Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book III: On the Truth of the Body of the Lord, from Reason
Chapter 20: Transubstantiation Is Proved by the Testimonies of the Fathers
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).
Now the same thing is to be demonstrated by the testimonies of the ancient Fathers, which must necessarily be done: since the adversaries boast that transubstantiation was not known before the year of the Lord 1200, that is, until the Lateran Council under Innocent III.
Luther, in the book on the Babylonian Captivity, chapter 1, more than once affirms that transubstantiation is the invention of St. Thomas and the opinion of the Thomists, and there indicates that this opinion was approved by the Pope in the chapter Firmiter, which chapter is taken from the Lateran Council under Innocent III — where Luther basely slips in history: since St. Thomas was not yet born when the chapter Firmiter was issued and that Council celebrated. For it is established that the Council was celebrated in the year 1215, but St. Thomas was born afterward in the year 1224. Peter Martyr, in his book against Stephen Gardiner, objection 128, makes Innocent III with the Lateran Council the first author of transubstantiation, both as to the name and as to the thing. John Calvin, Institutes Book IV, chapter 17, § 15, looked to the same, when he says that in the time of St. Bernard transubstantiation was not yet known to the world. The same too Martin Kemnitz signifies, in Part 2 of the Examination of the Council of Trent, session 13, chapter 4, where he says that in the time of Peter Lombard there was nothing certain about this matter in the Church.
Therefore, to refute this lie, testimonies of the Fathers must be adduced from the time of the Apostles to the times of Innocent III, or to the year of the Lord 1200. In the first age after the Apostles, from the year of the Lord 100 to 200, flourished Justin and Irenaeus. Justin, in his second Apology near the end, says that that food from which our flesh is nourished, that is, bread sanctified by the prayer of the word of God, is the flesh of the Lord. Irenaeus, Book 4, chapter 34: “How will it be established for them that the bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, etc.?” Each therefore will have this proposition to be true, the consecrated bread is the body of the Lord. But this cannot be true without a change of the bread into the body of the Lord, for bread remaining bread cannot be the body of the Lord, as we showed above; therefore a change is made, and in that way the changed bread truly is the body of the Lord.
From the year 200 to 300 flourished Tertullian and Cyprian. Tertullian, Book 4 against Marcion: “The bread He took He makes His body, by saying, This is my body.” But how could the bread become a body without a change of itself? Cyprian, in his sermon on the Lord's Supper: “This bread, which the Lord held out to the disciples, changed not in appearance but in nature, by the omnipotence of the Word was made flesh.” Here you plainly see that the bread is changed as to its nature or substance, and yet the appearance, that is, the accidents, remain; and this is what we call transubstantiation.
From the year 300 to 400 flourished Cyril of Jerusalem, Ambrose, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gaudentius. Cyril, catechesis 4 of the Mystagogics: “He once changed water into wine, and shall He not be worthy that we believe He transmutes wine into blood?” Behold a real change. A little below: “Under the species of bread is given to thee the body, and under the species of wine is given to thee the blood.” Behold the accidents of the bread, which remain. And below: “Knowing this, and holding it for most certain, that this bread which is seen by us is not bread, even though the taste perceive it to be bread.” Behold the absence of the substance of the bread, the color and taste remaining, and therefore entire transubstantiation.
Ambrose, in the book on those who are initiated in the mysteries, chapter 9: “How many examples do we use to prove that this is not what nature formed, but what the blessing consecrated? and that the power of the blessing is greater than that of nature, because by the blessing nature itself too is changed.” Behold, the bread which nature formed does not remain, and yet the accidents remain, as is established by experience; therefore the substance is changed, the accidents not being changed.
Gregory of Nyssa, in his great Catechetical Oration, chapter 37: “We rightly believe that the bread sanctified by the word of God is changed into the body of God the Word.” And below: “These things He bestowed by the power of the blessing, changing into it (the body of the Lord) the nature of the things which are seen (the bread and wine).” And here you see the nature of the bread changed, the outward species remaining: for therefore he says that the nature of the things which are seen is changed.
Gaudentius, treatise 2 on Exodus: “The very Creator and Lord of natures, who brings bread out of the earth, out of bread again, because He both can and promised, makes His own body, and He who made wine of water makes His blood of wine.”
From the year 400 to 500 flourished Chrysostom, Augustine, Cyril of Alexandria, and Eusebius of Emesa. John Chrysostom, homily 83 on Matthew: “The things set forth are not the works of human power: we hold the place of ministers; but He who sanctifies and changes them is Himself.” And in his homily on the Eucharist at the Encaenia: “Do you see bread, do you see wine? Do they, like the rest of foods, go into the privy? Far be it; think not so. For just as if wax be applied to fire, it is made like it, nothing of the substance remains, nothing is left over: so also here think that the mysteries are consumed by the substance of the body.” Here too we see the whole substance of the mysteries, that is, of the consecrated bread, consumed by the arriving substance of the body of the Lord, as wax by fire: and yet the outward species of the bread remains, as the senses themselves testify.
