De Eucharistia Tractatus Maior (The Greater Treatise on the Eucharist)

English

In treating the Eucharist, it is necessary to set forth certain common and widely known matters. First: whether the sacrament of the altar is really the body of Christ. On this subject I have often said to the people that in the sacrament of the altar there are three things to consider: first, the bare sacrament, in such a way that it is not the thing of the sacrament — as the consecrated host; second, the sacrament and the thing of the sacrament — as the true body of Christ and blood; and third, the thing of the sacrament and not the sacrament — as the union of Christ with His mystical body, which is the church; for this union is nowhere sensible, and consequently it is nowhere a sacrament. By this faith the objections of the pagans are removed. For they argue that a pig, a dog, or a mouse can eat our God, because the body of Christ is God. But we answer them according to the aforesaid faith that they assume something falsely and without faith, since such beasts can eat the consecrated host, which is the bare sacrament and not the body of Christ or blood. Moreover, just as a lion eating the body of a man does not eat his soul, even though the soul is present at every point of that body, so it is to be understood concerning the body of Christ in the sacrament of the altar. For it is wholly present sacramentally, spiritually, or virtually at every point of the consecrated host, just as the soul is in the body. Second, they object on the ground that we priests break the body of Christ, and thereby break His head, neck, arms, and each of His members — which would be a most horrible thing to do to our God. But we answer according to the prior faith that they assume something falsely and without faith, since we break the sacrament or the consecrated host, but not the body of Christ, since these are distinct — just as we do not break a ray of the sun, even though we break glass or a crystal stone.

English

And this appears to be the meaning of the song of the church that is sung: 'When at last the sacrament is broken, do not waver but remember that as much is under the fragment as is covered by the whole.' Since, therefore, we cannot deny that the sacrament is broken, as the practice of the church teaches, and our senses would otherwise be deceived by a sophism of truth, and the body of Christ is not broken — it is manifest that the sacrament which is broken is not the body of Christ, because otherwise, to one asking what is broken, it would be less truly said that it is the body of Christ; for he is asking about the substance of the thing. Third, they object on the ground that unless the body of Christ were the consecrated host, we would neither see the body of Christ nor eat it, nor would we crush it with our teeth, and by the same token we would not receive it — which would be incongruous for Christians.

English

But here we answer by means of a distinction: there are two kinds of vision, two kinds of eating, and two kinds of reception — namely, bodily and spiritual. And so we grant that we do not see the body of Christ in that sacrament with the bodily eye, but with the eye of the mind, namely by faith, through a mirror in an enigma. And just as an image is whole at every point of the mirror, so that it can be seen either in part or as a whole by any bodily eye positioned anywhere — so it is to be understood, in part, concerning the body of Christ with the consecrated host as a mirror. And in the same way it is said that we do not touch or grasp the body of Christ with bodily touch, just as we do not eat it bodily. And this is the meaning of the song of the church that says: 'What you do not grasp, what you do not see, a courageous faith affirms, beyond the order of things.' Nor do we crush the body of Christ with our teeth, but we receive it spiritually, whole. And so we understand that song in which we say: 'No tearing of the thing itself occurs; only a fracture of the sign occurs, by which neither the condition nor the stature of the thing signified is diminished.' But here some of our own people object that these things are not to be told to laypeople, who neither understand them nor preserve them, since from these things they would lose their prior faith. But we repudiate this objection; for laypeople and clergy alike are too many in number who are simply faithless in this matter, to the extent that they believe worse than the pagans — that that consecrated host is their God — and they then inevitably draw the aforesaid pagan conclusions. Therefore one who does not grasp these things would also poorly grasp the faith concerning the Trinity or the Incarnation.

English

Nor is the aforesaid faith a lay faith by which the Lord of truth would be pleased, but it is the worst infidelity, because it is idolatry, by which a highly debased creature that has not been assumed would be worshipped without faith as God. And so according to this foolishness no error would ever be taught against or argued from faith, but lest something worse befall, a Christian most in need of discipline would grow foul with infidelity — as if it were said that a thorn in the foot, a weapon in the flesh, or any poisonous cause of disease in the body ought not to be removed, lest something worse might happen. It is therefore the task of bishops to destroy heresies, for otherwise they themselves would be heretics by consent. Second, they object on the ground that if this teaching were promulgated to laypeople, it would diminish or at least reduce the honor and devotion of the people toward this venerable sacrament. But this fiction runs under the same treachery. For the Apostle says in Rom.: 'Far be it that we do evil so that good may come'; therefore all the more would a faithful person say: 'Far be it that we commit idolatry, so that the people may be led more deeply astray by false and faithless devotion' — for in truth it would be believed by the people almost as readily that the chalice, in which is the blood of Christ, and the wood by which the crucified one is worshipped, are really our God. For just as when we see the chalice we burst forth in as much worship as when we see the consecrated host — not on account of the chalice consecrated by the bishop, but on account of the excellent sacrament hidden in the vessel — so also when we see

English

the host, we ought to believe that it itself is not the body of Christ, but that the body of Christ is sacramentally hidden in it. And this is the meaning of the church's song that sings: 'Under diverse species, by signs only and not by realities, excellent things lie hidden.' And it is evident that, with the error of idolatry destroyed, God would be worshipped more and more truly than He is now worshipped, because it must be believed that Christ is present and hidden in those sacraments. Why, then, would we not worship Christ when we see the host, just as we do when we see the chalice, and just as the faithful more devoutly worship the divine majesty when they see any creature? Therefore, once this teaching is disclosed, it would be true and due worship pleasing to God — indeed, as things now stand, it is a worship of falsehood abominable to the true God.

English

And this is the true teaching, even if it displeases the bishops of idols. Third, they object on the ground that in this way the power of the priesthood would be truly diminished, since it does not have the power of consecrating or of making the body of Christ or the blood — indeed, it seems that just as a layperson, by looking at any creature, sees by faith the deity, which is more than the body of Christ, so also by looking at any creature he sufficiently receives the body of Christ by faith. But then who would hear Mass, who would hire those who say Mass, or who would receive the sacrament of the church? Here it is said that the first objection does not follow, but that with the error of blasphemy destroyed, the sacerdotal power would be preserved and understood within its proper limits. For nothing is more horrible than that any priest celebrating makes or consecrates the body of Christ daily — for our God is not a new God, nor is His body, since it is most holy and perpetual, to be thus sacramentally made or newly produced. But we priests make and bless the consecrated host, which is not the body of the Lord but an efficacious sign of it. And this blessing is greater than the blessing of a chalice or any other ornament most strictly reserved to the bishop — the reason for which God knows. It is therefore sufficient for the honor and power of the consecrated priest that he blesses, consecrates, and makes the sacrament — which is the consecrated host and not the body of Christ but its sign or covering — and since the priest does not have the power of making this sacrament except ministerially, with God as the principal maker, therefore he is said to make not the body of Christ but the bare sacrament. And so it is on account of the holiness of his life, and not on account of that, that he is to be praised. And so the Mass of a holy priest is to be heard with greater devotion, and the Mass of a notorious sinner is to be avoided. Nor do we buy the suffrages of priests with money, but without civil contract we render to them the necessities of life, as the Apostle teaches must be done for preachers, in Cor.

English

IX. Note, however, that just as we bless both God and the Lord in a laudatory, not an effective, sense, so also we bless the body of Christ and His blood — not by making it blessed or holy, but by praising and proclaiming the holiness and blessedness that God established in His body — and in this way we sacrifice Christ and offer Him to God the Father. Note further, regarding the spiritual reception of the body of Christ, that it does not consist in bodily reception, mastication, or touching of the consecrated host, but in the feeding of the soul from fruitful faith, according to which our spirit is nourished in the Lord. And on account of ignorance of this eating of the body of Christ and drinking of His blood, many disciples went back, as is clear from Joh. VI, where they say: "This is a hard saying, and who can hear it?" For nothing is more horrible than to be required to eat the flesh of one so tenderly beloved in a carnal manner and to drink His blood in a carnal manner. Therefore Christ says to the apostles — who, beyond the unworthy disciples who had gone back, were worthy to be instructed in the life-giving sense — that the carnal sense of this will profit nothing, but it is the spirit, that is, the spiritual sense, that gives life, whereas the other sense, having taken the occasion wrongly, gives offense. A faithful person must therefore believe that that by which the soul is objectively nourished is the spiritual food of the soul; and thus the flesh of Christ and His blood must kindle in our spirits — for so many and varied afflicted sinners — a love that is the food of the soul, so that we may render grateful recompense in some manner. And thus the Truth speaks concerning the spiritual eating and drinking which must belong to each of those who are to be saved. Hence Augustine in a Homily says: "This is what it means to eat that food and to drink that drink: to abide in Christ and to have Him abiding in oneself."

English

And accordingly, one who does not abide in Christ, and in whom Christ does not abide, without doubt does not spiritually eat His flesh — even though he may carnally and visibly press the sacraments of the body and blood of Christ — but rather eats and drinks the sacrament of so great a thing to his own judgment.

English

Thus from the words of Christ and of His disciple Augustine three notable points are to be observed: first, that the flesh of Christ and His blood are ordinarily eaten only spiritually, for God ordained eternally that His holy one would not see corruption in any member of Himself. It is clear, second, that neither a beast nor one foreknown to damnation eats the body of Christ in this way, even though he may bodily eat the sacrament. And it is clear, third, what marvelous subtlety there is in the teacher's words, in that he says not that the unworthy person visibly presses the body of Christ with his teeth, but that he visibly presses with his teeth the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ. For that sacrament is greatly distinguished from the body of Christ, which is the reality of this sacrament. Hence the distinction that Augustine draws between carnal eating and spiritual eating is to be noted. For in carnal eating, the food consumed passes into the nourishment of the one who eats, as it is absorbed into his members. But in spiritual eating it is the contrary: the one who eats the body of Christ spiritually is thereby incorporated into the members of the church, and thus into Christ; and what is spiritually eaten surpasses the one who eats.

English

Nor do the cunningly imagined fictitious sophisms avail against this perceptible opinion. For some argue that, if a person perceives a human being while perceiving his garments through the motion of the life hidden within, then by the same token he perceives the body of Christ while perceiving the sacrament through His motion. But this sophism, proceeding by the argument from analogy, would equally prove that a person sees God and the soul, and similarly for each of the five senses, whenever he perceives a subject through its intrinsic vital motion. It is granted, therefore, that it happens that a subject is perceived per accidens in the manner described, but in that case the common sense or some intrinsic sense must grasp the subject through the motion of what is per se perceptible alongside it — as in Psalm 15. But now no sense of a human being, but only the pure intellect through faith, perceives the body of Christ; which is evident from the fact that, when the consecrated host is mixed with others, a person no more distinguishes it from the others, apart from the knowledge of faith, than a beast does. Therefore, just as a beast is not able to apprehend this reality of the sacrament under such a relation, neither is the human sense. A second fantasy is that many saints who held that they had perceived the body of Christ in the consecrated host through sight, hearing, smell, taste, and touch.

English

They are therefore to be believed, so their argument goes. Just as, they say, we see the King of kings in the sacrament of the Eucharist, so we hear Him in the breaking of the host, we smell Him in the fragrance of the form of bread or wine, we taste Him when we swallow the venerable sacrament, and we touch Him when, by handling the host, we draw and handle the sacrament familiarly with our fingers. As regards this claim, it is evident that the assumption is a fabrication — just as miracles are now fabricated, and now because of ignorance a common falsehood is believed on the basis of true miracles — as I have heard someone invent the story of how the host gradually descended from the altar to the nave of the church and entered the heart of a certain sick man who had devoutly and publicly professed as follows: "You, O God, know that I would reverently receive You, were my infirmity removed, but it is not an infirmity of mind, but rather an infirmity of body, that hinders me." And indeed the host, with his breast split open, crept with the sick man's heart into the ventricle of the heart, and thus the sick man was made suddenly completely well. And after this narrator, through private narration and the devotion of the people, was commended apart by a certain familiar companion, he confessed this shameful lie, saying: "He invented this beautiful lie." But even granted that miracles occur around the consecrated host (as blessed Gregory narrates), it would still be altogether strange, to one who knows the consequences, to infer from such things that the body of the Lord is that consecrated host. Correspondingly I say that, even if this dreamer were to know the faith of a sick believer who claims to perceive the Lord's body in the manner described — which cannot be refuted from experience or scripture — I still say that this believer was not therefore or at that time holy; but, as is the case with far too many, he was a manifest idolater through the worship of the signs of Antichrist. Indeed, by such signs the people could be so seduced that they would worship moles and bats and creatures even more abominable as God. As regards the five senses mentioned above, it is clear that the more recent doctors deny this regarding sight, because (as they say) nothing is seen by the eye except according to the form of a triangle whose apex is at the eye and whose base is the visible object itself; but the body of the Lord, since it is multiplied to every point of the host, does not terminate such a base, and therefore according to the true principles of optics it is not thus seen by the bodily eye — to such a degree that the saints hold that neither the eye of a glorified body nor even the eye of Christ can carnally see the body of Christ or His blood in the consecrated host.

English

Likewise, I would ask these fabricators, if they perceive the body of Christ sensibly in the sacrament, whether He stands or sits therein; for Stephen saw Jesus standing at the right hand of the power of God (as is clear from Act. 7), yet they know no more how to say this than they know the first point; and therefore they are to be convicted of falsehood by the examination of witnesses. For the posture and other visible circumstances would be seen equally with Christ in the consecrated host by the bodily eye. Therefore, just as they are deficient regarding circumstances sufficiently perceptible, so also regarding the perception of the body of Christ that they fabricate. Likewise, if they behold the body of Christ in the sacrament of the altar so clearly (as they say), let it be asked what color and what varying size and shape the body of Christ has therein; and they must say that one host is whiter, another darker, one larger, another smaller, according to the accidental properties of the consecrated host; and thus our God would be fully round and whole in one host, and elongated and broken in another host. And since a body is not seen as thus qualified by accidents except per accidens because those accidents would be in it subjectively, one must say that the body of Christ is subject to each such accidentality — and thus our God would daily be changed in however varied, contrary, and dishonorable a manner, because the priest would alter Him in heavenly color, human shape, and the other accidents befitting Christ in His glory, into base and stripped accidents. But what is more pagan than that we can fashion our God according to our pleasure? And an objection is raised correspondingly regarding hearing: For if we hear the Lord in the breaking of the host, since that breaking is nothing but the breaking of a body that is heard, one must concede that Christ is broken; which is more horrible than the deed of the soldiers, for as it is said in Joh. 19: "But when they came to Jesus and saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs," and because in Exod. 12, regarding the paschal lamb prefiguring Christ, it is commanded: "You shall not break a bone of it" — much more, therefore, would Christians not break the members of the living and glorified body of Christ.

English

Just as, when limbs or stones are struck together, one does not hear God or the soul, so the same must be thought concerning the body of Christ when the host is broken. For otherwise the articulate sound produced through the most noble organs would be far too harsh and indistinct. It is therefore necessary to attribute hardness to the host together with the other accidents not subjected to the body of Christ, from which, when they reverberate against the air, such a sound is produced; and the same must be thought concerning the three other senses, namely smell, taste, and touch. For nothing is more pagan than the idea that when a host putrefies, God smells; that when the sacrament of the chalice turns sour, God turns sour; and that thus our God stinks and is sour in rural churches, but is savory and fresh in the cities. Nor is any reason given why the body of Christ, being changed, is seen by the same sight by which the host is seen, seeing that by changing the other senses it is perceived in the same manner as the host. And truly, both the faithful and the unfaithful would recoil at the concession of the conclusions which those who err in this matter are obliged to grant; therefore blessed are those who have not seen and have believed the opposite of these things. For what is more horrible than that a priest, after celebrating, carries God bodily on the tips of his fingers, and that whatever he touches with those fingers he makes contact with — Joh. 20:29.

English

— to touch that body of the Lord? For washing does not remove the sacrament that has been absorbed, since it remains according to the subtle parts within the containing body. Since, therefore, the odor and taste remain, it is plain by natural reasoning that a corporeal subject must remain. And this position is plain according to the laws of the church; for in De Consecratione, Distinctio II, under the words of Augustine, it is written thus: But we honor under the species of bread and wine, which we see, invisible things, that is, the flesh and blood of Christ. From which it is plainly evident that the sensible species which we call the sacrament is not the body of Christ or His blood. And the same is plain from the same Distinctio under the authority of Ambrose: Perhaps you say, he says, I do not see a likeness of flesh, I do not see the truth of blood. Yet if I were to see the essence of the blood of Christ, I would by the same token see every quantity or sensible quality that informs the entire body of Christ; which is, thirdly, expressly against the same Augustine in the same Distinctio — both what is cited first and what is frequently cited below — where the holy doctor expounds the saying of Christ, Joh.

English

6, on account of which many disciples went back; which must be understood spiritually — not that they were about to eat with bodily bites the body that must be above, immovable in the same place and form, until the age comes to an end — but that spiritually, by the same token, one would not see the body of Christ bodily. Hence the position of this holy man follows in these words, De Consecratione, Distinctio II: Not this body which you see shall you eat — Decretum, Third Part, De Consecratione, dist. II, cap. 11. Decretum, Third Part, dist. II, cap. 43. ibid. cap. 44. ibid. cap.

English

45. — you shall eat and drink that blood which those who will crucify Me are about to shed; and then, uncovering the equivocation, he speaks thus: it is the same and yet not the same — the same invisibly, not the same visibly; it is necessary, he says, that it be celebrated visibly, yet it is necessary that it be understood invisibly. There are many similar sayings of the saints and of the laws of the church which the faithful person is obliged to believe and, on account of carnal heretics, to be instructed by them. But against these things it is argued from the same laws of the church; for in De Consecratione, Distinctio, Pope Pius says: If through negligence anything of the blood is spilled on the ground, it shall be licked up with the tongue; if on a board, the board shall be scraped, and along with the ground or whatever else received it, shall be consumed by fire, and the ashes shall be placed beside the altar. And there are many laws of such a tenor, all of which suggest that the sensible, liquid, and flowing contents held in the chalice are really the blood of Christ. Here it is said that many statements of the decrees must be soundly understood according to the sense they ought to produce; hence figuratively or mystically the figure is often understood by a figure in the locutions of this matter — just as the grammarian says that 'lord' is a noun, and the logician says that the sign 'man' is a species, so the theologian says that the bread is the body of Christ and the wine is His blood, which must be understood figuratively, the sign being put in place of the thing signified. But if doctors of signs understand predication according to essence — not figurative but formal — it is a manifest error. And many labor under this equivocation. Therefore far be it from a Catholic to believe that on account of the spilling of this sacrament

English

Third Part, dist. II, cap. 27. — of this sacrament, the blood of the Lord is thereafter poured out from the chalice. For in that case the church would not command that blood to be burned and the ashes of the burned Lord to remain as relics of so horrible a deed, to the church's detestation; but the decree speaks of the bare sacrament, which it figuratively names the thing signified — in the same way that one could call any creature one's God, since it is an efficacious sign of one's God. For we ought not to admit such tropic locutions generally, because we would thereby say that Christ daily pours out through many vessels more blood than He ever had here on earth, and that by the same reasoning, on account of the quantity of His blood, He would be of a balanced constitution, since He would daily acquire coarse, unglorified humors along with other inconveniences that would need to be addressed; and thus must be glossed the hymn of the church when it says, What becomes wine is the blood of Christ, even though sense fails. And by this the following decree can be glossed: I, Berengarius — where this deacon anathematized the heresy by which he had previously been ensnared — and he makes a profession of his faith in these words: I consent to the holy Roman church and to the apostolic see, and I profess with mouth and heart that I hold the same faith concerning the sacraments of the Lord's table that the lord and venerable Pope Nicholas and this holy synod, by evangelical and apostolic authority, have delivered as to be held and have confirmed to me — namely, that the bread and wine which are placed on the altar after consecration are not only a sacrament but also the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.

English

Decretum, Third Part, dist. II, cap. 42. — to be sensually present, to be handled and broken by the hands of priests and ground by the teeth of the faithful not only sacramentally but in truth, swearing by the holy and consubstantial Trinity and by these most sacred gospels of Christ. Those who come against this faith with their teachings and followers I pronounce worthy of eternal anathema. This so solemn a confession cannot be understood to mean that the bread and wine are formally or essentially the body and blood of Christ, but figuratively and tropically — in the manner in which the Apostle speaks, Cor. 10, And they drank from the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ. Hence the ordinary gloss understands by bread and wine the species of bread and wine, in the manner in which the preceding Distinctio speaks under the authority of Gregory: The species and likeness of those things are the names of what formerly existed, namely bread and wine; hence at the end of a certain mass it is prayed and said: May Your sacraments perfect in us, we beseech You, O Lord, what they contain, so that what we now handle under the species of bread and wine we may receive in the truth of the things. There are very many sayings of the saints and of the church that teach that those sensible sacraments are not the body and blood of Christ but their figure; and perhaps in this matter many who bear the name Christian are worse in faithfulness than pagans.

English

For it would be a lesser evil that a man should honor what he first sees in the morning as God for the rest of the day, than that he should regularly regard that accident which he sees at Mass between the hands of the priest — namely, the consecrated host — as being only the sacrament of bread and wine. For through this is the means for understanding similar decrees, as in distinction XCV: as stated under the authority of Jerome: "What is greater than Christ, or what can be placed before His body and blood? If a priest consecrates Christ, and blesses the sacraments at the altar, should he who does not fear to consecrate Christ refrain from blessing the people?" Now the holy doctor appears to understand Christ figuratively as the consecrated host, so that the same consecration by which he consecrates the host is also that by which he is said to consecrate the body of Christ — yet the host is made sacred at least occasionally, when the priest duly performs the ministry of a priest, and God in His own proper work supernaturally perfects what is His own by altering it. But if one equivocates on consecration, calling it the display of a sacred thing, then just as a layman can bless the Trinity, so also he can consecrate — just as a layman brings it about that the body of Christ is sacred in a given place or under a given sacrament, and yet does not thereby consecrate the body of Christ.

English

The true intention of the holy doctor is therefore that preaching, celebrating the Eucharist, and praying are more important than blessing the people, the church, or other ornaments. Therefore, just as it is dangerous for bishop and layman alike to imprudently suspend the greater blessing from a priest, so also the lesser — through which, without simony, the people may be better supported and the priest may merit through the exercise of his power — therefore a prelate should fear harm to himself from suspensions and relaxations on all sides. But it is argued that a priest can consecrate the body of Christ because he can bless the deity, can offer the Son to God the Father, and can sanctify God in his own heart (as is said in 1 Pet. 3). Now each of these is greater than consecrating the body of Christ; if, therefore, a priest has power over the greater, he also has power over the lesser, as the holy doctor most learned in languages says. Here it is said that a man can bless in three ways: namely, laudatively, imprecatively, and effectively. Laudatively, every creature blesses the Lord, as is evident from the catalogue of the saints. Imprecatively, one person prays for another in misery, that Christ our God may bless him; effectively — but I have not seen such an equivocation on consecrating, since according to grammarians it means to give to God, or to make sacred at the same time. For in the Old Testament they gave to God beasts and offerings which were afterward called consecrated to the Lord; but how do we consecrate the body of Christ or His blood, when to make sacred means to make holy?

English

As to the second point, it is said that "to be offered" is taken equivocally — for to sacrifice corporally and for a meritorious action, as when the Word of God intercedes for someone; and in this sense the active "to make sacred" is not taken. As to the third point, it is said that "to sanctify" is again equivocal, meaning either to make holy or to cause to be worshipped holily — as God sanctifies Himself through a man when He causes Himself to be worshipped holily through him. This a man can do, but he cannot consecrate the body of the Lord. Nor does the sentence of blessed Jerome move one to equivocate on "to consecrate" in this way, since Jerome appears to speak of a consecration by sign which terminates at the sacrament and not at the Lord — unless it be said that the priest makes the Lord by means of a sign. But those who speak on this matter must carefully attend to equivocations that exclude contradiction, because just as it is conceded that a priest celebrates the body of Christ, so it would be conceded that this host is the body of Christ — an equivocation which it is good to suspend and expose on account of the danger. And it is clear that this sacrament is the form of bread and wine and Christ or a part of Him. And although all Christians are bound to know this teaching, yet especially theologians and professors of the laws of the church are so bound; for their laws, which they are obliged to defend without evasion, are full of this teaching, as is especially evident in the Decretals, De Celebratione Missarum, Cum Marthe.

English

These laws, I say, must either be abrogated as heretical or defended and taught as Catholic, and with all the more diligence in proportion as they are more necessary than other laws for obtaining the heavenly bread. It is therefore a mark of unfaithfulness to say that those laws are to be kept silent and other laws licitly declared. For they say that the consecrated host is only a sacrament and a part of Christ, but that Christ is imperceptibly hidden beneath it.

English

Having set out that common opinion concerning this venerable sacrament, it remains to investigate what it really is. On this subject there are three ways. The first appears to be the opinion of Saint Thomas and his followers, that the Eucharist —

English

— is a magnitude of the genus of quantity; for since it must be an accident, and quantity is the first accident after the genus of substance, that sensible sacrament must be the continuous and abiding quantity by which the bread before was formally extended. The second opinion appears to be that of Scotus, who disproves the prior opinion on the grounds that this sacrament can be rarefied and condensed, which cannot belong to quantity; and therefore, since it must be a consonant accident, he seems to posit quality, since it must be an absolute accident. Hence some of his school say that it is a figure, some that it is a primary quality, and others that it is a secondary quality — such as color, taste, or something else of this kind — whether sixfold or aggregated from many accidents. The third opinion is that of Berengarius, and it appears to be the decree of the holy synod. Indeed it is established from the public and solemn confession of Berengarius, placed in De Consecratione, distinction 2, 'I, Berengarius,' that he, in correcting his prior error, confesses that bread and wine are this sensible sacrament.

English

For (as I recounted above) his confession is inscribed there under these words: 'I believe that the bread and wine which are placed on the altar are, after consecration, not only a sacrament but also the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, to be handled sensually not only as a sacrament, but in truth to be handled by the hands of priests and broken, and ground by the teeth of the faithful.' From which it is clear that he held that the same bread and wine which had been placed on the altar before the Mass remains after consecration as not merely a bare sacrament but also as the body of the Lord.

English

That this was at that time the opinion of the Roman church is clear from three things. First, because in that same decree the words of the notary read as follows: 'Having read and thoroughly read this, I have voluntarily subscribed. This confession of his faith concerning the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, made by Berengarius at Rome before one hundred bishops.' From which it is clear that a church of so great a synod would not have permitted the recantation of his prior heresy and his correction without reproach under these words, unless it were approving his faith as catholic. Second, it is confirmed from that same decree that this was at that time the opinion of the Roman church; for it is written there as follows: 'Pope Nicholas sent word through the cities of Italy, Germany, and Gaul, and to whatever places the report of his depravity had previously been able to reach, so that the churches that had formerly grieved over what was adverse and discordant might afterward rejoice over what was reversed and converted.' From these things it is abundantly clear that the church at that time held the aforesaid opinion of Berengarius to be catholic and the opinion contrary to it to be heretical. Third, the same is confirmed by the fact that, in his recantation, he had protested under these words: 'I consent to the holy Roman church and the apostolic see, and I profess with mouth and heart concerning the sacraments of the Lord's table that I hold the same faith which the lord and venerable Pope Nicholas and this holy synod, by evangelical and apostolic authority, transmitted as that which must be held, and confirmed for me.' And afterward he confesses the aforesaid opinion.

English

From which it is gathered that the pope and the synod had received that opinion as to be confessed; and it is clear that it was once the sense of the church, as an article of faith, that bread and wine remain after the consecration of the Eucharist just as before. From which it is gathered that one of these two churches erred in faith, or equivocated logically or in signification, or thirdly that a variety of belief succeeded in time, so that what was then an article of faith is now false. But as to this third option, it is established that by the same reasoning it would be equally true that bread and wine remain after the consecration of the Eucharist, just as it ever was true or to be believed; and therefore, since equivocation does not excuse in matters of faith, it appears that one of the churches erred. From which it is clear, first, that the Roman church can err in articles of faith, since it so did; it is clear, second, that one need not believe that if the Roman church declares something catholic or heretical, it is therefore truly so; and third, it appears probable that the prior church held a sound opinion in this matter and the later one went astray — for so great an authority, so great a sanctity, and so great or greater a wisdom shone forth in Pope Nicholas, according to the chronicles, and in those bishops, as in him who composed the Decretals. Why then should his opinion not be believed as much as or more than the weaker opinion that succeeded it? For the church proceeds by deteriorating with respect to the faith of Scripture.

English

And again, the prior opinion accords better with sense, reason, the holy doctors, and the Scriptures; therefore, since it has not subsequently been abrogated or disproved, it appears that the church ought still to believe it as at first. That it accords better with sense and reason will be shown below, and that it accords better with the holy doctors is clear from three things: first, from the saying of blessed Ambrose, placed in De Consecratione, distinction II, 'All things whatsoever': 'Although the figure of bread and wine may appear, nevertheless nothing other than the flesh of Christ and His blood are to be believed after consecration.' Behold that bread and wine are to be believed to be the flesh of Christ and His blood. Second, the same opinion is confirmed from the saying of blessed —

English

Augustine, in the same distinction, "Who eat," speaking of this sacrament, says thus: "What is seen," he says, "is bread and the cup, which the eyes report; but what faith requires to be instructed is that the bread is the body of Christ and the cup is the blood." These things are therefore called sacraments because in them one thing is seen and another is understood. What is seen has a bodily form; what is understood has a spiritual fruit. Behold, this holy man holds that the bread and wine are the visible sacrament. Third, it is confirmed from the saying of Hilary in the same distinction, where it is written thus: "The body of Christ which is taken from the altar is a figure, while the bread and wine are seen outwardly; but it is truth while the body of Christ and the blood are believed inwardly in truth." There are many sayings similar to the sayings of these three holy men that expressly state the position which Berengarius confesses in both places. As for the testimony of scripture, it is clear from Matth. 26,

English

Marc. 14, Luc. 22, and 1 Cor. 11, and Act. 2,

English

and also Joh. 6, where mention is made of this sacrament and the form of its consecration is given; in both places it is narrated that Jesus took the bread and said of it: "This is my body." For in Luc. 22 it is written thus: "And having taken the bread, He gave thanks and broke it and gave it to them, saying: This is my body"; where it is evident, without any arrogance, that He afterward pointed to that very bread which He had taken. And it is established that, the bread remaining, it is not really the body of Christ but an efficacious sign of it. From these things it is gathered that the confession of Berengarius and the ancient decree of the church are in every respect more consonant with the truth. But it is objected on this ground that the second part of the decree is at odds with the first part and with Catholic truth, and consequently the whole confession is tainted; for it holds that the bread and wine are not only a sacrament after the consecration, but the true body of Christ and the blood, which is broken and perceived as bread — which is against what has been said. To this I say (as above) that it is altogether necessary to interpret this second statement equivocally, since neither the substance of bread nor that which was its accidental form is really the body of Christ, as both the ancients and the moderns are obliged to concede; therefore the Ordinary Gloss says that the confession of Berengarius must be understood soundly, because otherwise the latest error would be worse than the former one condemned by the church as heretical. For today the earlier opinion of Berengarius would be approved in the three respects which the church then condemned as heretical: namely, first, that that white thing remains after the consecration only as a sacrament; second, that it is not the body of Christ; and third, that through the perception of it the body of Christ is not broken or perceived.

