almost any of the ancients; as Bernard, whose miracles for their multitude cannot be numbered; as Vincent, in whose canonization more than eight hundred miracles are said to have been proved by sure witnesses; as Francis, whose miracles too, well-nigh innumerable and very great, are related by St. Bonaventure. And these miracles are surer than those of the ancient Saints, because in these later ages the Church is not wont to reckon any among the number of the Saints unless the miracles be proved by most certain witnesses, which was not done of old. And finally that some of these — as Bernard, Francis, Dominic — are saints, even the adversaries confess. Luther, in the book on the Babylonian Captivity, chapter on the Eucharist, calls Thomas Aquinas a saint, and in the chapter on Baptism calls Bernard, Dominic, and Francis saints. Philip Melanchthon, in the Apology of the Confession, articles 4, 5, and 7, calls Anthony, Bernard, Dominic, and Francis saints. And Peter Martyr, in his third commentary on 1 Corinthians, chapter 1, on the text For the day of the Lord shall declare it, affirms the same men to be saved. Calvin, in the Institutes, chapters 10 and 17, calls Bernard a pious writer. And that these men were of our opinion concerning the Eucharist is established both from their books, and from the fact that all adhered to the Roman Pontiffs; and finally because the Roman Church would never have reckoned them in the catalog of the saints if in so great a matter they had dissented from her.
Besides this, it is beyond controversy that they cannot be saints and friends of God who lack the true faith; since without faith it is impossible to please God (Hebrews 11), and since the just man lives by faith (Hebrews 10). And finally it is in no way credible that God, who gave to those saints the spirit of prophecy and revealed to them, as to friends, very many things even not necessary, would have been unwilling to reveal at least to some one of them the truth of this matter, so necessary.
Nor can it be said that the saints can be excused, though they erred, on the ground that they fell in a matter of small moment, or in a matter not yet explained and defined, or certainly not pertinaciously but simply and from ignorance. For in the first place the matter is most grave, and in it is contained either the highest piety and religion or the highest impiety, idolatry, and sacrilege. Then the matter was already treated, discussed, and defined in many Councils, as we said, and among the heretics were already numbered those who thought otherwise. Finally, those holy men themselves did not simply assert this, but almost all fought against the heretics, whether by books, or by sermons, or even by disputations held with the heretics. Wherefore it is altogether necessary either that our opinion be true, or that those men were heretics and enemies of God: nor will our adversaries ever reconcile among themselves those two things, that those men were holy and yet engaged in a most grave error, and therefore were idolaters and sacrilegious their whole life.
The fifth argument is taken from the authors and patrons of the contrary opinion: for they were such that it is in no way probable that God willed to correct or reform His Church by such men. For although God is sometimes wont to choose men simple, ignoble, unlearned, that through them He may work His great things, yet He instructs them with divine wisdom, charity, the gift of miracles, and like ornaments, that other men may safely believe them sent by God. Such were the Patriarchs, the Prophets, the Apostles, the founders of religious Orders, and others like them.
Let us now inspect what sort of man Berengarius was, whom Calvin acknowledges as his own parent, in his last admonition to Westphal, where he says that he does not take it ill that Pope Nicholas once condemned his opinion in Berengarius in the Roman Council, and Gregory VII in the Council of Vercelli, but rather that it would have been suspect to him if the Roman Pontiffs had approved it.
This Berengarius, then, was notable in many ways. First, he was divinely foreseen. For, as William the Librarian writes in Book III of the deeds of the English, St. Fulbert, Bishop of Chartres, being at the point of death, when among others who were present at his passing he had seen Berengarius, then a youth and not yet a heresiarch, ordered him to be expelled, protesting that he saw a monstrous demon near him, which also by its bland breathing seemed to entice many to him. Which vision indeed openly signified that Berengarius would, by the working of the Devil, seduce very many through a new heresy. In which Berengarius may be called equal to Arius; for the future heresy of Arius God foreshowed to St. Anthony, as Athanasius is witness in his life. For God is wont, as by His most just judgment sometimes to permit the gravest evils, so also of His great mercy to signify them beforehand, that men may beware for themselves and be the less harmed thereby.
Secondly, Berengarius excelled in perjuries and inconstancy. For (as we said above) three times at different times he abjured the heresy, and therefore twice was perjured; for he was compelled to abjure thrice because after the first abjuration he was twice perjured, having relapsed into the heresy: yet at last he died a Catholic, as the same William there relates.
Berengarius was besides, as is clear from Book I of Guitmund, who briefly describes his life, exceedingly proud and arrogant, and from that very pride took occasion of promulgating a new dogma. For his first controversy with Lanfranc was concerning matters pertaining to Dialectic; but when he saw himself overcome by him, and daily more and more deserted by his hearers, not bearing that ignominy, he left Dialectic and betook himself to Theology: and because he preferred (as Guitmund says) to be a heretic with some admiration of men rather than to live secretly a Catholic in the eyes of God, he most diligently sought after those things which would be new and unheard of. Thence therefore the beginning of the heresy.
To this is added that, besides this opinion concerning the Eucharist, he promulgated two others which not even Calvin himself would deny to be heresies. For he taught, as Guitmund there testifies, that lawful marriages could be destroyed, and that it was lawful for all to use all women, and that infants were not to be baptized; which two things Calvin and Luther condemn in the Anabaptists of this time. Who then would believe that God willed, through a man so erroneous — even by the judgment of the adversaries, and so manifestly heretical — to enlighten and reform the Church?
Concerning the followers of Berengarius, Guitmund writes in the same place that wicked men were wont to flock to him, who rejoiced that they were freed from great fear, when they understood that the Eucharist was not a thing so divine that on account of its reception they must restrain themselves from crimes and disgraceful deeds.
Now concerning Wyclif, Karlstadt, Zwingli, Calvin, Peter Martyr, and the other patrons of this heresy, it would be too long to explain what sort of men they were. This is established, that none of them was ever able to work any miracle, or to show any sign of his apostolate.
The last argument is taken from the miracles which were done in confirmation of this truth, such as the heretics could not, either from God or from a demon, extort for their error. For neither can God be a witness of a lie, nor has He hitherto permitted the heretics even by the work of the devil to work miracles, if not true, at least apparent. Many miracles concerning the Sacrament of the Eucharist are related by John Garet in his book on the true presence of the Lord's body, and by Tilmann Bredenbach throughout Book I of his Sacred Collations. Seven seem to me to bear most upon our matter.