Augustine, in the sermon which Bede cites on chapter 10 of the first to the Corinthians: “Not every bread, but that which receives the blessing of Christ, becomes the body of Christ.” Note that Augustine did not say, The bread is the body of Christ, as the Lutherans are wont to speak, but “becomes the body of Christ.” Which words signify a change of the bread into the body; so that indeed the Zwinglians could somehow answer that by a change of signification the bread becomes a body: but what the Lutherans can answer, I know not. For they will have the body of the Lord really present in the Supper: but Augustine says that the bread becomes a body, and therefore they must confess, according to Augustine's opinion, that the bread is really converted into the body. Likewise sermon 28 on the words of the Lord: “I told you that before the words of Christ, what is offered is called bread; when the words of Christ have been uttered, it is now not called bread, but is named a body. Why then in the Lord's Prayer does He say, Our bread? He said bread indeed, but epiousion, that is, supersubstantial: not this bread which goes into the body, but that bread of eternal life which sustains the substance of our soul.” Thomas Waldensis, tome 2, chapter 83, cites another passage from the book of Augustine on the body of the Lord, which he says he transcribed from a most ancient book written in a very old hand: “Nor is it to be believed,” he says, “that the substance of the bread or wine remains; but the bread is turned into the body of Christ, and the wine into the blood, the qualities only remaining.” I suspect that book is not Augustine's, but Alcuin's: yet it is enough for us that it was of an ancient author.
Cyril of Alexandria, in his letter to Calosyrius: “Lest we should shudder at flesh and blood set on the sacred altars, God, condescending to our frailties, infuses into the offerings the power of life, converting them into the truth of His own flesh, that the body of life may be found in us as a kind of seed.”
Eusebius of Emesa, or whoever was the author, in his sermon on the body of the Lord: “When the creatures to be blessed are placed by heavenly words on the sacred altars, before they are consecrated by the invocation of the supreme Godhead, the substance there is of bread and wine; but after the words of Christ, it is the body and blood of Christ. And what wonder is it if He who could create by His word can convert the created?”
From the year 500 to 600 flourished St. Remigius of Rheims, who on chapter 10 of the first to the Corinthians speaks thus: “The flesh which the Word of God the Father assumed in the virginal womb into the unity of His person, and the bread which is consecrated on the altar, are one body of Christ; for just as that flesh is the body of Christ, so this bread passes into the body of Christ, nor are there two bodies, but one body.”
After the year of the Lord 600, Pope Gregory, according to Paul the Deacon in his life, spoke thus before the people: “The Creator, foreknowing our infirmity, by that power by which He made all things out of nothing, converts the bread and the wine mixed with water, the proper species remaining, into His flesh and blood by the sanctification of His Spirit.”
After the year of the Lord 700, Bede in his sermon on the Epiphany: “The creature of bread and wine is transferred, by the ineffable sanctification of the Spirit, into the Sacrament of His flesh and blood.” Note that by the Sacrament is understood the very body existing under the species of bread: for otherwise there would be no need of the ineffable sanctification of the Spirit, if the bread were changed by signification alone. Moreover the same Bede, in his book on the mysteries of the Mass, which Thomas Waldensis cites, tome 2, chapter 82: “There the form of bread is seen, where the substance of bread is not: nor is there other bread than the bread which descended from heaven.”
John Damascene, Book 4 on the faith, chapter 14: “The bread, wine, and water are supernaturally transmuted, by the invocation and coming of the Holy Spirit, into the body and blood of Christ, and there are not two, but one and the same.”
After the year of the Lord 800 many wrote. Theophylact, on chapter 6 of John: “That bread is transformed by mystic words, through the mystical blessing and the accession of the Holy Spirit, into the flesh of the Lord.”
Strabo, author of the Ordinary Gloss, in his Gloss on chapter 11 of the first to the Corinthians: “We, leaving uncertain things, profess what is certain from the authorities, namely that the substance of bread and wine is converted into the substance of the body and blood of the Lord: but the mode of the conversion we do not blush to confess we do not know. And the accidents which remain of the former substance, namely color, taste, form, weight, neither affect the body of Christ nor are founded in it.”
Alcuin, who flourished about the year of the Lord 800, in his book on the divine offices, chapter on the Mass, expounding those words of the canon, Ratam, rationabilem, etc.: “Bread is of itself irrational, but the priest prays that, consecrated by almighty God, it may become rational by passing into the body of His Son.” And below: “God, providing for our infirmity, since we are not wont to eat raw flesh and drink blood, makes those two gifts remain in their former form; and it is in truth the body of Christ and the blood.”