English

the body of Christ is not broken or perceived. By these three points he corrected himself in accordance with the decree of the church. And indeed, to defend now that the church at that time erred in faith, as if ignorant of the light which was corrected by the wiser church, would be to cast a suspicious calumny upon our entire determination regarding the matter of faith — which is the same as saying that scripture, together with the holy doctors, failed in these matters. But who would then believe our words, since we are able to alter the faith at will for money? It is therefore necessary to interpret the statement of both churches according to the rule of the faith of scripture, and this is more consonant and more honorable in every respect for understanding scripture, the holy doctors, and the confession of Berengarius, which was the decree of the church. In this matter it is necessary (as above) to note carefully the distinction between identical predication and tropical or figurative predication. Identical predication is (as I said) when the predicate is identically asserted of the subject, as: Christ is a man. But tropical or figurative predication is when one term is noted as being figured by the other, as I expounded before: "The rock, however, was Christ." Hence I adduce a threefold example from all of these for this sense. The first is the saying of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 10: "Now I do not want you to be ignorant, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ." And it is clear, as regards the understanding of this scripture and others like it, that one must note the figurative or tropical sense; in which sense this saying is equally true as any other part of scripture; for all the patriarchs were under divine protection,

English

by divine protection, according to which the burning of the Lord's vengeance was driven away; all passed through the danger of the world and of all opposing peoples; and since faith does not change on account of the passage of time, it is clear that they were nourished by the same faith by which Christians were afterward nourished. And this was figured by the journey of forty years to the promised land, so that nothing happened to those traveling from Egypt that was not a figure of things to come for those who would follow in their own pilgrimage to their homeland. For just as the people drank from the water flowing from the rock which Moses struck twice (as is clear from Exod. 17), so the Christian people drink spiritually the subtlety of the faith of Jesus Christ after the Jewish people so shamefully struck Christ; and just as the reproach of rebuke followed upon that striking, so reproach follows upon the Jews for having so struck Christ upon the cross. "The rock," he says, "was Christ" — that is, that rock mystically figured Christ. It must be noted, however, that such locutions can be soundly understood in two ways: namely, that such a figure figured what is figured by it, or, setting aside the literal sense of the figure, to understand the thing figured in an equivocal sense — and in both cases the sense will be Catholic without any scruple of falsehood.

English

The second example is that of Apoc. 19, for the justifications are of the saints, as I have elsewhere expounded at length; and the third example is that of 1 Cor. 11: "This cup is the new testament in my blood"; for the wine in the cup figured the new testament, just as the blood of the calf was the sign of the confirmation of the old testament, as is clear from Exod. 34. Thus therefore it seems that the saints of the primitive church and their sons after them understood the bread and wine to figure the body of Christ and the blood. Hence in 1 Cor. 11, the Apostle, narrating how the Corinthians were coming together to eat the Lord's supper — each one bringing his own bread and wine with him, so that one was drunk and another hungry after this supper — rebukes them gently for this practice and adds instruction regarding this sacrament, which at that time sufficed for the church; namely, that those eating should gather in the church in an orderly manner, or otherwise the infirm should eat at home, and that the others should not give scandal to their brothers with lavish, sumptuous, and delicate preparations of bread and wine. Hence, for full instruction regarding this sacrament, he speaks thus: "For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus, on the night when He was betrayed, took the bread and, giving thanks, broke it and said: Take and eat, this is my body which will be given up for you; do this in remembrance of me."

English

"As often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you will proclaim the Lord's death until He comes" — from which it is clear that he speaks in a fourfold way about material bread and wine, and consequently says that this is His body and blood in figure, just as he says that this cup is the new testament and that this is done in remembrance of Him. But that others are said to receive during the middle of the meal, after the manner of Christ, the host consecrated by priests, seems to me to be a fantasy; yet the sacraments and rites that have been added seem to me to be reasonable, provided however that they are not weighted too heavily. For some foolishly weight the added rites more heavily than the Apostle's meaning, when he says: "Therefore, whoever shall eat this bread or drink the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord." For he understands that bread and wine ought not to be received in memory of the body of Christ and His blood except worthily, that is, except with a pure heart and sincere intention; and so it seems to me that no honest rites concerning the Eucharist ought to be despised, nor ought they to be weighed more heavily than virtues; and in both places it appears that Scripture calls this sacrament bread and wine, in the manner in which some understand that passage in Acts

English

2, which is said of the converts: "But continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread in houses, they received food with gladness and simplicity of heart." This venerable sacrament is therefore called bread in both places; and if this is true, it is clear, with like reasoning, that those who have burdened the church, both speculatively and practically, with so many perplexities surrounding this sacrament have sinned gravely. Therefore, according to the sentence of the church against Berengarius, according to the holy doctors, and according to the form of the words of Scripture, both bread and wine after the blessing are sacrament and the body of Christ in sign and not in substance, and are thus broken and handled. And the solution to the objection, by which it is said that the sentence of the church against Berengarius contradicts the aforesaid position, is clear; but secondly it is objected on the ground that Sacred Scripture in the six aforementioned places calls the sacrament of the Eucharist bread, and the holy doctors say the same thing together with the decree of the church against Berengarius. Why, then, should we not hold to the same logic, since it is not permitted to vary a matter of faith according to logic? It is said here that the aforesaid meaning is sufficiently equivocal and sufficiently foreign to common usage, and is the occasion on which many receive the faith to believe that bread and wine after consecration are identically the body of Christ and His blood. Therefore, just as the church has varied other accidental matters besides faith, so it ought on due grounds to vary its logical language while the meaning and thus the faith remain unchanged. For they changed the observance of the Sabbath from the seventh day to the fifth day, and from there to the first day, which the church observes today with the faith unchanged, and similarly in many like matters besides faith. Why therefore is it not permitted to the church to vary its logical language, preserving the faith and guarding the entrance of unfaithfulness, just as the keeper of a castle, for reasonable cause, changes the gates, and this is not permitted except by the sufficient and reasonable decree of the guardians?

English

There are therefore some places where it is expedient to vary logical language in order to avoid danger, and some places where it is not fitting to vary it; and it is clear that it does not follow that, if the holy doctors of the Catholic church speak thus, then any Catholic is therefore permitted to speak in that way. For example, blessed Bernard, in the sermon On the Exaltation of the Holy Cross, which begins "On the rod of Jesse," speaks thus: "Those hands that founded the heavens were stretched out on the cross." And this saint and the usage of the church say many similar things from which we are not to draw a general consequence, because neither the bodily hands of Christ were eternally crucified, nor the spiritual hands, which are the power of working; for He did not have bodily hands before He was incarnate, because then God would have had a body before the world existed, nor spiritual hands, because all those are the divine essence; and thus the Trinity, which cannot be stretched or made to suffer without falling into the heresy of the Patripassians — whom Augustine records in his book on heresies as having said that the divine nature, and consequently the Father, suffered — when this predication is formal, that the eternal hands of God were made to suffer on the cross, it is clear that one must consequently concede that the power, indeed the finger of God, which is the Holy Spirit, was extended and suffered, and thus the uncreated nature, power, virtue, and goodness, the exemplary reasons and ideas, would be tangible, and thus there would be a confusion of persons and natures, since every nature would be perceptible to the senses.

English

Likewise, if it were permitted to extort conclusions of this kind from the authority of Scripture, by the same reasoning it would have to be conceded that God, before the establishment of the world and thus eternally, grieved in His heart over a very great good infinitely more than any creature could grieve, because in Gen. 6 it is said that God, moved inwardly by grief of heart, said that He repented of having made man; and thus He would have had infinite members, infinitely and eternally full of grief; for just as He knew eternally the sin of man, so He grieved over it eternally in His heart, because He was moved in His heart by grief; and since by "heart" God the Father is understood, according to that word of Ps. 44, "My heart has uttered a good word," it appears that God the Father grieved eternally; and it is established that no creature can be made equal to Him in grief, just as in knowledge or affection. And as for the infinity of members — such as hands, fingers, and the like — which beyond personality are exemplary reasons,

English

it is clear that the number of these is not finite, just as the number of all ideas is not finite. And the canonists who preach to laypeople in the vernacular that those hands by which God formed heaven and earth were crucified ought to consider this; they should learn, I say, first how many hands of this kind God has, and whether the left hand of God did anything at the beginning of the world, in order to exclude the Manicheans, who posited an evil God. And there are infinite conclusions of this kind, by which the church would be too greatly burdened by unfaithful sophists, if all the figurative sayings of Scripture must be generally drawn into consequence, so that others may speak freely and conformably in the same way everywhere. We must therefore speak plainly by interpreting figures, and reserve to those authorities their authentic forms of speech, as Augustine teaches in On Christian Doctrine, Book 4. But thirdly it is objected against what has been said, on the ground that it is not taught which Scripture ought to be admitted and which rejected, nor which doctor is to be held and which denied. Indeed it seems that the church at the time of Berengarius was heretical, or else the church that followed what was contrary to him was faithless. I say here that the whole of Sacred Scripture ought to be admitted as faith, and its falsity detested, since it is wholly true and false in no part, as is supposed here. The figurative expressions of Scripture, however, we ought to expound, and in the manner of disciples, having set aside our own figures, speak plainly in the words of our authorities. And I was accustomed to expound the aforesaid Scripture in Genesis

English

6, where, having noted the text, I was accustomed to say how, to those who understand it less well, this text seems to imply that God, previously ignorant of the future sin of men, after He learned by the event that man was prone to sin in this way, grieved and was displeased with Himself either for ever having made man, or for having made man so frail, rather than for having made him steadfast and confirmed like an angel, since then He would have been spared the penal labor of punishing him for transgression; but for those who understand it well, the text conveys a quite different meaning. For the understanding of which it must be noted, first, that Moses, addressing a very rude people, adapted his words to their capacity, so that those who first assent to the letter may ascend through faith to the higher meaning, as Scripture does in both cases. Secondly, it must be noted, according to the historians, that after the death of Adam, Seth, by the command of his father, separated his kindred from Cain, returning to a certain natal mountain near paradise; but after the seventh generation, it is reported that his sons, who on account of their piety are called sons of God, mingled with the daughters of Cain, who on account of their wantonness are called daughters of men; and it was possible along with this that the incubus demons, who are numbered among the sons of God, carried the seeds of men into the wombs of women, procreating giants by the industry of fostering the offspring through the powers of mixed beings, and this brutality, together with the other things narrated by Methodius the martyr, was the cause of the flood. Thirdly it must be noted that God, with Whom all things are present, speaks in the aforesaid text as a loving father consoling sons who are willing to be converted to God through repentance, which is clear from three parts of this text. For first He says: "My spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh, and his days shall be one hundred and twenty years" — as if He were saying: The spirit of life shall not remain eternally with the entire race of sinners perpetually condemned, as the race of demons is condemned.

English

And the second reason is added: because man is fragile by reason of the flesh and thus excusable in some measure. The third remedy is then applied: it is promised that the days of repentance before the flood inundates the earth will be one hundred and twenty years. For this word of God came twenty years before Noah began to beget children, and his firstborn was one hundred years old at the time of the flood. In the second principal point, the first knowledge of the committed wickedness is set forth, where it is said: But God, seeing, etc. Second, the propensity to relapse is added, where it is joined: And every thought of man, etc. And third, the medicinal satisfaction is shown, where it is said: He repented that He had made man on the earth. For from the making of earthly man and his sin against the highest good, it was necessary for Christ to suffer and to enter with the redeemed into His glory; and this is what it means to repent, that is, to bear the penalty. Nor should it trouble us that this is spoken of in the present tense, for God always knows that He bears suffering. In the third principal point, the general remedy for cutting off man's future sin is touched upon, where it is said: Guarding against the future — for the power of the giants who had been upon the earth, and the barrenness of the lands that were born along with the serenity and wholesomeness of the air, gave them occasion for bestial licentiousness — one hundred and twenty years.

English

This place is not found in the Vulgate. In the second point, He sets forth His eternal displeasure, where it is said: Grieved in heart within Himself — for it is not to be believed that God has suffering according to the divine nature, even though evil things displease Him; nor is it to be believed that He newly acquired or eternally expressed displeasure, since He was grieved within in heart. By this, however, it is noted that He finally specifies the manner of removing the occasion for man's abuse of earthly things, when He finally says: I will blot out, He says, the man whom I created from the face of the earth, etc. For He consumed by the flood the mixed adornments of the earth and air, and disposed of the seminal principles — just as a merciful father, guarding against the petulance of a son, removes from him the occasion of sinning. For God does not punish the predestined as He punishes the foreknown reprobate, except mercifully in proportion to the demerit of the one punished; hence the punishment of the supernaturally inundating waters corresponds to their disordered licentiousness. But the corrupt exhalations causing saltiness and disposing the earth and air adversely, so that the celestial influence is proportional to the temporal increase and breeze, correspondingly answer to their disordered affection toward earthly things by violently seizing them. Hence for these two sins it is added: But the earth was corrupt before God as regards the first sin of carnality, and it was filled with iniquity as regards the second sin of avarice.

English

If, however, it is preferred to understand by punishment the just execution of vengeance, which is the end of powerful repentance — excluding movement, passion, lack of foresight, etc., which speak of imperfection in the one repenting — I do not contradict that interpretation. For in this way is to be understood that of Psalm 6, and of Psalm 31: O Lord, rebuke me not in Your fury, nor chastise me in Your anger. For fury signifies the vehemence and swiftness of vengeance for an unpardonable sin continuing to the end of life, for which God argues conclusively and inescapably, as is clear from Matth. 25: When the Son of Man comes. For the iniquity of such earthly people is established for perpetual hatred; and second, because it is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God (Hebr. 10), he therefore asks not to be chastised on account of the wood, hay, and stubble that are to be purged in purgatory. For although such anger is milder, according to that of Habakkuk: When You are angry, You will remember mercy — nevertheless both are to be feared, and for the completion of all penance the way must humbly be sought.

English

But far be it that by such expressions we should believe that passion or perturbation befalls God, since in Wis. 12 it is written: But You, O Lord of hosts, judge with tranquility. And it is to be judged accordingly regarding the austerity and the demanding of interest in God's parable of the Savior in Luc. 19. And in the same way is to be understood what is said of God's severity and whatever other attributes are ascribed to Him, all of which concur equally; to the Romans the Apostle writes: Behold, therefore, the goodness and severity of God; and that of Apok. 16: Behold, I come as a thief; blessed is he who watches and keeps his garments. And in this way is to be understood that of Psalm 77: And the Lord was awakened as one sleeping, and as a mighty man flushed with wine — together with any number of similar expressions, whose particular expositions undoubtedly contain profound mysteries. From these things it is clear that it does not follow, if God understands the sorrow of heart to mean the displeasure of God the Father, that we are therefore obliged to speak in a fully conforming manner. For just as without remission —

English

Augustine says that God is just by justice and not by a quality; in the same way it must be conceded that God is touched by sorrow of heart without passion or painful repentance. And it is clear in which cases we must speak in conformity with Scripture, and in which cases we must speak expositionally, holding parables in suspension and admiring the subtle meaning therein — as some understand by the statement that God is touched inwardly with sorrow of heart, how the eternal displeasure of God the Father brought it about that He sent His only-begotten Son to be incarnated; for the hypostatic union was a touching of the weakness of the Son, because by this the Son, who is the nature of the Father within, was burdened with our sorrows. As regards the second point alleged, concerning the authentication of one doctor alongside another, it is clear that every doctor is to be received insofar as he is grounded in Scripture, but the opinion of no later doctor is to be accepted except insofar as it is founded in Scripture. I believe, however, that the opinion of the blessed Bernard was catholic, but his logic is today to be set aside.

English

For this is how we proceed with the church's teaching on the Eucharist, and likewise Augustine frequently forbids that his own words be defended or maintained except insofar as they are in agreement with Scripture. Now Bernard understood by the hands, eyes, and ears the Word of God personally, and so he posited figuratively that those organs were crucified; this is the sign signified by those organs, or else another meaning hidden from us. But we ought not to preach in such a manner to the common people, and especially not to common audiences without an explanation of the catholic sense, since a heretical meaning would in this way easily steal upon the audience through the negligence of the preacher. Decret. Prima Pars, dist. IX.

English

Cf. De Apostasia. For we must speak openly to the people the teachings of Scripture necessary for salvation. Nor is it sufficient that we hold a catholic sense, for in that way we could sow any number of heresies by opposing the whole of Scripture, when we ought rather to use the most fitting manner by which we are able to impress upon our hearers catholic and edifying truths — for otherwise we are not helpers of God but of the devil, treacherously pursuing our own honor or secular advantage. Furthermore, I believe that each church — both in the time of Berengarius and in the time of the newer doctors — was catholic when they used terms equivocally; nor do I believe that that school concerning the Eucharist so greatly entangled the church as the modern one has. Yet it seems altogether necessary that we take care not to declare that any part of a sensible sacrament is the body of Christ or His blood, because common people and learned men alike are prone to understand that the bread after consecration is identically the body of Christ. Therefore, on account of the perceptible occasion of error, the deficiencies must be corrected in speech — for both clergy and laity — by recalling how around the Eucharist there arose the first heresy, with the disciples of Christ going away backward on account of the hardness of the saying, as is plain from Joh. 6:61, and as the decree De Consecratione, distinction 2, Prima quidem, recalls from the testimony of Augustine. And this is the reason why it is necessary that the priests who offer the breads be thoroughly instructed in this matter. But thirdly, the main objection is raised on the ground that the newer church posits transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the body of Christ and His blood; yet the primitive church did not posit this — therefore the positions are contradictory.

English

In defining this matter, our catholics — the canonists as well — have learned to describe the aforesaid term thus: Transubstantiation is the transition of one whole substance into another whole substance, with the entire multitude of accidents remaining, such that neither the material nor the substantial form that existed in the bread and wine remain after consecration, but every material or formal substance that belonged to them is destroyed, and the body of Christ succeeds by conversion under the same accidents. In this way there is no annihilation of any substance — both because the conversion of the whole substance is preferable, and also because the accidents that previously belonged to the bread and wine remain; for if those accidents remained while the substance persisted, idolatry would be committed by adoring the bread and wine as the Lord's body and thus as God. Here it seems to me that the primitive church did not posit this, but the newer church did, just as certain persons, dreaming faithlessly and without foundation, coined the term and fantasized many things to the burden of the church. First, therefore, it seems that this decretal or its authors deserve no more credence than the decree of the church in the person of Berengarius, because (as has been said above) the pope together with the more credible council surpassed them in holiness and knowledge, having spoken more conformably to the Scriptures, to the teachings of the holy doctors, more consonantly with reason, and beyond this they more clearly and readily detected what is to be believed. For since transubstantiation is a technical term, it is permissible for a believer to draw its signification toward any particular catholic sense, and thus it seems ambiguously and incompletely to suggest the faith of the church concerning the Eucharist. But another decree explains how the pope and council decreed to Berengarius that the bread and wine placed upon the altar remain after consecration not only as a sacrament but also as the true body of Christ and His blood. Hence the pope joyfully sent this to be believed as the faith to various churches. Since, therefore, the material sign of the decretals or decrees is irrelevant to the faith which the church holds, and the authority of the prior church shone equally great or greater, it seems that the evidence drawn from the decretal of the church concerning transubstantiation — which would eliminate the nature of the bread and wine remaining after the consecration of the host — is overthrown.

English

But if it is said that the glossators — such as the common gloss and the Archdeacon together with many theologians — understand by 'bread' only the form of the bread, it is plain that the expositor of the prior decree would say more aptly that these expositors understand by the form of the bread and wine the real essence or nature of the bread and wine, which is really the body itself. And so the language of the decree is more explicit than its gloss. This is confirmed, first, by what follows unavoidably even for the most unskilled logician: Under the form of bread and wine the body of Christ is present sacramentally; therefore that bread and that wine are the substance of the form, and consequently, that accidental form existing, the bread and wine remain with greater permanence than that form. Second, it is confirmed by the fact that 114 bishops would not have assembled to determine that the bread and wine placed upon the altar remain after consecration, if they had understood the contradiction of this — namely, that it is not bread and wine that remain after consecration as that sacrament of the altar, but the accidents that once were bread and wine. For they would not be mocking the people by saying in an unusual manner that accidents are placed there, while intending the contradictory of what they said. For it would then be easy to gloss any witnesses of the faith by their contradictory, thus subverting the faith of the church. Let the glossator therefore observe, first, how no one would say that bread and wine are placed on the altar before consecration — that is, those accidents and not that substance. Let him observe, second, that it is equally false to say that those accidents are the body of Christ and His blood as to say that those substances are, and that those substances figure the body of Christ just as truly as the accidents do. Let him observe, third, how sacred Scripture, by which this manner of speaking is illustrated, does not understand by 'bread' and 'wine' those accidents but their very essences. Why then should not the decree be understood in the same way, together with the holy doctors? Third, it is confirmed, as often, that the words of the decree agree more with Scripture and the holy doctors, with reason, and with sense; and therefore such mature and holy bishops either understood the words of faith in their received sense or expressed their own meaning. For the decree explains many times over how the saying that the bread is the body of Christ is to be understood — that is, as its sacramental sign — which manner of speaking was well known in Scripture and was then accepted by the people, but afterward declined into an identical predication. Whence today one ought to speak in conformity with the expounded sense and the faith subject to scandal; indeed, Christ did not omit to speak in this way on account of scandal, as the decree concerning Berengarius states.

English

Joh. 6; but He expounds Himself subtly, as the decree of Augustine on Psalm 4 teaches, which is cited. Cf. Decret. cap. 44 ibid.

English

De Consecratione, distinction 2, Prima quidem: Understand spiritually what I have spoken: You are not going to eat this body which you see, nor are you going to drink the blood which those who will crucify Me are going to shed. I have commended to you a certain sacrament; understood spiritually, it will give you life. Hence, in order that they might understand that He does not dispense His body in the manner they supposed, He says that He Himself will ascend to heaven whole. When you see, He says, the Son of Man ascending to where He was before — it is the Spirit who gives life. Therefore, the ancient decree of the fathers is more to be believed; as it is held in distinction 50, Domino sancto, under the authority of Isidore: Whenever a discordant opinion is found in the acts of councils, the opinion of that council is to be held more firmly whose authority is more ancient and more weighty. Since, therefore, the opinion of the decree is closer to the source of Scripture, it seems that that matter of faith is more to be maintained. Furthermore, as regards the description of transubstantiation, it seems that the objection involves a false assumption — supposing (as the adversaries themselves admit) that this conversion does not posit the annihilation or the identification of the bread with the body of Christ. For every accident must have a subject; every such transubstantiation is an accident; therefore every such must have a subject. Although they grant that an accident can exist without a subject, they nevertheless say that it must have a subject at its origin — indeed (as they say, speaking ineptly) that it is its own subject at each of its points. It is therefore not without a subject; indeed, every relative accident — which is what every change is — they grant, does not relate only to what is of that kind, and on this point they contend.

English

Decret. Decr. Prima Pars, dist. cap. XXVIII. — to be able to exist without its subject; therefore it is necessary that something be given which is passively subjected to transubstantiation. That something is not the accident, because the accident itself remains untranssubstantiated; nor is it the bread or the wine, because, since that transubstantiation must be grounded — lest we be compelled to concede that the body of Christ or the host is constituted successively — it is clear that at the instant of transubstantiation neither the transsubstantiated bread nor the wine exists according to any part of itself, and consequently no accident at that moment has a subject. It has been deduced that the treatise On Annihilation moved philosophers to posit primary matter as subject to generation, because to fabricate something previously unheard of without any foundation would be an illusion. Let the one who posits transubstantiation, therefore, say what it is, where it is, and how it is sustained; for since it is a form, it must inform and ornament some subject, seeing that it is produced so miraculously. Hence, although I once labored to describe transubstantiation in accordance with the sense of the prior substance of the church, it now seems to me that they are contradictory, the later church having gone astray. For if transubstantiation is the cession of one substance to another with respect to place — such that the one transsubstantiated substance remains through the same place as before, and the more worthy substance is present sacramentally through that place, to which the prior substance is subordinated as a sign — then it follows that the bread is transsubstantiated at the instant in which it is not changed, but the bread remains subject to accidents after consecration; which is said to be contrary to the sentence of the decretal. Therefore I now set aside the harmonizations of these laws and call transubstantiation the conversion of one substance into another, as a seed is converted into a living body, and a man is converted into earth, and so generally whenever one body is generated from another. Furthermore, regarding idolatry, it is clear that the people must be instructed not to believe that the accidented thing is identically the body of Christ; and this is necessary according to every opinion on this matter, because the later church acknowledges that there remains something white, round, and hard, which cannot be the body of Christ. And indeed, since that thing is perceptible in itself, and consequently the people are just as prone — or more prone — to believing it to be the body of Christ as they were to believing it to be the bread, it is clear that there remains for them not a trace of reason to think that the bread has ceased to exist according to any part of it — lest by worshipping the bread as the body of Christ idolatry be committed. For by the same reasoning, any sensible accident would be removed; nay, now an illusion concerning the subject and its accident is added on top. And the greater part of the people believe faithlessly and with less reverence that the remaining thing, which they hold to be an accident, is identically the body of Christ. It is indeed established that an accident is more foreign to the nature of the body of Christ or of His blood than is the nature of bread or wine.

English

It remains to add further arguments against the modern novel doctors, on behalf of the position of the ancient church, and first through their own work. For it is not of God to destroy His own structure by authorizing the ecclesiastical sacraments; but He would do this according to this newly invented position — therefore the position is irrational. The minor premise is evident from this: that according to this way of thinking, as much of the bread and wine in the entire world as is to be transubstantiated, so much ceases to be and is destroyed, both as regards matter and as regards form. And the exchange seems harmful, since so great a substance would benefit the world more than its dreadful transubstantiation; therefore God would profit the church ineptly and without foundation in so doing. Furthermore, since neither the matter nor the form of the transubstantiated thing remains — lest the body of Christ be overburdened with new matter — it seems, according to those who concede the possibility of annihilation, that the transubstantiated nature is simply annihilated. For according to them it is possible that both bread and wine are annihilated and that the body of Christ and the blood succeed sacramentally under those accidents, as we now observe. But in whatever manner it might be, there is then matter on the part of the bread or wine; therefore it is now irrevocably annihilated by the consecration. The assumption is well-known among them: since substance can be annihilated while the accident is preserved, and conversely, as they say — nor does it prevent Christ from being able to multiply His body under those accidents at the same instant, since the motions are entirely separate. Furthermore, annihilation, according to those who speak thus, is specified by the departure from being of the parts of the annihilated thing and terminates at simple non-being — which is the case with every transubstantiation according to them; therefore, etc.

English

I ask, what difference is there between the annihilation of bread, with the body of Christ succeeding in reality under the same accidents at the same instant, and the transubstantiation of bread, with the body of Christ succeeding sacramentally under its accidents at the same instant? For the departure and destruction of substance is equal on both sides; therefore it seems that, as regards the motion of destruction, there is complete conformity. The destruction of the bread is the same whether the matter returns more quickly or the body of Christ remains perpetually under the perceptible subject. Nor does the fiction about the transubstantiation or conversion of bread into the body of Christ avail, since the body of Christ receives neither the matter nor the substantial or accidental form of the corrupted bread; therefore it seems that the body of Christ is converted no more than day is converted into night or vice versa. Therefore either the bread is not converted into the body of Christ in the confection of the Eucharist in the ordinary way, or it is ambiguous when such a conversion occurs — a description of which will not be invented. And it is clear that, although the church sings: "The teaching is given to Christians, / that bread passes into flesh / and wine into blood," the nature of that passing of bread into the body of Christ and of wine into the blood seems to be unknown even to theologians, because each of them posits the departure of substance according to its whole self and does not know where any of the bread remains or where it goes. Therefore, separating that motion from the others, it seems according to them that it is annihilation.

English

For otherwise one could suppose of any motion that it is not annihilation because of some other subsequent motion accompanying it. For it seems that the bread is turned into nothing, just as is the case with grace, which is not turned into sin — and just as neither is the annihilated thing turned into the body that occupies its place. For nothing is turned into or passes into another thing unless it undergoes the passing or transition up to the terminus to which the motion leads. Not calling that change a miraculous one from the being of bread to its non-being — since there is no underlying matter, just as in annihilation — it seems that they must say that it is annihilation, since they do not know how to detect a conversion preventing it. For, as they say, afterward prime matter will be produced according to itself and according to each of its parts; therefore from nothing, by its own departure, it has been annihilated. And the natural philosophers marvel here at how irregularly the numerically same prime matter returns according to its whole self, since such things are individuated from the instant at which they are produced; therefore just as the first instant of the world does not return, so neither does the numerically same matter return. Since therefore it is equally easy for God to produce entirely new matter, and since they have no revelation, reason, or dream as to when He did this, therefore the account of these men is not to be believed — rather, new matter is created with the old annihilated. Those who estrange themselves from the ancient saints involve the church in such perplexities. Furthermore, according to Augustine on John, Homily XXVI, on John 6: "My flesh is truly food and My blood is truly drink" — "By those things," he says, "God commended this sacrament to us, which are reduced to one from many. For bread is made from many grains, and wine flows from many clusters." Now according to the adversaries this would be heretical, since it plainly implies that bread and wine remain after the consecration of the host; therefore they say that it is not by those things but by the accidents — which they do not understand — that we receive the body of Christ.

English

Since therefore God decreed to give us so great a gift, it seems to be in accordance with His magnificent truth that He gave it to us under an honorable veil excluding the deception of man. For every such deception is evil, since man naturally strives to know the truth; therefore since the knowledge of truth is good and useful, ignorance of truth is evil and contrary to beatitude. Therefore we say that the accidents remain so that the senses may be rendered free from deception. For the interior senses judge concerning material substances, since these are perceptible through accident; therefore it would be a greater evil for them to be deceived. Since therefore man's senses, both exterior and interior, judge that what remains is bread and wine, most like an unconsecrated thing, it seems that it does not befit the Lord of truth to introduce so great a deception when graciously imparting so worthy a gift. For He does not punish except short of the deserved, on account of a fault that merited such punishment. Whence then would He punish with so base a deception even the blessed man who sacramentally receives His body? Whence the modern doctors are constrained here, since they deny that bread is, was, or will be the body of Christ — unable to find the language to express truly the truth of this sacrament.

English

Augustine: "which are reduced to one from many. For one thing is made from many grains; another one flows from many berries." They deny also that bread can be the body of Christ, and third they deny that from bread the body of Christ will be made — since this implies that the bread gives way to the body of Christ and that it is newly generated. Therefore they say that bread will be transubstantiated into the body of Christ, that bread will be converted or changed into the body of Christ, and (as pleases some) that from bread the body of Christ will be made. Whence holy Thomas, on Book IV, distinction 11, article 2, glosses blessed Ambrose in his book On the Sacraments — which is placed in De Consecratione, distinction 2, "Panis est altari": "This is," says Thomas, "that which is under the species of bread; it was first bread, and afterwards the body of Christ." But the Master of Book IV of the Sentences, distinction 10, chapter 3, glosses such sayings of the saints better: that they employ a certain trope, by which signs are accustomed to take on the names of their signified things. For before the consecration that bread was not thus the body of Christ, but by the power of the words of Christ it becomes a sign so efficacious; and thus it is understood that bread is converted into the body of Christ, is transubstantiated, or is expressed by whatever term of change. Yet the modern doctors understand these things differently, but do not teach it; indeed, entangling themselves, they contradict one another. For they are constrained in all these things concerning the subject of the change, since, as they say, it is inconsistent for bread and wine to await such a motion.

English

They are also constrained by the declaration of the threefold terminus mentioned above, and by what that conversion posits beyond what would be posited by the annihilation of bread and the sacramental succession of the body of Christ under those accidents. For the whole company of perceptible bodies is equally worsened on both sides.