The first is in the life of blessed Gregory written by Paul the Deacon, and in Book II, chapter 41 of the life of the same Gregory written by John the Deacon. The sum of the history is this. When St. Gregory was distributing the Eucharist to the people, he came to a woman who by chance had made with her own hands the bread which had been consecrated on the altar. When therefore St. Gregory said to her, “May the body of our Lord Jesus Christ keep thy soul,” she, tempted by the devil, smiled, and the Pontiff drew back his hand and replaced the particle on the altar. Then, the solemnities being completed, he asked the woman before the people why in so tremendous an action she had smiled. She, long muttering, at last answered that she had recognized the bread which she had made with her own hands, and thence could not believe that it was truly the body of the Lord. Then St. Gregory asked of God, and obtained, that even in the outward species of bread it should be changed into flesh; which being done, he both brought her back to the faith and confirmed the whole people.
The second miracle stands in Paschasius, in his book on the body of the Lord, chapter 14, where he relates that a certain very pious and holy priest once desired to see with bodily eyes the appearance of Him whom by sure faith he believed to lie hidden under the species of bread and wine: and at length obtained what he sought, and saw the body of Christ in human form, but that of a child, which also he himself had asked. For, as in that place the same Paschasius relates, for a twofold cause God is wont to work these miracles, either to confirm those doubting in the faith, or to console those by whom He is ardently loved.
The third is that of St. Malachy, which Bernard relates in his life. For when a certain clerk had once presumed to say that in the Eucharist there was only a Sacrament, not the truth of the body, St. Malachy met with him secretly and often, and admonished him; and when he did not come to his senses, brought him into an assembly of clerks, and there, leave being given to speak for his error, disputed with him and most openly confuted him. When he was still unwilling to return to his mind, he publicly argued against him before all the people, denounced him as a heretic, and with the other bishops who happened to be present struck him with anathema. But when he, still raging, said that all favored the man, but that he alone did not accept persons nor desert the truth, St. Malachy said: “May the Lord make thee confess the truth, even of necessity.” To whom he answered, Amen. But behold, on that same day he is seized with a most grievous and lethal disease, returns to his mind, is reconciled to the Church, and expires. Could God more clearly show on which side the truth lies?
The fourth is that of Bernard himself. For, as is written in his life, Book II, chapter 3, at Milan, in the presence of an innumerable people, during the celebration of the Sacraments he healed a demoniac woman whose recovery already seemed despaired of. For many years the devil had possessed her, and had taken from her the use of eyes, ears, and tongue; the very tongue too he had stretched out in the manner of an elephant's trunk, so that she seemed a horrible monster, not a woman. Therefore, holding the sacred host laid upon the paten over the head of the demoniac, and speaking in this manner, he expelled the Devil: “Here is present, wicked spirit, thy judge; here is present the highest power; now resist, if thou canst; here is present He who for our salvation was to suffer; now,” he says, “shall the prince of this world be cast out. This is that body which was taken from the body of the Virgin, which was stretched out on the stock of the cross, which lay in the tomb, which rose from death, which, the disciples beholding, ascended into heaven. In the terrible power, therefore, of this majesty, I command thee, malignant spirit, that, going out from this His handmaid, thou presume not henceforth to touch her.” So he. Wherein, as the faith of the truth deserved to be heard by God, so God could be called the author of deception and error (which be far from Him) if what St. Bernard said, and the whole Church believes, were false.
The fifth is that of St. Anthony of Padua, which is remarkable, and yet not noted by John Garet or Tilmann Bredenbach. It is described in his life in Surius, tome III, and by St. Antoninus in his historical Summa, part III, title 24, chapter 3, § 2. When St. Anthony was disputing about the truth of the Lord's body in the Eucharist with a certain heretic in the region of Toulouse (since at that time the Albigensians were harassing the Church, who with very many others were infected with this error too), the heretic asked of Anthony, whom he knew to have been foretold with the gift of miracles, a sign of this kind: “I have,” he said, “a beast of burden, to which for three whole days I will give no food. The three days ended, be present thou with the Sacrament, I will be present with the beast, and will pour out barley before it; if the beast, leaving the barley, comes to the veneration of the Sacrament, I will believe.” It was done as he wished, and, the three days ended, St. Anthony, accompanied by crowds of the faithful and holding the venerable Sacrament in his hand, spoke thus to the beast: “In the power and name of thy Creator, whom, though unworthy, I truly hold in my hands, I say to thee, animal, and command thee, that thou come at once humbly in thy manner, and show it reverence: that from this heretical wickedness may know that every creature is subject to its Creator, whom the priestly dignity continually handles on the altar.” These words being uttered, the beast, forgetful of the barley poured out before it and of its hunger, ran to the Saint, and with head bowed and knees bent, in the manner it could, adored the Lord and confuted the heretic.
The sixth Thomas Waldensis, an eyewitness, narrates, tome II, chapter 63. For he writes that a certain heretic tailor, publicly set in judgment in the Church of St. Paul at London before the Archbishop and other Prelates, said that a spider was worthier of worship and reverence than the Eucharist; and immediately from the high summit of the roof a horrible spider hastened by a straight thread to his mouth, and was scarcely prevented by the hands of many from entering.
The seventh Tilmann Bredenbach narrates, Book VII of the Sacred Collations, chapter 60, which indeed in those parts where it happened he says is most well known and most celebrated, and written not only in prose but even in verse. Its sum is this. In the year of the Lord 1361, on the 8th of April, the Monday of Easter, three hours before noon, at Nijmegen, which is a town in Guelders, a certain parish priest named Anthony Wortius, the solemnities of the Mass being completed, was carrying the venerable Sacrament to a sick woman after the Catholic manner. It chanced that at the same time, at the door of a tavern beside which the priest had to pass, two young men were standing, one of Nijmegen, the other of Utrecht, who, having Easter eggs in their hands, were contending between themselves which could swallow an egg the quicker. Meanwhile, the priest approaching, the man of Utrecht, a blasphemer and mocker of so great a mystery, and, as it appears, a Calvinist heretic, said to his companion that he would devour his egg much sooner than the little woman that petty god of hers: and immediately he threw the egg into his mouth. But the egg stuck in the middle of his throat, and when he, feeling himself being choked, looked about on every side, he saw a tallow candle hanging from the wall, and, seizing it and thrusting it into his mouth to push down the egg, the whole tallow so stuck to the egg that the wretch drew out only the bare wick or thread of the candle; then at last he fell, and, his face changed to the blackness of the Ethiopians and his throat crushed, expired. And the egg was afterward found like a swelling in another part of the neck, not in the throat, as would have been fitting. Thus indeed Christ showed Himself to be, not a petty god, but the true God. But of these things thus far.