Remigius of Auxerre, on Psalm 21: “The bread and wine are so called by Christian truth not because after consecration they retain in themselves the nature of bread and wine, except as to species and taste and smell: for He who could personally and ineffably unite to His Word the flesh assumed in the womb of the Virgin, who also will by the power of His command make our mortal bodies immortal, is able to transfer the matter of bread and wine into the nature of His body and blood.”
Amalarius of Treves, in Book 3 on the ecclesiastical offices, chapter 24: “Here we believe that the simple nature of the bread and wine mixed is turned into a rational nature, namely of the body and blood of Christ.”
Paschasius of Corbie, in his book on the body and blood of the Lord, chapter 1: “Although the figure of bread and wine be here, they are, after consecration, to be believed to be nothing else at all than the flesh of Christ and blood.” If nothing else, then not the substance of bread and wine.
But the most elegant and most acute answer of Kemnitz to this passage is not to be omitted. For at the end of his disputation on transubstantiation, in Part 2 of the Examination of the Council of Trent, session 13, chapter 4, wishing by a certain example to show what he thinks is to be answered to the passages of the Fathers, he objects to himself this passage as Ambrose's (although it is not Ambrose's, but Paschasius'), and answers that nothing else is to be believed in the Eucharist than the flesh and blood of the Lord: not that the bread is not there, but because the bread is not believed but seen; but the body of the Lord is apprehended by faith alone. But if Paschasius wished to say this, then before consecration the bread was not seen, but believed: for he himself says that after consecration nothing is believed but the body. And why, I ask, did the same author premise that God can convert and change all things at His will?
After the year of the Lord 900 flourished St. Fulbert of Chartres, who in his letter to Adeodatus: “It is impious to doubt whether He at whose nod all things suddenly arose out of nothing, should by equal power, in the spiritual Sacraments, change the earthly matter, transcending the nature and merit of its kind, into the substance of Christ, since He Himself says, This is my body; and a little after, This is my blood. If thou believest that God can do all things, this too follows that thou believe, nor curiously insist on discerning by human disputations, whether the creatures which He could create out of nothing, these same He is much more able to convert into the dignity of a loftier nature, and to transfuse into the substance of His body.”
And thus far concerning the Fathers who flourished in the first thousand years, before the heresy of Berengarius arose: now we shall subjoin, with the same brevity, the testimonies of those who wrote in the two later centuries, who all refute, as a manifest heresy, the remaining of bread and wine in the Eucharist. Therefore from the year 1000 to 1100 these wrote. Lanfranc, in his book on the body and blood of the Lord: “The Church of Christ believes that the bread is converted into flesh, the wine into blood.” And below: “The Church, spread throughout the whole world, confesses that bread and wine are set on the altar to be consecrated, but that during the consecration they are incomprehensibly and ineffably changed into the substance of the flesh and blood.”
Adelmann, in his letter to Berengarius: “He who said in the beginning, Let there be light, and light was made out of nothing, could He not, by saying of the bread, This is my body, effect that it should so become? And He who by a silent power changed water into wine, could He not more efficaciously (if indeed anything more efficacious ought to be said of God), by the same power swiftly sounding, transfer the wine itself into His blood?”
Hugh of Langres, in his letter to Berengarius: “Just as thou dost not grasp how the Word was made flesh, so again thou canst not grasp how this bread is changed into flesh and the wine transformed into blood, unless the faith of omnipotence teach thee.”
Guitmund of Aversa, Book 3 against Berengarius: “Now,” he says, “reasoning must be had against those who, overcome by the reasons of the Church, can no longer indeed deny that the substance of the body of Christ is in the Lord's food; yet by no means believing that the bread and wine are turned by the words of the Savior into His flesh and blood, but mixing Christ with the bread and wine, have as it were by a subtler reasoning founded another heresy.” Do you see that opinion called a heresy which the Lutherans now defend, and yet Innocent III was not yet born?
Anselm of Canterbury, in his book on the body of the Lord, in John Garet (for I have not yet been able to see the book of Anselm itself): “Against all the reason and understanding of secular philosophy, the substance of the bread being changed into another substance, for a certain service of the mystery, He so transferred certain accidents, which they conferred on it, not being changed, that the body of the Lord (although whiteness be present) neither makes it white, nor roundness round.”