English

Likewise, it seems manifest that according to these doctors, the conversion of the host requires two prior natural motions, namely the ceasing of the bread in its entirety and the beginning of the presence of the body of Christ in its entirety; and that conversion is either those two motions or something formally consequent upon them as passion is upon its subject. Since, however, the subject of that conversion is lacking — it being separate, and not belonging to the class of accidents that could exist per se but rather is a corrupted nature that is changed — it seems that that conversion is an aggregate of those two motions. Since, then, the first of them would be one and the same motion, and if by possibility it lacked the concomitance of the others, it seems that just as the bread would then be annihilated, so also now. For conversion, since it is a positive motion, requires the existence of the essence of the subject, because otherwise the thing would not be converted any more than if its essence were annihilated and a new body succeeded it. That this could be so by the absolute power of God, neither dream nor reason teaches the adversaries to the contrary — so why do they not posit it thus? And since annihilation is not annihilation by accident, it seems that such a ceasing would be annihilation, with any other motion accompanying it; for conversion, or the acquisition of the presence of the body of Christ, since it would be accidental to that ceasing, does not seem to take away its species or quiddity. And those who hold this opinion and who deny that a continuum is composed of non-quantities seem to admit, as a possibility, that ceasing of the bread might occur in one instant and that conversion immediately succeed it — for otherwise it seems that, at the instant at which both motions would occur, the bread would remain not yet converted, and consequently the conversion would be future; but this implies that two instants are immediate to one another, just as the position which says that there is a first instant at which the angels fell and a last instant at which they stood. But the greater part of the difficulty would be to make intelligibly clear that the bread passes over, is converted, or yields to the body of Christ — since according to this concession it is possible for the substance of bread to be annihilated whether outside or inside the said accidents. Therefore, beyond the ceasing of the bread and the beginning of the presence of the body of Christ, they posit a conversion wholly distinct; but none of those who speak of it know how to explain it, and it is not taught by the faith of Scripture or the creed of the church. Now in the natural order, when one body is converted into another body, because the essence of the prior body — the something-ness of the bread — is converted, what is converted remains essentially the converted body; therefore the body that thus ceases to be is not converted through its accidents, nor through newly created accidents, since in that case any created substance could be converted to a point without annihilation — conversion not implying any improvement of the thing converted — and then, with that point annihilated, the whole world would be converted to nothing, yet neither before the prior conversion nor after. Indeed, the more subtle doctors of that sect assert that this transubstantiation would be an annihilation, unless the something-ness of the bread were to remain in the flesh of Christ into which the conversion takes place; of which they adduce as testimony that God can sacramentally withdraw His body from the host and restore the nature of that same bread; but it is certain that the something-ness of bread would not thus remain unless what remains is that the bread is something, and thus bread, to which it happens that the body of Christ is sacramentally present there. Others, however, foolishly posit that everything that ceases is converted into everything that remains, and so an affirmation could be converted into a negation and the possibility of annihilation would be removed — which they deny; just as those too who say that everything annihilated is converted into God according to His supreme being, and everything corrupted is converted into the non-being of bread, or is converted into the non-being of the whole of itself. And one is not thereby taught that it is converted into the body of Christ from the fact that the body of Christ succeeds as present there under those accidents; nor do the sacramental words teach this, as will be shown below. Likewise, according to the adversary, it would be possible for the body of Christ to remain sacramentally under the bread, just as it now remains under bare accidents — and neither Holy Scripture nor reason nor revelation teaches anyone that there is such a transubstantiation; therefore it would be foolish to introduce such a meaning. For since, according to Augustine in the conclusion of Book III of De Doctrina Christiana, all truth is Holy Scripture, it would behoove those set in authority to examine their foundation there, lest through falsehood they delude and burden the church more than they ought — and this moves many, since no one ought to believe even the pope in a matter of faith, except insofar as he has grounded himself in Scripture.

English

But neither from Scripture nor from reason nor from revelation can the Avignon church ground the aforesaid transubstantiation; therefore we are no more bound to believe it than the primitive church believed it. In the same way, the church could be burdened with a thousand falsehoods under the guise of faith, and in the course of time the law of Antichrist could be introduced. I maintain, indeed, that in the final edition of that decretal De Fide catholica, in the chapter Firmiter, neither the pope nor the hundred and thirteen bishops who were present at the council that decreed that the bread and wine remain were in agreement; therefore, as I said above, there is no reason why we ought to believe those men more than those others, especially since fabricators of lies had newly crept in, who are believed to have invented this fiction. Since, therefore, the more subtle modern doctors see and assert that nothing compels one to believe this except the said decretal — and that decretal would not of itself give faith to the faithful — it seems that the foundation of this faith is thereby lacking. For the canonists, who so solemnly establish a new feast at the expense of baptism, must press something new and marvelous. Hence all the canonists and their authors do not know how to describe transubstantiation and how it is distinguished from annihilation, together with the connected difficulties with which the church has accordingly been entangled. It is granted, however, that those accidents which some call the bread and wine are to be honored as a sign of the body of Christ and His blood. But as much as the fathers of the old law were on guard against worshipping images as God — as is plain from the letter of Jeremiah sent to Babylon through Baruch — so much ought a Christian be on guard lest he worship what the moderns call an accident and what the earlier church called an abomination.

English

On Consecration, ch. 42. Cf. Baruch 6. He called the bread and wine the true body and blood of Jesus Christ; for just as those images could not help themselves or their worshippers against enemies, robbers, or birds, as Jeremiah teaches at the end of Baruch, so truly neither can the said accident. Therefore, setting that aside, what is signified — namely the body of Christ and His blood, indeed the whole humanity of Christ — is to be worshipped to the extent that we univocally suffice; and although that sign has greater efficacy than the signs of the old law and our images (as will be made plain later), nevertheless it would be a very great act of unbelief to believe that something so base by nature is God. Indeed, one who sacrifices in this manner unfaithfully commits an abomination and contempt toward God, just as other unfaithful idolaters do; and this ought to be preached to the laity, lest through foolish impiety they be rushed headlong into unfaithful idolatry. Nor does it seem that any part of the bread or wine is converted into any part of the body of Christ, except by the same token into any part whatsoever — and thus into the blood and soul and all the absolute accidents of the Lord's body; for by reason of this conversion all things are newly present there, and this suffices for a conversion of this kind, as it seems. The second principal argument is drawn from the nature of an accident: for every accident formally inhering in a substance is nothing other than the truth that the substance is in some accidental mode, as is here supposed; but no such truth can exist without a substance, just as no creature can exist without God; therefore there is no heap of such accidents without a subject that is the consecrated host.

English

Baruch 6. Furthermore, every predicamental accident is univocally an accident together with every other, but some accident — as every relation belonging to one of the seven genera — cannot exist unless it informs its subject; therefore neither can any other. The assumption is evident from the fact that, since the single account of being and of being an accident is one, because otherwise no analogous description or distinction of an accident would be known to us (for a substance can inhere and at other times be separated), it therefore seems that the analogous account of an accident is to inhere formally in a substance, without constituting it as something, and without having the power to exist per se. Furthermore, positing quantity and quality as accidents of substance that are already bounded, one must still posit an information of them by which the substance is immediately and formally of such quantity and quality; and that information cannot exist per se, lest there be an infinite regress; therefore, by the same argument, neither can any absolute accident. The assumption is evident from the fact that the information of these accidents can be suspended while they themselves remain (as they say), and consequently one must posit a formation that is the bond by which the substance and such an accident are united — because otherwise a quantity or quality distinct from substance could not be demonstrated without doubt; the quantitative parts and the quiddity of the substance would suffice. Through the fact, then, that the substance would be neither of such quantity nor of such quality, while in another case it is constituted contrarily, we conclude each accident. And by a similar argument one must posit a distinct information that is quantity and quality, and not merely fictional accidents thus bounded. Furthermore, since those accidents do not exceed but are subject only to divine power, a point, a line, and a surface could be co-extended; and much more could a substantial form exist per se — from which a thousand difficulties arise: for instance, that both quantity and quality are composed of their intensive parts, since when they are co-extended and joined at every point, there remains no way to explain how they would be composed unless the whole was intensive; and concerning quantity and time, and concerning matter and form, it has been argued elsewhere in many ways that they conflict with truth. It also seems to tell against the adversaries that a continuum is composed of its divisible parts — since if God were to remove the outermost surface of the heavens without removing more, the remainder of the world would be finite and would have an outermost surface by the same argument as before; just as God could join one such thing with another and join parts to a single point, and once these were composed there would be two indivisibles immediate to one another in the same continuum. Furthermore, since the quantity of the consecrated host is white, round, and otherwise variously qualified, that quantity must be subject to quality (as Thomas says): first, because no quality is white or so qualified; second, because there is a natural priority of quantity over quality and over the other accidents that follow; and third, because that host can be altered, as is evident to sense according to very different quality; therefore the subject of such alteration must be something other than its quality, because quality itself cannot be so transmuted according to any part of it. But against this it is argued first that no quantity can be so increased — for either the quantity that would be increased remains or it does not. If it remains, it is either mixed with the quantity that arrives, and it is clear that then at every point a new quantity comes to be and the old one is corrupted; or if it remains unmixed, that quantity does not become greater but a new one generally comes to be that is not a sacrament, from which there arises a bipartite quantity, one sacred and one not sacred. Second, it is argued from the fact that when quantity is rarefied at every point — since experiment teaches that it can be rarefied — the old quantity that was the sacrament must be totally corrupted and one quantity that is not the sacrament must be totally generated. For one must not imagine something that would continually consecrate a new quantity; yet the body of Christ will not cease to be present there in a blessed manner with the accidents thus remaining under the form of bread and wine — because otherwise a Christian would tremble to receive the sacrament for however brief a time after consecration, since through a doubt about it heat or some other agent, by changing the subject, caused one accident to succeed another, which does not become a sacrament, since a sensible sacrament is causally a sacrament before the body of Christ is sacramentally present there, as is plain from the nature of consecration.

English

Third, it is argued from the fact that when a piece of earth one foot in extent is designated, to which a quantity of one foot is bounded, that earth is and would be formally of one foot in the possible case in which God were to annihilate that quantity but preserve the earth completely unmoved in the same position; but then it would formally remain one foot in extent; therefore there is an intrinsic one-footedness prior to that bounded quantity by which it is formally one foot in extent; and that intrinsic one-footedness cannot exist per se, since it is for this earth to be thus quantified; and no one can destroy that distinction. And the same consideration holds for quality, which does not have its own rarity, density, and similar qualities as distinct from its subject. Furthermore, according to the philosophers, a substance can remain quantified without a distinct quantity, and the same holds for every relation; and there is no reason why one should not think the same of the whole genus of quality; therefore there is no accident over and above substance. Since, then, it is established by sense that material things remain after consecration, they are left with the concession that material substances remain. What, then, would this remaining body be but bread and wine, as the decree of the Roman church says? Since, however, this is an argument ad hominem, I take the major premise as granted. The minor premise is evident from the fact that motion can be directed toward quantity in the same way as toward quality; the philosophers equally posit and demonstrate reasons that other accidents are distinguished as qualities; and they equally posit that qualities cannot be separated from their subject like other accidents. Hence philosophers here marvel at why theologians posit that every quality can exist per se and not the material substantial form — which, insofar as it is a substance, would rather have the account of standing per se — and so prime matter could exist as formless, which they deny. If it is said that Aristotle or reason dictates this, reason equally or more dictates that quality cannot exist per se; if it is said that faith postulates this, it is simply begged that they prove it. Philosophers marvel second at what grace quality deserved — quality which they approve as able to exist per se — since just as it can be accounted for that a figure is figured and similarly beauty with natural power and other gifts of God, so the same can be held with probability for the whole genus of quality.

English

And yet they posit few other qualities under the third species of quality, since in both cases the substance can equally well be accounted for through a variation in the mode of having, without any accident that could exist per se; for just as light follows upon the sun as passion upon its subject, so primary qualities follow upon the elements; and just as the light or illumination of the sun naturally follows upon its presence together with the receptive capacity of the medium, so secondary qualities follow according to the variety of the mixture of elements in all other mixed things, with some respecting light or a past event such as heats and passions, and others respecting figures, softness and hardness, lightness and roughness. One who holds this opinion would therefore posit all qualities that the philosophers posit, and none of them as able to exist per se — or all of them. Philosophers marvel third that those who hold this opinion posit union, continuation, and contiguity as qualities that could exist per se — because of this principle there cannot be a contradictory motion without the generation or corruption of a new thing — and yet they do not say the same about motion, time, and other relations; for if those three could exist per se, then one must posit a distinct union for them, and similarly for continuation and contiguity without end. For there seems to be no reason why, for the purpose of continuing, a continuation should follow that is a distinct quality able to exist per se, except that by the same token another continuation would follow for the continuing of those continuations, and so on to infinity; and if continuation is absent while the things that can be continued are immediate to one another, contiguity is posited without any new thing formally denominating it, which would be able to exist per se; and again at the boundary of continued things there would be infinite superficial, linear, or punctual continuations — which the holder of this opinion denies, and he will not give a reason why annihilation, transubstantiation, and the like are distinct truths, and yet neither substances nor accidents, since they could exist per se, except that by the same token one would have to posit other predicamental truths of twelve genera, as the philosophers once posited. And it is plain how greatly the fiction invented about this sacrament disturbs the philosophers. Furthermore, along this path no material substance could be demonstrated philosophically, because every experience of motion or transmutation of a subject, or by appealing to some postulate, could be accounted for without such a material principle; therefore it is futile to posit such an imperfect substance, since neither reason nor experience demonstrates it. For in this way infinite substances could be dreamed up without any moving reason. The assumption is evident according to those who speak thus, since they posit that accidents can act and be acted upon per se just as efficaciously as they now do without an underlying material substance. Since, therefore, according to the principles of the philosophers it is futile to do with more what can be done with fewer, and nature acts in the briefest possible way, it seems to be the part of a natural philosopher to deny such a sensible material substance and to posit sufficiently for the purpose of nature certain predicaments of accident.

English

Nor does it avail to cite miracles in order to lend color to any opinion contrary to the truth, for a fictitious miracle has no foundation. Second, because in this way the accident made into the subject of transubstantiation would create and annihilate itself by chance, and yet since it is an inanimate thing lacking the substance that would sustain its mutation, no single permanent quality could be acted upon or could act. The assumption is argued as follows: granted that heat acts by itself until there comes about a truly imperceptible, philosophically sound nourishment, and the same matter returns, it is evident that there will be a long interval before the matter of the bread returns (as the adversaries themselves concede), and the whole quality that would again be corrupted will be annihilated, just as the quality produced in the interim will be created from nothing — since there is no matter to receive that natural transmutation — so that the quality is not corrupted by the potency of matter but is corrupted into nothing, or is produced entirely out of nothing, just as a natural agent raises up the prior matter of the bread from nothing. For such a substance is not generated from an accident, as is evident from the fact that, although the church solemnizes these signs over substances, and transfers to them the contrary names of the church's ministers, while the disposition which God established or its variation remains, it is not necessary that the nature of the thing should follow proportionally — so that, granted that a soul or any material form should immediately actuate such an absolute accident preserved by itself, there would be a composite substance as it now exists; or else no creature can exist by itself without a miracle, or the so-called accident can exist by itself without a new miracle, or the same miracle could be imagined to occur by chance. And thus every description of a creature would be destroyed.

English

For the solemn doctors invent that, when a worm is generated from the consecrated host, the sensitive soul would be induced into mere accidents, accidents without matter. Why, then, should not the whole material substance be consumed without doubt at the generation and movement among those accidents? Indeed, since matter is individuated from the instant of its creation, it appears that a new one is created and the old one is not inevitably sustained; and so as many substances as are converted into the body of Christ, so many prime matters are lost, and none of us would recognize such material substance. How then would anyone dare to confect or to swear concerning the act of material substance? Furthermore, the church is not to be burdened with such an unusual novelty unless either the witness of scripture, or living reason, or the forceful testimony of the saints compels it; but each of these three is lacking as a foundation for the aforesaid error concerning the sacrament of the altar, and therefore so too is the reason for burdening the church in this way. The assumption is evident from many testimonies of the saints and from the truth and sufficiency of the law of Christ. For in this way the abomination of desolation would be worshipped, since an accident of minimal being would be worshipped as God, or at least would be worshipped as a sacred sign — an accident most mendaciously placed in the stead of substance — and it would be imputed to God that He is the author of a lie. As regards scripture, it is evident from the six aforesaid passages of scripture touching this sacrament that they neither affirm accidents to exist in this way without a subject, nor do they affirm any antecedent to that effect. And the same judgment applies to every part of scripture, which is the whole of truth. As regards reason, it is clearer than light that the existence of such accidents without a subject is foreign to reason; indeed, as the logicians press, it is impossible for an accident to exist unless one accident subjects another; and since every creature is an accident with respect to the deity, it is evident that there must be an accident without its own subject in which it inheres. And as regards the testimony of the doctors, it is evident that the ancient saints testified unanimously that an accident cannot exist without a subject in which it inheres; yet it sufficed for them, as for the philosophers, to posit an accident as being a substance that has been made accidental.

English

And as regards the decretal, it is evident that it is no stronger than the decree of the pope and the one hundred and fourteen bishops at Augustine, who defined that bread and wine remain after the consecration (as has often been recited). Therefore, as regards the testimonies of the saints, I bring forward from many sources a threefold testimony of Augustine. First, that saying from On the Quantity of the Soul, chapter 4, where he says that a body cannot exist without extension; he says: I have no doubt that all bodies are incapable of lacking length, breadth, and height; but can one think that these three dimensions belong to anything other than bodies? I do not understand, he says, how they could exist anywhere else. And regarding quality, he writes in Soliloquies II, chapter 12: To say that one thing is in another can be understood in two ways. In one way, locally, as a body can be separated and exist elsewhere, as this wood in this place and the sun at its rising. But in another way, as something is so in a subject that it cannot be separated from it, as the form and species that we see is in this wood, as light is in the sun, as heat is in fire, and as learning is in the soul, and whatever else there may be of this kind. These things, he says, are most ancient for us and have been most diligently grasped and known from the very beginning of youth, because when questioned about them I cannot but grant them without any deliberation. And he continues: But that which you asked — who would grant it, or to whom would it seem possible, that what exists in a subject should remain when the subject itself has perished?

English

For it is monstrous and most alien from truth that what could not exist except by virtue of something else could still exist even after that something else has ceased to exist.

English

And third, in Epistle 40 to Dardanus, Augustine speaks thus: Remove qualities, therefore, from bodies themselves, and the qualities of bodies will have nowhere to be, and therefore it is necessary that they not exist. And he repeatedly holds the same view without retraction, as is evident from On the Trinity, books 9 and 13, and book 6 of On the Trinity, books 6 and 9, and On the Trinity, book 3, and On the Morals of the Church, chapter 6. Nor does it avail to gloss the saint's statements as meaning that things exist in this way except when a miracle occurs — first, because if no miracle existed there would be no creature at all; second, because no one can merit or be beatified without a miracle, and indeed the certainty would remain everywhere as to when and where a miracle was occurring, and consequently all certainty concerning any material substance, and thus natural philosophy, would perish; and third, because a miracle is no more credibly invented for this venerable sacrament than it could be invented for whatever one wishes — and by that gloss, every testimony of the saints or of scripture would consequently be dissolved.

English

As regards the glosses and opinions of modern doctors on this matter, it is evident that for the most part the modern doctors are entangled in it; for they have scarcely grasped even the outer bark of the words of their holy predecessors; and therefore, with understanding failing, some of them erroneously deny this and impute foolishness to the saints, while others, in a display of greater foolishness, invent for them glosses that are far too strange — as is evident from the gloss of the Common Doctor on Augustine's statements concerning the powers of the soul, namely how memory, reason, and will are inseparable qualities of the soul's essence, whereas Augustine himself posits the opposite in both respects. But what gives me pause is a statement of another great and learned doctor, Hugh of St. Victor, in On the Sacraments, Part VIII, chapter 9, where he writes: Through the words of consecration the true substance of bread and wine is converted into the true body of Christ and His blood, with only the species of bread and wine remaining, and substance passing into substance. The conversion itself is to be believed not according to union but according to transition: for in no way does an increase of essence accrue to essence, so that by means of what joins itself, that to which it joins itself becomes one with that to which it joins itself. Nor do we say that the body of Christ is consecrated from bread in such a way that the body of Christ receives its being from bread, nor as if a new body were suddenly made from a changed essence, but the body itself is true and the essence changed; nor is the very substance of bread and wine reduced to nothing because it has ceased to be what it was, but rather changed, because it has begun to be something other than what it was; and that which has begun to be from it does not receive its being from it on account of what the bread was, but that bread received its being from it when it ceased to be what it was. We have stated this more explicitly on account of those who prejudice the faith by their own reasoning, and who, walking by their own sense, strive to assert either that only what is seen exists there, or that what is believed to be there is of the same kind — that is, that because only the species of bread and wine is seen, only the substance of bread and wine exists there; or because the substance of body and blood exists there.

English

Hugo, De Sacramentis, lib. II, part VIII, cap. IX: so that by that which comes to it, that to which it comes becomes greater. Chapter 3: On the Eucharist. It is believed that the species and quality of the bread and wine, which is perceived, can possibly be present in it — as though the species whose substance is not present could not appear, or the substance whose form does not appear could not lie hidden.

English

These words of the doctor have struck fear into me, and I do not see but that the doctor understands by them that the object stirs the intellect of the faithful to believe that the body of Christ alone is present after the consecration principally in the bread and wine, that principal rank yielding to the body of Christ — wherefore, on account of the loss of that principal rank, he says that neither bread nor wine remains, but that the body of Christ is converted. The accidents, however, have their principal existence there for the purpose of awakening the senses of the faithful, without their own subject being principally present there; yet they inform the bread and wine, but not the body of Christ or His blood, and that informing is dormant on account of the presence of the more worthy body — just as, when Peter holds the principal lordship of a house after Christ's succession, in the same house in which Peter entirely succeeds as servant, the name of Peter is silent and the name of Christ is raised up in those things that pertain to dignity or principal rank there. So it is in a certain manner with the body of Christ and the bread which, after the conversion, although it remains according to its essence, yet its principal mode of being is taken away from it, since it remains secondarily, serving the superior body as a figure. And the said words of the doctor can be drawn toward this meaning, and by this the said conversion or transubstantiation can be understood, and the new church can be reconciled with the ancient church; and this endeavor can be given a coloring by way of the manner of speaking in which a servant, receiving his lord into his house, humbles himself as much as suffices, giving to the lord the whole name of honor and reverence in the house, as if he himself were annulled in this way. And again: we attribute the completion of an act to the principal body while setting aside the accessory, just as we say that we buy or sell a horse or a donkey, and not its matter or form — just as lawyers say they excommunicate not on account of money but on account of perfected disobedience; and on both sides the illusion arises from equivocation. Yet this manner of speaking can be grounded in that text of Joh. 4:42: "They said to the woman, 'It is no longer because of your word that we believe, for we ourselves have heard and know that this is truly the Savior of the world,'" where one must understand the negation as bearing on the principal rank of the woman's testimony; and there are many such modes of speaking in Scripture. Thus, then, the statements of weighty persons of the church can be reconciled — which is better than finding a meaning and words foreign to the ancient saints, and from false premises drawing conclusions and judgments wondrous to the world, which in fact are delirious burdens upon the faithful — as the opponents conclude in a case possible for them: that this man was temporally generated univocally and not from any animal, even though his parents, conversing with him in faith, instructed him; yet, though they will be perpetually damned by God, they cannot sin or be punished in body or soul, just as they cannot suffer in either of these, given that from two spirits that can be human souls and all absolute bodily accidents (belonging to Peter and Martha) — most favorably combined — two supposita are constituted, with all material substance removed from them, and that these beings exist and sin damnably, procreating Paul composed of body and soul, concerning which Paul they verify the consequence; for just as through some of their bodily accidents they can act equally effectively and sufficiently univocally, as is evident in the operations of nutrition and sensation, so it seems with the acts of generation, and consequently, just as they have the power of begetting and of operating otherwise according to whatever qualities they possess, so they can be parents and spouses procreating a human being. And the first part of the conclusion is evident with the case; and the second part is proved by the fact that neither of them is an animate sensible substance, because neither is a body — nay, by the same evidence by which it would be a substance it would be both quantity and quality; and the third part is evident from the case, since each of them can perform all operations, both organic and non-organic.

English

And it is evident how both virtue and vice can be present in those spirits, and thus each of them can be perpetually damned, since each has the freedom of the flexibility of the will, as is posited concerning their inherence. The last clause, however, is evident from the fact that neither of them can be animate or corporeal, because then the nature whose matter it is would be altogether of an alien nature. From which it appears that, since neither of them can exist without an accident — since it would then be a pure spirit furnished with accidents — the whole accident is essential to each suppositum; and consequently, since every natural agent, in acting, also undergoes action, it appears that neither of them can act or be acted upon by a bodily action and especially cannot procreate. Indeed, if one uniform hardness coextensive with another were taken, mediating one with the other, and so on infinitely up to the surface hardness by which they are bounded on every side from without, it appears that no armor, nay, infinite sharpness, could penetrate such a thing; and if the whole weight were removed from both of them together with the said armor, how glorious and agile a suppositum it would be. Second, it follows that all the senses of the philosophers or their natural faculties do not suffice to produce conviction concerning any substance of the four questions; but in these matters they are compelled to have recourse to faith for the definition, distinction, and specific perfection — and in all these matters they are the equals of the ignorant. For according to what has been said, no sense or intellect produces conviction that any material substance exists, since, given all sensitive knowledge and experience, it appears possible and consistent that the entire created universe is a ball of accidents; therefore, one who posits such things must have recourse to the faith of Scripture and presuppose its meaning; and if natural knowledge fails on the question whether any material substance exists, then the question what it is and the question of what kind it is and the question why it is must also fail with regard to any assignable thing, because all three of those questions presuppose the question whether it exists — which cannot be established by natural means. But against this perfidy it is argued that it not only destroys all natural knowledge but also all faith; for one who so deviates is not only obliged to hold with the ancient skeptics that they know no affirmations but only negations, such as that they know nothing and the like, but they are also bound to have a conscience about asserting or swearing to anything that bears on human practice, and every polity or Christian religion would perish; for no one ought to lie for the sake of the whole world, but in general the safer part is to be held. Since, therefore, no knowledge we have of material substance is grounded even fallibly on an infallible principle of knowing, it appears that we ought without qualification to assert no such thing. Furthermore, concerning whatever one of us is not convinced by the faith of Scripture to exist, neither sense nor reason produces this conviction; therefore, concerning any such thing, one ought piously to doubt whether it exists and what it is, and knowledge would perish concerning the examination of the works of the clergy, concerning the certification of the number of monks, and concerning the commemoration of coins or gifts given to them by a man; for it is posited that a spirit were joined to bare accidents; which being posited, no such man would exist, as is evident from what has been said; nor does it avail such a speaker to allege any miracle or the common course of nature, because on this doubt, from the origin of the world, a spirit was irregularly joined to bare accidents, and thus occasion would be given to multiply sects holding contrary opinions without publicly convicting either party. Furthermore, the faith of Scripture would perish, since it could be denied that any revelation or knowledge of this kind was given to any human person, even though the nature composed of spirit and accident preserves equivocally the same name that we give to our substances; and that nature would not be more imperfect on account of the lack of imperfect material substance, but as to every operation would be equally perfect. And all specific difference would perish, and likewise the species to be alleged, and the ladder by which the faithful would ascend to God — since it is not fitting for God, who is good, to fail human knowledge that is unstable in this way without a regular foundation or to take away all stability of sensation, and especially concerning the sacrament which is proper to God, where the deception of sense concerning material substance would be least of all. Therefore it appears that one ought not to believe these maniacs who dream without foundation, since they publicly declare that they do not believe even themselves. Third, it follows from this possibility that not only must the quiddity of every substance be doubted, but mutual predication of any with any must be conceded — as in the case where God communicates to Peter the priest the power of transubstantiating the host into the body of the Lord, and his deacon has the power of transubstantiating it into the church, and his subdeacon has the power of transubstantiating it into the whole world and every part thereof; and supposing that these three begin together and finish together over the same host with their sacramental words, and since God does not withdraw the power of consecrating on account of the sin of the minister, supposing that God concurs with each of them to the end, performing correspondingly to the power given to them — this being supposed, it appears that at the end the body of Christ will be the church and the world together with every part of itself, because each of those is the reality of the same sacrament; and again, since both the church and the world remains according to every part of itself, it appears that the world, taken as a whole, is every part of itself.

English

And again it appears that every part of the world can be perpetually preserved as a host, even though its nature is corrupted. For so it would be with the body of Christ when a priest consecrates it during the holy Triduum, with the body itself preserved in a pyx. And the possibility of the case with respect to God appears from this: that it would be equally easy for God to convert the bread into the whole world as into His own body, since, however, it is repugnant to the infinite smallness of the host that the seven-foot body of Christ be converted into it just as the whole world would be converted; nor does the fact that there are many transubstantiations under the one sacrament of the host present any greater obstacle than the fact that every part of Christ, both according to His body and according to His soul, is under every particle of the consecrated host. For it appears that the bread is transubstantiated not only into the flesh of Christ and His blood but into His body and soul and every part thereof; for it is not a conversion of union but a transitory one (as Hugo says); and for it, it seems sufficient that what is to be converted should succeed under the same accidents. From this it appears that every part of the wine or bread is converted into every part of Christ, nay, into every absolute accident of His, since every such accident passes under the accidents of the bread and wine; and just as the soul and every part of the body of Christ are concomitantly present at every point of the consecrated host, so they appear to be concomitantly converted, as is the accident; and the principal part appears to have the principal reason of the conversion, and thus there appears to be a multiple transaccidentiation just as there is a multiple transubstantiation. And the new baptizers of signs bear heavily the opinion stated above concerning the transubstantiation and conversion of Hugo. For it appears that what is transubstantiated must be changed, the terminus of which change must be a substance — otherwise it would be a transinferiorization or a transsubjection — but according to the aforesaid way, the bread need not lose or acquire any quality, but only a relation, to which there is no motion according to the philosophers, while the bread becomes a consecrated host. Here it appears that the terminus of the conversion is turned into poison by a perverse understanding; one can therefore say that the bread and wine are converted principally into the body of Christ and His blood, but concomitantly and secondarily into the whole manhood of Christ and every part thereof; nor is the bread or wine made worse but better — toward which improvement there is motion, speaking broadly, for both natures remain; but the sacrament is made better, since it becomes sacred, and the body of the Lord is that to which whole-hearted attention must be given; and this is signified by the conversion and transubstantiation; and it appears that conversion having been made, it can be conceded as to every part of the humanity of Christ. But insofar as the words of consecration and the intention of the worshiper are concerned, the conversion into the body of Christ and His blood is made with a certain principal rank, and the other things concomitantly and accessorily; or the terminus can also be extended, beyond what the philosophers have known, to a motion whose point of departure is the bare bread and whose extrinsic terminus toward which is the body of the Lord, but whose intrinsic terminus toward which is sacramental holiness — in accordance with which one can concede, speaking broadly of motion, that the bread and wine are imperceptibly altered.

English

Chapter 4: On the Eucharist. — many matters of motion, such as the goodness of the sign, the efficacy of what is signified, and many other relative relations; and when we say that the body of Christ is not thereby moved, we speak equivocally and in a stricter sense of motion at that point — just as we do not say that a man is moved by the fact that his species is multiplied more broadly through a medium; nor does it matter to me what has been said about the established usages of terms (as will be evident later), etc.

English

But it remains to be seen further what efficacy the sacramental words possess and how the body of Christ is hidden under sacramental signs, not having dimensional being but sacramental being. As regards the sacramental words, it seems that Christ speaks figuratively or tropically in them, just as it was alleged before that the new law often speaks in relation to the old in a figurative manner. For so Christ says that John is Elijah, Matth. 11. So too He speaks figuratively, Matth. 13: He who sows the good seed is the Son of Man; the field is the world; the good seed are the sons of the kingdom; the weeds are the sons of the evil one; the enemy who sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the age; and the reapers are the angels. As Truth therefore speaks parabolically in these things, as the gospel says, so He seems to speak figuratively in the four gospels, namely Matth. 26, Mark 14, Luke 22, and 1 Cor. 11, when He says that the bread and wine are His body and blood, as the Apostle teaches in 1 Cor.