To this argument from miracles Peter Martyr briefly answers in his book against Gardiner, objection 158, that those things which are called by us miracles are mere illusions. And this he proves because Irenaeus, Book I, chapter 9, testifies that Mark the heresiarch and magician was wont by certain illusions to bring it about in his Eucharist that blood appeared in the chalice.
But what sort of consequence is this? Mark the heresiarch and magician by illusions made blood appear in the chalice; therefore blessed Gregory, a most holy man, St. Bernard, St. Anthony, and others, whom even the heretics confess to have been saints, worked the miracles concerning the Eucharist only by illusions. Indeed, if it were lawful to argue thus, we could also gather in this way: the magicians of Pharaoh by incantations turned rods into serpents and water into blood; therefore Moses too, when he did like things, did them by incantations; and in brief we could calumniate all the miracles of Christ and the Apostles.
I say secondly that the answer of Peter Martyr can somehow be fitted to the miracles which happen when flesh, or something of the kind, appears outwardly in the Eucharist; but can in no way be fitted to those miracles which consist in the death of men, as are the third and the seventh recited by us: for those were true deaths, not simulated and feigned.
I say lastly that in this mystery the dilemma of Augustine has especially place, Book 22 of the City of God, chapter 8. For either miracles were done to confirm this mystery, or they were not done. If they were done, let us then believe what has been confirmed by so many miracles. If they were not done, this very thing is the greatest miracle, that without miracles a thing so difficult could be believed by so many philosophers, and indeed by the whole world. For as for the adversaries' opinion, which is most easy, it is no wonder if it be admitted without any miracles: but our opinion, which seems to fight not only with the senses but even with reason, who would believe that it could be persuaded to so great a multitude without many and great miracles, unless, as I said, this very thing be called the greatest miracle?
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT VIII. Ostenditur Deum voluisse, et fecisse , ut rei- psa corpus Domini in Eucharistia prxsens adesset. \ Demonstravimus hactenus non esse impos¬ sibile Deo corpus Domini in Eucharistite Sa¬ cramento vere ac rcaliter constituere : se¬ quitur videamus, an voluerit id facere. Et Sacramentarii quidem uno ore Deum no¬ luisse dicunt, quidquid tandem de potentia sit : id vero non aliter probant, nisi quia non videtur id neque utile, neque decens. At nos habemus omissis etiam Scripturis, et Patri¬ bus, testimonia credibilia nimis, et ad quae nihil omnino responderi possit ab his, qui Christiana; fidei nomen dederunt. Ac primum quidem argumentum sumitur a natura, et conditione hceresis. Illa enim tam apte quadrat in opinione Sacramenta- riorum, ut nulla sit in mundo hseresis, si illa non est haeresis. Quod si illa est ha;- resis, contraria erit veritas fidei, proinde ve¬ ritas a Deo revelata : atque ita constabit Deum hoc voluisse, et fecisse. Conditio primaria hseresis est novitas do¬ ctrina;, ut veritatis Catholica; antiquitas. Porro novitas his conjecturis convincitur, si notari possint auctor, locus, tempus, si inci¬ piat cum paucis sectatoribus, si cum admira¬ tione, et perturbatione fidelium appareat ; et si ei contradicatur, ad judicium et examen adducatur, et tandem a concilio Episcopo¬ rum, et consequenter a populis fidelibus con¬ demnetur. Id enim in omnibus hseresibus gra¬ vioribus invenitur, ut in Ariana, Nesto riana, Eutychiana, Pelagiana, et similibus. Jam sententia Sacramentariorum habet auctorem suum certum, Berengarium Turo- nensem natione, et Andegavensem Archidia- conum. Patet ex Paschasio, qui in lib. de verbis Institut. Sacramenti, affirmat suo tempore non defuisse aliquos, qui quae¬ stiones moverent de veritate corporis Domini in Eucharistia (fuerant enimJoannes Scotus, et Bertramus) tamen nullum fuisse, qui LIBER III. 154 aperte negaret : « Et iilco, inquit, quamvis ex hoc quidem de ignorantia errent, nemo tamen est adhuc in aperto, qui hoc ita esse contradicat, quod totus orbis credit, ct con¬ fitetur. » Haec ille. Itaque tempore Pascha- sii adhuc nullus fuerat, qui aperte profiteri ausus esset, non esse vere, etrealiter Christi corpus in Eucharistia. Post Paschasii autem tempora nullus fuit ante Berengarium, qui aperte vel obscure dc hac re scripserit ; sed ipse primus se doctorem novi dogmatis ven¬ titare ausus est. Quare Adelmannus Epi¬ scopus Brixincnsis, etHugo Episcopus Lingo- nensis in epistolis ad Berengarium, ad eum scribunt tanquam primum assertorem ejus haeresis, et serio monent, ne Ecclesiam per¬ turbet, et miminerit, quem exitum habue¬ rint haeresiarchae, qui ante eum fuerunt. Denique Guitmundus lib. m. non procul a fine: «Notissimum, inquit, est, hoc tempore priusquam Berengarius insanisset, hujus¬ modi vesanias nusquam fuisse ». Itaque arc¬ etor notissimus est. Tempus aeque notum ; quippe ab histori¬ cis, et chronologis, aliisque scriptoribus eorum temporum annotatum. Scribit Sige- bertus in Chronico, anno 1051, ccepisse Be¬ rengarium novo suo dogmate Gallias per¬ turbare ; quod idem indicant Lantfrancus, ct Guitmundus, et alii, inter quos praecipue legendus est Gulielmus Bibliothecarius, Mal- mes Beriensis lib. iii de gestis Angi orum, qui illo ipso tempore floruit. Locus item notissimus; nam in Gallia coe¬ pit suam haeresim praedicare, ut ommes ci¬ tati auctores scribunt. Paucitas sectatorum initio describitur a Guitmundo lib. i, ubi