From the year of the Lord 1100 to 1200 the following authors flourished. Alger, Book 1 on the body of the Lord, chapter 7, thus set in his title: “That, its qualities remaining, the substance of the bread and wine is changed into the true body of Christ.” And there, and in chapter 8, he teaches at length why God willed that the substance of the bread should not remain, and why He willed the accidents to remain. Peter of Cluny, in his book on the sacrifice and transubstantiation against Henry and Peter of Bruys: “This sacred and salutary Sacrament seems to be one thing, and is another; by the power of the divine Word the substance (as has often been said) is changed, the species being reserved.” Where also he teaches at length that it is altogether to be believed that by consecration the substance of the bread is changed and the accidents remain, very many examples being brought forward by which he proves that this is not impossible. Hugh of St. Victor, Book 2 on the Sacraments, part 8, chapter 7: “The species of bread and wine is seen, and the substance of bread and wine is not believed: but there is believed the substance of the body and blood of Christ, and yet the species is not discerned.” And chapter 9: “By the words of sanctification the true substance of bread and the true substance of wine is converted into the true body and blood of Christ: the species alone of bread and wine remaining, and substance passing into substance. But the conversion itself is to be believed not according to union (Note this against the Lutherans), but according to transition.” Peter Lombard, Book 4 of the Sentences, distinction 11, letter D: “After consecration there is not the substance of bread or wine, although the species remain.” Euthymius Zigabenus, on chapter 26 of Matthew: “He ineffably transmutes the bread and wine into His very body and blood.”
We have thirty-two most approved witnesses, of whom the last five were of the time of St. Bernard, and all flourished before Innocent III. From whom we gather, first, that it is most true which the Council of Trent says, session 13, chapter 4, that the Catholic Church was always persuaded that the bread is so transmuted into the body of the Lord that, the substance of the bread departing, the flesh of Christ alone remains under the accidents of the bread. Secondly, that the lies both of Luther and of the Lutherans are most impudent, who will have this change to have been devised either by Innocent III or by St. Thomas. Thirdly, that Calvin lies, when in Institutes Book IV, chapter 17, § 14, he thus speaks of this transubstantiation: “It is plain that they are destitute of the patronage of antiquity, which they often dare to oppose to the evident Word of God, in confirming this dogma. For it was not so long ago devised, unknown indeed not only to those better ages in which the purer doctrine of religion yet flourished, but when that purity was already much defiled. There is none of the ancients who does not confess in express words that the sacred symbols of the Supper are bread and wine, even if (as has been said) they sometimes mark them with various epithets to commend the dignity of the mystery.” So he: for whom it was enough to have said it; for to prove what he said, and to adduce even one of the Fathers as a witness, was unworthy of the gravity of so great a heresiarch.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XX. Transubstantiatio probatur testimoniis Patrum Jam testimoniis veterum Patrum res eadem est demonstranda, id quod necessario facien¬ dum est : siquidem adversarii jactant, tran- substantiationem, non fuisse cognitam ante annum Domini 1200, id est, usque ad Con¬ cilium Lateranense sub Innocentio III. Lutherus in lib. de Captivit Babyl. cap. i. non semel affirmat, transubstantiationem esse inventum S. Thoma}, et opinionem Thomistarum, et ibidem indicat eam opinio¬ nem probatam fuisse a Papa, in cap. Fir¬ miter, quod caput depromptum est ex Con¬ cilio Lateranensi sub Innocentio III, ubi Lu¬ therus turpiter labitur in historia : siquidem S. Thomas nondum natus erat, cum edere¬ tur cap. Firmiter, et Concilium illud cele¬ braretur. Constat enim Concilium celebratum anno 1215, sanctum vero Thomam natum postea anno 