English

11. There is, however, a difference in the modes of speaking, since one is tropological or moral and another is allegorical or sacramental; for the latter has the efficacy of making the body of Christ and the blood to be in fact under the sacramental species, in which respect the other figures of both the new law and the old have fallen short. But further it is to be noted that just as a king has a threefold being in his kingdom, namely situational, intentional, and potential, so correspondingly Christ seems to have, as regards His humanity, a threefold mode of being: for He has in heaven, where He sits at the right hand of God, a situational mode of being, being situated in a place through which He is spread out as co-equal. A potential mode of being He also seems to have, even as regards His humanity, since He is king of kings and lord of those who rule over every part of the world; yet, as the testimonies of many saints declare, He does not have, as regards His humanity, a situational or dimensional being throughout the whole world, but is limitedly in the heaven where He is placed; throughout the whole world, however, He has essential being by His divinity. As regards the intermediate mode of being, there are multiple divisions for Christ beyond other men; for He has, through as much of heaven as the species of His body is multiplied, an intentional presence by which the eyes of the blessed are fed as regards His body. This multiplication of the species of the body of Christ is more restricted according to natural laws and more diffuse according to magical and perspectival ones; but the limits of this diffusion are expedient for us wayfarers to remain ignorant of. Yet we believe that the blessed in heaven after the day of judgment will not suffer distress on account of distance from the body of Christ, but that, more blessed, notwithstanding the greater magnitude of distance, they will see the body of Christ more blessedly with the bodily eye; for it holds that a sensible object is seen more clearly at a greater distance, all the more so in blessedness, where sensory knowledge will emanate from the soul beyond the presence of the sensible thing according to a different law. Hence we piously believe that the order of the position of the blessed with respect to the body of Christ is most regular, whereby all the blessed are set at rest in mutual joy. But besides this intentional mode of being as regards the humanity of Christ, it seems that two others are probably to be posited, namely a supernatural mode of being and a sacramental mode of being. By the first mode that saying of the last chapter of Matth. can be understood: Behold, I am with you all days, even to the end of the age. For since, according to the faith of scripture, Hebr.

English

The sacramental mode of being, however, while it varies for Christ according to the distinction of the sacraments, is nevertheless found especially in the consecrated host, because all four evangelists — Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul — solemnly record how Christ said that the bread and wine are His body and blood; which utterance, by reason of the solemnity of the one speaking and the captured circumstances thereof, as well as the testimony of the saints, must have some unusual efficacy beyond other signs of the new or old testament. For the silent cross, the lay blessing, and other signs that we make — especially on Good Friday — signify and commemorate the body of Christ and His blood. But the best Master and ever-august Lord, at the Last Supper at which He dined as a wayfarer with His apostles, after the purely figurative eating of the paschal lamb, solemnly instituted this sacrament; from which it is plain that, since Christ must proceed by way of improvement, this sacrament is more efficacious and closer to the thing of the sacrament than the ancient sacraments. For otherwise there would be no reason why those should cease, since the new one, introduced unnecessarily, would not surpass them. Nor is there any doubt for the faithful that Christ left this sacrament to be celebrated by priests, because in Luke 22, He commands the bishops of His school in general: Do this in remembrance of Me. Since therefore the figures of the body of Christ under the old law profited those who observed them unto salvation (as is plain in 1 Cor. 10), it seems that the new figure of such a body must surpass them; and it would be effective and consonant with scripture to posit the presence of the figured body and blood, since the humanity of Christ is in some manner present in other sacraments, and therefore much more so in this one, since the words of this sacrament effectively invoke it; and this is confirmed by the deeds of the disciples of Christ celebrating this sacrament in memory of Him, by the sentences of the holy doctors writing concerning the foundation of this sacrament from the words of scripture, and by the manifold laws of the church. Hence it is commonly said that this sacrament excels others in three respects: first, that whereas other sacraments are far distant from the thing of the sacrament both in place and in time, this sacrament has its thing accompanying it both in place and in time.

English

For the paschal lamb of the old law (treated in Exod. 12) was far distant in place and time from the body of Christ; but this sacrament has the whole humanity of Christ necessarily accompanying it. Second, whereas the other figures of the old testament fell short of the efficacy of producing the concomitance of the thing of the sacrament, the figure of this thing has the efficacy of efficiently causing, not the body of Christ, but a certain sensible sacramental presence accompanying it; hence not only the words but also the bread and wine together with their accidents are said, jointly and severally, to be the sacrament of the body of Christ, and thus, although all these are one sacrament, they are nevertheless very many sacraments, which are all reduced, as spirit, water, and blood, to one in effect. Hence this sacrament, as regards its permanence together with the accompanying thing of itself, exceeds the other sacraments of the new law. And third, it seems that this sacrament excels others not only as regards the grace of the union of the members of the church with Christ, but also, when rightly celebrated, it profits the minister above other sacraments. Three, I say, among many, were the figures of this sacrament in the old testament: the first was the paschal lamb, which figured not only the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world, Joh., but the sacrament itself, and this is the reason why the eating of the paschal lamb had to cease after the institution of this more excellent designated sacrament. The second figure of this sacrament was the flow of water from the rock (treated in Exod. 12); for this signifies, according to the Apostle, the spiritual drinking of the blood of Christ the rock: All, he says, drank the same spiritual drink, for they drank from the rock that followed them; and the rock was Christ. The third figure was the manna (treated in Exod. 16); hence Christ in Joh. 6, embracing the excellence of this sacrament and its thing above this manna, says: Not as your fathers ate manna and died. He who eats this bread will live forever.

English

Regarding the first point, it is said that the successive and interrupted words themselves do not have from themselves the efficacy of converting, but rather the Word of God attending them, in whose person they are said to bring about effects, does the work; and it is believed that it pleases the Word of God to work through vocal words, so that we may thereby learn that He does the work and that these are His instruments only in an improper and equivocal sense. For the supreme craftsman works through very base and feeble instruments. If it be asked when such a sacramental proposition begins to be true, it is said that it is not when it ceases to be through removal from the present moment — since at that point it does not exist, and what does not exist is not true — but rather at the final instant of its being, given that a continuous whole is composed of non-quantified parts, and since all things that have been or will be exist, an interruption does not prevent the proposition from being true in one part or the other, but for the time of the interruption it ceases to be altogether; all of which I here presuppose from what has been demonstrated elsewhere. And it seems to me that bread is pointed to by the demonstrative pronoun, and thus the proposition is true in its own sense — as Augustine appears to grant when he says "This is Christ" while pointing to any creature whatsoever, as is clear in his Commentary on John, Homily XIII. But in pointing to this sacrament there is a certain singular efficacy and signification imposed by Christ, and therefore the theologian ought to note how this proposition is to be conceded in a singular way. In the case, however, where the proposition is understood not figuratively but in an effective sense, then by the pronoun is demonstrated, under the appearance of accidents, that which is really the body of Christ.

English

If, however, the proposition is understood figuratively — as the narrative of the Gospel appears to understand it — then the demonstrative pronoun ought to be understood and to point to the bread itself. But as regards the form of words, the lord FitzRalph in his ninth book of the Quaestiones Armenorum demonstrates through many chapters how no form of words with respect to languages and names is universally required, since the authors wrote variously as to languages: Matthew in Hebrew, Mark in Italian, Luke in Syriac, and Paul in Greek. And since to this day priests in various regions consecrate according to these languages and more, in accordance with the teaching of the faith of Scripture, the conclusion is evident. Hence, although a priest might consecrate in English and in other vernacular tongues, he would nevertheless sin thereby out of presumption by setting aside the Latin, or whatever language his church more famously approves according to place, people, and time, and by mixing another language into such a consecration against the custom of the place. As for the precise limits of this difficulty regarding the gravity of the sin committed, the dispute is fruitless, since a man ought — unless compelled by a great and reasonable cause — to conform himself to the praiseworthy custom of the place in which he dwells. Furthermore, as regards the form of words in the Latin tongue in which the Roman church holds the faith of Scripture, it appears that no form of words is universally required for the confection of the Eucharist; for the usage of our church varies from all four of those forms, just as all four of them vary from one another more or less. For Matthew 26 has these words of the consecration of the wine: "For this is my blood of the new covenant, which will be poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins"; but Luke 22 puts it thus: "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be poured out for you."

English

But Mark 14, varying from Matthew, omits "for the forgiveness of sins"; and Paul, handing on to us the sentence he received from the Lord, in 1 Cor. 11 speaks thus: "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." But the usage of our church varies from all of these, as is clear from the third book of the Decretals, Cum Marthe, under the title De Celebratione Missarum. Since, therefore, it is possible to consecrate truly according to five forms, the conclusion is evident. By this fivefold variation, then, we are taught to attend principally to the sense, and that such variation of words does not belong to the substance of the sacrament; for it is possible — as it has in fact happened — to consecrate by the words of any of these five forms, because otherwise, before the establishment of this fifth order, the solemn churches would have fallen short through a defect of Scripture — indeed, they would have been idolaters, deceiving themselves and the people through the falsehood of Scripture — and in that case the authority of the entire narrative of all the evangelists would totter, and consequently Augustine would have labored in vain throughout the whole book of the Harmony of the Evangelists. Nor does it avail to say that the fifth order is necessary after the promulgation of the usage of the Roman church, but not before.

English

XVI, chapter VI. I have the book. The Second Part of the Decretum, De Poenitentia, Distinctio, chapter — practically the whole of it, and especially this subject. For when someone, by sinning mortally, falls short in conduct, he falls short also in faith; and therefore the definition of those who say that a priest fails to consecrate by omitting a word or any other form used by the Roman church appears imprudent and too facile — for different languages have different ways of pronouncing even Latin, as is apparent in the pronunciation of a single letter; indeed, those who organize their vocal organs differently according to the shape of their bodily constitution must necessarily produce different sounds. Therefore it would be the same as to say that every priest and the whole people must attend to this particular form of sounds for the confection of this sacrament, and to say that every person to be saved must be of this bodily constitution and region — which would be an ungodly respect of persons. Therefore, as the doctor says, it is sufficient that the faithful agree on the sense before agreeing on the language — namely, that bread is figuratively the body of Christ and wine is His blood; and thus the four evangelists are saved from falsehood when they assert that the Lord so spoke — that is, that He spoke this sentence or sense. Nevertheless, the priest ought to conform to his country and the usage of the church in its rites and similar customs, the substance of the meaning remaining intact, as a matter of neither essential requirement. Hence, the usage of the church that we have, though it is drawn from sacred Scripture, is not better than any of the four usages of the evangelists; and God knows whether that introduced variation savored of sin. We therefore hold to the required sentence; and we regard as the required sentence that on which all four evangelists agree, and we regard that on which they vary as necessary for conduct but beyond the essence of the sacrament. And would that those who too zealously observe Jewish rites and the customs of men — which they reverence above the truth of God — would attend to this sentence; for they pharisaically strain out a gnat and swallow a camel, demanding that the people follow their rites and precepts and customs; but they say it is foolish to attend to the counsels of Christ, to the life or manner of living of Christ and Peter, since on account of the distance and variation of time one must now observe the contrary — and so, in observing the chaff, we abandon the pure grain. Therefore we who are dizzy must not shake off the religion which Christ instituted, because Ecclus.

English

19 it is said: "He who despises small things will fall little by little." We ought therefore, setting aside novel rites, to observe the conduct and works of Christ; for according to Gregory, Pastoral Rule III, Christ came not only to redeem us through His passion in the flesh, but also to instruct us through His manner of life. Therefore woe to us if, lurking in darkness or by going backward or by turning aside, we do not follow Him. But against this three objections are raised. First, it seems that since Christ instituted and commanded this sacrament to be received at supper, we ought to follow Him and His apostles by celebrating after a meal. To this it is replied that the conclusion is true; but for the subject at hand it must be noted that, just as Christ with His apostles received this sacrament fasting from sin, so we, as their disciples, ought in this sacrament to follow them. But because gluttony of the belly is commonly caused in us by food, therefore with pious devotion we receive this sacrament fasting in body; and lest a gradual decline bring danger, we have established for ourselves as a rule that we celebrate entirely fasting in body — and we too preposterously give more weight to this than to the imitation of Christ in fasting from sin. The same applies to the rite as regards place and time and the other observances rationally ordained concerning this sacrament. These observances I commend, but their excess and disproportion I detest. Hence it is pharisaic blindness to think that Christ is to be followed more in rites than in virtue — as though, because Christ dined thus with the twelve, one of whom was a traitor, and so on through countless circumstances, we are therefore bound to observe all those circumstances; whereas they do not in themselves express virtues, since the imitation of Christ with respect to the kind of virtues is to be preserved in every way. Now, people assign three reasons why Christ instituted this sacrament in this order: first, because it was necessary that the eating of the Passover lamb — which was a figure of this sacrament — should come first; second, that Christ might teach us by His own example to pay less attention to future ceremonial ordinances in our conduct; and third, that as legislator and author He might teach from this very variety that the preeminence of power belongs to Him. Therefore, since we ought to follow Christ and not go before Him or walk alongside Him as equals, we ought to rejoice in the privilege that He holds as God and as firstborn by virtue of the grace of the hypostatic union, and in both respects to follow Him — either proportionally or similarly — according to the moral fittingness of our condition. This case is illustrated by the example of a sick person or someone placed in another necessity, for whom it is lawful to receive the body of Christ after eating; since a devout person hearing Mass after breakfast often receives better than his priest.

English

Chapter 4. On the Eucharist. A priest who celebrates would even do better to celebrate on the same artificial day after the ninth hour and after a meal, than to celebrate with however great an outward show ordained by human institution — just as a cleric who receives the body of Christ by chance would do better than a layman by preaching or performing a meritorious work rather than by consecrating, because the soul would thereby possess Christ more abundantly. Second, objection is raised from the fact that Matthew and Mark narrate how Christ took the bread, blessed it, broke it, and said: Take and eat, this is my body — where the blessing of Christ, hidden from us, appears to precede the words we designate as the words of consecration; for otherwise we would not be following Christ in breaking the consecrated host after the consecration. To this it is said that "to bless" is here understood as "to give thanks," in the manner in which every creature, but especially every rational creature, blesses God. In confirmation of this interpretation: where Matthew and Mark say "he blessed," Luke and Paul say "he gave thanks" or "giving thanks he broke it" — and in this way we priests follow Christ after our own manner; for we ought to follow Christ in all our works, either with a close likeness as regards the works of His humanity, or with an analogous proportion as regards the works of His divinity and primogeniture. And different persons ought to follow Him in different ways, according to how Christ ought to be the rule of each one's state — as when a general of an army who cannot err is set over them, and every member of the army is strictly commanded to follow him after his own manner: it is evident that some would follow him at one pace and others at another, Matth. 26, according to the difference of the position in which they are placed after him. Some also would follow him more closely and others more distantly, according as they vary in heat and power in respect of local motive force and organs. In the same way, with unequal pace the faithful follow Christ according to the disparity of states and of grace with which their captain calls them. Yet all who are to be saved must follow this leader (as Chrysostom teaches in the Opus Imperfectum, Homily 7), because He is the way without which no one can reach the heavenly city. Hence it is stated above that three reasons are assigned why the four evangelists, who are instruments of the Holy Spirit, varied so much in these sacramental words; for He could most easily have made all four agree in a perfectly identical way. But this variation was more fitting: first, so that He might teach thereby the aforesaid catholic truth of how the whole Christian army ought to follow Christ with differing paces — just as the disciples of these four evangelists, with a certain fitting variety, consecrate the sacrament under various forms and all follow Christ; second, so that this subtle and realistic philosopher might show that He has little concern for signs but attends primarily to the meaning signified; and third, so that His law, by the variety of words which serve as our exercises, might be laden with manifold meaning.

English

For there is no variation among those evangelists, however small, that does not carry with it a notable subtlety of meaning. For instance, in the sacrament of the blood mention is made specifically of the testament, although both the consecration of the bread and that of the chalice belong to the new testament. The mystery of this I believe to be that liquid is customarily poured out under the old law as a witness of a covenant that has been contracted, as a sign that the blood of the one who broke that covenant ought to be shed, as is plain. But Christ, by antonomasia, shed His precious blood as a witness of the covenant between the bridegroom and the church, and of those who nearly destroyed His law; and thus by the shedding of the blood of Christ His testament was confirmed. To this interpretation Zechariah seems to allude when in chapter 9 he addresses our Jesus thus: You also, by the blood of your testament, have led your captives out of the pit in which there is no water. But that mystery would not be expressed as pertinently by making mention of the testament with the words of the sacrament of the bread. It should further be noted that the gospel of Luc. 22 reads thus: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood. And the gospel according to the Apostle, 1 Cor.

English

Chapter 11 reads simply: This chalice is the new testament in my blood — where it is evident, first, that the contents are taken metonymically for the container. And it is evident, second, that he speaks figuratively and not identically when he says that the chalice is the new testament, so that we may in this way be led by the hand to understanding the sense of the words by which the Eucharist is consecrated. Hence Math. 26 speaks thus: This is my blood of the new testament. And Marc. 14 has the same sequence, where in both places wine is indicated by the chalice. And so the diversity of words among these four evangelists is full of mystery. And it is evident, third, that this is not an obstacle but is in harmony with what the decretal Cum Marthae states: that by this sacrament

English

Manuscripts A and B: metaphorically in the text. Reference II. Zach. 9:30. Decretal of Gregory IX, book 3, title 41, On the Celebration of Masses, chapter.

English

Chapter 6. Both truth and figure exist at the same time; for the sacrament figures Christ and union with Him and with the church, and it truly effects and figures the presence of Christ in the sacrament in a way that surpasses other figures. Hence, just as it is vainly argued that the position that Christ is a creature is heresy simply because Arius said so, so it is nakedly and foolishly argued that the position which says that the expression "This is my body" is figurative, and that that host is a figure, is heretical on the ground that heretics say so. For these persons do not attend to the manner and intention of speaking together with the other things added, but to the truth which every heretic acknowledges — a truth they defame — though it is well known that the manner of a work is primarily to be judged by its moral character. But, third, objection is raised by the fact that not only could a layman consecrate, but the sacrament could be consecrated by thought alone; or else there is no consecration, and consequently leavened bread serves equally as unleavened, and thus any other liquid serves equally as wine. Indeed, since all our wine is mixed with water, it would not have been necessary to add water separately but to bless the water and the wine together. And it appears further that the body of Christ is moved from heaven to whatever places are desired, at the will of the priest. As to this, it is clear that to ask about what is possible, which extends to the absolute power of God, is one thing, and to ask about what is lawful according to the testimony of Scripture is another. No faithful person, I say, doubts that God could give a layman the power of consecrating, just as a layman, since he can be a priest (as the logicians say), could consecrate. Indeed, it seems according to the testimony of Augustine, Chrysostom, and other saints that every predestined layman is a priest, and far more so a devout layman who consecrates.

English

when he would give to the church the sacred ministry, he would have the character of a priest. Yet, just as the church has reasonably varied the words of consecration from all four evangelists while preserving the meaning — which is evident from the faith of Scripture as something that ought to be done — so it has reasonably ordained that priests alone, on account of their religious devotion and moral dignity, should consecrate this sacrament. A slender foundation suffices to show that Christ specifically gave that office to His apostles alone, nor does there occur to me any efficacious testimony of Scripture that the apostles exercised this function as a type for the universal church rather than specifically for priests. Nor is it necessary on account of necessity to extend the ministry of the accidents of this host any further, since it is consistent that a faithful layman who labors and has never seen a host receives the body of Christ more efficaciously than a priest, since according to Augustine on John, Homily 25, to receive the body of Christ is to believe in Him devoutly: "Why," he says, "do you prepare your teeth and your belly? Believe, and you have eaten." For there must be a spiritual eating, as has been said, which consists in a devout and grateful consideration of how Christ suffered for the human race. But many take it very ill that the words of the sacrament have too slight an efficacy, as though nothing is consecrated or changed by them — which is contrary to the decrees of the saints, and especially to that of blessed Ambrose in his book De Officiis, as cited in De Consecratione, distinction 2, "Forte dicis," and in his book De Sacramentis, as subsequently cited in the same distinction, in the chapter "Panis est," where he says that from the bread the flesh of Christ is made; which he proves by

English

As for all of these points, it is clear that this holy doctor does not intend to say that this bread will become identically the body of Christ, but that it will become its efficacious figure in the manner described; and to this end both the arguments and the conclusion tend. And so that conversion does not destroy the nature of the bread nor change the nature of the body by introducing another material quiddity, but it brings about the presence of the body of Christ and removes the primacy of the bread, so that the whole intention of the one who adores is gathered to the body of Christ. And the holy doctor proves this conversion to be possible by the argument from the greater, and with this wondrous and miraculous conversion the priest ought to be content. And it is clear that a false assumption is being made when it is said that the bread is changed imperceptibly in order that it may efficaciously figure the body of Christ — which the holy doctors understand by saying that the bread becomes the body of Christ and that after consecration the bread is the body of Christ.

English

And whoever is ignorant of this tropical or figurative manner of predication will misunderstand not only the holy doctors and the decrees of the church but also the faith of Scripture. For Christ says in Joh. 15, "I am the true vine," and in Joh. 11 and 14, "I am the good shepherd. I am the way," etc.; just as also in Luc. 21, He says that heaven and earth will pass away, but His words will not pass away — where He undoubtedly understands by "words" (which are the most constant signs) the signified meaning. And He often employs this trope, just as the holy doctors and the laws of the church employ it after Him. Now within this trope there are many degrees, of which the most wondrous and miraculous is that the body of Christ sacramentally succeeds in the place of the bread, as Saint Ambrose proves to be possible and credible for God — not that the bread is destroyed, but that it signifies the body of the Lord there present in the sacrament, to which one ought to give full attention, setting aside consideration of the bread. Hence this is the gateway of the fall of many who, not knowing the proper meanings of words, rename the terms: some positing transubstantiation in the sense explained, others positing identification, and others positing impanation, as will be shown below.

English

But returning to the matter: it is conceded that God by His omnipotence could grant to a faithful person the power of consecrating the Eucharist with a devout mind and a silent voice. But we are not inquiring into this, but rather into what God has ordained by the law of His Scripture that ought to be done; and it is clear that He, by teaching the aforesaid words of consecration, taught us to do likewise. And so it seems probable to the lord of Armagh, in book IX, chapter 5, of his Questions on the Armenians, that Christ consecrated in the sacrament the presence of His body and blood not by those words but before their utterance. For thus He ultimately instituted it. And Ambrose, in book IV of On the Sacraments, chapter

English

4 — originally instituted the other sacraments, and so with slight but probable evidence we believe that the priest consecrates by those words by the power of God. And so, although a priest could have the power of consecrating bread and not wine, wheat bread and not barley bread or bread of another species, and conversely, and similarly with other variations of bread as well as wine — indeed, words of whatever variety could be part of this sacrament, and the sacrament could be the consecrated host alone without words — nevertheless we believe that the form we observe was instituted by the Lord, just as we believe that the depth of the divine ordering has a reason for which it was necessary for Him to ordain it thus; but these ways, which are beyond our investigation, we must pass over. Furthermore, regarding the disagreement between us concerning the consecration with unleavened or leavened bread, it is said that the consecration with unleavened bread, which we observe, is more conformable to the text of both Testaments (as has been said elsewhere) and more fitting for the figure; for the Apostle says in 1 Cor. that we ought to feast not with the old leaven of malice and wickedness but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. But whether the Greeks truly consecrate, or whether the consecration ought to be with unmixed wine and not with vinegar or wine made from verjuice or from a liquid compounded of such, is a matter of doubt for many. But it seems to me that the consecration is not so strictly required that one must consecrate with an alien form or matter, and thus either the Greeks err or we do. As regards the rite, we more fittingly consecrate and fittingly mix water into the chalice, since the blood and water prefigured by this sacrament flowed from the side of the crucified one, as Joh. 20 records. And therefore (as Pope Alexander says), the memory of the Passion is fittingly recalled with respect to both signified realities. Nor ought we to be anxious about the necessity of faith in distinctly discerning the difference between wine and vinegar, because none of us by the limit of conversion is sufficient to do that; indeed, of a liquid reputed and truly existing as wine according to its greater part, any notable part is vinegar; for water, earth, and such — both elements and compounds, though often imperceptible to us — are parts of wine. And therefore the decretal in book III, On the Celebration of Masses, chapter Cum Marthe, mutters that if water is mixed into consecrated wine it passes over into the part of Christ or yields to nothing, and by reciting many foolish opinions it does not decide.

English

The first position is that, although water must be mixed with wine in the chalice, nevertheless the consecration by the words of the sacrament ought not to take place before the water has been assimilated into the wine; and so the water is converted into the water that belongs to Christ, and the wine into the blood, so that in this sacrament there may be full truth and figure. The second position is that the water is assimilated into the wine, and afterward the whole is transubstantiated into the blood, such that every quantitative part of what is to be consecrated in this manner is wine, since no quantitative part of a mixture is a pure element, even though natural philosophers assert that water can be separated from wine by art. But the third is an unnatural position to which the decretal seems to give assent. It says: it is possible that the water does not pass over into the blood but remains surrounded by the accidents of the prior wine in such a way that it takes on the flavor of wine. This can be known from the fact that if, after the consecration of the chalice, another wine is poured into the chalice, that wine does not pass over into the blood nor is it mixed with the blood, but being commingled with the accidents of the prior wine it is poured around on all sides about the body lying hidden beneath those accidents, without moistening what it surrounds; yet the accidents themselves appear to affect the added wine, since if water has been added it takes on the flavor of wine. It is possible, therefore, for the accidents to change their subject, just as it is possible for the subject to exchange its accidents; for nature yields to miracle, and power operates above the customary course.

English

And finally it appears to the decretal that the position which asserts that both the water and the wine are transmuted into the blood of Christ is the more probable. With respect to this position, it is evident to philosophers and theologians that this is an undigested opinion. For as regards the first position, it is evident to philosophers that the priest does not know when the water has been assimilated into the wine; therefore it often happens that the water remains separate by itself until the priest consumes the sacrament, as is perceptibly evident in winter when the water freezes by itself while the wine, by its intrinsic heat, remains separately fluid as before. Nor is there reason why the water alone should be converted into the water from the side of Christ and the wine into the blood, because by the same logic any element mixed with the wine would be converted into the corresponding element belonging to Christ — and yet the whole Christ is present in this sacrament at every point of it; for otherwise there would not be a conversion of the water into water, but the infused water would have to be made equal to or identified with the water from the side of Christ. As regards the second position, it is evident as stated above that water need not be assimilated into the wine before consecration, nor, once assimilation has taken place, need the mixture be complete at every point, as the philosophers who consider how elements exist within compounds understand. For if after mixing the wine were present at every point without any element, it would seem that what is then to be consecrated would be foreign to the figure of the body and blood of Christ; indeed, the prior pouring of water into the wine by a layman would then suffice. For the benediction of the water by the priest who is to celebrate is not so necessary a sacrament; yet we bless the water and not the wine — either because the primordial matter before God's blessing was called water, as is evident in Gen. 1, or because wine more expressly and properly figures that sacred blood which the soul of Christ animates, and water does not, and therefore it requires blessing; or thirdly because baptism, figured by water, is in reality not so sacred a thing as the redemption of the human race. As regards the third position, it seems, first, that water is not a part of this sacrament, and by the same token neither is form related to power. It seems, second, that it unnaturally posits that the water is superinfused upon accidents that once were those of wine; for then an accident could naturally migrate from subject to subject and naturally unite itself as a formal principle of water. From this it appears that that water would be a sacrament, since its form is a sacrament; and so a person would worship that water as the blood, committing idolatry — as the adversaries prove that the bread does not remain for this very reason. Indeed it appears that, since an accident can be present at every point of a body without informing it, an accident is without evident reason posited to inform in that manner; and it is said inconsistently that the sacrament is heaviness but not a heavy thing, since quantity and quality of another species can receive concrete predications of this kind. Nor does it appear from evidence that the accidents of the prior wine surround the wine poured in after consecration, because equally wine poured into wineskins or another vessel takes on flavor from them — which cannot be imagined to come from a flavor latently inhering in the wineskins on their own, but rather subtle bodies lying within consume the smell and flavor, by the commingling of which the liquid poured in is tinctured. And perhaps in this sense those who say that the accidents subsisting on their own in the host are subtle bodies understand this in the manner in which painters call the pigments with which they paint colors by laying them on; for (as they admit) the sacrament of the chalice can be mixed with wine, and so the whole aggregate would be a sacrament without idolatry, and both the rarefied quantity and quality composed from their intensive parts — given that a second, third, and fourth sacrament are mixed together in the chalice constituting one sacrament — neither the quantity nor the quality would then be the sacrament of the Eucharist, but rather it would be either wine, or an aggregate of wine and holiness or something else. Truth therefore mocks such empty fictions.

English

But it is still useful to allow the court of Avignon to involve itself in such matters as it does not understand, and to bear ignorant witness to certain persons concerning the truth, so that it may show us how it is lawful to treat such matters, and so that we may see how frivolous a foundation it is to say: if the Avignonese clergy so defines something by faith, then all Christians must believe it so. For the aforesaid decree of the Roman church in the matter of Berengarius and the aforesaid decretals of the Avignonese clergy appear expressly to contradict one another; and therefore the task of a magistrate, and especially of a theologian or canonist, would be, if he can, to reconcile the judgments of these churches, or, if he cannot, to declare catholically which of these judgments is to be believed and to dismiss the other as heretical. For my part, rejecting the first task as unprofitable, I do not doubt concerning the second but that the judgment of the decree is sufficiently catholic in the sense expounded. In support of which, beyond the evidences already cited, I note the chronicle which the Cistercian records in Book VI, Chapter 35: Nicholas the Second, he says, after Benedict was expelled, held the papacy for nearly two years; in his days the Gallican church was greatly disturbed by Berengarius of Tours, who asserted that the Eucharist was not the true body of Christ but a figure. Against him Pope Nicholas held a council at which Berengarius retracted his error, as is found in De Consecratione, distinction II, chapter Ego Berengarius. Lanfranc, abbot of Bec, also published a thundering book against the same man, which he entitled the Scintillarium; after these events Berengarius lived holily and foretold his own death. From these things it appears that the church, when it had more concern for faith than for secular dominion, weighed carefully the error and the faithful recantation of Berengarius, which is made plain by the holiness of life that followed and by the gift of prophecy concerning his death. Hence the ordinary gloss upon the decretals recounts three opinions concerning the quiddity of the consecrated host, and the same ordinary gloss recounts them upon the first chapter of De Consecratione, distinction II, of which the third opinion holds that after consecration the bread and wine remain.

English

The Polychronica history of the monk of Chester. Cf. Wyclif, De Apostasia, p. Decreti Tertia Pars, De Consecratione dist. II, cap. XLII. Lanfranc, Liber de corpore et sanguine domini nostri adversus Berengarium, ed. Giles, vol.

English

Cf. the Ordinary Gloss (ed. Jenson, Venice). The consecrated host and wine, and each gloss cites that chapter: Ego Berengarius, since that confession was undoubtedly his own and was confirmed by the decree of the synod of the Roman church, which has far more authority than the decretal of the Avignonese church on this point. And from these things it appears that, since the text of the church's law says that bread and wine remain after consecration, and the leading doctors of this law recount the same thing with approval and do not refute it, that the newer doctors, even bishops, would not presume to condemn that ancient judgment of the synod — especially since, after the question whether the host exists, whether a man wills it or not, one who is willing to proceed must advance to knowledge of what it is, because otherwise, stumbling ignorantly, he will proceed babbling to the next question. For this reason I was accustomed to ask those who wish to decide this matter and to assail others on account of heretical depravity: what is the sacrament of the altar? Since they do not know this, it is clear that they must be ignorant of what follows. For scarcely one pope together with his accomplices, or all the bishops of England together with their doctors, know how to say what the consecrated host is; how then would they define heresy concerning the third question about the host? But returning to the topic, the layman asks whether a priest can consecrate with a wooden, glass, or copper chalice, or one alien to our customary rites — for example, by omitting the vestments of the priests and the greater part of the Mass and varying the sacramental words. Scarcely, however; scarcely otherwise for the doctors or their accomplices. The third opinion holds that the substance of bread and wine remains there, and under the same species the body of Christ is present.