dicit, Berengarium coepisse audiri a pauperibus scholaribus qui¬ busdam, quos ille data stipe ad se alliciebat . Admiratio, ct perturbatio Ecclesiae, quae est evidens indecium novitatis describitur ab iis¬ dem auctoribus et praesertim ab Adelmanno in epistolam ad Berengarium, et a Lantfranco initio libri contra Berengarium, ubi dicit lectam fuisse in Concilio Romano sub Leone IX, epistol. Berengarii a se ; in qua epistola cum scriptum esset tantummodo Sacramen¬ tum, omnes Episcopos miratos esse, quod illa verba adversarentur usitatissimae fidei Catholicae Ecclesiae. Denique contradictio, examen, judicium, et condemnatio habentur ibidem. Sic enim scribit Lantfrancus : « Tempore S. Leonis Papae delata est haeresis tua ad Apostolicam sedem. Qui cum Synodo praesideret, ac re¬ sideret secum non parva multitudo Episco¬ porum, Abbatum, diversique ordinis a di¬ versis regionibus religiosarum personarum, jussum est in omnium audientia recitari, quas mihi de corpore et sanguine Domini litteras transmisisti ». Et infra : Intellecto, quod communi de Eucharistia fulci adversa sentires, promulgata est in te damnationis sententia, privans te communione sanctae Ecclesiae quam tu privare sancta ejus com¬ munione satagebas ». Haec ille. Videmus igitur omnia signa novitatis in opinione Berengarii reperiri : quorum ne unum quidem in sententia nostra reperitur. Neque enim hactenus ullus haereticorum di¬ cere potuit, quis auctor fuerit nostrae sen¬ tentiae : unde etiam Berengarius vocabat eam sententiam vulgi ut ibidem Lantfrancus te¬ statur. Neque tempus, aut locum, aut pauci¬ tatem primorum sectatorum, aut admiratio¬ nem populorum, aut denique ullum publicum judicium contra eam proferre unquam potue¬ runt adversarii. Et sane non esse inventum Papistarum (ut adversarii nos vocant) sententiam no¬ stram de Eucharistia, sed rem antiquissi¬ mam patet evidenter ex consensu Graecorum. Graeci enim a Romanis Pontificibus a longis¬ simo tempore dissidere coeperunt, et proinde eorum nova dogmata non facile recepissent : et tamen in hac re nunquam a Latinis dissen¬ serunt, neque hoc tempore dissentiunt, ut ex censura Orientalium ad Confessionem Lu- theranorum patet. Confirmatur hoc totum argumentum a facilitate sententiae adversa¬ riorum, et difficultate nostra) sententiae. Nam cum sententia adversariorum sit facilli¬ ma, et humanis sensibus accommodata, facile potuisset occulte irrepere, et a plurimis con¬ tinuo admitti, ita ut laterent signa illa novi¬ tatis. At sententia nostra, quae difficillima est, et repugnat sensibus, ac superat ratio¬ nem, non potuit occulte irrepere, nec potuit facile tantai multitudini persuaderi. Cum ergo videamus in sententia nostra nulla ap¬ parere signa novitatis, quae tamen non po¬ tuit ullo modo occulte subintrare ; ct contra inveniamus omnia signa novitatis, in sen¬ tentia adversariorum, quae tamen facile po¬ tuisset occulte insinuari : evidenter sane ostenditur nostram esse antiquissimam, et proinde veram ; contrariam vero novam et proinde falsam, ct haereticam. Alterum argumentum veritatis fidei no- CAPUT VIII. strce, est consensus Ecclesiae. Nam habemus consensum Ecclesiae totius Latinae,. Graecae, Barbarae. Scribit enim Paschasius in lib. de Instit. Sacramenti, ubi explicat verba Do¬ mini : Hoc est corpus meum , nullum omnino fuisse, qui se Christianum diceret, qui ne¬ gare auderet carnem Domini vere esse in Eucharistia. Lantfrancus autem do 'suo tem¬ pore sic scribit in extremo lib. contra Beren- garium : « Interroga universos, qui Latinae linguae, nostrarumvc litterarum notitiam perceperunt, interroga Graecos, Armenios, seu cujuslibet nationis quoscumque Christi¬ anos, uno ore hanc fidem se testabuntur ha¬ bere ». Nostro autem tempore tantus con¬ sensus erat in nostro orbe terrarum, ante¬ quam Carolstadius, et Zwinglius apparere coepissent, ut Zwinglius scribat in commen¬ tario de vera et falsa religione, cap. de Eu¬ charistia, se valde occulte initio egisse, et cuni paucis amicis contulisse negotium istud novi dogmatis proponendi : metuebat enim, ne omnes offenderet, cum nullum omnino sciret esse ejus sententiae, quam ipse invehere in Ecclesiam cogitabat. Hoc igitur consensu posito, necessario sequitur, ut vel nostra sit vera fides de Eu¬ charistia ; vel numquam fuerit Ecclesia in mundo, vel fuerit, sed perierit, vel manse¬ rit in solis Berengarianis ; vel simul maneant Ecclesia Dei, et summum ac publicum sa¬ crilegium, summaque et publica idololatria. At Ecclesiam numquam fuisse in mundo, pugnat cum Scripturis, et cum Symbolo, et a nullo unquam vel haoreticismo id fuit as¬ sertum. Ec6lesiam fuisse, sed periisse om¬ nino pugnat cum apertissimis promissioni¬ bus Dei. Lucae i : 'Regni ejus non erit finis. Matth. xvi. Portse inferi non praevalebunt adversus eam. Matth. ult. Et ecce ego vobis- cum sum usque ad consummationem sceculi (1). Mansisse in solis Berengarianis dici non po¬ test, quia tunc, ante Berengarium non fuis¬ set. Nam saltem per annos ducentos ante Berengarium constat ex testimonio Pascha- sii, et omnibus historiis, totam Ecclesiam credidisse id quod nos credimus. Deinde Berengariani paucissimi fuerunt, et vix alibi quam in Gallia, et brevi tempore ad nihilum redacti. Et licet post annos circiter 300, a Joanne Wiclefo, renovata fuerit hseresis Be- rengariana, tamen extra Angliam et Bohc- miam pedem non posuit ; et in i ilis etiam I W loo locis, ita extincta fuit, ut annis circiter cen¬ tum ante Zwinglium nusquam fuerit. At Ecclesia semper vivit, semper conspicua est nec potest (ut ista hseresis fecit) modo inte¬ rire, modo renasci, nisi falsae sint promissio¬ nes supra citata). Denique Ecclesiam esse, et simul in summo errore, sacrilegio, et