1224. Petrus Martyr in libro contra Stephanum Gardtnernm objecto 128, Innocentium III, cum Concilio Lateranensi facit auctori m primum transubstantiationis, tum quoad nomen, tum etiam quoad rem. Joan. Calvinus lib. iv. Institut. cap. 17. § 15. eodem respexit, cum ait, tempore S. Ber- nardi nondum innotuisse orbi transubstan- tiatjonem. Idem quoque significat Martinus Kemnitius in. 2. par. Exam. Concil.Trident. sess. xiii. cap. 4. ubi dicit, tempore Petri Lombardi nihil certi de hac re fuisse in Ec¬ clesia. Igitur ad hoc mendacium refellendum, ad¬ ducenda erunt testimonia Patrum ab Apo¬ stolorum tempore, usque ad tempora Inno- centii III, sive ad annum Domini 1200. Pri¬ ma retate post Apostolos ab anno Domini 100 ad 200, floruerunt Justinus et Ireneeus. Ju¬ stinus in Apologia 2. prope extrema, dicit, eum cibum ex quo carnes nostrae aluntur, id est, panem prece verbi Dei sanctificatum, esse carnem Domini. Ireaenus lib. iv cap. 34 « Quomodo, inquit, constabit eis eum panem, in quo gratiae actae sunt, esse corpus Domi¬ ni sui,etc.» Uterque igitur vult hanc proposi¬ tionem esse veram, panis consecratus est corpus Domini. Atqui haec vera esse non potest, sine mutatione Panis in corpus Do¬ mini, neque enim panis manens panis, esse potest corpus Domini, ut supra ostendimus ; igitur mutatio fit, et eo modo panis mutatus, vere est corpus Domini. Ab anno 200 ad 300, floruerunt Tertullia¬ nus et Cyprianus. Tertullianus lib'. iv. in Marcionem : « Acceptum panem, inquit, corpus suum facit, dicendo : Hoc est corpus meum. » At quomodo potuit panis fieri cor¬ pus sine sui mutatione? Cyprianus in serm.de Cnena Domini: « Panis iste, quem Dominus discipulis porrigebat, non effigie, sed natura mutatus omnipotentia Verbi factus est caro.» Hic plane vides, panem mutari quoad fatu¬ ram seu substantiam, et tamen effigiem, id est, accidentia remanere ; et hoc est quod vocamus transubstantiationem. Ab anno 300 ad 400, floruerunt Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus , Ambrosius , Gregorius Nyssenus et Gaudentius. Cyrillus catechesi 4. mystagog. « Aquam, inquit, aliquando mutavit in vinum, et non erit dignus, cui credamus, quod vinum in sanguinem trans¬ mutari t. » En realem mutationem. Paulo infra: «Sub specie panis datur tibi corpus et sub specie vini datur tibi sanguis. » En accidentia panis, quse remanent. Et infra : « Hoc sciens, et pro certissimo habens, pa¬ nem hunc, qui videtur a nobis, non esse pa¬ nem, etiamsi gustus panem esse sentiat. » En absentiam substantiae panis, manente co¬ lore, et sapore, et proinde integram transub¬ stantiationem. Ambrosius lib. de iis, qui initiantur my- CAPUT XX, 181 steriis, e. ix. « Quantis utimur exemplis, ut probemus, non hoc esse, quod natura forma¬ vit, led quod benedictio consecravit? rnajo- remque vim esse benedictionis, quam natu¬ ra?, quia benedictione etiam natura ipsa mutatur. » Ecce non manet panis, quem na¬ tura formavit, et tamen accidentia manent, ut experimento constat ; ergo substantia mu¬ tata est, accidentibus non mutatis. Grego rius Nyssenus in orat, magna cate- chetica, cap. 37. «Recte Dei verbo sanctifi- catum panem in Uei Verbi corpus credimus immutari. » Et infra : « Ila?e autem tribuit virtute benedictionis in illud (corpus Domini) rerum qua? videntur (panis et vini) naturam mutans. » Ethic vides naturam panis mutari, manente specie exteriore : nam ideo dicit mutari naturam rerum, quse videntur. Gaudentius tract. 2. de Exodo : « Ipsa na¬ turarum creator et Dominus, qui producit de terra panem, de pane rursus, quia et potest, et promisit, efficit proprium corpus, et qui de aqua vinum fecit, de vino sanguinem suum facit. » Ab anno 400 ad 500, floruerunt Chryso- stomus, Augustinus, Cyrillus Alexandrinus, et Eusebius Emissenus, Joannes Chrysosto- mus homil. 