English

Each opinion, however, acknowledges that the body of Christ is present there. But here we speak (as above) of a twofold power: it is not our place to inquire up to what limits a man can act according to God's absolute power, but rather what is lawful for a man and what he ought to do according to the law already established — such that it is useful, first, at least to know what a man can do in this ministry. It is useful, second, to know more distinctly what he ought to do in this ministry according to the current law; and it is useful, third, that without giving occasion for presumption or scandal he neither exceed the limits nor be idle concerning those things which he ought to do or say pertaining to faith in the consecrated host. And this moved me to say, first, that this perceptible sacrament is not a part of Christ; second, that no one sees any part of Christ essentially in this sacrament with the bodily eye; and third, that according to the decree of the Roman church this sacrament is essentially bread and wine, under which Christ must be believed to be present in His humanity according to every part of Him. And the knowledge of the quiddity of this sacrament is so necessary that no one can know the third question concerning it — namely, of what kind it is — unless he has first come to know its quiddity; for if I know what kind of man someone is, I then know that the man is such, and consequently I know that he is a man and thus a rational animal, and consequently I know what he is — and thus one argues concerning anything whose attribute I ought to know. For just as the question 'what is it' presupposes the question 'whether it is,' so it is presupposed for the third question 'because it is,' which is presupposed for the question 'why it is,' as is clear from the beginning of the Posterior Analytics. Therefore, since, as Aristotle says in Posterior Analytics II, everything stands in the same relation to being as to being known, it is clear that the question 'what is it' must be known before the two other questions that follow. Yet there is a certain confused and commonly spoken knowledge, and there is a certain distinct and proper knowledge; and even a layman must possess the prior knowledge of the host before he can come to know the other two questions. For example, if I know that this is white but am ignorant of its immediate species, I still know that this is below the most general genus, and otherwise I do not know of what kind this is. Thus, according to the three opinions recounted at the beginning of the second chapter, when the proposition 'this is a sacrament' has been assigned, since the intellective power of each of these three limits the intellect singularly to its own opinion about what the host is, it is clear that they equivocate in the pronoun: the first singularly demonstrates quantity, the second singularly demonstrates quality but does not know which quality, and the third singularly demonstrates the substance of the bread. And it is clear that they equivocate excessively, since each of them would deny of what is demonstrated by the other what the sacrament is. The evidence for this is that the ordinary gloss on De Consecratione, distinction II, upon the chapter Sacerdotes says that this host is heaviness but is not a heavy thing. But all three aforesaid ways say that the sacrament is something heavy; and it is clear that those who understand this sacrament equivocate, and this judgment is not found in the aforementioned decretal.

English

They err like idolaters in their thinking about the Eucharist, since they worship it as God by means of a sign, just as if a man were to worship the devil in the likeness of a crucifix. And there is no doubt that the error accuses those who so worship; and it is clear that it is necessary to treat this matter of the Eucharist, because undoubtedly one of these ways is manifestly heretical — since, on account of the principal scripture, namely the words of the Lord by which the host is consecrated, one of these ways holds very tenaciously a meaning contrary to the author of scripture, and abandons the doctrine of Christ that is greatly necessary for salvation, and implicitly attributes to itself the authorization of the most abominable thing — even though the famous doctors of the church's laws, making light of this, recount among the opinions that bread and wine remain after consecration; they argue for this but do not refute the other side, as they cannot, though they favor that side more.

English

If, therefore, those very leading doctors of the church's laws do not condemn as heretical the view that bread remains, but prove that this follows from the aforesaid law Ego Berengarius, it is probable (as before) that the less learned doctors will not attempt to declare that judgment heretical; and however they may have attempted this, I know that they cannot, since they cannot prove that judgment to be false. It does not therefore matter in what vessel the priest consecrates, provided the customs are observed; but, as has been said, one must stand by the custom of the country, and, with propriety maintained, devoutly recall Christ — for this is infinitely better than celebrating Mass. Nor is it incongruous that Christ should be present sacramentally in water, or in wine mixed with something else, or indeed through an aerial medium, but most eminently in the soul — since the end of this sacrament is that Christ should dwell in the soul through the virtues, so that a layman who remembers the body of Christ in heaven does this more effectively than that priest who consecrates, and makes the body of Christ to be with him just as truly, though in another way. But the common people believe too faithlessly and blasphemously that this sacramental sign of the body of Christ is really Christ Himself. And in this heresy clergy and prelates are entangled. And others, overcome by reason, say that this is blasphemous and should not be spoken of to the people, but that it is altogether impossible to preach it to the people for stirring up devotion. But Truth knows whether the desire for honor and profit from the laity is the cause of this blasphemy. But none of these things is an obstacle to the contrary; rather, it is fitting and expedient for devout persons to celebrate frequently, since that man is greatly ill-disposed for whom there is not impressed more abundantly and devoutly from the celebration the memory of Christ, and consequently that his prayer may profit the church; and if this is lacking, it is expedient that such a person should not then consecrate.

English

Hence it is advantageous for the people to have many devout priests, but it greatly harms them to have vicious priests. It is therefore false that the Mass of any priest whatsoever is of equal value to the Mass of some other priest, since the Mass is an aggregate composed of the entire ministry of the celebrating priest from sign to sign — which the common people measure by the time from when the priest is fully vested to the time when he has removed the chasuble. The matter is clear in this way: one such Mass is damnable and hateful to God, while another is meritorious and acceptable to God; therefore they differ greatly in value. It is evident from this that the more displeasing a priest is to God, the more unjust is his ministry. Nor does the argument hold that is brought forward — namely, that the Mass is Christ Himself or a part of Him, Who is equally good in both cases — because this equivocates too much on the very nature of the Mass. For not every priest has the authority to send the body of Christ to heaven or to draw Him to the people, nor does he make the body of Christ; rather, he celebrates the Mass before and after, and indeed Christ dwelling in the midst of the laity who gather in His name is of equal value to Christ Himself made present through any priest in any place. Therefore it would be too superficial to say that the goodness of the Mass is measured by the goodness of Christ or of a part of Him, since then the Mass of any priest would generally be too good. But as to the equality of goodness of the host there is a difficulty, since the host itself is a sign of Christ and not a part of Him. Since therefore that host signifies, among other things, the union of Christ with the church, and a sign made by one who brings about that union signifies it more efficaciously than a sign made by one who impedes that union, therefore the sacrament is more efficacious through a good priest than through a bad one. And in this way the many decrees are to be understood that command that a man should not hear the Mass of a priest known to be a fornicator; therefore, I say, it is not to be heard, because it is hateful to God and man and harmful to the church. From these considerations it appears that not only the Mass but even the host is better through one priest and less good through another. For the more efficacious a sign is for committing to memory the life of Christ, so good a sacrament it is; but through one priest it is a more efficacious sign for this purpose and through another less efficacious: therefore in this way the sacrament is correspondingly better. Let the Catholic, I say, distinguish between the supernatural goodness of the host — which is on a par with any other bread not consecrated that is present — and its moral goodness, and he will see that the latter can be received to a greater or lesser degree according to the merit and holiness of the life of the priest.

English

The holiness that the host has from the presence of the humanity of Christ — since one not eating with Christ and a wicked priest sacramentally receiving Christ in the host would not thereby be holy — for such a priest is capable of greater holiness than an inanimate thing that possesses holiness only equivocally, just as the water of baptism bears grace as a sign or as an occasioning cause of grace in the person who receives the sacrament. Thus the holiness which the host has from the presence of the body of Christ appears to be equal in all Eucharists, but the holiness arising from the blessing of the priest appears to vary in correspondence with his merit; and through this distinction, laws that appear to be contrary are to be understood. For just as the Lord's Prayer, as regards its nature, is equally good wherever it is said, so it is with the sacrament — but the sacrament also has efficacy and goodness. For inanimate goods that a man uses acquire goodness through virtuous use; how then does the sacrament that a just man uses as an instrument of meriting above others not have a relative goodness beyond the sacrament that an unjust man uses to his own damnation? For just as the whole of created order profits the just man, so the unjust man does injury to the whole world, because he ought to share with it the secondary perfection in which he is deficient. They say indeed that a coin is better in the hand of the prudent than in that of the fool, and yet they deny that the sacrament is better through the ministry of a just man who produces with it a hundredfold fruit than through the ministry of a reprobate who with it damns himself and the people. Hence the clergy so greatly deceives the people that it believes and teaches that the sacrament is nothing but a cast-off accident, and yet is offended at one who teaches the common people to believe that that sacrament of the Eucharist is not God. And yet according to the Apostle, Eph.

English

As for the two difficulties that have been dealt with in the preceding part, namely concerning the force and truth of the words of the sacrament in their figurative sense and what is to be believed concerning the host — yet before I touch upon the third difficulty that was passed over, it remains to reply against that opinion. For the doctors and devotees of signs are greatly troubled that the effective locution of the sacrament is tropological. Indeed, Scotus, in his commentary on Book IV, distinction 10, maintains that this is not a figurative locution: "This is my body"; and he disproves this on the grounds that, according to Augustine in the eighty-third Questions, question 69, it can be known from the preceding or following part of the scripture, or from another passage, which locution is figurative. Since, therefore, when Christ says in Luke 22, "This is my body," He immediately adds "which will be delivered for you," and in Joh. 6 He says, "My flesh is truly food" — from which he concludes that it is altogether against the intention of the Savior to speak figuratively in this place. But the doctor appears to have spoken not with sufficient subtlety, indeed altogether too superficially, partly because, from the words of Christ concerning both the sacrament of the bread and the cup, it is plain that He spoke figuratively.

English

For there is no doubt that He took material bread, blessed it, broke it, and commanded that it be eaten, pointing to it and saying, "This is my body" — which must be understood in an entirely figurative sense, just as the words concerning the cup must also be understood.

English

Nor is there any doubt that, just as He took material bread and wine, so He commanded that these same be received as a sacrament; for otherwise He would have equivocated with the church in a deceptive manner. And so He undoubtedly spoke figuratively in Joh. 6 (as is evident through Augustine); hence I marvel how any subtlety can, from the relation of identity expressed by "which will be delivered for you," exclude a figurative locution, when the preceding locution would be more effective for this purpose — just as, in Joh. 15, the saying "I am the true vine" would more evidently exclude a figure by speaking in terms of identity than by saying, as He said implicitly, that the apostles are the branches that are grafted into this vine. For it is the same thing to say, "This is my body which will be delivered for you," and, "This effectively and sacramentally figures my body which will be delivered for you." And such are the many locutions of the saints (as is evident from De Consecratione, distinction II). But this is what the doctor abhors as heretical — that the body of Christ and the blood are not truly and really present in the sacrament of the altar — and thus Henry of Ghent is understood in Quodlibet IX, question 9, along with many other witnesses.

English

And it is clearly gathered that their testimony is not entirely consistent, inasmuch as each of them contradicts the other in some respect. Since, therefore, neither the testimony of Augustine, nor of Saint Jerome, nor of any saint, is to be believed except insofar as they have grounded themselves in scripture, it is plain that these doctors must be transcended and a lively reasoning from scripture's own commentary must be advanced, and all the more so with regard to the doctors of the decretals. I agree with them, however, insofar as they adduce that testimony cited above; but where they contradict that testimony, I fearlessly contradict them — and especially on this point: that the bread and wine, at the moment of consecration, cease to be wholly themselves and only the accidents remain as the sacrament. For this contradicts the decree of the Roman church in De Consecratione, distinction II, in the chapter beginning "I, Berengarius" — and it contradicts the opinion of holy Augustine, together with the other saints and their reasonings. Nor does the entire opposing party know how to produce a single spark of evidence that would commend this position even by way of logic.

English

Why, then, should the disciples of Truth be burdened with believing this? Nor does it avail to say that that decree is abrogated — as decretals are commonly said to be — whenever some law of the church does not please the rulers. First, because both the gloss of Berengarius and the ordinary gloss of the decretals cites that chapter, as is evident elsewhere. Second, because in Book V of the Decretals, On Penance, chapter one, it is taught through this chapter that whoever sins publicly must do public penance. And third, because since it touches the faith of the church and is supported by sacred scripture, the holy doctors, and the evidence of reason, it must be taught when and how it is abrogated. For otherwise no more credence would be given to one who says this than to any ignoramus who denies every law of the church by this sophistical deceit. For the editor of the decretal cannot destroy that sentence unless he teaches that it is contrary to the law of Christ; but since he cannot do this, it remains secure, and whatever decretal is contrary to it is to be abrogated. Let the faithful person consider, I ask, how faith concerning the Eucharist ought to be maintained more conformably to sacred scripture, to reason, and to the holy doctors — by holding that the bread and wine after the blessing remain as sacraments — and let him see why the sentence of the Roman church today is to be rejected.

English

Sins must not be purged by secret correction alone. Must one then attribute it to the magnificent miracle of Christ that without cause He destroys created substances, harms His own creation, takes away the figures by which, through bread and wine (as the doctors say), the church would be edified, introduces a deception of human senses, causes a base accident to be worshipped as God, and burdens the church with useless doubts? For all agree on this: that Christ could be worshipped just as honorably, just as religiously and devoutly, under the species of bread as under that mass of unknown accidents by which the church is brought into disrepute — indeed, more religiously — because with a sign more honorable, more capable of being grounded, and more defensible against the mockers of our foolish presumption among unbelievers. For when they press us on this matter, you will scarcely find two who agree. And when a difficulty is raised beyond the matter of the Trinity, recourse is had to the flight of ignorance together with the disciples of Muhammad: it can be believed profitably, they say, but cannot be profitably investigated. And when it is asked what is to be believed concerning this sacrament and how, some say that this ought not to be asked, and others say that it ought to be believed as the holy church believes. As for the first point — why it is now sown beyond the ancient faith that the accidents remain without a subject and that the sacrament is therefore an accident — behold, the answer is given by a double lie and far too much by an analogy unknown to ordinary people; for the common people and many who babble these things do not know what an accident is, just as they do not know that the Eucharist, as an accident, belongs to one of the nine categories of accident. But the faithful say that the Eucharist is bread or wine consecrated by the word of the Lord — behold, here one descends, in the manner of the ancient church, to a form well enough known to ordinary people; for God willed that the yoke of His law be light and recognizable to any faithful person, lest a lie be hidden in corners. For so the disciples recognized Christ in the breaking of bread, which Augustine says is the sacrament; and so also the faithful broke bread from house to house in the primitive church, as is said in Acts.

English

In book IX, chapter two, the lord of Armagh declares this to be said of the consecrated host. As for the other opinion, it is clear that it is also common to every believer, for every believer says that his sect is catholic and his community is the holy church, and that he believes as the holy church believes. And again, if this faith suffices, why is the church burdened to concede the unusual claim that the Eucharist is not a substance but a thing infinitely more base, belonging to the genus of accidents? And third, I suppose that a question be put to one more expert in this school, or to a layman of subtle understanding, who lingers beyond the question ‘whether it exists’ concerning the sacrament, around the question ‘what it is’ concerning the sacrament of the altar. It has been told him, I say, that there are seven sacraments of the church, and some are specified; why then would not the sacrament of the altar — the most common, most necessary, and most worthy of all — be specified and distinctly known? For one must know by what it is distinguished from the other sacraments. But above these recent ones there are older and weightier persons who appear to attack the sense of scripture regarding the figurative mode of speaking in the words of the Lord, by which this sacrament is accomplished. For the Master of the Sentences writes in book IV, distinction X, at the beginning:

English

Cf. Peter Lombard, distinction on the heresy of those who say the body of Christ is not at the altar except as a sign. Peter Lombard: likewise others surpassing the madness of their predecessors, who, measuring the power of God according to the manner of natural things, more boldly and more dangerously contradict the truth, asserting that the body of Christ and the blood are not at the altar, nor is the substance of the bread and wine converted into the substance of the flesh and blood, but that Christ spoke thus — “This is my body” — just as the Apostle said: “The rock, however, was Christ.” For they say that the body of Christ is there only as a sacrament, that is, as a sign, and is eaten by us only as a sign. These persons take occasion for their error from the words of the Truth.

English

In chapter VI. And the later doctors, writing on the Sentences of Lombard, and especially Thomas and Bonaventura, recite that position as a heresy. Since we therefore hold the same opinion, it appears that we fall into Charybdis. And because the assertion of those doctors provides only slight evidence, attention must be given to their evidence, for which they assert what both reason and scripture produce; for it befits Christ our Lord to proceed in the new covenant with greater miracle, piety, and grace in respect of the final sacrament, so that it may be the consummated memorial of His wonders. But in the old covenant the body of Christ was present in the manna and in the other figures as in a sign; it is therefore necessary that in this sacrament the humanity of Christ be present more efficaciously than as a sign, because otherwise a layman or even a bird could by voice make the body of Christ to be there equally efficaciously as a sign, as the consecrated host is. As for the authority of scripture, it appears that Paul, who received his teaching from the Lord, and three other evangelists, recount concerning this sacrament words of sacramental conversion, since otherwise they would be irrelevant or false. But it is clear from what was said in the preceding chapter that this evidence does not conflict with our opinion: for every catholic agrees with a heretic in certain things. Therefore, first, the truth and the distinctiveness of our opinion from that reprobated opinion must be discussed; and second, the objections must be answered.

English

As for the first point, it appears that Christ is truly present in the host as in a sign, because otherwise it would not be a sacrament as a figure; yet it is not present merely as a sign, for He is there really and truly according to His whole humanity; and thus it is granted that Christ is not there only as a sign, yet He is there more efficaciously than as a sign. Nor is it contradictory, but rather consonant, that the same thing be both the Truth and a figure or sign, since, according to Augustine, Enchiridion, chapter LII, the death of Christ, His resurrection, and His ascension were figures of our death, of our spiritual resurrection and ascension, and yet they were the Truth of the thing accomplished. As long, therefore, as we are pilgrims on the way, we must use signs and live under the veil of faith and of figures; and so, since signs have multiple degrees, it is clear that we in the time of the law of grace have signs more efficacious than the fathers of the old testament had. And it is clear that neither the aforementioned error nor the argument made from the figure against that error conflicts with our opinion; for our sign carries with it the accompaniment of the body of Christ signified, since it is a sign present beyond the signs of the old testament, and the words of the signs have co-efficacy so that the body of Christ is thus really present there; and both of these are lacking under the old law. Therefore Christ expressly teaches this preeminence in Joh. VI, saying: “Your fathers ate the manna and they died; he who eats this bread will not die forever.” Hence Augustine, in the book of Sermons, Sermon VIII, notes how the fathers of the old law ate the same spiritual food, as the Apostle says, Cor.

English

In chapter X; for those faithful fathers understood Christ through the manna, whom they ate spiritually together with us. Furthermore, as regards the sacramental words, it seems probable to the lord of Armagh, in book nine, chapter five of his work “On the Questions of the Armenians,” that Christ accomplished this sacrament by His pure will before He uttered those words, because, as Matthew and Mark recount, Jesus took bread, blessed it, broke it, and gave it to His disciples and said to them: “Take and eat; this is my body” — where, noting the sequence of the words, since He uniformly pointed to the bread which He had commanded them to eat as already consecrated, and the blessing, the breaking, and the command to eat preceded those words, it appears that the consecration of the bread occurred before those words “This is my body.” It seems to him probable in the second place, according to the faith of scripture, that the consecratory words are understood of the bread and wine, since all four of the aforementioned apostles note that Jesus took material bread into His hands, broke it, commanded it to be eaten, and asserted it to be His body; and the same judgment holds for the wine. For what is plainer than the text of Mark XIV, where it is said: “Having taken the cup, giving thanks He gave it to them, and they all drank from it; and He said to them: This is my blood” — where it is clear that He calls the wine contained in the cup His blood; and the same is clear from Matth. XXVI.

English

In Matth. XXVI, He calls the wine in the cup His blood; and the same is clear from Matth. XXVI. From these texts it appears more consonant than what the Master says — namely, that such a locution is tropical and in some sense, though not essentially, convertive of wine into blood — since the tropical sense is true, but if one were pointing to the bread and wine, it would be false with respect to the identical predication that this is the body of Christ or the blood. But if, by means of the pronoun, the bread or wine is designated at the beginning and the conversion takes place at the end, then the proposition in its successive parts would be false or irrelevant to the conversion, unless one dreams up that God instituted such a proposition to have the efficacy of converting in that manner — which will find no foundation. If the pronoun designates the body of Christ, then nothing new is constituted, so that it would be effective of the flesh of Christ. But if the pronoun connotes that this thing, under those accidents which have no subject, is the body of Christ, then an unfounded claim is made against the imagined order of scripture and the sense of that scripture — I would have those attend who fantasize from this text that a conversion without a differing essence is to be granted. It appears, therefore, in both cases that the sacramental words constitute a tropical locution more efficacious than this: “The rock, however, was Christ,” since those words bring it about sacramentally that the humanity of Christ is really yet sacramentally present at every point of the consecrated host; and thus that host of ours is a sign more efficacious than bread blessed for a layman or blessed for a priest in another form. And I do not believe that greater excellence of this sacrament can be stated from reasons or from scripture. Hence certain persons foolishly multiply arguments on this matter to magnify the power of God and His gracious piety, and to increase the meritorious difficulty of our believing — such arduous and difficult things are to be believed concerning the host, as the school today teaches — because the law of Christ ought to be open and easy according to the form of scripture and not made difficult beyond its limits; indeed, infinitely more honorably could belief be held about this sacrament, since its opposite — more foreign and more difficult — could be believed and logically defended even by the signs of baptism; therefore those things are to be believed for similar reasons.

English

For it could be imagined that the substantial form by itself, without quantity or quality, fulfills the function of the host in whatever experience we perceive — which would deviate from the truth less than today's fiction. Therefore, lest we blaspheme, it is necessary that we hold ourselves securely within those limits which the saints had set forth from sacred scripture, lest we blasphemously assert that God authorizes a lie, which He cannot do — something believed to be done by many through the baseless inventions devised concerning this sacrament. And if it is asked how it will be established that bread and wine remain in the consecrated host, it is said (as was often noted above) that sense-perception and the reason of the saints, the testimony of the doctors, and the instruction of the faith of scripture all move toward this conclusion. For sense-perception moves us just as certainly to believe that bread and wine are there, as it moves us to believe that quantity or quality is there, since our sensory knowledge of the former comes first. Now the reason appears to be threefold: first, that all the prior dispositions required for the forms of an element or compound are present; second, that all the active powers from which a natural philosopher would infer such forms are likewise present; and third, that God would not without necessary cause have changed His order, lest He damage His own universe by withdrawing the nature of substance. Moreover, a threefold testimony of the saints is offered, according to the sayings cited above. The first is the saying of Augustine, placed in De Consecratione, distinction II, "Qui manducant," where it is said thus: what is seen is bread, and what the eyes report the chalice to be; but what faith requires to be taught is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood. Likewise, in the same distinction, from the saying of Hilary, this is held: The body of Christ which is received from the altar is a figure, while the nature of bread and wine appears outwardly; but the truth is present inwardly, while the body and blood of Christ is believed in truth within. Likewise, the holy pope Nicholas, together with many bishops, declares the faith that bread and wine placed upon the altar remain after the consecration both as the sacrament and as the flesh and blood of Christ, as is clear in distinction II, "Ego Berengarius."

English

And from these things I believe that the definition of our Urban and his bishops holds the ancient faith of the Roman church, although Robert and his adherents hold the fiction of transubstantiation at Avignon. And neither of them appears worthy to be received as pope unless he has been able to declare this faith, since to teach the catholic faith is their chief office. Hence some believe that they will not reach charitable agreement before this is effectively taught by one of them, because on account of this defect both they themselves and their subjects are idolaters and blasphemers — so that to those erring in these ways by such signs that saying of De Consecratione, distinction II, cap. LVIII; likewise cap. LXXIX; likewise cap. XI may fittingly be addressed.

English

From Isaiah: "Why do I need the multitude of your sacrifices? I am full." And it follows: "When you stretch out your hands, I will turn away My eyes from you, and when you multiply your prayer, I will not hear." How, then, will those who are bound by their office to teach this to the church be excused from this sin? And from the faith of scripture it appears that bread and wine remain as the sacrament after the blessing; for (as has often been repeated) the four evangelists relate how Christ took bread and wine and, pointing to them, said: "This is My body" or "blood." This is confirmed secondly from the epistle of the Apostle, Cor. X, where he first commands: "Flee from the worship of idols." And he adds: "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? And the bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of the Lord? Because we, being many, are one bread and one body" — where it is manifestly clear that he speaks of material bread and wine, which after the blessing are this sacrament. And again it is manifest that here he uses tropical predication and not identical predication, since he understands bread and wine to figure the union of the church with Christ, who is the thing signified by this sacrament.

English

And it is evident with what great blindness the church is struck, which, having set aside the Gospel and the holy doctors, is governed by the foolish heresy of the Decretists, who hand down as a rule that in those sayings bread and wine are generally to be understood as accidents, not as substance or nature. Do we really believe that the holy Apostle means by the bread which we break those accidents which we do not know? Does not the blessed Hilary explain the meaning that they are the nature of bread and wine? Does not the decree of the blessed Jerome hold that those who understand sacred scripture otherwise than the Holy Spirit requires are heretics? And so detestable and worthless is the gloss which they give to the sayings of the saints; and when Augustine says above that what is seen is bread, but that what is believed is that the bread is the body of Christ, they gloss it in the opposite sense — that what is seen is not bread but an accident existing in itself which formerly belonged to bread. But it is certain that so subtle a logician, so profound a metaphysician, and so prudent a theologian would not thus burden the words of faith with so alien a meaning, especially since he so frequently and explicitly asserts that an accident cannot exist without a subject, as he illustrates in the case of quantity and quality.

English

The consolation, then, against these doctors is that according to their own principles no one of them ought to be believed, especially in theological matter, unless he shall have established himself (which he will not be able to do) upon this gloss. And so it is clear that bread and wine are this venerable sacrament. Nevertheless I publicly protest that, if Robert of Gilbon or any of his supporters teaches the contrary, I am prepared as a faithful son of the church to believe it. But I believe that Robert with all his accomplices will not produce such probable evidence for believing that this sacrament is not essentially bread or wine, but some unknown accident. Yet it is necessary that heresies exist, in order to punish with the penalty of sin those who pharisaically weigh signs too heavily. From this, I say, the school is occupied with false and vain fictions, having set aside the doctrine of the truth of faith necessary for salvation (Decretum, Second Part, Cause XXIV, Question III, cap. XXVII); and from this there must necessarily follow contempt for the worship of God and a mind bent toward the worship of the devil, consumed to the very depths by the vanity of worldly signs. Hence Augustine, in the Book of Sermons, Sermon LV, promises to tell the people what this sacrament is that the faithful receive: "This bread," he says, "which you see on the altar, sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ."

English

"What the chalice holds, sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ. By these things the Lord willed to commend His own body and blood. If you receive rightly, you are one bread, one body, as the Apostle expounds. And so by this bread it is commended to you how you ought to love unity. For was that bread made from a single grain? No — were there not many grains of wheat? But before they came to be bread, they were separate; they were joined together by water, and after a certain crushing. For unless the wheat is ground, moistened with water, and baked by fire, it does not at all come to the form that is called bread. So also you, before the humiliation of fasting, were, as it were, ground by the sacrament of exorcism."

English

You approached baptism; you were as it were sprinkled with water and, standing firm in the fire of charity, you came to the form of bread. There is no doubt that this holy doctor, speaking of that bread so fashioned — which he says is essentially a sacrament to be eaten mystically — does not call it an unknown accident, but really common bread consecrated by the word of the Lord; nor did he, or any other saint from this tradition, ever conceive that by the blessing and the sharing the bread is consumed down to its very foundations, or that it is wholly corrupted in itself.

English

By the power of the words of the Lord, the bread is not consumed down to its foundations or wholly corrupted in itself, but rather remains improved, figuring for us, according to the aforesaid properties, the mystical sense — namely the allegorical, anagogical, and moral. For God did not knead one monstrous mass of accidents existing in themselves, so that things so varied in nature might figure forth the supremely one truth; nor has anyone lived according to that faith with the unleavened bread of truth, but rather against the deity and humanity of Christ with the leaven of a very old error. For God could not destroy so great a substance — unjustly, any part of the world — without compensation made elsewhere, unless He were to condemn unjustly any part of the world. But it is evident that the accidental existence of the consecrated host of Christ’s humanity does not equal the benefit that a creature would have from the substance that ceases to be: first, because Christ benefits His whole creation so much by resting in a bounded way in heaven and by being virtually the creature which He perfects; and also because the blasphemous fiction of falsehood concerning God, who is Truth and flees all fiction, strips away accidental perfection from created things. How, then, does it accord with the good God that He would, without desert, harm even good things by withdrawing the perfection of the world in which He previously rejoiced? In this way, therefore, a believer can gather that the sacrament of the Eucharist is really bread and wine; or (as others understand it) the sacrament is one aggregate composed of that substance and the body of Christ — as Augustine hints in “De Consecratione,” distinction 2, “Hoc est.”

English

By the blessing or power of the Lord, neither bread nor wine is destroyed in this sacrament. Thirdly, a reply is made through more advanced doctors against the aforesaid opinion. For Anselm writes in his book “De Corpore Christi” how, under the form of bread and wine, the whole humanity of Christ is given to us, so that the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine His soul — since blood generated from wine is, according to the philosophers, the seat of the soul — and indeed since the body of Christ is inviolable and incorruptible, yet it appears that sometimes the host is violated and eaten and gnawed by mice. Removing this difficulty, he speaks according to the definitions of the holy fathers: it must be understood that the bread placed upon the altar is converted into the body through those solemn words, and that the substance of the bread and wine does not remain; yet the species must be understood to remain — namely the form, color, and taste — and according to these there occurs the grinding, the gnawing of the mouse, the manifold local movement, and the drawing into the belly, but not according to the body of Christ. From these things this holy man appears to hold that a bare accident remains existing in itself, as the moderns say. But regarding this it must be noted that Anselm and other saints labored not for the honor of that sign itself, but for veneration of the body of Christ that is signified — that is, of Christ Himself; and so they strove that the whatness of the signifying substance might be put to sleep with respect to the consideration of man, and that the whole devout intention might be gathered toward Christ, toward which end the signs that are perceptible in themselves move us of themselves, and not so the material substance. For in this way the presence of a greater or more weighty object suppresses appreciation of the lesser, as is evident in the case of mixed elements, which many people, on account of their hiddenness, reckon not to exist.

English

They hold that these things do not exist — as with the cold that lies hidden in glowing iron, and altogether as with letters whose essence and form a scholar does not attend to, since that is the office of an idiot, a bird, or a beast — but insofar as he can, with such consideration suspended, he looks to the thing signified. So does the believer with respect to the sacramental sign and its signified; and so those material essences after consecration are conceded by some who understand less well to be simply nowhere; but the canonists say that the bread and wine remain, though it is not known where they are. But a third group says that they are converted into the body of Christ and the blood; and this can be understood as well as poorly. Hence, as Ambrose, Hugh, and other disciples of truth say, the same essence that previously was not a sacrament afterward becomes a sacrament by the power of the words of Christ, and thus with respect to signification is converted into the body of Christ, as Anselm says; and so the substance of the bread and wine no longer remains in the act of consideration as before — just as the philosophers speak, holding that a sensible thing and time are posited in act through sensation and intellection. For Anselm did not understand that there could be an accident without a subject, since in the final chapter of “De Veritate” he writes: “For so long as the body exists, its color must necessarily exist; and when the body perishes, it is impossible for its color to remain.”