idolo¬ latria versari, nullo modo fieri potest : nam alioqui nulli ha)retici essent extra Ecclesiam et falso Paulus diceret i. Tim. m : Ecclesiam esse columnam, et firmamentum veritatis. Videtur Petrus Martyr in sua precatione ad Deum, qua concludit librum suum contra Stephanum Gardinerum , existimasse Eccle¬ siam veram esse posse, ubi hseresis, et ido¬ lolatria regnent : sed ita adversus eum pugnat illa ipsius precatio, ut mirum sit ipsum etiam non id animadvertisse. Sic enim alloquitur Christum : « Si desperata, inquit, est plaga, neque veritati tua) in tua Ecclesia amplius futurus est publicus, et apertus locus, ad exercendum judicium quamprimum venito » . Haec ille; qua quidem precatione nullam unquam stultiorem legi. Nam si per veri¬ tatem intelligit sententiam Zwinglii, quam in toto eo libro asserere conatus est : fateri cogitur apud nos esse veram Ecclesiam Christi, et proinde se esse extra Ecclesiam : nostra enim Ecclesia est in qua non permit¬ titur locus sententia) Zwinglii. Si vero suum coetum vocat Ecclesiam Christi, tum fateri cogitur, sententiam nostram de Eucharistia esse veritatem Dei : nam sententia nostra est, cui non datur locus in coetu Zwinglianorum. Quare quocumque se vertat, suo se gladio ferit ; ut omittam, nimiam esse stupiditatem, dicere in Ecclesia Dei non dari locum veri¬ tati Dei. Ubi enim erit veritas Dei, si in Ec¬ clesiam Dei non est ? Sed justo judicio Dei, qui Ecclesiam Dei perdiderunt, jam nec qualis illa sit, videre possunt. Tertium argumentum sumi potest a dili¬ gentia, quam Ecclesia adhibuit in praesenti controversia examinanda, et a constantia in veritate retinenda. Si enim Ecclesia quaestio- nem discutere noluisset, aut leviter discus¬ sisset : possent haeretici aliquem colorem obtendere, cum dicunt Ecclesiam in errore versari. At nulla unquam quaestio saepius, ac diligentius examinata est. Primum discussa fuit in Concilio Romano sub Leone IX, et damnata hseresis Beren- garii. Secundo in Vercellensi, eodem Leone (I) Luc. I, 33; Matth. XVI, 18; XXVIII, 20. 150 LIBER III. prasente, ac praesidente, eadem quaestio discussa et eodem modo explicata : quo etiam Berengarius vocatus est, et cum acce¬ dere noluisset, cum ejus confoederatis, qui se Berengarii legatos nominabant, disputatum est. Tertio mortuo sancto Leone iterum in Concilio Turonensi praesidentibus legatis Vic¬ toris papae, qui Leoni successerat, cum ipso Berengario acerrime disputatum, coque con¬ victo cthaeresim abjurante, eadem fides con¬ firmata est. Quarto cum Berengarius ad vo¬ mitum rediissct, iterum Roma) in generali Concilio Nicolao II, praesidente, et Beren¬ gario praesente, eadem quaestio proposita, et discussa diligentissime fuit, et tum secundo Berengarius abjuravit, et librum ipse suum coram omnibus cremavit. Atque horum qua- tuor Conciliorum meminit Lantfrancus in libro contra Berengarium , qui omnibus in¬ terfuit. Quinto cum Berengarium , iterum secunda abju ratione contempta , ad suam haeresim rediisset, coactum est quintum Con¬ cilium Romae a Gregorio Papa VII, et rursus quaestio discussa diligenter, et haeresis dam¬ nata fuit: ubi etiam Berengarius tertio abju¬ ravit, neque amplius defecit. Hujus Concilii non meminerunt Lantfrancus, et Guitmun- dus, quia nondum celebratum erat, cum illi scriberent : sed meminit Thomas Waldensis tom. ii. de Sacramentis, cap. 43. Sexto in Concilio amplissimo totius orbis sub Innocen- tio III. Romae celebrato, iterum eadem hac- resis damnaita est. Septimo eadem veritas explicata est in Concilio generali Viennensi, anno Domini 1311, unde exstat Glemen tina unica de reliquiis, et veneratione Sanctorum. Octavo idem est factum in Concilio generali Romano sub Joanne XXIII, anno Domini 1413. ut testatur Joannes Cochlaeus lib. i. historiae Hussitarum. Nono idipsum actum est in Concilio Constantiensi propter haeresim eamdem a Joanne Wicleffo renovatam. De¬ cimo in Concilio Tridenti no nostris diebus propter Zwinglianos , et Calvinistas : ut omittam Concilium Florentinum, et plurima alia, in quibus obiter idem est definitum. Quae cum ita sint, quis poterit sibi per¬ suadere, Deum permissurum fuisse, ut Ec¬ clesia in hac re erraret ? Quid enim facere debuit, et non fecit ? congregavit homines doctos, rem excussit, Deum invocavit, idque non semel, nec bis, sed saepius. Quod si du¬ bitare possumus an hac in re erraverit Eccle¬ sia., de omnibus aliis definitionibus contra varias haereses dubitare poterimus ; imo etiam, an Deus sit, sive an res nostras curet, dubitare poterimus ; quid enim curat, si ista non curat ? Hunc accedit quod Ecclesia Catholica semper in eadem sententia mansit, neque deterrita est ob argumenta varia, et difficilia, quae vel Berengariani, vel postea Wiclefistae, vel Zwingliani excogitaverunt : in omnibus enim citatis Conciliis eadem sententia in¬ venitur. Contra vero adversarii, nec ulla Concilia Episcoporum habuerunt, nec inter se unquam convenerunt. Scribunt enim Guit- munduslib. i. et Algerus in Prologo librorum de corpore, et sanguine Domini, statim in ipso initio Berengairianae haereseos ortas esse sex diversas opiniones, ac sectas, quas ipsi enumerant. Nostro autem tempore (ut supra diximus) multo plurcs existunt, praesertim si conjungamus errores Lutheranorum cum er¬ roribus Zwinglianorum. Quartum argumentum sumi potest a pa¬ tronis sententiae nostrae. Nam sententia nos¬ tra ab eo tempore, quo propter Berengarium clarissime explicata est, id est, ab anno Do¬ mini 1031. patronos habuit plurimos viros tam claros vitae sanctitate, et miraculis, ut etiam ab haereticis hujus temporis sancti habeantur, et nominentur. In hoc numero sunt sanctus Anselmus, S. Bernardus, S. Malachias, S. Dominicus, S. Franciscus, S. Antonius