83. in Mattii. « Non sunt huma¬ na? virtutis opera proposita : nos ministrorum locum tenemus ; qui vero sanctificat ea, et immutat, ipse est. » Et homil. de Eucharistia in Enca?niis : «Num vides panem, num vi¬ num? num sicut reliqui cibi in secessum va~ dunt? absit: ne sic cogites. Sicut enim si cera igni adhibita, illi assimilatur, nihil sub¬ stantia? remanet, nihil superfluit : sic et hic puta mysteria consumi corporis substantia.» Hic etiam videmus totam substantiam my¬ steriorum, id est, panis consecrati, consumi ab adveniente substantia corporis Domini, ut ceram ab igne : et tamen manere exteriorem speciem panis, ut sensus ipsi testantur. Augustinus in serm. quem citat Beda in cap. 10. prioris ad Corint. : « Non omnis pa¬ nis, sed accipiens benedictionem Christi, fit corpus Christi. » Adverte, non dixisse Au¬ gustinum, Panis est corpus Christi, ut Lu- therani loqui solent, sed «Fit corpus Christi.» Quse verba mutationem significant panis in corpus ; ut quidem Zwingliani utcumque respondere possent, mutatione significationis ex pane fieri corpus : at Lutherani quid re¬ spondere possint, nescio. Nam ipsi volunt realiter corpus Domini adesse in Coe. na : Au¬ gustinus autem dicit, panem fieri corpus, proinde fateri debent ex Augustini sententia, panem reipsa converti in corpus. Item serm. 28. de verbis Domini : « Dixi vobis, quod ante verba Christi, quod offertur, panis di¬ cetur; ubi Christi verba deprompta fuerint, jam non panis dicitur, sed corpus appellatur. Quare ergo in oratione Dominica ait, Panem nostrum? panem quidem dixit, sed ett.o^iov hoc est, supersubstantialem : non iste panis, qui vadit in corpus, sed ille panis vitee eeterna? qui anima? nostra? substantiam fulcit. » Tho- mas Waldensis tom. n. cap,. 83. citat alium locum ex lib. Augustini de corpore Domini, quem dicit se transcripsisse ex antiquissimo libro, antiqua valde manu descripto : « Nec credendum est, inquit, quod substantia panis vel vini remaneat ; sed panis in corpus Christi, et vinum in sanguinem vertitur, so¬ lummodo qualitatibus remanentibus. » Sus¬ picor eum librum non Augustini, sed Alcuini esse : nobis tamen satis est antiqui auctoris fuisse. Cyrillus Alexandrinus in epist. ad Calosy- rium : « Ne horreremus carnem, et sangui¬ nem apposita sacris altaribus, condescendens Deus nostris fragilitatibus influit oblatis vim vitee, convertens ea in veritatem propria? carnis, ut corpus vita? quasi quoddam semen inveniatur in nobis. » Eusebius Emissenus, seu quicumque au¬ ctor fuit, serm. de corp. Domini : « Quando benedicenda? verbis coelestibus creatura? sa¬ cris altaribus imponuntur, antequam invo¬ catione summi numinis consecrentur, sub¬ stantia illic est panis et vini ; post verba au¬ tem Christi, corpus et sanguis est Christi. Quid mirum est autem, si ea qua? verbo creare potuit, possit creata convertere ». Ab anno 500 ad 600. floruit S. Remigius Remensis, qui in cap. 10. prioris ad Corinth. sic loquitur : « Caro , quam Verbum Dei Patris assumpsit in utero virginali, in unitate sute persona?, et panis, qui consecratur in altari, unum corpus Christi sunt ; sicut enim illacaro corpus Christi est, ita istepanis trans¬ it in corpus Christi, nec sunt duo corpora, sed unum corpus. » Post annum Domini 600, Gregorius Papal, teste Paulo Diacono in ejus vita, ita coram populo locutus est: « Pra?scius conditor no¬ stra? infirmitatis, ea potestate, qua cuncta fecit ex nihilo, panem et vinum aqua mixtum manente propria specie, in carnem et 182 LIBER III. sanguinem suum spiritus sui sanctificatione convertit. » Post annum Domini 700, Bcda in serm. de Epiphania : « Panis et vini creatura in Sa¬ cramentum carnis et sanguinis ejus, ineffabili Spiritus sanctificatione transfertur. » Nota, per Sacramentum intelligi ipsum corpus sub specie panis existens: nam alioqui non opus esset ineffabili Spiritus sanctificatione, si sola significatione panis mutaretur. Prae¬ terea idem Bcda in lib. de mysteriis Missae, quem citat Thomas Waldensis tone. n. cap. 82. « Ibi, inquit, forma panis videtur, ubi substantia panis non est : nec est ibi panis alius, quam panis, qui de cado descendit. » Joannes Damascenusin ivlib. de fide, cap. 14: « Panis, vinumque et aqua per invoca¬ tionem, et adventum Spiritus sancti, super- naturaliter transmutatur in corpus et sangui¬ nem Christi, ct non sunt duo, sed unum et idem. » Post annum Domini 800. multi scripserunt Theophylactus in cap. vi. Joannis: « Trans¬ formatur arcanis verbis panis ille per mysti¬ cam benedictionem, et accessionem sancti Spiritus, in carnem Domini. » Strabus auctor Glossae ordinariae in Glossa cap. xi prioris ad Corinth. « Nos, inquit, incerta relinquentes, quod ex auctoritatibus certum est, profitemur, scilicet substantiam