English

For although the person of the disciple says that, Anselm subsequently approves it by positing a distinction between color and its subject, and between rectitude and its sign. For rectitude does not depend on that sign in the way that color depends on its subject. For when Augustine and other saints, speaking in their dialogues as disciples, pass over something without reproving it, they undoubtedly approve, in the role of masters, what they posit in the role of disciples. Hence, in confirmation of this opinion, I cited Augustine above — both in his dialogue and elsewhere — to the effect that an accident cannot exist without a subject.

English

For natural reason teaches that an accident cannot exist without a subject, because a subject cannot exist without its accident, and therefore much less can the converse hold; for according to all who understand themselves, the bond and dependence of an accident upon its subject would be greater or at least equal to the converse. And the argument is evident from the fact that if any creature exists, then its dependence upon God exists — which is an inseparable relation; and so a material substance cannot exist without continuous and discrete quantity, without the relation of its parts to every point of it, and so on with respect to infinitely many other accidents. Do we really believe that the genus-analogue of accident is naturally prior to the genus of substance, which is the foundation of every accident — such that an accident can exist throughout the whole world without substance, but not the converse? In that case the genus of substance would depend on the genus of accident, and not the converse; indeed, the species of material substance would depend on a body belonging to the genus of quantity, and not the converse — even though they mutually agree, in that quantity can be rarefied and condensed to any degree, as the advocates of the Eucharist are compelled to say. And so substance can change its quantity without the acquisition or loss of quantity, since quantity can do so; and thus a point could be made infinitely greater — since just as footness is by accident footness, so quantity is by accident quantity.

English

But Augustine thinks very differently about quantity, as is clear from Book V of De Trinitate, chapters 9 and 13, where he speaks thus: Just as, therefore, we do not say three essences, so we do not say three magnitudes. For things, he says, that are great by participation in magnitude — for which to be is one thing and to be great is another, as a great house, a great mountain, and a great mind — for these things, then, magnitude is one thing and that which is great by that magnitude is another; and the magnitude is by no means the same thing as a great house. But the true magnitude of God is God Himself and is not an accident to Him. From these things the logic of this holy man is clear, which he employs in proving the distinction of accidents. And it is clear secondly that he does not call accidents those things that are able to exist by themselves (as was said in Chapter 3). And it is clear thirdly that those err who hold that the quantity of the first genus of the substance of a creature is not distinguished from its substance. For the error in the matter of the Eucharist drives them yet more deeply into implying that any substance whatsoever is God, because undoubtedly, if there is no distinction between the magnitude of a material substance and its essence, then (as Augustine argues) that substance is God. And I believe that the error by which an accident is worshipped as God has introduced errors of this kind, blinding many in logic and metaphysics. And these are the ones who say that the sacrament of the altar is a quantity which is a greater or lesser span of time — so that they call one host a moment and another the Lord's Day, while they call a third a week or a month. These men so magnify their own knowledge that they say they know distinctly at what hour the final judgment will be; for they are compelled to say that this sacra—

English

More correctly: But that is the true magnitude by which not only a house that is great is great, and by which any mountain that is great is great. —that the sacrament is a successive quantity. For they establish for themselves as a principle this diabolical sophism: If any created being is distinct in substance, then it is able to exist by itself. And from this they plunge themselves into infinite errors, saying that an accident cannot be anything but an accident, just as a substance cannot be anything but a substance — since otherwise the quiddity of the nature would be accidental to itself. Nevertheless, an accident can be understood in two ways: either as a noun or as an adjective. Understanding it as a noun, the sacrament of the altar is an accident, but not in the second way, since it does not befall any subject. Nor does God supply the role of a material cause in this instance, although every creature inheres in God accidentally. Yet when an accident is posited as existing by itself, a certain natural aptitude for formally inhering remains; and thus a certain accidentality of such a kind cannot inhere in a substance. But they would speak more consistently if they held that the being of any substantial form has a certain remote, obediential natural aptitude — just as every accidental form has a certain remote, obediential natural aptitude to inhere in a material substance. For He who is able so to change natures that an accidental form exists and acts by itself — not only by producing accidental forms but also substantial forms, which seems naturally proper to substance — He, I say, is able to make substantial forms inhere in matters, especially since He is able to suspend entirely the actuations of the forms that remain; which is more than to remit or to change their inclinations and actuations. Therefore a man of that school should fear lest he blasphemously deny the absolutely necessary infinite power of his God. Hence I employ this method: I do not admit such unusual cases, fearing blasphemies, unless it be proved to me that this falls within the power of God. And this being granted, I am prepared to concede things proved — indeed, things infinitely more excellent than what they themselves attribute to God and to His sacrament. Hence it seems to me that Doctor Bonaventure and others inconsistently dream that, for the sake of the honor of the sacrament and the devotion of the people, many things must be posited concerning the Eucharist that cannot be founded on Scripture. I have, however, a few words against those who dream inconsistently and too sparingly. For although it is of the nature of the dream of a sleeping man that it is irregular and devoid of reason, yet the waking dream, which is imagination without foundation, ought to have the evidence of reason. It could therefore be imagined — on the basis of this subject matter — that all the powers of the human soul, both organic and non-organic, exist by themselves without a subject, and that they are full of species, acts, and virtues, as the souls of the blessed will be in their homeland, so that they possess the fullness of consequent blessedness. Let there be, then, infinitely infinite qualities of this kind, adorned with blessedness together with the aforesaid dispositions, existing without a subject; and let them be placed in every proportional part of an infinite host. But he who denies this case is obliged to deny the foundation of those who fabricate such things as if they were legislators in this matter. Indeed, once the possibility of the case is granted, the truth of their opinion about inherence will be founded no more evidently than the case already posited is in fact founded on Scripture. Since, therefore, the host would then be infinitely more holy than is now maintained, why is that holiness and honor not given to the host?

English

For every part of such a host would have infinite ends, for the sake of which the whole human race would labor reasonably; and each of those accidents would be formally blessed and would have perpetual blessed acts, and would thus be better than a wretched man. And there would be no reason why it could not elicit other acts, just as it clearly beholds the Deity and rejoices with an exceedingly great joy. Such a glorious accident, I say, a man would eat corporally when receiving the viaticum, just as he eats the body of Christ. Infinite are such unbelieving deliriums by which the church is falsely and blasphemously occupied, arising from the error invented concerning the Eucharist. And for this purpose the sentence of Augustine in De Verbis Domini, Sermon 28, can be understood, where he says: I said to you that before the words of Christ that which is offered is called bread, but when the words of Christ have been uttered, it is no longer called bread but is named the body. This holy man intended that what was previously bread should become the body of the Lord by virtue of His blessing. Therefore in Sermon 53, speaking of the Eucharist, he says: The sacrament indeed almost all call the body of Christ. I say that the holy man does not intend that the bread is destroyed or that its essence does not remain — as is clear from what has been said — just as when a man has been made pope and a new name has been given to him, his former name is not on that account lost (which follows natural property of the thing) but is put to sleep. Nor is there any doubt that they equivocate by a tropical predication in calling that bread the body of Christ — in the manner in which Augustine expounds this in Sermon 48, noting how Christ is sometimes called the likeness of sinful flesh and sometimes is called sin.

English

The likeness, he says, is accustomed to take the name of the thing of which it is the likeness, as—

English

He illustrates this concerning a painted man, which is the more evident example regarding the sacrament of the altar. The intention of the holy men, therefore, is that in the presence of the body of Christ the consideration of the nature of the host is suspended, and the whole intention of following Christ in conduct should be attended to — just as nature teaches us to flee the consideration of the light of the stars in the presence of the sun. Fourth, this is replied to by the fact that many holy men died in this faith; it would therefore be difficult and incredible to attack that faith or to accuse those holy men who had written and defended that faith. For holy Thomas writes in Book IV, distinction 11, article 1: This position, he says, which holds that the substance of bread remains together with the body of Christ, is incompetent, impossible, and heretical. Incompetent indeed, because it would impede the due veneration of the sacrament.

English

For it would be an occasion of idolatry if the substance of bread were to remain there. It would also be contrary to the signification of the sacrament, because the species, which would lead to the true body of Christ, would signify rather the substance of bread. Third, it would be contrary to this sacrament, because this food would not be purely spiritual but also corporeal. And that it is impossible is clear, because it is impossible for something to be now where it was not before, unless that thing itself is changed or another is converted into it. For it could not even by a miracle come to be that something is a rational, mortal animal and yet is not a man. So therefore the body of Christ could not be otherwise disposed now than before, unless a change intervenes. Since, therefore, on the part of the bread—

English

XI, II, art. Opera, vol. (ed. Paris. Cf. also the same author's Summa, Quest. LXXV, Art. II. The quotation varies from the text of Thomas. Cf. Super Quarto Sent., dist.

English

XI, qu. II, art., p. 167. There would be a change, and not on the part of the body of Christ, since in that case the same body would be moved simultaneously and at once to different places, which is impossible, since contrary motions would then coexist in the same thing. That it is heretical, moreover, is evident from the fact that it contradicts the truth of Scripture. For it would not be true to say: This is my body, but Here is my body. It is said here that what is demanded is assumed — for instance, that on a given day Saint Thomas was warned by this faith, or another person to whom such an error is to be assigned, since it is not known what impulse they had or what caused their departure. And just as legends labor to show that they held to this until death, so equally plausible legends labor to show that they retracted it before the people at the moment of death — because otherwise, according to this folly, Saint Origen would be condemned, upon whom it is imposed as an impious heretic that he defended and left in writing that no one will be damned forever but only for a time. But the man who, without revelation, asserts that someone as devout and as holy as Origen was is damned is more foolish than a fool. Again, between the blessed Augustine and Jerome there was a disagreement concerning the faith of Scripture in Gal., namely whether Peter sinned by pretending to associate with the Gentiles; and although we do not have — except in legends — that either of them retracted the error he left in his epistle, it is nevertheless foolish to believe that either of them was on that account condemned. Again, thirdly, between the blessed Bernard and others who were opposed to him on this point, there was a dispute as to whether the blessed Virgin was conceived in original sin, as the legends vary even to this day. There is this same disagreement among the great sects.

English

And yet, although this touches the faith of Scripture more explicitly than does the remaining of bread after consecration, it is madness to say that on that account one of these sects is heretical and to be condemned. Since, therefore, the faith of Scripture together with uprightness of life is the evidence by which to judge topically, it is evident that it is foolish to assert this of anyone without revelation. And it is evident how bare that argument is for proving that the nature of bread does not remain in the consecrated host. And as for what is alleged concerning Saint Thomas — it is said by many that the pseudo-friars corrupted his writings for the most part after his death, because they contrived to be inquisitors of heretical wickedness for the sake of gain; therefore, in order to have more cunning snares for ensnaring simple people, whose goods they greedily covet, they sowed tares far too densely against the faith of Scripture. But blessed be the Lord, our kingdom has been freed from this inquisition of heretical wickedness, since many persons, both secular and religious, are far more subtle and competent to inquire into heretical wickedness in our kingdom or anywhere — especially in the matter of the Eucharist. Evidence of this is that they failed in this matter: first, regarding the vision of the body of Christ in the sacrament with the bodily eye; second, in the matter of impanation; but third, in the sign they failed all the more. Hence that scandal fabricated upon the writings of Saint Thomas was immediately — because in the time of the Subtle Doctor — fabricated dishonestly and destroyed. Therefore let no faithful person believe that all who are opposed to those positions attributed to Saint Thomas are defiled by heretical wickedness, since they have nonetheless received that holy and devout order, even though they have a Iscariot among them. I assume that Saint Thomas erred according to the form attributed to him, and I respond to the objections in order, lest the devout and learned of that order or others be occasionally led astray. Yet one thing I know: these leaden arrows never proceeded from the quiver of holiness. As for the first three-part solution, it is evident that it is rash and unproven. It is rash, I say, because it posits as an article of faith that neither bread nor wine remains after consecration — which is far too rash for many reasons. For this article has been declared by no article of the threefold faith of the church. What justification is there, then, that on account of one rash assertion the church should be burdened with a new article of faith?

English

Again, Holy Scripture and the ancient holy doctors, such as Ambrose, Augustine, and other authors of canons, regularly say that the consecrated host is bread and never say that it is an accident. What presumption of a heretic, therefore, would it be to solemnize this without authority as the catholic faith? Just as the decree of the Roman church in the time of Nicholas II decreed that bread and wine remain after consecration (as is shown above) and the decree of Ambrose, in the same place, fully agrees — in the passage beginning Omnia quaecunque — and in brief, however many passages posit that bread will be after consecration the body of the Lord: since, therefore, that decree was long before Innocent III (as is evident through the Cheshire author in Book VII), it appears that the church for a long time traveled by the flowers of faith without this fiction. For it is not evident that Pope Nicholas II and his entire church, together with the holy doctors who never knew or recalled this fiction but asserted its contrary as something self-evident — as is clear from the blessed Augustine cited above regarding accidents — were thus condemned. Accordingly it would be far too blind a rashness to charge these saints, together with the primitive church, with heresy. From which it appears furthermore that it should probably be supposed that the church in the time of Innocent III, speaking of transubstantiation in the decretal, spoke of it in the sense of the famous doctors which the primitive church employed. For Hugo appears to speak of the transubstantiation of bread in the sense in which Ambrose uses the word regarding the conversion of the body of Christ. But that transition, or that conversion, cannot be preserved except in the sense in which they concede that bread becomes, will be, and is the body of Christ — that is, after consecration it sacramentally figures the body of Christ.

English

For this is a greater miracle than the conversion mentioned under the old law, indeed greater than the conversion in which the substance of bread ceases — because in either case the body of Christ is equally truly and really present there; and beyond this, the inconveniences posed by the destruction of the bread are removed. A change, therefore, would be praiseworthy that posits so many and more goods and eliminates more evils. Nor do I know how otherwise to reconcile Innocent's decretal with the earlier decree. For it is not reasonable that the decretal should be unmindful of the prior decree, or that it should charge the earlier church with heresy without cause. Hence it is evident that it stands with this sense, that after this transubstantiation the transubstantiated bread remains — yet I doubt that the Avignonese church with its satellites would accept this meaning. But what concern is that, since the prior church that approved this was weightier, just as the person of Innocent III with more than a thousand prelates — even if not bishops but unlearned abbots — was weightier than the church of Gregory IX with the satellites of his sect? For from Gregory IX it is said that the five books of decretals derive a new authority, the prior authority being suppressed, just as Muhammad says that his law derives its authority from himself and not from the new or old law.

English

In this way, I say, the decretal epistles have been collected from many ancient editions of the decretals of the prior church, with the truer or displeasing parts left out and new or pleasing parts accepted; therefore it is a new work of equal authority with other papal epistles newly issued — for otherwise these last decretals would derive far greater authority from the multitude of prior popes than the Gospel does. For the first decretal epistle, according to them, is of equal authority with the Gospel; from which it seems to be a great sin to abrogate anything from it. Thus it appears that the books of decretals are likewise of equal authority with the bare epistles of the pope and cardinals, an authority which is exceeded by the synod held by Nicholas II. As for that three-part argument by which the incompetence of this position is urged: as to the first part, in which it is said that this position impedes the due veneration of this sacrament — it is evident that a false premise is assumed. Rather, it strives to destroy the idolatry by which far too many worship a mathematical body fictively posited as existing of itself as God, and thus it strives to destroy the erroneous worship offered to the sign and to gather all worship to Christ whom we by faith see present there. And as for the occasion of idolatry, it has been said above how the Subtle Doctor destroys this evidence down to its very foundation; for the people are just as prone to worship this sacrament, which by that way impossibly posits the body as belonging to the genus of quantity, as they are prone to worship that bread as the body of Christ — which, given the greater resemblance, would be less contrary to nature. And furthermore, by the fact that it is called bread, the people would by natural understanding be more inclined to recognize that it is not the body of Christ. For the adversaries faithlessly conceal the natural quiddity of the sacrament, so that the people do not know its distinction from the body of Christ — to such a degree that this sect is ashamed to disclose its own fiction.

English

Hence it would be more reasonable to suppose that the sacrament is nothing but a species or likeness of a thing, such as exists in a mirror or medium, than to posit such an insubstantial thing as bread without a subject — since the great doctor Augustine establishes philosophically that that three-dimensional extension cannot exist without a subject. By this position the false worship of idolatry would be effectively removed, by which a sign, or image, or accident — something worse than an image — is venerated as God; but grant that injury aside. As for the second objection, which says that the signification of the sacrament would thereby be removed, on the grounds that the species, by leading to knowledge of the true body of Christ, lack substance more than they signify it: one must, I say, recognize as a logician the defect of such an argument. For, as Saint Thomas says philosophically, the remaining accidents naturally signify the substance of the bread, as is evident from the case of human beings and animals who, by their natural signification, estimate real bread to be present; and without doubt, to the degree that the whole bread signifies itself, to that same degree those things called accidents that remain signify the nature of the bread, since bread has no way of signifying anything sensible except through them. And it is plain how naked and impossible this argument is: if the bread remained, it would signify the substance of the bread more than the body of Christ — as is evident from a tangible example: in the body with which scribes coat letters, the words and propositions remain as a body underlying the accidents that signify it. And yet through skill and other natural habits it signifies, far more principally and attentively, what was imposed for signification among those who understand letters, than the physical bodies themselves signify — to the point that the natural signification which a layman has from a cleric is suppressed. Much more would the habit of faith lead the faithful person to understand through the consecrated bread the true body of Christ. For thus the fathers under the old law believed, through the manna, through the paschal lamb, and through the rock flowing with water, the full humanity of Christ (as was touched on above from the testimony of Augustine); therefore much more would bread sanctified through the figurative words of Christ signify His body more expressly and principally than itself. The third evidence is drawn from the contrast between bodily food and this sacrament. For the food of the sacrament, it is said, would be purely spiritual and not bodily — which does not befit bread.

English

Here I marvel that, since that sacrament according to this sect is a body belonging to the genus of quantity and has dimensions and natural actions of nourishing and feeding, it would not be bodily food — since it is nothing other than something bodily and just as gross as any other bread to be consecrated. Do we really believe that the people could be so greatly deceived as to believe that all the good things adjacent to the priest are trans-accidents with the whole substance destroyed, and that thus the priests of Baal would live perpetually on something insubstantial without bodily food? It would truly be a similar delirium to say that the whole sacrament, which the Apostle says causes drunkenness and which experience teaches nourishes bodily, is food purely spiritual and not bodily. The pagans no doubt mock these foolish things by which the senses of the people are captivated. A priest, therefore, is just as ready to celebrate again with equal elements if he consumes an equal and equally virtuous quantity of accidents — or of unconsecrated bread or wine — as when consuming an equal quantity of consecrated bread and wine. Ordinarily, however, the priest does not receive this sacrament with the intention of gluttony or for the sake of bodily nourishment, even though that follows incidentally; and for this reason he is better disposed to celebrate after receiving the sacrament than he is ordinarily disposed to celebrate after consuming so much unconsecrated food. And it is plain that this way, on account of these three arguments, is not adequate; but its adequacy is evident from the holy doctors who declare that it was fitting on account of the mystical sense that the substance of bread and wine represents. It would therefore be heretical to extinguish that sense — just as it is foolish to believe that on account of the mere human ordinance of the church that the Eucharist be received after fasting (even though it was received more devoutly by Christ and His disciples after supper), an impossible law concerning accidents existing on their own is thereby introduced.

English

And the necessary law of nature concerning accidents is dissolved; for the natural law suffices for the law of men, provided that the fasting required by the church is observed. As for the claim about the impossibility and the characterization as heretical of this position, it is plain that it has been blurted out foolishly without evidence and has changed nothing. And as for the corollary that would introduce impossibility — namely, that it is impossible for something to be where it previously was not unless something else is converted into it or it itself is changed — it is plain that this principle has multiple flaws. First, regarding God, who at the beginning of the world was where He had never previously been, and yet He was not thereby changed, nor was anything converted into Him; and the same would apply to God creating a body outside this world, which the adversary says it is absolutely necessarily possible for God to do. And as for the second body, it is plain that this principle has many flaws. For, supposing (to argue ad hominem) that a thousand worlds are created outside this world, which is entirely at rest, it is plain that this earth will be newly in a thousand places without its pertinently moving or anything else being converted into it — just as logicians argue concerning a column that it will continuously be in a new place or new location, according to the fact that from the new generation of the place, of water, or of air, it will have a new circumscribing location. Again, if God can preserve an accident without a subject, much more — or equally — can He preserve any body whatsoever when any of its accidents are corrupted; and consequently God can preserve the body of a locally moved thing by annihilating or destroying its location or place and continuously creating a new one, and consequently any body can be newly somewhere after it was not there, without its being converted or participating in its own motion. For in this way God can have as many created lights from a new emission without His being moved. And if it is said (as this sect says) that God is continuously moved, speaking extensively of motion according to that passage of Wisdom 7, "Wisdom is more mobile than all things mobile," it would truly be said more evidently that the body of Christ is moved when it acquires new places through transubstantiation.

English

Furthermore, the greatest inconvenience to which this subjected position leads would be that the same body would move simultaneously to different places; but this way is compelled to concede this possibility. For, given six different priests, four of whom carry the consecrated host to four different positions, while the fifth elevates the host with his hands and the sixth depresses it, it is plain that the body of Christ is moved by that host to six different positions simultaneously and at once. For just as the soul is moved by the motion of the body, so also is the body of Christ moved by the consecrated host, because it is continuously and newly in different places without any conversion pertaining to this. For the first conversion of the Lord occurred before this was consumed, and therefore it does not presently bring it about that the body of Christ is not moved — because in that case the body of Christ could not be moved by the host. Nor does it avail to say that it does not have motion proper to itself, because this is not required; but it is possible — both because in this way it could be supposed as possible that the body of Christ, in heaven, would acquire different places with which it is thus moved incidentally like a soul, and also because the body, by God's omnipotence, can be through different distant places while nonetheless not being in any intermediate place, as is evident from many proofs. Furthermore, inquiry should be made about the begging of the term 'conversion' — used merely to exclude local motion — in the sense of a body acquiring a place; it is plain, I say, that this is not a philosophical term in that sense, since philosophers and the subtler theologians would deny every such conversion as a possibility. It is thus plain that the description of motion is begged; for there is no reason why bread and wine are converted into the body of Christ or His blood or any part of Him, rather than — by the same token — anything and everything being assignable. For it seems to many that, with all local motion or conversion of one thing into another removed, a body could acquire as many places as one likes and at other times lose them. Therefore the begged description seems inadequate. For if there were any number of places occupied by contiguous bodies entirely at rest, which are suddenly united by the soul of Peter actuating as many of them as one likes, then Peter would be in as many new places without his being moved to any of them or any conversion of anything else taking place.

English

For local motion is removed from Peter on both sides, and the same is granted concerning parts lost through discontinuation without local motion. And in the same way a devout philosopher would pertinently say that a body has intentional being through a medium, taking its species, just as it has spiritual being through the soul's consideration by the soul itself, without the body being moved to those places; so why could it not be the same regarding sacramental being, which the body of Christ has in the host by virtue given to the host, without the body of Christ being locally moved from there? Furthermore, according to the Subtle Doctor, Duns Scotus, and his sect, God could suddenly multiply the same body through as many places as one likes and at other times de-multiply it — which could not be the case unless the same body could acquire as many places as one likes without the motion or conversion required for this; therefore the description is not sound according to them. Now although this is an argument ad hominem and (as will be said later) proceeds from a false principle, it would nonetheless be grave and beyond the power of the first sect to characterize as heretical all those of the second sect on this account. For it is certainly established that if this is simply impossible as a matter of faith, then it is supremely heretical and contrary to all of sacred scripture, since every such thing could not be unless God and all Truth did not exist. And there is no doubt that one who relies on this principle to disprove that the substance of the bread remains endeavors to render impossible and thereby to characterize as heretical every position that posits bodily multiplication; and therefore, without doubt, one or the other of these two positions — the matter of the existence of accidents without a subject — is impossible and heretical: either the way of Augustine, which posits generally a distinction of quantity from its subject (as I have recited above), or the contrary way, which denies the distinction of quantity from its subject. Hence those who scandalously impute to Saint Thomas, in his commentary on the Third Book of the Sentences, that he stubbornly held the position that says Christ is a creature to be altogether impossible but not heretical, defame him remarkably — since they imply that he held something that is a matter of faith to be self-contradictory, and consequently not to be believed anywhere before his purgation; and so, by positing the possibility of a vacuum, he would not be believed, because then the earth, purely posited in the hollow of the sphere of the moon, could through the vacuum suddenly acquire the place of the earth while remaining continuously at rest, whether in relation to the heaven or to the earth, and then the acquisition of position would formally pertain to motion, or the acquisition of position would belong to the vacuum, or two immediate instants would exist, or an indivisible thing would be moved through the vacuum successively.

English

It is expedient for the faithful to avoid these fictitious and heretical tales, because it is certain that everything absolutely impossible is supremely heretical; and it is further certain that it is supremely impossible that quantity, quality, or any accident could exist without a subject. And as for alleging the opposite, it is said — as they lightly gloss the great Augustine when he says that quantity and quality cannot exist without a subject — that this means, they say, unless a miracle occurs. In the same way, I say, the testimonies they cite are true unless God wills the contrary. Nor are their authors of such weight and prudent eloquence that they surpass the authors of scripture or the primitive church in this. Nor does that pettiness directly oppose our position, when bread is converted into the body of Christ. As for the last charge imposed on the Saint — that the aforementioned position is heretical because contrary to sacred scripture, since then one would not say, "This is My body" but rather, "Here is My body" — I have often pondered whether some half-learned person could assert such naked foolishness, and I have finally come to believe that some one of the pseudo-brethren fabricated this madness against the Saint, because (as the Apostle says) there is danger from false brethren. For sacred scripture regularly states that this sacrament is bread, as the holy doctors who follow and the decree of the Roman church attest.

English

But the false gloss of the flatterers who have crept in has corrupted that position. For in the commentary on Book IV of the Sentences, distinction 11, it is imposed on St. Thomas — citing Damascene as saying: Because it is customary for men to eat bread and wine, Christ joined His deity to them and made them His body and His blood. And this saying is then glossed as follows: One must say, it states, that the word of Damascene is to be understood with respect to the species by which the body of Christ, joined to the deity, is conjoined in an ineffable manner. And this gloss has been so widely spread by the father of lies that it has corrupted the foremost doctors of the decrees, as is evident from the gloss on the additions, distinction 2, De Consecratione, the first part. It is therefore clear that this gloss contradicts itself, for in question 4 of the same distinction it objects by citing the blessed Ambrose, who says: what was bread before consecration is the body of Christ after consecration. This means, the gloss says, that what is under the species of bread was first bread and afterward the body of Christ — where it appears to be speaking of that thing before consecration whose very substance will afterward be the body of Christ. Yet this is utterly contrary to the same position, since at the end of that same question it says that nothing of the bread will ever be anything of the body of Christ. Who, then, would believe this gloss, which so manifestly infects itself?

English

Second, the dogmatizers of this sect object with the voice of Ambrose — rigid and robust but ignorant — in order to frighten the ignorant. This position, they say, is against the blessed Ambrose and the decree of the church, "The bread is on the altar." But let the faithful not fear these stern faces or rigid voices.

English

Summa, Question 75, article 2. Gloss on De Consecratione, distinction 2 (ed. Nic. Jenson) — this passage is not found there. Decretum, Third Part, distinction

English

2, chapter 55. "The bread is" — but let them attend to the position. For the blessed Ambrose says there, first by implication, that the bread is the body of Christ. But this sect says that this is impossible and heretical. Second, the blessed Ambrose says in that same decree that what was bread before consecration is now the body of Christ after consecration. This, says the gloss, is impossible and heretical — the opponents claim that quantity by itself signifies the body of Christ. Third, the glossators of this sect lay down as a rule that, generally speaking, when the saints treat this subject, the words "bread" and "wine" in their writings are to be understood as referring to their blessed quantity, and thus it is understood that this quantity will be the body of Christ — that is, it will be identified with the body of Christ insofar as it sacramentally signifies it.

English

And so they gloss the Apostle and the practice of the church in the canon of the Mass, when they pray that God would in manifold ways bless this offering, so that it may become for the church the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ — meaning, they say, that this quantity would be blessed and become the body of Christ and the blood in the sense explained, since bread and wine do not await that blessing but are entirely destroyed by virtue of the prior blessing, and the quantity remaining by itself takes their place through sacramental blessing, signification, and efficacious operation. I do not doubt that this gloss is heretical, unknown to the first holy doctors and to the church of Christ, until the glossators, magnifying the signs in which they place the foundation of their religion, crept in as those differing in themselves — for this reason the devil is believed to blind the people through them, so that they magnify the signs that are to be idolized more than the things signified. Descending further to the evidence by which this position would be proved heretical, contrary to holy Scripture, and therefore false, I considered by what means this argument holds, and I found none — unless one were to argue, as is glossed with an ironic contrary sense, from the fact that this sacramental proposition, "This is my body," is most truly, in a sacramental sense, convertive of bread into the body of Christ, and does even more miraculously than the sacraments of the old law in causing that bread to sacramentally figure the body of Christ. And thus it is truer and more fitting than would be: "Here is my body." Let the faithful or the faithless judge whether it follows from this that this position is heretical — manifestly, I say, the contrary is plain. But it is objected that this response implies that the expression "This is my body" is tropical, which is heretical, since it would then be false according to the literal force of the words. But those who argue thus foolishly, having forgotten the logic of argument and consequence, must be answered sharply according to their own foolishness, by denying their argument both in matter and in form. A tropical expression is most true, supremely catholic, and most miraculously convertive. Nor is there any ground from these considerations for concluding that any such manner of speaking — by analogy — entails that the quiddity or nature of bread and wine is destroyed, any more than if a sinner is converted to righteousness, his nature is therefore destroyed. Thus, I say, the nature of bread is improved by blessing, because after its bare natural being it receives a superadded sacramental being, so that it may effectively figure and produce the true body of Christ in every respect, and thus it truly, though tropically, receives the predication of the body.

English

But third, it is objected that the doctors understand holy Scripture, the holy doctors, and the canons of the church differently — claiming, for example, that the whole substance of bread and wine is entirely destroyed and only the accidents remain, of which alone the aforementioned authorities speak when they make mention of the sacrament of the altar, since otherwise such a tropical expression would be impossible and heretical. Here I hold firmly, as an article of faith, that both holy Scripture and the holy church understood by bread and wine the bodies themselves composed of matter and substantial form — not quantity by itself, nor quality, nor any other bundle of accidents. The sign of this is that holy Scripture and the holy doctors, before the baptizers of signs crept in and blinded the church, called those things bread and had not lost that sense. Ambrose also calls what remains bread on that account, using the customary term; Augustine also explains on that account how that bread is both bread and sacrament — bread, as in De Consecratione, distinction 2, "The bread is," and in the chapter "This is." And it is plain that it is lamentable for doctors to understand it thus. Therefore their dogma is to be guarded against, when they say that the Apostle in 1 Cor. 10, by "the bread which we break," understands this kind of accident, and likewise concerning that offering which we commemorate in the canon of the Mass, that it will be such a kind of accident — and so too regarding the gloss of the saints and the decree of the church. The sign of this is that all the said false writers blush to specify the species of accident in these instances; indeed, they see that it would be more fitting to say that bread and wine are the body of Christ and His blood, understood in the tropical sense.