de Padua, S. Petrus Martyr, S. Thomas, S. Bonaventura, S. Nicolaus Tolen- tinus, S. Ludovicus Rex, S. Bernardinus, S. Vincentius, S. Antonius, S. Franciscus Pau- lanus, et alii plurcs. Isti vere sancti, et amici Dei fuerunt, et cum Christo nunc in coelis regnartt : nam praeter commune Ecclesiae testimonium, omnes miraculis claruerunt, et aliqui eorum pluribus , et certioribus , quam ulli fere veterum; ut Bernardus, cujus miracula prae multitudine numerari non pos¬ sunt; ut Vincentius, in cujus canonizationc dicuntur certis testibus probata plusquam octingenta miracula ; ut Franciscus , cujus etiam prope innumerabilia, et maxima nar¬ rantur a S. Bonaventura. Sunt autem haec miracula certiora, quam veterum Sancto¬ rum, quia Ecclesia his posterioribus sacculis non solet referre in numerum Sanctorum aliquos, nisi miracula certissimis testibus comprobentur , quod olim non fiebat. Et denique aliquos horum , ut Bernardum , Franciscum , Dominicum sanctos esse la¬ tentur etiam adversarii. Lutherus in lib. de capti v. Babylon, cap. de Eucharistia, Tho- CAPUT VIII. mam Aquinatem vocat sanctum, et cap. dc Baptismo, sanctos vocat Bernardum, Domi¬ nicum , ct Franciscum. Philippus Mclanch- thon in Apologia Confess. art. 4. ct o. ct Ti. sanctos vocat Antonium, Bernardum, Domi¬ nicum , Franciscum. Et Petrus Martyr in commcnt. 3. cap. i. ad Corinth. in illud : Dies enim Domini declarabit, salvatos affirmat eosdem. Calvinus in Instit. cap. 10. et 17. Bernardum pium scriptorem vocat. Hos au¬ tem in nostra sententia de Eucharistia luisse tum ex libris eorum constat, tum ex eo, qtiod omnes Romanis Pontificibus adhaeserunt ; tum denique quia Romana Ecclesia nunquam eos in sanctorum catalogum retulisset , si in tanta re ab illa dissensissent. Ad haec extra controversiam est, sanctos, ct amicos Dei esse non posse, qui vera fule carent ; cum sine fide impossibile sit placere Deo, Iiebr. xi. ct cum justus ex fide vivat Ilebr. x. Et denique non est ullo modo cre¬ dibile, Deum, qui sanctis istis dedit spiritum Prophetia), et revelavit plurima etiam non necessaria, tanquam amicis, noluisse saltem alicui eorum revelare veritatem linjus rei tam necessariam. Neque potest dici sanctos excusari posse, licet erraverint, quod in rc parvi momenti, aut in re nondum explicata, et definita, aut certo non pertinaciter, sed simpliciter, et ex ignorantia lapsi fuerint. Nam in primis res gravissima est, et in qua vel summa pietas, et religio, vel summa impietas, idololatria, et sacrilegium continetur. Deinde res trac¬ tata, discussa, ct definita jam, erat in multis Conciliis, ut diximus, ct inter haereticos jam numerabantur, qui aliter sentiebant. Denique ipsi homines sancti non simpliciter hoc asse¬ ruerunt , sed fere omnes contra lucreticos propugnarunt; vel libris, vel .concionibus , vel etiam disputationibus cum haereticis ha¬ bitis. Quare necesse est omnino aut veram esse sententiam nostram, aut homines illos haereticos, et inimicos Dei fuisse : neque adversarii nostri unquam inter se concilia¬ bunt ista duo, viros illos sanctos fuisse et in errore gravissimo versatos, atque ideo idolo- latras, et sacrilegos tota vita sua fuisse. Quintum argumentum sumitur ab ancio¬ ribus, ct patronis contrariae sententia) : tales enim fuerunt, ut nullo modo probabile sit, Deum per tales homines Ecclesiam suam corrigere, vel reformare voluisse. Etsi enim Deus eligere solet aliquando homines sim¬ plices, ignobiles, imperitos, ut per eos mag¬ 157 nalia sua operetur ; tamen ipse eos instruit divina sapientia, charitatc, dono miraculo¬ rum, ct similibus ornamentis, ut homines e arter i tuto credere possint illos a Deo missos. Tales fuerunt Patriarcha; , Propheta, Apo¬ stoli, institutores Ordinum religiosorum , et alii similes. Inspiciamus nunc qualis fuerit Bcrcnga- rius, quem parentem suum agnoscit Calvi¬ nus, in ultima admonitione ad Wcstphalum, ubi dicit se non aegre ferre, quod sententiam suam olim in Bcrengario damnaverit Nico¬ laus Papa in Concilio Romano, et Grcgorius ATI, in Concilio Vercellensi, sed contra po¬ tius suspectam sibi futuram ‘fuisse, si Ro¬ mani Pontifices illam approhassent. Iste igitur Bercngarius multis modis insi¬ gnis fuit. Primo praevisus fuit divinitus. Nam ut scribit Gulielmus Bibliothecariusinlib. m. dc gestis Anglorum, S. Fulbertus Episcopus Carnotcnsis in extremis agens, cum interalios, qui illi molienti aderant, Berengarium tunc adolescentem, et nondum haeresiarcham vi¬ disset, jussit eum expelli, protestatus videre se immanem daemonem prope illum , qui etiam blando anhelitu multos ad cum allicere videbatur. Quae sane visio aperte significavit Berengarium opera Diaboli plurimos per no¬ vam haeresim seducturum. In quo Beren- garius aqualis Ario dici potest ; nam Arii futuram haeresim S. Antonio Deus praemon¬ stravit, ut in ejus vita testis est Athanasius. Solet enim Deus gravissima mala ut justis¬ simo judicio suo interdum permittere, ita etiam ex magna sua misericordia praesigni¬ ficare, ut homines sibi caveant, et minus inde laedantur. Secundo excellit Bercngarius in perjuriis, et inconstantia. Nam (ut supra diximus) ter diversis temporibus haeresim abjuravit, ac proinde bis perjurus fuit; ideo enim ter ab¬ jurare coactus est, quia post primam abju- rationem bis perjurus fuit, cum in haeresim relapsus esset : tandem tamen Catholicus obiit, ut idem Gulielmus ibidem refert. Fuit praeterea Bercngarius, ut patet ex i. lib. Guitmundi, qui ejus vitam breviter de¬ scribit supra modum superbus, et arrogans, et ex ipsa superbia occasionem accepit novi dogmatis promulgandi. Nam prima illi con¬ troversia cum Lantfranco fuit de rebus ad Dialecticam pertinentibus; sed cum ab eo superari, ct ab