panis et vini, in substantiam corporis et san¬ guinis Dominici converti : modum vero con¬ versionis nos ignorare non erubescimus fate¬ ri. Quae autem remanent de priori substantia accidentia, scilicet color, sapor, forma, pon¬ dus, nec ipsum corpus Christi afficiunt, nec in eo fundantur. » Alcuinus, qui floruit circa annum Do¬ mini 800, in lib. de divinis officiis, cap. de "Missa, exponens illa verba canonis : Ratam, rationabilem, etc. «Panis, inquit, per se irra¬ tionabilis est, sed orat Sacerdos, ut ab omni- potente Deo consecratus, rationabilis fiat transeundo in corpus Filii sui. » Et infra : « Consulens Deus infirmitati nostrae, qui non solemus carnes crudas. manducare, et san¬ guinem bibere, facit ut in pristina remaneant forma duo illa munera ; et est in veritate corpus Christi et sanguis. » Remigius Altisiodorensis in Psal. xxi : « Pa¬ nis et vinum a Christiana veritate dicuntur non. quod naturam panis et vini post conse¬ crationem in se retineant, nisi quantum ad speciem ct saporem, et odorem: illi namque qui carnem in utero Virginis assumptam Verbo suo personaliter et ineffabiliter unire potuit, qui etiam mortalia corpora nostra imperii sui potentia faciet immortalia, panis et vini materiam in sui corporis et sanguinis naturam transferre possibile est. » Amalarius Trevirensis ln lib. m. de Ec- clesiastic. offic. cap. 24 : « Hic credimus na¬ turam simplicem panis et vini mixti verti in naturam rationabilem, scilicet corporis ct sanguinis Christi. » Paschanius Corbeiensis in lib. de corpore ct sanguine Domini, cap. i : « Licet figura panis et vini hic sit, omnino nihil aliud, quam caro Christi, et sanguis post consecra¬ tionem credenda sunt. » Si nihil aliud; non igitur substantia panis et vini. Sed omittenda non est elegantissima et acutissima responsio Kemnitii ad hunc locum. Nam in fine disputationis de transubstantia- tione. in 2. par. Exam. Goncil. Trident. sess. xiik cap. 4. volens exemplo quodam osten¬ dere, quid se respondendum ad loca Patrum objicit sibi hunc locum, tamquam Ambrosii (cum tamen non Ambrosii, sed Paschasii sit) ac respondet, nihil aliud credendum esse in Eucharistia, quam carnem et sanguinem Domini : non quod panis ibi non sit, sed quia panis non creditur, sed videtur : corpus au¬ tem Domini sola fide apprehenditur. At si id voluit dicere Paschasius; ergo ante con¬ secrationem panis non videbatur, sed crede¬ batur : ipsa enim dicit, post consecrationem non credi, nisi corpus. Et cur, obsecro, idem auctor praemisit, Deum onmia posse conver¬ tere et mutare pro arbitrio? Post annum Domini 900, floruit S. Fulbcr- tus Carnotensis, qui inepist. ad Adeodatum : « Dubitari, inquit, nefas est, ut ad cujus nu¬ tum cuncta subito ex nihilo substiterunt, si pari potentia in spiritualibus Sacramentis terrena materies naturam ct meritum gene¬ ris sui transcendens, in Christi substantiam commutetur, cum ipse dicat : Hoc est corpus meum; et paulo post: Hic est sanguis meus. Si Deum omnia posse credis, ct hoc conse¬ quitur ut credas, nec humanis disputationi¬ bus discernere curiosus insistas, si creaturas quas de nihilo potuit creare, has ipsas multo magis valeat in excelsioris naturae dignitatem convertere, et in sui corporis substantiam transfundere. » Atque hactenus de Patribus, qui florue¬ runt primis mille annis, antequam haeresis Berongarii oriretur: nunc subjiciemus eadem brevitate eorum testimonia, qui scripserunt CAPUT XX. 183 duobus posterioribus sseeulis, qui omnes ut manifestam hteresim refellunt, remanentiam panis et vini in Eucharistia. Igitur ab anno 1000 ad 1100, hi scripserunt. Lantfrancus in lib. de corpore et sanguine Domini : «Eccle¬ sia Christi, inquit, panem in carnem, vinum converti credit in sanguinem. >> Et infra : « Confitetur Ecclesia toto terrarum orbe dif¬ fusa, panem et vinum ad sacrandum proponi in altari, sed inter sacrandum incomprehen- sibiliter, et ine habiliter in substantiam carnis et sanguinis commutari. Adelmannus in epist. ad Berengarium : « Qui dixit in principio : Fiat lux et facta est lux de nihilo : non potuit dicendo de- pane : Hoc est corpus meum; ita fieri efficere? Et qui tacita virtute aquam convertit in vi¬ num : non efficacius poterat (si quid tamen efficacius de Deo dici debet) sonante veloci¬ ter eadem