English

XLVII. — than the fiction of an idol of accident. They also see from the text of Paul and of Luke, where on this same matter they say that the cup is the new testament, that everyone is obliged to concede that that proposition is figurative, without falsehood or heresy. Nor do they know how to uncover this ordering of the Holy Spirit without thereby acknowledging that other sacramental propositions are likewise figurative in their own ways. But finally it is argued that it follows from what has been said that all those who stubbornly defend the position against which the argument speaks would be heretics; and since for many ages the pope, doctors, and virtually the entire church, and especially the school of theologians and the chapters of religious orders, have constantly defended it as an article of faith (as is evident from the writings published on this matter), it follows that all those persons would be heretics — which would be a rash thing to maintain. Here it is said that there are many heretics: some known and some unknown; for all the foreknown are heretics, but some are heretics in act and others in habit, even though they may be in a state of grace according to present justice. Some also are heretics only for a time according to present justice, as the predestinate who are in mortal sin — and so with the many divisions together with their explanations which I presuppose here. But it is well known that it is possible for many men to hold a heretical position without thereby being heretics at that moment, because many hold many positions tentatively or conditionally, ready to revoke them when the contrary is taught; and it is certain that no such persons are heretics as such, because in that case the Common Doctor would have been a heretic far too frequently. Hence it appears that those who dogmatize and, with arguments that fail, defame the university in the vernacular on account of scholastic sayings and the positions of the saints, ought to be publicly punished; and this I would desire, since they are manifestly heretics unless they can prove what they are broadcasting, or that they did not receive academic standing at Oxford before they taught the heresy they impute to others; for it is of the nature of a heretical accusation that the accuser thereby binds himself to the penalty of retaliation, when he believes the Catholic contradictory of what he is attacking; and the same judgment applies to the entire chapter that consents to it.

English

Thus many saints passed over this article concerning the sacred accidents as contrary to the faith and not attempted by any petty scholars of their time, as is evident from the ancient holy doctors. And it seems that the Avignon church, in positing transubstantiation, does not thereby imply that the substance of bread is destroyed or corrupted; but rather, in conformity with the ancient decree of the Roman church, it permits the substance of bread to remain. Yet one thing I believe: that whoever stubbornly believes that the bread and wine do not remain in the consecrated host, but that it is a mass of sacred accidents without a subject, is manifestly a heretic who ought to be expelled from every university of the faithful. He also contradicts the faith which the great Augustine confessed together with the Roman church. Neither up to this day has any believer or unbeliever been able to declare this position of Augustine. The position, however, which is ascribed to St. Thomas is so weak and feeble that no one knows how to defend or prove it; and I believe that no more effective arguments will be produced for condemning the aforesaid position of Augustine than those recited in the name of the Common Doctor, which have been plainly refuted. For it does not accord with the faith of Christ either that a person be accused of heresy without cause or due order, or that one go to the curia to procure by falsehood the canonization of everything that St. Thomas wrote.

English

The first point is established because in this the sect of Mohammed differs from the sect of Christ: this pseudo-lawgiver commands his law to be defended not by reason but by the sword; but Christ commands Peter that His disciples ought to give a reason for their entire faith discretely, modestly, and peacefully. Iscariot, however, stirred up by the devil, took a cohort and officers of the chief priests, but under cover of darkness, to suppress the truth, as is evident from Joh. XVIII; but the pseudo-disciples of Iscariot, driven by the noonday demon, publicly incite the common people by sermons to destroy as heretics the simple disciples of truth. Nor is this surprising, because by the same spirit the brethren of their own order, as disciples of Robert, scheme more cunningly. As for the second point, it is evident that many heretical positions have been falsely attributed to the writings of St. Thomas; and it is evident that to approve in such a package the entire position of St. Thomas and to introduce equivocation of the whole gospel and of the Catholic faith would be to introduce the doctrines of Antichrist. For it is attributed to him, in the Secunda Secundae, question LXVII, article II, that he asserts that a judge ought to sentence according to what has been alleged and proved, even if he knows those things to be false and contrary to divine judgment — which is manifestly heretical, covering over Pilate's judgment against Christ. Therefore it would be the same thing to defend that position and to defend that on account of human traditions it is permissible, even while sinning, to act against God. Since, therefore, blessed Augustine and other holy doctors who knew more than a thousand such doctors never vindicated it —

English

Those who condemned what is believed of them if they assert this — therefore true — with what face would the friars who corrupt the writings of Thomas vindicate him if he himself so asserts — therefore true? For the Subtle Doctor, to whose speculations more credence is due than to his own, plainly exposes in many places the errors that he sows. Since, therefore, the aforesaid arguments are plainly refuted, it is easy to remove other arguments that might be made against the position of Augustine and of the Roman church. Therefore it does not follow: If Thomas asserts this, therefore this is to be preached to the people.

English

But setting aside that controversial matter, it remains to consider — as was touched on above — how a Christian ought to be disposed for administering and receiving this sacrament. For this would be the fruit of the scholastic treatment of this subject with respect to the dignity of those who confect and receive this sacrament. It is evident that one who receives it worthily must possess virtuous acts and virtuous habits, since the power of God and the wisdom of God must be ministered to His humanity throughout, in a pure manner according to habits and works. One who receives this sacrament worthily, I say, must possess the three theological virtues and a virtuous manner of life that imitates his head, Christ — a point which some understand from the words of the Apostle in 1 Cor. 5, where he teaches that we ought not to feast on the old leaven of the stain of sin, but on the unleavened bread of sincerity with respect to the virtues, which are the disposition for receiving the light of grace and of virtue and of the truth of life by which the faithful servant of Christ is shown in his works. And this is the full disposition for receiving the body of the Lord worthily. With respect to the theological virtues, one must above all possess holy faith concerning the humanity and divinity of Christ and concerning the things pertaining to this sacrament, because it is impossible for an unbeliever in these matters to please God by eating or drinking this sacrament as a memorial of Christ — since He Himself is the Truth who hates the duplicity of falsehood. Therefore the unbeliever, as such, turns the back of his mind to the Lord and displays to Him the weapons of sin most hateful to God, and turns himself treacherously and mockingly to the father of lies; and therefore such a person eats and drinks judgment upon himself, according to the Apostle. When dignity has been obtained from the foundation of faith, it is necessary that hope be raised up toward the Lord — almighty, all-knowing, and benevolent — who showed such great kindness to us ungrateful ones by suffering, dying, ascending, and bestowing that sacrament as a memorial of these and other wonders. Hence Augustine, Enchiridion 53: Whatever was done in the cross of Christ, His burial, His resurrection on the third day, His ascension into heaven, and His sitting at the right hand of the Father — all of this was done so that, by these things not only mystically spoken but also actually accomplished, the Christian life which is lived here might be conformed to them.

English

For on account of His cross it is said: Those who belong to Christ have crucified their flesh with its vices and lusts. On account of His burial: For we are buried together with Christ through baptism into death. On account of the resurrection: Just as Christ rose from the dead through the glory of the Father, so also we may walk in newness of life. On account of the ascension into heaven and the sitting at —

English

At the right hand of the Father: If you have been raised with Christ, set your minds on the things that are above, not on the things that are upon the earth; for you are dead and your life is hidden with Christ in God. See how this holy man connects, from the faith of Scripture, this fivefold figure of ours and the thing accomplished to our doctrinal formation in conduct.

English

For one who wishes to receive the sacrament worthily ought to have peace with his brother and, by consequence, with God; indeed, according to the greatest sign of charity, attention ought to be directed through this sacrament to laying down both body and soul for friends, as was said above through Augustine. From this it follows that God placed the sacrament of this matter in those natures that are reduced to one single thing. For it is necessary that the one who receives this host worthily and simply be one originated by predestination, being spiritually generated in the manner of a grain of wheat which, falling into the earth, died and bore much fruit — as is said in Joh. 12 and Col. 3. Nor is this predestination sufficient unless the grain, with the bran cast off, be ground and crushed before God — which grace causally precedes the one who merits it. For the predestinate must, after the first grace, merit the second grace by labor in the present moment; and so in the same moment, after this disposition, there is required thirdly that cooperating grace bring him to the form of bread fit to be eaten as food — so that in this third sign of nature, man, from the twofold prior grace, may begin to work meritoriously; and this grace, which incorporates meritoriously from the person's meritorious work, disposes him toward a greater grace. And fourthly it is necessary that the person to be saved receive the form of bread, which, placed in the furnace of tribulation, receives by the heat of the charity that he has toward God the sweetness of consummated grace — and thus through the fire of charity he will finally be incorporated into the circle of the living bread, and that word of the Apostle in 1 Cor. will be verified.

English

10: Because we, though many, are one bread and one body — for we all partake of the one bread and of the one cup. And thus they understand this of the threefold grace: namely, prevenient grace with respect to the passion to be merited; for to suffer and to receive precedes, for us by nature, meritorious action, for which cooperating grace is required. And thirdly, after the grace of predestination, perfecting grace is required for the generation and continuation of the spiritual life. For true life requires that warm, formative grace be given to us; hence it is an infallible sign that we eat this bread unworthily when, among all peoples, we contend more fiercely for temporal things, and when, as the charity of many grows cold from the overwhelming coldness of temporal concerns that preoccupy the mind, we grow spiritually impoverished and increasingly despise the following of Christ — spending our time and study on the greedy acquisition, improvident dispensation, and miserly retention of temporal goods. So it is that, where we priests ought according to the rule of Christ to hold all things in common, one who eats this bread is hungry and another is drunk. And among all priests, those of higher rank who more effectively imitate the footsteps of Christ perform this office more contemptuously, because they celebrate or hear their Masses in a manner more unlike Christ — to such a degree that just as perjurers, to their own loss, take and name the name of God, so also these men make memorial of the sacrament of the Eucharist of the life of Christ; and therefore it would be more tolerable and less harmful to them and to the people if they did not make such a false memorial of the Savior.

English

And so, where temporal lords take great care to hire such men so as to have worthy and assiduous intercessors, they in fact have their foremost traitors. Nor is this surprising, because by dissolving the original order contrary to the law of Christ and the rationale of priestly ministry, they burden these men and render them incapable of fulfilling their ministry. Therefore reason must contend against both such insolent members of the church. For this sacrament would signify that all who receive it worthily are prepared to die with joy for Christ and for the cause of the law of Christ; but we neglect those things that are marked and sealed. To the signs, however, that savor of pride we attend too eagerly, like an adulterous generation; so much so that the superior persons of the church are so blinded by these sensible signs that they worship — more damnably than Samaritans and pagans — what they do not know, as Christ says in Joh. IV. Are we to believe what the chapter states?

English

Joh. IV: when all the imperial prelates are assembled, do they all know what the consecrated host is? And when the intellect errs, the affections must necessarily err as well, since the blindness of the eye causes the one who walks to stumble. Since, therefore, we receive this sacrament by the grace of grateful remembrance of the Lord, it is evident that we eat and drink it to our own condemnation, because we remain so ungrateful to the Lord after so solemn a memorial. Whence the decree of Augustine set forth in the Consecration, distinction II, speaks thus: Because we have been freed by the death of Christ, being mindful of this thing by eating His flesh and drinking His blood, which were offered for us, we mark ourselves as more deeply obligated. And it is evident how faith, hope, and charity are necessary for the celebrant — but today this ordering is too badly perverted for us, in that faith is fixed upon the sign, hope upon the world, and charity upon the lowest thing. For we place more faith in the sign of this sacrament and in the faithless circumstances of the signs than even the adulterous generation of the Pharisees did, since our solicitude, our disputation, and our religion all center on the observance of those signs. As for hope, it is evident that we place it in the possession of temporal things, in the confederation of friends, and in the perseverance of worldly prosperity.

English

And as for charity, it is evident that it follows in the same transformation as its two elder sisters: for those brethren whom we elevate to the filth of the world and the honor of the age, we pretend to love with charity; and that sex which we seek to corrupt with the allurements of the flesh, we pretend to love. And as for the love of God, that person is pretended to love God more who aspires to live at a higher station, because — as they say — it is more like God. And it is certain that each of these is hatred.

English

As for the second point — namely, the virtuous life of conformity to the conversation of Jesus Christ — it is clear from what has been said that for the sake of this the sacrament is instituted by grace. Hence those who pass over this figurative meaning celebrate it in vain. This imitation of conduct is prefigured for us in Exod. XII, where it is commanded that in the eating of the paschal lamb these things are to be observed, as Gregory expounds in the Homilies on the Gospels, Homily XII: What, he says, the blood of the lamb is, you have learned now not by hearing but by drinking it — the blood that is placed upon both doorposts — when it is received or drawn in not only with the mouth of the body but also with the mouth of the heart. For the blood of the lamb is placed upon both doorposts when the sacrament of His passion is taken with the mouth for redemption, and is also contemplated with an attentive mind for imitation. For he who receives the blood of his Redeemer in such a way that he is not yet willing to imitate His passion has placed the blood on only one doorpost, whereas it must also be placed on the lintels of the houses. For what do we take as our houses spiritually, if not our minds, in which we dwell through thought? The lintel of such a house is the intention itself, which stands above the action. He, therefore, who directs the intention of his thought toward the imitation of the Lord's passion places the blood of the lamb on the lintel of the house. Or indeed, our houses are our hearts themselves, in which we dwell as long as we live, and upon the lintel of which we place the blood of the lamb, because we rightly bear the cross of His passion.

English

On this topic, from Gregory's Homilies on the Gospels, Book II, Homily XXII, it is further added concerning the lamb: And they shall eat its flesh that night, roasted with fire. At night, indeed, we eat the lamb, because in the sacrament we now receive the body of the Lord, when we do not yet see one another's consciences. Yet this flesh must be roasted with fire, because without doubt water dissolves the flesh it has cooked, whereas fire without water, in cooking, strengthens it. The flesh of our lamb, then, was cooked by fire, because the very force of His passion rendered it stronger for the resurrection and strengthened it unto incorruption. For the flesh of Him who recovered from death was hardened by fire. Whence also through the Psalmist He says: My strength has dried up like a potsherd — for what is a potsherd before the fire, but soft clay?

English

But when it is treated by fire so as to be hardened, the strength of His humanity therefore dried up like a potsherd, because it grew from the fire of the passion to the virtue of incorruption. But the sacraments of our Redeemer alone, once received, are not sufficient for the true solemnity of the mind unless good works are also joined to them. For what does it profit to receive His body and blood with the mouth and to act contrary to them through perverse conduct? Wherefore it is well added, concerning the eating: And unleavened bread with bitter herbs. He indeed eats unleavened bread who performs right works without the corruption of vainglory, who fulfills the commands of mercy without the admixture of sin, so as not to perversely squander what he, as it were, rightly dispenses. This leaven of sin, however, has contaminated good actions, those people to whom the Lord through the rebuke of the prophetic voice adds concerning the lamb:

English

He sacrifices praise from leavened bread who prepares a sacrifice to God from plunder.

English

The wild lettuces are indeed very bitter. But the flesh of the lamb is to be eaten with wild lettuces, so that when we receive the body of our Redeemer, we afflict ourselves with weeping for our sins, in order that the very bitterness of repentance may cleanse from the stomach of the mind the corrupt humor of life. And it is further added: You shall not eat of it anything raw, nor boiled in water. Behold, the very words of the narrative now drive us away from a merely historical understanding. Did that people of Israel, when settled in Egypt, customarily eat the lamb raw, that the law should say to them, you shall not eat of it anything raw? And it is further added: Nor boiled in water. But what does water signify, if not human wisdom, according to what is said through Solomon in the voice of heretics: Stolen waters are sweeter. And what is the raw flesh of the lamb, if not the humanity of Christ left to thoughtless and irreverent contemplation?

English

For everything we think about carefully we cook, as it were, in the mind. But the flesh of the lamb is to be eaten neither raw nor boiled in water, because our Redeemer is to be regarded neither as a mere man nor to be contemplated through human wisdom as to how God could become incarnate. For everyone who believes our Redeemer to be a mere man — what does he do but eat the raw flesh of the lamb, which he refused to cook through understanding of His divinity? And everyone who attempts to examine the mysteries of His incarnation according to human wisdom attempts to cook the flesh of the lamb in water.

English

— that is, he wishes to penetrate the mystery of His dispensation through dissolute learning. Therefore, whoever desires to celebrate the solemnity of the Paschal joy should neither boil the lamb in water nor eat it raw — so that he neither seeks to penetrate the depth of His incarnation through human wisdom, nor believes Him to be a mere man — but should eat the flesh roasted by fire, so that he may know that all things are dispensed through the power of the Holy Spirit. Concerning which it is rightly further added: You shall devour the head together with the feet and the entrails, because our Redeemer is the Alpha — that is, God before the ages — and man at the end of the ages. And as we have already said, brothers, we have learned, as Paul attests, that the head of Christ is God; therefore to devour the head of the lamb is to receive the faith of His divinity, while to devour the feet of the lamb is to seek out eagerly and by imitation the footsteps of His humanity. And what are the entrails, if not the hidden and mystical commandments of His words? These we devour when we receive the words of life with eagerness. And in the very word of devouring, what else is revealed but the sluggishness of our sloth — we who do not seek out His words and mysteries for ourselves, but hear things spoken by others reluctantly? Nothing of it shall remain until morning, because His sayings must be examined with great diligence, so that before the day of resurrection appears, all His commandments may be penetrated by understanding and by doing them in this night of the present life.

English

But because it is very difficult for all sacred eloquence to be understood and all its mystery to be penetrated, it is rightly further added: Whatever remains of it, you shall burn with fire. What remains of the lamb we burn with fire when that which we cannot understand and penetrate of the mystery of His incarnation we humbly commit to the power of the Holy Spirit, so that no one may presumptuously dare either to despise or to denounce what he does not understand, but may commit it to the fire when he reserves it for the Holy Spirit. Since, therefore, we have come to know how the Passover is to be eaten, let us now come to know by whom it ought to be eaten. There follows: And this is how you shall eat it: you shall gird your loins. And what is signified by the loins, if not the pleasure of the flesh?

English

Hence the Psalmist also prays, saying: Burn my loins. For if he had not known that pleasure resided in the loins, he would never have asked that they be burned. And because the power of the devil has prevailed most of all over the human race through lust, it is said of him in the Lord's words: His power is in his loins. Therefore, whoever eats the Passover ought to have his loins girded, so that whoever celebrates the solemnity of resurrection and incorruption may not be subject to corruption through any vices, may subdue pleasures, and may restrain the flesh from lust. For he has not come to know what the solemnity of incorruption is who is still subject to corruption through incontinence. These things seem hard to some, but narrow is the way that leads to heaven, and we have now had many examples of those who practiced continence. And it is still further added: You shall have sandals on your feet. For what are our feet, if not our works?

English

For what are sandals but the hides of dead animals? And sandals protect the feet. For what pleasure of corruption tames the works of the flesh, if not the feet? Exod. 12, Psalm. 25, Job 40, Gregory.

English

What indeed are the dead animals whose hides protect our feet, if not the ancient fathers who preceded us to the eternal homeland? When we behold their examples, we protect the feet of our own conduct. To wear sandals on the feet, then, is to contemplate the life of the dead and to keep our footsteps guarded from the wound of sin. Holding staffs in our hands.

English

For what does the law signify by the staff if not pastoral oversight? And it is to be noted that we are first commanded to gird our loins and only afterward to take up staffs, because those who are to assume pastoral care must already know how to subdue by their own body the dissolute impulses of lust, so that when they preach strong things to others, they themselves do not succumb to soft desires and pleasures. And fittingly it is added: And you shall eat it in haste. Take note, brothers, take note of what is said: eating in haste. Come to know the commandments of God, the mysteries of the Redeemer, and the joys of the heavenly homeland with haste, and take care to fulfill the precepts of life with haste. For we know that it is permitted to do good today; whether it will be permitted tomorrow we do not know. Eat the Passover in haste — that is, press forward eagerly toward the solemnity of the heavenly homeland. Let no one grow sluggish on the journey of this life, lest he lose his place in that homeland.

English

Let no one spin out delays in the pursuit of his studies, but let him bring to completion what he has begun, lest he be wholly unable to fulfill what he undertakes. If we are not sluggish in our love of God, He Himself whom we love aids us. Thus the entire disposition of a person for eating the host rests in sincere and grateful love of Christ and consists in love of God. Sincere love, I say, is when the love of God is preeminent and the love of any creature whatsoever is subordinated to Him in proper order. For whoever loves anything more than God is ungrateful to the Lord and consequently unworthy of Him.

English

Yet all of us profess this love, but far too falsely; and this can be discerned from the fact that we priests, from the highest to the lowest, immediately after Mass, out of pride, carnality, or similar vices, abandon Christ's service, cast aside His law, His counsels, and His manner of life with contempt. Who among us, I ask — not only after Mass but even during Mass — strives to serve the world or a man no more than the Author? Our inclinations, preoccupations, and actions bear witness to this, since not only could we most easily offend the truth for bodily pleasures or personal advantage, but in fact we do so: to say nothing of graver crimes, who among us is not so weak that, out of carnal affection or love of money, he would bear testimony against the truth, or blurt out an assertion of judgment before he has examined the truth according to God's rules, or — in a third case — where he could advance the honor of God and be of use to the church, he foolishly keeps silent about the truth? And the cause of all these things is the overweighing love of earthly things. Such a person receives the body of Christ and the blood of Jesus Christ unworthily; and were this not so, the priests of Christ would not be occupied with secular business, they would not aspire to temporal things, but the poor life of Christ would be pleasing to them; nor, by abandoning what is certain and better, would they blurt out words and works that are less useful. It would be well for that priest who knew how to keep himself free from this threefold stain. For it is necessary that, out of love for Christ whom he eats, he govern his intellect, because otherwise this meal, which is ordained as a medicine, would be poisonous both to the one who receives it and to the whole church — how much more so if the noonday demon has been mingled into the ministry of the priests?

English

It would indeed be beneficial for the church not to have almoners endowed in this way as celebrants, nor hypocrites who betray the truth, praying thus upon the false foundation of religion and the fiction of falsehood, but rather those who trust more in the evangelization of Christ than in their own just works. For then they would worthily eat the body of Christ and drink His blood — they who belong to the heavens — once every priest who lives among us as a celebrant has been removed. Indeed, the body of Christ and His blood would be more efficaciously and more truly present here with us, both in our body and in our soul. But an objection is raised, first from the fact that not only in the readings and services of this feast are the accidents asserted to exist without a subject, but the decretal in Book III also appears to assert this expressly, as is evident in the chapter Cum Marthe On the Celebration of Masses, and in the Clementines the chapter on this feast says many similar things. Therefore, to deny that this can occur would be to contradict the decrees and the gloss of the church, and, still worse, it would be to contradict the divine power blasphemously. As for the legends, it is clear that they are not only collected from apocryphal sources but are frequently outright falsehoods. Hence Augustine, in the first book of On the Sermon of the Lord on the Mount, explaining how Peter and Paul excommunicated people out of love, as is evident in Acts 5, concerning Ananias and Sapphira, and in 1 Cor.

English

— fifth, whom Paul delivered to Satan, that his spirit might be saved: nay rather, in those very books to which the adversaries attribute great authority. They should note, he says, what we say where it is written that the apostle was corrected by God. Decretals of Gregory, book III, title XLI. On the Celebration of Masses, chapter.

English

VI. Augustine, On the Sermon of the Lord on the Mount, book, chapter XX, Works, vol. III, at K14. He relates that Thomas had cursed someone, for which he had been struck on the palm with the most dreadful punishment of death; yet Augustine commends his soul that it might be spared in the age to come — and that after a lion had killed the man and torn apart the rest of the body, a dog brought the severed hand to the table of the guests at whose banquet the Apostle was dining. Of this scripture, he says, we are permitted not to believe it, for it is not in the Catholic canon. From this testimony of Augustine it is clear that all such things, even if true, that lie outside the faith of scripture, a faithful person is not required to believe explicitly; much less is anyone in any way required to believe legends that say the accident of the sacrament of the altar exists without a subject, since those legends are contrary to the holy doctors and to reason.

English

Decretals. As for the Decretals, it seems, first, from the said authority of Augustine, that one is not required to believe them, since they are not in the Catholic canon; but (as I have often glossed) it can reasonably be said that by the accidents of bread and wine, bread and wine are understood — just as the church often understands by signs the things signified. Therefore, just as sacred scripture, the holy doctors, and the laws of the church call those things which we call accidents bread and wine, so we, in imitation of them, call those things bread and wine; nor do they have authority or evidence to attack the naming of our baptism any more than the reverse. Nor can they prove that in the meantime there is a miraculous change any more than there was in the time of those authors. But with greater authority or evidence it was permissible for those authors to call that bread and wine the accidents of quantity with a qualifying name. And there is no doubt that the Apostle called that thing bread in 1 Cor. 11, just as scripture generally and blessed Ambrose do, as is clear concerning consecration, distinction II, chapter 3, and so throughout scripture. Third Part of the Decretum, On Consecration, distinction II, chapter.

English

LV. "It is bread," and Augustine in the same distinction, "This is," and in Sermon XXVI (as I have often cited); and with equal evidence as that by which the glossators gloss those texts to mean that by bread and wine they understand not substance but accidents, we in turn counter-gloss them to mean that by accidents they do not understand any things belonging to the nine genera of accident — for no one knows what such things would be — but rather they understand by accidents the substance of bread and wine and not accident, because (as Augustine, being himself a Catholic, attests) no accident is able to exist by itself. Nor does it seem that the church ought to be burdened to believe on faith the testimony of those men, since every day those miracles occur which Augustine says cannot happen — just as in the time of Augustine the Holy Spirit was unwilling to burden the church with His own words in scripture or those of anyone else besides the authors of scripture as Catholic faith (as that holy man often attests); how then should it be burdened, against the sayings of the saints and against reason, to believe that an accident exists there without a subject? Nor does this contradict divine power, any more than the Apostle contradicted it in 2 Tim. 2:13, when he asserted: God is faithful; He cannot deny Himself. What obstacle is there, then, in the fact that length, breadth, and depth of material substance (as Augustine attests) cannot exist by themselves? God has established however many laws of nature whose opposites imply contradiction — which God cannot bring about, since He would then be contrary to Himself — such as the law concerning the impossibility of substance without accident; and likewise the impossibility of the identification of genera, species, and differences. Third Part of the Decretum, On Consecration, distinction.

English

II, chapter XLVIII and LXIII, in the treatise on chapter VI of John. Rom. III; 2 Tim. 2:13.

English

Therefore, those who babble such dreams ought first to see in how many ways the saints and philosophers speak about the description and distinction of substance and accident. For many speak about signs of this kind without understanding, and many in a Jewish manner fabricate corrupted arguments — as when they allege as the foundation of their transubstantiation that text of Matth. 6, "Give us today our supersubstantial bread"; but these men are no less deluded than the false reporters of Christ who, in place of that saying of John 2: "Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up," said: "He said, I am able to destroy the temple of God and after three days to rebuild it" (Matth. 26:61). For that supersubstantial bread and its transubstantiation differ far more than do "destroy" and "demolish," or "raise up" and "rebuild." Painters, moreover, call colors liquid bodies which they spread over solid bodies, which are thereby to be colored. And in the same way the decretal appears to speak crudely about accidents, calling a heavy, liquid, intoxicating, generative substance of wine — which mingles with wine or water after consecration — an accident; which others specify as quantity, which they call the triple dimension, and which may be an empty notion.

English

Such a quantity would be equally active as wine, whether it existed per se or in a subject. But philosophers do not speak of quantity as belonging to the genus of active things by reason of the active quality that it underlies — just as primary qualities do not perform the actions of the secondary quality that they cause — nor can quantity, according to Augustine's definition, thus vary per se; nor did the earlier saints ever conceive of that imperceptible daily miracle; on the contrary, it is rather called an irrational cruelty of God to sanctify accidents per se by destroying the underlying substance. And so, as regards all those who allege the contrary, there is a threefold solution. The first is that the opponents are gross fools who understand by "accidents" those very substances — which sacred Scripture and the holy doctors understood by "bread" and "wine." The second solution is that they understand that an accident exists there without its subject in its primary genus, for the body of Christ is there more principally than bread or wine; and to that body, with the consideration of signs suspended, chief attention is to be paid. The third solution is that all adversaries of the truth understand an accident to exist without a subject conditionally — if God should will it. And that condition the adversary must understand, whether he will or not, as blessed James teaches.

English

Nor does their saying have any more efficacious testimony than this: for even if by the impossible God could do so, it would still not be said on that account that it is so in fact. Nor would that gloss of the holy Apostle displease them, since Augustine is glossed in his saying to the greatest heretic in this manner, when he says that the Son of God could have produced another Son inwardly. He says: No — not that He could not, but that it was not fitting; that is, He could, if He had willed it; and thus we contradict this divine power no more than the saints of the primitive church do. Second, objection is made against what was said about fragility indisposing a person to celebrate this venerable sacrament. No one, I say, receives this venerable sacrament who is not infinitely fragile and who, if placed in adoption, would choose a temporal good before virtue; it is therefore sufficient that a person not be actually stained with mortal sin, although it is necessary that he wash his feet (as is said, Joh. 13). There is much to be said here; for some things indispose a person simply, and some in a qualified sense — such as communicating with unbelievers in the sacrament of the altar; for mortal sin or infidelity in the foreknown indisposes him simply, and venial sins indispose in a qualified sense. Hence, because each of us ought to presuppose that he is predestined, he ought to suppose that this sacrament will profit him; and even if he is indisposed in a qualified sense by venial sin, he is nevertheless simply disposed by the grace of predestination and by the threefold consequent grace (as was noted at the beginning of this sixth chapter). I speak, moreover, of venial sin as elsewhere; without knowledge of which it is vain to dispute this matter; and thus no one is infinitely fragile, since the measure here is not how quickly or easily a person could sin.

English

But many, if placed in adoption, would choose virtue with vice set aside; and so the mere absence of actual mortal sin does not suffice, since a bad habit indisposes a person too greatly for the worship of this sacrament. Therefore there are three things that dispose one: namely, love of Christ, peace with one's neighbor, and actual devotion; these three are expressed in the great discourse of Christ after the giving of this sacrament, Joh. 13 through chapter 18. Regarding love of Christ and peace with one's neighbor, He says, Joh. 13:34: "A new commandment I give to you: that you love one another, as I have loved you." And because that love is convertible with love and peace toward one's neighbor, He therefore expounds this love in chapter 14: "If," He says, "you love Me, keep My commandments." And it follows: "Peace I leave with you, My peace I give to you"; where He undoubtedly gives the tenderest teaching for the worship of this sacrament — which He had given to the apostles a little before — namely that the worshiper of this sacrament must be rooted and grounded in charity, so that he habitually loves God above all things and all things in ordered relation to Him. Hence one who, by the sin of envy, the sin of avarice, or of the flesh, proposes to love creatures in a disordered way is too greatly indisposed; for the worship of the Eucharist is harmful to such a person and does injury to every creature. Hence, the sign of complete purity in the observance of this sacrament is believed to be that Christ, after His ministry, most humbly washed the feet of His disciples — which signifies the cleanness of affections. Hence Augustine, Homily 56, says that however clean a person may have been by baptism, yet when one afterward lives amid human affairs, the earth is trodden underfoot with defiled feet. "These human affections themselves," he says, "without which one cannot live in this mortal state, are as it were the feet by which we are affected by human affairs; and thus we are so affected that if we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us."

English

Therefore we ought to wash the feet of the mind daily, when we pray: "Forgive us our debts." He therefore who is wholly clean according to the higher parts of the soul, lacking mortal transgression, still needs to wash his feet — since only the blessed, without spot or wrinkle, who do not tread this earth of pilgrims but inhabit the land of the living, have simply washed their feet, as it is said, Cant. 5. The use of the Eucharist is therefore of value for commemorating the deeds of Christ, so that He may be more efficaciously imitated, such that whoever celebrates Mass

English

anoints the body of Christ devoutly with the oil of devotion, as did Mary Magdalene. Hence Christ says pointedly, Matth. 26, against the imitators of Iscariot who murmur again against the devout whom they call papelards or hypocrites, saying that they could more usefully benefit the poor: "Why," He says, "do you trouble this woman? For she has performed a good work toward Me." And it follows: "Amen I say to you, wherever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, what she has done shall also be spoken of in memory of her." Whoever, I say, thus anoints the Lord in the sacrament of the altar. Nothing ought to be more celebrated before the world as regards our acts than that this ought to make an imitative memorial of Jesus Christ; for to relieve the poor is a work inferior to the aforementioned, and for that there is always opportunity of time as long as one lives here.