auditoribus quotidie magis ac magis deseri se videret, ignominiam illam non ferens, Dialectica omissa ad Theologiam I5S LIBER III. se transtulit : et quia malebat (ut ait Guit- mundus) cum aliqua hominum admiratione esse haereticus, quam in oculis Dei occulte Catholicus vivere, ea diligentissime sectaba¬ tur, quae nova et inaudita caderis essent. Inde ergo initium haeresis. Accedit ad haec , quod praeter hanc sen¬ tentiam de Eucharistia, duas alias promul¬ gavit, quas ne ipse quidem Calvinus negaret liaereses esse. Docuit enim, ut ibidem Guit- mundus testatur , legitima matrimonia de¬ strui posse , ac licere omnibus foeminis uti, et non esse infantes baptizandos; quae duo in Anabaptistis hujus temporis Calvinus, et Lutlierus damnant. Quis igitur credat vo¬ luisse Deum per hominem ita erroneum, adversariorum etiam judicio , atque adeo manifeste haereticum , Ecclesiam illustrare et reformare ? De sectatoribus Berengarii' scribit ibidem Guitmundus , homines sceleratos ad eum concurrere solitos, qui laetabantur se magno metu liberatos , cum intelligerent Eucha¬ ristiam non esse rem tam divinam , ut propter ejus perceptionem a sceleribus, et fiagitiis se continere deberent. Jam de Wiclefo, de Carolstadio, Zwinglio, Calvino, Petro Martyre, et aliis hujus haere¬ sis patronis, nimis longum esset, quales fue¬ rint , explicare. Illud constat , neminem ipsorum ullum unquam miraculum edere, aut signum ullum sui Apostolatus ostendere potuisse. Postremum argumentum sumitur a mira¬ culis, quae in confirmatione hujus veritatis facta sunt, qualia haeretici pro suo errore, neque a Deo, neque a daemone extorquere potuerunt. Nam nec Deus testis mendacii esse potest, nec permisit hactenus haereticis, ut saltem opera diaboli, si non vera, saltem apparentia miracula facerent. Multa refe¬ runtur miracula circa Sacramentum Eucha¬ ristiae a Joanne Garetio in lib. de vera prae¬ sentia corporis Domini, et a Tilmanno Bre- dcmbachio toto lib. i. sacrarum collationum. Septem mihi videntur ad rem nostram ma¬ xime facere. Primum est in vita B. Grcgorii a Paulo Diacono scripta, et in lib. n, cap. 41. vitae ejusdem Grcgorii per Joannem Diaconum scriptae. Summa historiae haec est. Cum S. Gregorius Eucharistiam populo distribueret, venit ad mulierem, quae forte panem, qui in altari fuerat consecrandus, suis manibus fecerat. Cum ergo illi S. Gregorius diceret : <( Corpus Domini nostri JcSu Christi custo¬ diat animam tuam » , illa diabolo tentante subriit , et Pontifex manum retraxit , et particulam in altari reposuit. Deinde com¬ pletis solemniis interrogavit mulierem coram populo, cur in tam tremenda actione risis¬ set. Illa diu mussitans tandem respondit, re¬ cognovisse se panem, quem suis manibus fecerat, atque inde credere non potuisse cor¬ pus Domini revera esse. Tum S. Gregorius a Deo petiit, et impetravit, ut etiam specie externa panis, in carnem mutaretur ; quo facto, tam illam ad fidem reduxit, quam to¬ tum populum confirmavit. Alterum miraculum exstat apud Pascha- sium in lib. de corpore Domini cap. 14. ubi refert Presbyterum quemdam valde pium et sanctum, optasse aliquando videre corpora¬ libus oculis speciem ejus, quem certa fide credebat sub speciebus panis, et vini latere : et tandem quod petebat obtinuisse, ac vi¬ disse Christi corpus in forma humana, sed puerili, quod etiam ipse petierat. Ut enim eo loco idem Paschasius refert, duplici de causa Deus haec miracula facere solet, vel ad dubitantes in fide confirmandos, vel ad consolandos eos, a quibus ardenter amatur. Tertium est S. Malachise , quod refert Bernardus in ejus vita. Cum enim Clericus quidam aliquando dicere praesumpsisset, in Eucharistia solum esse Sacramentum, non corporis veritatem, S. Malachias secreto, ac saepe eum convenit, ct admonuit non resi¬ piscentem adducit in conventum Clericorum, ibique data facultate pro suo errore dicendi, cum illo disseruit, eumque apertissime con¬ futavit. Nondum ad mentem redire volen¬ tem, coram omni populo publice arguit, haereticum que denuntiat, et cum aliis Epi¬ scopis, qui forte aderant, anathemate ferit. Sed cum adhuc ille furens diceret, omnes favere homini, sc autem solum non accipere personas, nec deserere veritatem, S. Ma¬ lachias dixit : « Dominas faciat te verita¬ tem fateri, vel ex necessitate. » Cui ille re¬ spondit, Arnen. Sed ecce die eodem corripi¬ tur gravissimo ac lethali morbo, redit ad mentem, reconciliatur Ecclesise, expirat. Po¬ terat ne clarius Deus ostendere a qua parte sit veritas ? Quartum est ipsius Bernardi. Nam ut scri¬ bitur in ejus vita lib. ii, cap. 3. Mediolani praesente populo innumerabili inter Sacra¬ mentorum celebrationem curavit daemonia¬ cam, cujus sanitas desperata jam videbatur. CAPUT VIII. Siquidem multos annos diabolus eum pos¬ sederat, et oculorum, aurium, ac linguae usum illi eripuerat ; ipsam etiam linguam in morem promuscidis elephantina) illi ex¬ tenderat, ut monstrum horribile, non mulier videretur. Igitur sacram hostiam patena) impositam super caput daemoniacae tenens, ‘atque in hunc modum loquens, Diabolum expulit: « Adest, inique spiritus, judex tuus, adest summa potestas; jam resiste, si potes; adest ille, qui pro nostra salute passurus ; nunc, inquit, princeps hujus mundi ejicie¬ tur foras. Hoc illud corpus, quod de cor¬ poris Virginis sumptum est, quod in stipite crucis extensum est, quod in tumulo jacuit, quod de morte surrexit, quod videntibus discipulis ascendit in coelum. In hujus ergo majestatis terribili potestate, tibi, spiritus maligne, praecipio, ut ab hac ancilla ejus egrcdiens contingere eam deinceps non praesumas. » Haec ille. Ubi sicut fides veri¬ tatis a Deo exaudiri meruit; ita prorsus de¬ ceptionis, et erroris auctor dici posset (quod absit) Deus, si falsum esset quod S. Bernar- dus dixit, et tota Ecclesia credit. Quintum est S. Antonii de Padua, quod insigne est, nec tamen a Joanne Garetio, vel Tilmanno Bredembachio annotatum. Describitur in ejus vita apud Surium, tom. Ili, et a S. Antonino in summa historiali par. m, tit. xxiv, cap. 3. § 2. Disputante S. Antonio de veritate corporis Domini in Eucharistia cum haeretico quodam in par¬ tibus Tolosanis (siquidem eo tempore Albi- genses vexabant Ecclesiam, qui cum aliis plurimis hoc etiam errore infecti erant) pe¬ tiit ha)reticus ab Antonio, quem noverat dono miraculorum praedictum esse, ejus¬ modi signum : « Habeo, inquit, jumentum, cui per integrum triduum cibum non dabo. Exacto triduo adsis tu cum Sacramento, ego adero cum jumento, atque ante illum hor¬ deum effundam ; si jumentum hordeo de¬ relicto ad Sacramenti venerationem acces¬ serit, credam ». Factum est ut ille voluit, et triduo exacto S. Antonius, turbis fidelium comitatus, et venerabile Sacramentum manu tenens, sic ad jumentum locutus est : « In virtute et nomine Creatoris tui, quem in manibus, licet indignus, veraciter teneo, tibi dico, animal, et praecipio, ut confestim venias humiliter modo tuo, et ei reverentiam ex¬ hibeas : ut ex hoc cognoscat haeretica pra¬ vitas, quod omnis creatura suo subditur Creatori, quem sacerdotalis dignitas jugiter 1 39 tractat in altari ». His verbis prolatis, ju¬ mentum hordei ante se effusi, et famis obli¬ tum, ad Sanctum accurrit, et capite incli¬ nato, ac genibus, curvatis, eo modo quo potuit, Dominum adoravit, et haereticum confutavit. Sextum narrat Thomas Waldensis testis oculatus tom. n. cap. 63. Scribit enim sar¬ torem quemdam haereticum publice in Ec¬ clesia S. Pauli Londini in judicio coram Ar- chicpiscopo et aliis Praelatis constitutum, dixisse, digniorem esso araneam cultu, ac reverentia, quam Eucharistiam ; et continuo de alto tecti culmine horribilem araneam directo filo ad os ejus properasse, ac vix multorum manibus prohibitam, ne ingrede¬ retur. Septimum narrat Tilmannus Bredcmba- chius, lib. vn. sacrarum collationum cap. 60. quod quidem in illis partibus, ubi con¬ tigit, dicit esse notissimum, et celeberri¬ mum, ac non solum soluta oratione, sed etiam carmine conscriptum. Ejus ha)c est summa. Anno Domini 1361, die 8. Aprilis, feria 2. pascha) tribus horis ante meridiem, Noviomagi, quod oppidum est in Geldria, Parochus quidam nomine Antonius Wortius, completis Missarum solemniis, venerabile Sacramentum ad fceminam a)grotam de more Catholico deferebat. Casu accidit, ut tempore eodem ad januam taberna), juxta quam Parocho transeundum erat, duo ju¬ venes consisterent , Noviomagensis unus, alter Traject ensis, qui ova Paschalia in ma¬ nibus habentes, inter se contendebant, uter celerius ovum deglutiret. Interea Parocho appropinquante, Trajectensis blasphemus, et irrisor tanti mysterii, et ut apparet, haereti¬ cus Calvinista sodali suo dixit, se multo citius ovum suum devoraturum, quam muliercu¬ lam Deastrum illum : et continuo ovum in os injecit. Sed ovum in medio gutture constitit, et cum ille suffocari se sentiens, undique circumspiceret, vidit candelam seba¬ ceam ex pariete dependentem, eaque arrep¬ ta, atque in os injecta, ut ovum detruderet, ita ha)sit totum saevum in ovo, ut nudum filum, seu stamen candela), miser extraxerit ; tum denique concidit, et in ^Ethiopum nigre¬ dinem mutato vultu, elisoque gutture expi- ravit. Repertum est autem postea ovum in¬ star tuberis in altera parte colli, non in gut¬ ture, ut par erat. Ita nimirum Christus, non Deastrum, sed vqrum Deum se esse demon¬ stravit. Sed de his hactenus. 160 LIBER 111. Ad Jioc argumentum ex miraculis Petrus Martyr breviter respondet in libro contra Gardinerum, objecto 158. esse meras prfe- stigias ista, quae a nobis dicuntur miracula. Id vero probat, quia Jremcus lib. i. cap. 9. testatur, Marcum hcresiarcham, et magum praestigiis quibusdam solitum fuisse in sua Eucharistia efficere, ut in calice eruor appa¬ reret. At quamam est ista consequentia? Marcus haeresiarcha, et magus praestigiis cruorem in calice apparere laciebat ; ergo B. Gre- gorius vir sanctissimus , S. Bernardus, S. Antonius, et alii, quos sanctos fuisse etiam haeretici confitentur non nisi praestigiis mi¬ racula circa Eucharistiam fecerunt. Sane si ita liceat argumentari, poterimus etiam hoc modo colligere : magi Pharaonis per incan¬ tationes convertebant virgas in dracones, et aquam in sanguinem ; ergo et Moses cum similia faceret, per incantationes faciebat ; et breviter omnia miracula Christi, et Apo¬ stolorum calumniari possemus. Dico secundo, responsionem Petri Mar¬ tyris utcumque aptari posse ad miracula, qmc fiunt, cum exterius in Eucharistia apparet caro, vel aliquid ejusmodi ; at nullo modo aptari posse ad ea miracula, qua) consi¬ stunt in interitu hominum, ut est tertium et septimum a nobis recitatum : ille enim verse mortes fuerunt, non simulatae, ac fictae. Dico postremo in hoc mysterio maxime locum habere dilemma Augustini lib. 22. de Civitate Dei cap. S. Nam aut facta sunt mi¬ racula ad hoc mysterium confirmandum, aut non sunt facta. Si facta sunt, credamus igitur, quod tot miraculis confirmatum est. Si non sunt facta, hoc ipsum est summum miraculum, quod sine miraculis res tam diflicilis credi potuerit a tot philosophis, at¬ que adeo a toto orbe terrarum. Nam sen¬ tentia adversariorum, quae facillima est, non est mirum, si absque ullis miraculis ad¬ mittatur : nostram autem sententiam, quae non modo cum sensibus, sed etiam cum ra¬ tione pugnare videtur, quis credat tantae multitudini, sine multis magnisque miraculis persuaderi potuisse, nisi, ut dixi, hoc ipsum summum miraculum esse dicatur?