virtute, vinum ipsum in sangui¬ nem suum transferre? » Hugo Lingonensis in epist. ad Berenga¬ rium: «Sicut non capis, quomodo Verbum caro factum est ; sic non potes iterum ca¬ pere, quomodo panis iste mutetur in carnem et vinum in sanguinem transformetur, nisi te docuerit omnipotentise fides. » Guitmundus Aversanus lib. 3. contra Be¬ rengarium : « Nunc, inquit, contra illos ha¬ benda est ratio, qui Ecclesia) rationibus ex¬ pugnati, jam quidem negare nequeunt, sub¬ stantiam corporis Christi cibo inesse Domini¬ co : panem tamen et vinum per verba Sal¬ vatoris in carnem ejus , et sanguinem verti nequaquam credentes, sed Christum pani et vino commiscentes, tamquam subti¬ liori ratione beer esi m alteram condiderunt. » Videsiie hseresim appellari eam sententiam, quam nunc Lutherani defendunt, et tamen nondum natus erat Innocentius III. Anselmus Cantuariensis in lib. de corpore Domini apud Joannem Garetium (nec enim librum ipsum Anselmi adhuc videre potui) : « Contra omnem scecularis philosophia) ratio¬ nem, et intellectum mutata panis substantia in aliam substantiam adquoddam mysterii ob¬ sequium qua)dam accidentia, qua) illi infe¬ rebant, sic transtulit non mutata, ut corpus Domini (licet adsit albedo) non faciat album, nec rotunditas rotundum. » Ab anno Domini 1100 ad 1200, sequen¬ tes auctores floruerunt. Algerus lib. i. de corp. Domini cap. 7. sic in titulo posuit : « Quod remanentibus qualitatibus suis sub¬ stantia panis, et vini in verum corpus Christi mutetur ». Et ibidem, et cap. 8. fuse docet, cur Deus noluerit substantiam panis mane¬ re, et cur voluerit accidentia manere. Petrus Cluniacensis in lib. de sacrificio, et transub- stantiatione contra Hernicum, et Petrum Bruis : « Hoc sacrum, et salutare Sacra¬ mentum aliud esse videtur, et aliud est; per virtutem Verbi divini substantia (ut jam ssepe dictum est) mutata, specie reservata. » Ubi etiam fuse docet, omnino esse creden¬ dum, per consecrationem mutari substantiam panis, et accidentia remanere, exemplis plu¬ rimis in medium adductis, quibus probat id non esse impossibile. Hugo Victorinus lib. ir. de Sacrament. par. 8, cap. 7 : « Videtur, inquit, species panis, et vini, et substantia panis, et vini non creditur : creditur autem, substantia corporis, et sanguinis Christi, et tamen species non cernitur. » Et cap. 9 : « Per verba sanctificationis vera panis, et vera vini substantia, in verum corpus et sanguinem Christi convertitur : sola specie panis et vini remanente, et substantia in substantiam transeunto. Conversio autem ipsa non secundum unionem (Nota contra Lutheranos) sed secundum transitionem credenda est. » Petrus Lombardus lib. 4. sentent. dist. 11, Iit. D : « Post consecratio¬ nem, inquit, non est substantia panis, vel vini, licet species remaneant. » Euthymius Zigabenus in cap. 26. Matth. : « Panem, in¬ quit, et vinum ineffabiliter transmutat in ipsum corpus, et sanguinem suum. » Habemus triginta duos probatissimos te¬ stes, quorum postremi quinque tempore S. Bernardi, omnes autem ante Innocentium III floruerunt. Ex quibus colligimus, primo, ve¬ rissimum esse quod ait Concil. Trident. sess. xm. cap. 4. Ecclesia) Catholica) semper fuisse persuasum, ita transmutari panem in corpus Domini, ut substantia panis receden¬ te, sola maneret Christi caro sub accidenti¬ bus panis. Secundo, mendacia esse impu- dentissima tum Lutheri, tum Lutheranorum, qui hanc mutationem excogitatam esse vo¬ lunt, vel ab inn.ocentio III, vel a S. Thoma. Tertio, mentiri Calvinum, cum lib. iv. Instit. cap. 17. g, 14. de hactransubstantiatione sic loquitur : « Vetustatis patrocinio, quod evi¬ denti Dei Verbo ssepe opponere audent, in confirmando isto dogmate destitui palam est. Nec enim ita pridem excogitatum fuit, igno¬ ratum quidem non melioribus illis sseculis modo, quibus purior adhuc vigebat religio¬ nis doctrina ; sed cum jam admodum inqui- / LIBER 111. i 84 nata esset illa puritas. Nemo est veterum, qui sacra Coense symbola non fateatur disertis verbis panem, et vinum esse, et si (ut di¬ ctum est) variis epithetis illa interdum insi¬ gniunt ad commendandam mysterii dignita¬ tem. » Haic ille : cui satis fuit dixisse ; nam probare quod dicebat, et vel unum ex Patri¬ bus testem adducere, indignum erat gravi¬ tate tanti haeresiarchae.