English

But the time must be seized for celebrating in such a singular manner, because it is only when there is grief for preceding ingratitude and devotion for worshiping the body of Christ who thus suffered, died, and was buried for us. And this is the reason why our writers say that the intention of consecrating is required; the devout intention is required, I say, for commemorating the Savior sacramentally in this way — so that if it is lacking, it is a mockery of Christ and a contemptuous pouring of fetid humor upon Christ. The body of Christ, worthily eaten, therefore avails for the living and the dead, so that the penalty due for sins may be remitted, so that the living may merit more abundantly by devotion, and so that the holy purpose of meriting and consequently that grace may be held more firmly and perseveringly; and thus in both cases faults are removed — both venial and mortal — by occasion of this sacrament. Second, graces are given per se for guarding against evil and cleaving to good; and third, the good of perseverance is given for fleeing the evil of ingratitude and finally embracing the good of virtue; and unworthy reception does entirely the opposite. It seems, moreover, that one burdened even with mortal sin can occasionally come to grieve for his crime, and — with the holy and devout purpose of making this memorial of Christ in the celebration of the sacrament — the contrite soul may more swiftly and attentively serve its God. For this sacrament can occasionally remove both venial and mortal sin, and thus take away penalties and introduce graces and virtues — not because it has grace formally in itself or the intrinsic efficacy of virtues, but it is the occasion and object of the soul so that, by commemorating the deeds of Christ through His more efficacious influence, it may more abundantly acquire acts and habits of virtue; such that every virtue of this sacrament must proceed first from God, second from the person, and third by way of the objective occasion from the sacrament — just as bodily health comes first from God commonly influencing, second from the governing virtue of the soul, and third objectively and in some manner effectively from bodily medicine: so it is in some manner with the reception of the sacrament.

English

For just as bodily medicine is of no benefit if the soul's healing power is absent, so it is with the reception of the sacrament. Hence, just as medicine is of no benefit to a stone, to a swollen flux, or to a member that is dry and lame through lack of heat and assimilative power, so one must think proportionally of sacramental medicine with respect to the unbeliever, who is like a stone; with respect to the wanton and proud person, who is like a body that is bloated and gorged; and with respect to the worldly person who has been dried out by devotion to avarice and is destitute of the heat of heavenly fire, being killed by the cold of earthly things. And would that those who are excessively devoted to this sacrament, venerating it as a sign along with relics of saints and pilgrimages for indulgences, would clearly attend to this teaching; for then they would weigh most carefully the insensible thing signified, and whatever sensible sign they venerate they would regard proportionally, as it lifts the mind toward God and toward devout attention to invisible things. Let the prudent theologian who is willing to suffer reproach and be killed for the truth of the faith and for the correction of error in the church publish the faithful conclusions that follow from this principle of faith. As for how much God effectively aids a worshipper on account of such inanimate signs, it is not for us to determine; but I believe that He crowns proportionally, as it pleases God, the dignity of a person or that person's merit, and so His own gift. And the doctors should have examined this teaching before so greatly troubling the church on the question of how this sacrament, in comparison with the rest, takes away sins and gives grace to both the living and the dead; for this leads us to understand that the persons themselves are worthy of divine suffrage, and also that we may learn that there is no other name under the divine majesty except Christ by which we must be saved, and that the Father Himself, with whom there is no respect of persons, wills to save every people that trusts in Him and adds works of merit. Frailty, therefore, disposes a person adversely, but not of itself; rather, it is disordered affection that does so, just as nothing of itself disposes a person toward blessedness except God efficaciously and virtue formally; but other things help accidentally, insofar as they promote these ends. In the third place, the objection is raised, on the basis of the foregoing, that according to what has been said, all who persistently dogmatize that this sacrament is impossible are expressly heretics, and all heretics are to be avoided.

English

Acts 4, Colossians 3 — they are to be avoided and finally to be killed. Therefore that entire sect, the school of the Eucharist, is to be chastised in such a way that, were it done, it would cause far too great a disturbance in the church. Here this teaching appears to be moderate and worthy of note as Catholic; for the faith of Christ teaches the Catholic to attend more to what is nourishing and edifying for the salvation of the soul than of the body. Otherwise such a person would be worse than an unbeliever. But a cook who prepares poison for his lord, or who in another way betrays him or his realm, ought, once this is known, to be treated as a traitor; therefore, far more severely ought betrayers of the soul to be treated. For prelates and clergy are not merely cooks for the king and realm but mediators between God and the people, faithfully offering the oblations of the faithful people; and if they fail in this, where is there a greater betrayal? It is said, moreover, that those among us who are rich in the world's goods betray both themselves and the common people when they appoint such parish priests to mediate between God and the people — men who are most remote from the manner of life of Christ, most blinded to evangelical truth, and most unlike the apostles in their conduct. How, I ask, would not such men and all who agree with them prepare poisonous food for their subjects, treacherously incur vengeance before God, and hinder those who wish to follow Christ by the narrow way?

English

It would indeed be shameful that our bishops should be scandalized by this — that they know well the forms of gold coins and silver but are generally ignorant of the quiddity of the sacrament of the altar — since they handle the figures of money as if from a book, and through this sacrament, which infinitely surpasses the temporal endowment of their bishopric, they purchase, while wisdom hates ignorance, the kingdom of heaven. Hence it would be a mark of very great unfaithfulness in them that they should know the form of a coin and its quiddity but be entirely ignorant of the form and quiddity of this host. For what would more greatly scandalize a prelate than that he takes diligent care of the character of a seal or a charter and takes no care of the quiddity of the consecrated host? From these things it is gathered, first, that those who, out of such ignorance, unfairly accuse the prelates of the church are themselves to be blamed. Second, that those religious prelates who in their chapters accuse especially their brethren, because they preach in the vernacular that the sacrament of the altar is neither the body of Christ nor the blood, but His efficacious sign — such prelates, as faithless heretics, disqualify themselves from any endowments of the king and other subsidies of our realm. And third, it is believed that the bishops keenly prosecute those who dogmatize errors in this matter, since they have urgently persecuted those who preach the gospel that temporal lords ought to relieve them of their temporalities in the event that their blind judgment is harmful in every respect. For he who sets a false and fetid sign of worldly prosperity above the true and venerable sign of the body of the Lord Jesus Christ is not only unworthy to hold estates but also to be a dweller in our land. Therefore, fearing this severe persecution, I have publicly protested that I desire to be humbly corrected by all persons, and especially by the bishops who shall have taught the truth in this matter. But I wish to seek a sign on the basis of which I can faithfully trust what they assert.

English

Now all the usages of the churches of our king may be reduced to this threefold division. First, it is said, according to those bishops who rely on the imperial law, that the sacrament of the altar is a weight — would that it might not weigh down their usurers to hell. This view is founded upon a saying of the Ordinary Gloss of a certain authority on De Consecratione, Distinction II, chapter Sacramentum, where the doubt is raised whether this sacrament can fall, since it is an accident and not a weight. He says, it is reported, that it can fall, and he says that the weightiness remains with the other accidents, and he says that there is nothing heavy there, since the sacrament, which is moved of itself, is not heavy; it follows, therefore, that it is an abstract weightiness. And thus the greater part of the Anglican church inclines toward the weightiness of the host, since this usage will be observed throughout almost the entire province of Canterbury. But it is clear that the author of this teaching does not understand the proper term, since this sacrament can lose its weightiness at every single point; it is therefore necessary to posit something heavy that continuously becomes progressively less heavy. The second usage, spread among many churches, is that the host of the altar is a quantity; but this usage is no less to be abrogated by Catholics, since this sacrament can be rarefied or condensed throughout its whole, and consequently the sacrament itself would be so moved that it cannot correspond to quantity — because in that case the original quantity would remain, acquiring at every point a new quantity, and consequently, immediately after it had begun to increase, it would become infinite, because it would acquire infinite quantities each taken as a whole, each one of which would be greater than the sacrament assigned at the beginning. Therefore this usage runs into difficulty.

English

Distinction II, chapter 27. Gloss on the word: ground. But when the sacrament falls, does the body and the blood fall there as well? Answer: yes. And answer: the weightiness still remains with the other accidents, and yet there is nothing heavy there. But in no way can this sacrament acquire such quantities as parts, since they are neither quantitative nor qualitative parts of it; nor can such a quantity be an accident of a quantity, nor can this sacrament be so suddenly destroyed. Hence, although the diocese of Lincoln, to which this usage is said to belong, is extensive and thinly populated, it is nonetheless necessary for it to rest on a more stable foundation; for a surface or a line cannot be so qualified by the host, but sacramental holiness seems to be a local quality belonging to the genus of active things, for hardness seems more constant than quantity. Therefore the third usage is to believe that the sacrament of the altar is a quality. Hence those who see more acutely choose that, of all qualities, this sacrament is whiteness, for whiteness, more than the other colors, stimulates vision; and this usage is well known in the mountainous regions of Wales and in Ireland, where they see the dead. But the error of this usage is evident from the fact that this sacrament does not vary in species as the color of the host does, nor can such a quality undergo increase and decrease of color as the host does, because it cannot be so altered nor composed of its intensive parts, such that one intensive half would be the sacrament and the other would not be the sacrament.

English

For in that way it could be rarefied and condensed, and consequently, as by prior nature, it could subject quantity to itself. For it can successively become greater or lesser, and consequently acquire or lose magnitude. And then the philosophers were greatly in error who hold that quantity according to genus precedes quality. If, therefore, this sacrament is quantified in this way, then it is colored, and consequently it is not color itself, but they are distinguished as accident and subject. If this sacrament is accidentally quantified and intensely qualified, then the accidental quantity it acquires is of a different kind and is more worthy than quantity. And this the decretal seems to hold in book III, chapter Cum Marthe, which posits that the color of wine without a subject can spread itself through a greater amount of water, which cannot belong to quantity; therefore, quantity, which can by itself occupy a greater place than it now occupies and thus acquire and lose quantity, can be rarefied and condensed. And in accordance with this, however many churches there are, so many lying errors can there be concerning our quality, so that one says it is odor, another that it is hardness, a third that it is flavor, and so on without limit according to the qualities they produce. And all of these err less grievously than those who hold that this sacrament is quantity or a bundle of every kind of accident.

English

All of these, however, agree on this: that this sacrament is of an infinitely more abject nature than any base corporeal substance that can be named. And as far as moral conduct is concerned, we give little honor to this sacrament, since that honor consists in the imitation of Christ in morals, in a life of poverty and suffering, and in the contempt of the world in accord with the rule of justice. Although this finite thing is better than the host, we pay little attention to it, but we falsely pretend that the most abject covering befits the body of Christ, and we heap lie upon lie, saying that Christ has appointed a sign of this nature for His own worship. In truth, those who gloss the decrees and the decretals hold, following Rabanus, more honorably, that bread and wine are this sacrament, which they neither condemn nor repudiate but confirm. And so the holy doctors have done with one accord.

English

Hence Rabanus, in the book De Naturis Rerum, book V, chapter XI, declares why God willed that He Himself be worshipped sacramentally with bread and wine, and at the end he speaks thus: The sacrament is one thing, its power another; for the sacrament is received by the mouth, but by the power of the sacrament the inner man is satisfied. Therefore, because bread strengthens the body, it is fittingly called the body of Christ; and wine, because it produces blood in the flesh, is therefore referred to the blood of Christ. But while these visible things are sanctified by the Holy Spirit, they pass into the sacrament of the divine body. Behold, plainly the position I stated beforehand. Hence he speaks earlier thus: For the Lord preferred that the sacraments of His body and blood be received by the mouths of the faithful and be reduced to a portion of them, so that through a visible work an invisible effect might be shown. Behold how this great doctor teaches from experience that bread and wine, which are the sacrament of the body and blood of the Lord, are reduced to a portion of the human person as regards the body, so that the nourishment of the inner man may be figured through the reality of this sacrament, as he frequently declares in his book De Corpore et Sanguine Domini. And the same has been cited from the testimony of Augustine in De Consecratione, distinction II, Corpus, and of John of Damascus and others, although this position has been too sophistically obscured by the new and recent arrivals.

English

Migne, vol. III, Third Part, De Cons. dist. II, cap. X; ibid. John of Damascus, De Fide Orthodoxa, book IV, cap.

English

XIII. The ancient teaching of the saints, therefore, is that the form, species, or figure of bread and wine is this sacrament; and by these three names they understand the essence or quiddity of bread and wine. For the Apostle speaks thus in Hebr. when he says that Christ was eternally the form of God, since He is the radiance of the Father and the figure of His substance. For the saints do not understand that this sacrament, which they call the figure of bread, is a quality of the fourth species of quality, since that is of the weakest being. Nor is there any doubt to any logician but that the following inference holds: Christ is taken under the form of bread and wine; therefore that bread and wine exist — as is evident from the argument of Christ by which (as it is said in Luc. XX) He had refuted the Sadducees. And those who say it is called the form of bread and wine because it is a self-subsisting form, which was once an accident of bread and wine that now no longer exist in any part of themselves, strive to sophisticate the understanding of the people, so that they will not believe what they plainly perceive, but are compelled to believe an incredible fiction — so that this may serve as a way to lead the people still further astray.

English

Hence I was accustomed to reply against these glossators that this is the position of a false and heretical ignoramus, because it is the position of those who were once of this kind, that is, before their baptism; and would that there were none of this kind now. It is probably to be believed that bishops are bound, under penalty of the loss of all their temporal goods (and indeed under penalty of the loss of the kingdom of heaven), to know what this sacrament is, since otherwise they are unfit to inform the faithful people; and all who authorize and defend such ciphers fully incur the danger of perdition. Hence, would that the people of Robert would diligently inquire of him together with his cardinals what is to be believed concerning the quiddity of the consecrated host. For according to blessed Peter this is the chief office of blessed prelates: to be prepared faithfully to render an account of the faith and, setting the world aside, to defend and teach it. It seems, I say, that every sensible accident of the sacred host, according to the description of the sacrament, is a sacrament, or at least an accident that assists the sacrament; but the faith of the one handling the sacrament and the sanctification of God spiritually assist and constitute the sacrament. Since, moreover, everything that is accidental is reducible to something per se, it is evident that there is a substantial essence or nature underlying those accidents; but toward that ground we should pay little attention, and should suspend all our thought upon the ground of its signified reality.

English

And this is the reason why the saints say that the bread is converted into the body of Christ or into a sacrament, indeed, that the bread is the body of Christ, just as we say that a sinner is converted from a member of the devil into a son of God; which conversion is more wondrous than the conversion of the sacrament. But nowhere in these miracles is it necessary that God destroy the substantial essence, but He changes it by preserving its nature more fully. And this we would observe, we who attend only to signs; for Christ ordained us to eat and drink the host in material things, so that they might signify the nourishment of the soul as their end. And would that such worshippers of accidents not be the substance of the body of the church who are to be expelled; for they make the entire rule which Christ handed down accrue as a mere accident to the religion of Christ, and so they are entangled in accidents; for they value the earthly things that attend upon them more than virtues.

English

But in order that falsehood may be more clearly repelled by the sacrament of truth, it remains to run through the other disputed points with which the school of theology is too vainly charged — and first concerning the opinion of the identification of the sacrament with the body of Christ, by which it is believed that bare bread and wine are numerically identical to the body of Christ and His blood. And Peter Lombard recites that opinion in Book IV, distinction 11, chapter 1; and this opinion has in its favor many sophistic arguments and the testimonies of the saints sophistically understood. The first argument against this opinion is therefore as follows: bread and wine will not become something that they will not be; but they will not be numerically identical to the body of Christ and His blood; therefore they will not in this way become the body of Christ and His blood. For if they will be numerically identical to these parts of Christ, and all things that they will be already are, then they are already these parts of Christ. Against this a second argument is made, on the grounds that wine is wine not per accidens but per se. But nothing that is per se something can be the negation of that thing; therefore no wine can be non-wine. For if the body

English

of Christ apart from the words of conversion will be non-wine, then it is necessary that the matter or form of the wine, or something equivalent to it, should fail; for as long as every essential requirement for the being of wine remains, there is then no reason why wine would not remain, and consequently it will not then be a non-wine converted into something else. But if the matter, form, or something essential to it should fail, then it is necessary that the wine cease to be, and consequently the wine itself will not then be something other than wine, because then it will not be anything at all. Furthermore, the identification itself will be either individual through motion or without motion. If through motion, something must be specified that will be lost or acquired, or both; and when that which will be acquired or lost has been specified, the question arises (as above) whether it will be essential or accidental to what is being identified. If what is specified is essential, it will not be identified but destroyed. But if it is accidental to what is being identified, it follows that, notwithstanding that motion, each of the two things will retain whatever it had before; therefore neither is identified with the other, but two things will remain that are essentially distinct, just as at the beginning.

English

If identification were to occur without motion, then in neither of the two would there be the removal of anything essential or accidental pertaining to the identification, and consequently both would remain as substantially and accidentally distinct as at the beginning. Furthermore, suppose that God were to identify a man with a donkey, or anything significant with something else: after this act, the question is asked whether the man will remain a man after the identification, or a donkey, or both. If both, they will remain as distinct as at the beginning. If the man remains and the donkey ceases to be, or vice versa, it appears in the first place that what ceases to be is not identified but destroyed, which is contrary to what was granted. It appears in the second place that the following consequence holds: the man is identified with the donkey; therefore the donkey is identified with the man, and vice versa; and so from this case it does not follow any more that the man remains than that the donkey remains, or vice versa. Therefore neither can be conceded without, by the same token, conceding the other as well. And the same appears in the third place from the fact that the identified thing that ceases to be loses something essential to itself — such as the donkey's soul or the human soul — and consequently that would not be identification but destruction. And here logicians inquire about the subject and the terms of identification, so that it might be distinguished from other motions, and about its speed and its other proper characteristics.

English

Furthermore, I posit that God identifies everything with everything — which must be conceded as possible, since otherwise God's infinite power would be limited to things He could not identify, which is impossible, given that He could identify the most abject creatures with Himself, as is evident from the matter of the Incarnation with respect to both the body of Christ and His soul, each of which is the Word of God and personally God Himself — which seems supremely wonderful. With this admitted, it appears that each thing remains in its own species and individuation as it was at the beginning; for suppose that Peter does not remain as at the beginning, yet everything is identified with Peter; therefore Peter remains supremely multiple. And the same argument applies to any individual one might assign. If, then, the whole universe retains its species and individuation as at the beginning, it appears that identification is eliminated on both sides; for at every point of the world there is maximal diversification, and since this is contrary to identification, it appears that it eliminates identification for the same time and subject. If it is said that maximal identification is maximal diversification, then (as above) the response must correspondingly vary given this posit, since it is repugnant for anything to remain composite out of parts or to remain accidentated — indeed, it follows that if everything is everything, everything is God alone. Furthermore, given this case, it appears that every part of the world is indivisible, since it is identified with a point and is consequently an indivisible point. And it appears that every part of the world is infinitely great, since, as every part of the world is the whole world, every quantitative part of the world would be as great as the whole — indeed as great as God Himself.

English

And since every part of the world would be an intellectual soul, there would consequently be nothing composite out of parts and nothing accidentated, since everything would be the whole world, and consequently an infinitely small part of the world would be as great as anything. From this, together with the principles of geometry, it follows that every part of the world is infinite; for suppose that your head is only a foot long, yet your nose is as great as the world, and therefore your head, of which the nose is a quantitative part, is greater than a foot — since every whole is greater than its quantitative part. Furthermore, what is identified with the longest line, the largest surface, and the longest time of the world would then be exceedingly great. Nor is there any reason why each part of bread can be identified with the body of Christ and with each of its parts, without by the same logic being identifiable with any substance or accident, since the reasoning and the multiplication of absurdities are equal on both sides. From such identification, logicians argue that the impossible follows from the necessary — namely, that each thing both is and is not, and that species and genera of things that differ from one another do not differ, since every difference would be a union and not a difference. Furthermore, drawing nearer to the difficulty, it appears that all bread or wine transubstantiated into the body and blood of Christ will remain after conversion identified with a part of Christ; and since Christ loses no part through such conversion, it follows that after the conversion the body of Christ will be more composite — for Christ will acquire, without any loss, as great a part as all the bread and wine consecrated throughout the whole world; how, then, will He not have more both of matter and of form? For He will have all those things as parts, and none of them does He now have; therefore He acquires or will acquire each of them. For it will not be said that identification would block syllogistic forms — so that it follows: all this bread and wine, Christ will have as His part, and He now has none of these; therefore He will have many parts which He now does not have. For bread and wine are substantial and not accidental, and then the consequence is clear. But the opponent says that all terms are accidental, since each thing can be anything — and so it does not follow: whatever Peter will be, that he now is; but a donkey will be Peter, therefore the donkey itself is now Peter. Similarly it does not follow: whatever you were at the time of your birth, you now are; but you were then an unbelieving ignoramus, therefore you are now an unbelieving ignoramus. And it is just as accidental to you to be an unbeliever as it is to be a human being. But against this the first objection is that everything whose part Christ will ever have, He now has as His part; but everything that is or will be bread or wine to be consecrated, Christ will have as His part, since it is identified with His part; therefore everything that is or will be bread or wine to be consecrated, Christ already now has as His part. This syllogistic form indeed holds for accidental terms. Taking, then, the essence that is the bread to be consecrated: if this will be the body of Christ, and this now differs essentially from the body of Christ — since it is now something other than it — it follows that something that now differs essentially from the body of Christ will be the body of Christ. Similarly, given this opinion, all the generally accepted distinctions would perish: for both substance, which would be the basis for every accident, and also the distinction of accidents would perish. For humanity, animality, and every such assignable thing is accidental to essence, since that essence which is a man or an animal can be a non-animal and even a non-substance — indeed, nothing would be per se something, nor would anything be per se or singular. How, then, would the genus of substance stand? And by the same token, quantity can be quality, and so for every genus of accident; and the five universals would perish — namely genus, species, and substantial difference — and consequently all science and every substantial or accidental form would perish. Similarly, according to this way, all motion and natural action would cease, since both the foundation and the matter of motion would fail; for if I knew that a man walks, I would know that walking is an accident of the man.

English

But against this, for the entire time of the man's walking, on account of this uncertainty the man is not a man but a stone or some other creature identified with a member of Christ; therefore it is not known that the man walks, since all knowledge of the quiddity, distinction, and change of things is eliminated. For if the matter of motion were continuously identified with anything whatsoever, how could motion be specified, distinguished, or attended to? But you are ignorant of and doubtful about all of this, since identification is a reciprocal relation that can occur imperceptibly without the man's knowledge, any motion whatsoever having been removed. Nothing, therefore, is more foolish or irrational than this opinion, since it is identified with the most foolish, supremely heretical, and most detestable opinion. Nor does this opinion serve the purpose for which it is invented, since it implies that bread and wine remain bread and wine after the consecration — and to escape this it invents identification. But in favor of this way it is argued first on the grounds that whatever produces an individual of a species identifies it not only with that species but with each of its individuals; and since identity is threefold — namely generic, specific, and numerical — identification is therefore possible. But the difficulty regarding this is not whether such identification is possible, but the difficulty concerns the numerical identification of two individuals that were previously distinct both essentially and numerically — as the bread to be consecrated and the body of Christ in heaven are two individuals distinct in place and in manifold form, and by virtue of the words of conversion the same thing that was previously bread is posited to be numerically identical to the body of Christ; yet the body of Christ is denied to be bread. And this appears to be difficult, since it is posited that the substantial form of the bread and the prime matter and every part of the bread cease to be entirely at the instant of conversion. And this would be a remarkable identification by which one of the two extremes is wholly destroyed — and by the same token there would be no transition, conversion, or transubstantiation of bread into the body of Christ, nor would the body of Christ come to be from it, as is clear to anyone who accepts the ancient meanings of the signs. And it is not valid to baptize terms so strangely and groundlessly in order to feign a lie.

English

It is granted, however (as was said in the material on Universals), that every man is the same as any other, indeed every substance is the same as any other, yet it does not follow that every man is every man, since it is not necessary that if this man is the same as that man he is therefore that man. A second argument is advanced for this position on the grounds that the sensible Eucharist is for one person the whiteness under which Christ is seen with the bodily eye, and by the same token is for another person some other quality or quantity, according as that person's opinion about the quiddity of the Eucharist varies. Since, therefore, each of these is Christ, it seems that the identification of many things, even of things differing in genus, is quite possible. The minor premise appears from the fact that, in consequence of Berengarius's final protestation and the confirmation of the Roman church, the body of Christ is sensible in that sacrament, and in point of fact that sacrament (as Scripture speaks together with the holy doctors) is an accident. What then would happen if it were not whiteness, since whiteness is the most perfect accident and in that place most proximate to the intellect as a sign? Furthermore, since that sacrament is visible, it is either whiteness or a white thing; but it is not a white thing; therefore it is whiteness, visible per se -- not quantity such as magnitude or a higher degree of whiteness, nor is this alone the reason, because the same white thing can remain with its quantity varied, as is evident from the enlargement or diminution of the sacrament in the chalice; indeed the sacrament under the form of bread, just as it can vary in whiteness, so too can it vary in quantity through the passage of time. Therefore, just as quantity existing per se is quantified, so whiteness existing per se is white -- for otherwise the sense would be too greatly deceived in sensation, since it perceives the white thing before abstractly considered whiteness, because it belongs to the abstractive faculty to discern this. Furthermore, no other coexisting quality is informed by whiteness, because whiteness would then be the primary quality, from which whiteness results.

English

But who says that the elementary qualities are colored in this way? For then every sense would perceive tangible qualities, and a man would perceive gravity above all -- since gravity is either the substantial form (as Averroes holds) or the form most proximately giving rise to color; indeed, since color according to the philosophers is nothing other than light incorporated into the transparent medium, it seems that with the variation of light, color too varies. Since, therefore, the coexistence of qualities is not sufficient for one to inform the other, this position must explain how the information of qualities is caused. For it does not follow from color that, if a quality results from an element composed of matter and form, it therefore qualifies its principle -- since then every quality would qualify God. It seems, therefore, since this sacrament is not a white thing, that it is whiteness, and by the same token it is whatever quality or quantity it may be; and the consecrated host is in no way an aggregate of all accidents, since that cannot be informed by whiteness -- both because it continually varies, and also because there are many accidents there that are distinct in genus and cannot be whitened; rather, whiteness is denominated from them. Just as therefore the ordinary gloss on the Decretals (as I expounded above) says that this sacrament is not that which is ponderous but is ponderousness itself or its subject, so one must say the same about whiteness, hardness, taste, and the like; and consequently, from the same host there are infinitely many sacraments distinct in genus. There would therefore be no unity of the host, nor accidental denomination -- which manifestly conflicts with the senses; for we see that the host is continuous, is broken and nourishes, has smell and taste, makes a sound and descends. Do we really believe that what is thus pointed to is nothing, or an aggregate composed of sound, smell, taste, descent, and other actions? For these continually vary and happen to the sacrament, just as with making it from leavened or unleavened bread.

English

Do we really believe that this accident is leavened or unleavened, extended or broken, and moreover multiplied and not of this kind -- because according to its other parts, each of which is an invisible sacrament? Otherwise I have multiplied arguments elsewhere of this kind which would give the faithful reason to believe that no quality can exist per se, much less other genera of accidents. For figure, beauty, fever, or a faculty of the soul is not the sort of thing we ought to pray to, reverence for itself, or fear. Therefore, as regards this, I praise God who freed me from this scandalous and detestable error concerning the quiddity of this sacrament -- a matter about which philosophers and pagans rightly mock our fictitious uncertainty and variation regarding the quiddity of the consecrated host. For it is bread or wine that underlies all those accidents. And that is perceived by multiple forms of sensation, to which new unconsecrated accidents can happen; those accidents, taken together, are not part of the sacrament as the accidents of the host are, yet all of them are reduced, together with the whole created universe, to a certain unity in God, for Whom all things are ordained, so that they signify Him, and all things in their own way declare Him, and some are more sacred and others less sacred. The sacrament of the altar, however, can be called (as I have often said) the body thus rightly blessed by the priest -- and likewise any part of it; and any sensible accident of it can be called a secondary or accidental sacrament, as can also the body formed from the aggregate of the consecrated body and something else mixed with it; indeed, sometimes the enduring body is called the sacrament and sometimes the successive body.

English

But it is impossible for a sacred accident -- especially quantity and quality -- to be a sacrament per se, since according to Augustine it cannot exist per se. And it is clear that none of these sacraments is identically God or a part of Him, but rather an efficacious sign which, in an equivocal and tropical sense, admits the predication of the part of Christ in the manner of speaking of the saints and the Roman church. But it is laid down for us, for the confounding of heresies, that we speak of identical predication, and that we must know how to distinguish identical predication from tropical predication in order to understand the saints. For Jerome writes in his letter to Hedibia, in the second of the Twelve Questions: "Let us hear," he says, "that the bread which the Lord broke and gave to His disciples is the body of the Lord our Savior, He Himself saying to them: Take and eat; this is my body." Behold, that holy man, to whom a thousand doctors and popes are not equal in fidelity to Scripture, asserts that it is bread that is indicated by the pronoun, and to this day all people -- even infidel princes -- have not dared to condemn as heretical this holy man's opinion. Hence Augustine expounds it more explicitly in his twelfth letter to Bishop Boniface: "If," he says, "sacraments did not have a certain resemblance to the things of which they are sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all. Now from this resemblance they typically also receive the names of the very things they signify; thus, just as in a certain sense the sacrament of the body of Christ is the body of Christ, and the sacrament of the blood of Christ is the blood of Christ, so also the sacrament of faith is faith." Therefore Augustine also teaches in his fifty-fifth Sermon how we ought not to receive the sacrament contemptuously or irrationally on account of its signified: "Do not think it worthless," he says, "what you see; what you see passes away, but what is signified by that visible thing does not pass away but endures; behold, the sign is received, eaten, consumed --" does the body of Christ get consumed?

English

Hedibia, vol. Cf. Trialog. 250, Serm. II, III, 15. Augustine's Ep. to Boniface XCVIII. Works II. Not in Sermon LV, but in LXXXIII On Various Topics; Nov.: Serm. CCXXVII. On Easter Day IV, Works V. Does the body of Christ get consumed?

English

God forbid. For the saints distinguish between this sign and the body of Christ as between God and the creature that signifies, and they never managed to conceive that a quality can exist without a subject -- so that all the faculties of the soul, full of virtue, blessedness, and grace, would be worshiped per se in the heavenly homeland as beings that understand and share in our misery (if indeed they existed per se); even more so would these qualities do this: faith, hope, charity, happiness, the virgins whom we pray to -- because from their own nature they would have the perfections which they accidentally impart to the saints as though for the ends of their own perfections, which they themselves possess more perfectly, since nothing imparts to another a perfection greater than what it has of itself; but such a virtue, since it is intuitive, abstractive, and operative in whatever way human nature operates according to the soul, would be very perfect by reason of that operation proper to it, and would be a very compassionate advocate and helper to the wretched. Nor will a reason be given why corporeal qualities can per se have every action they can have through a body, without it being equally or more evidently true that the qualities of the soul can do the same; nor is it easy to imagine how they can communicate their actions to the bodies to which they are accidentally united, without it being even more evidently possible for God to communicate the power of creating and all His inward action to any creature; and thus, just as those insensible qualities of the soul communicate to the body the denominations which they retain per se for themselves, so too by God's omnipotence they could be communicated to a piece of wood or a stone, and so every material substance would, by God's omnipotence, be most subtly intellective and capable of beatification by obediential potency. For He who can suspend the information by which a spiritual quality informs a body, and otherwise cause it to inform even more efficaciously a body less disposed by its nature, could extend the informative power of the virtue and the passive power of the subject; and thus every material substance would, by God's power, be in some way active, and consequently there would be no substantial difference. But these are delirious ravings, since no quality is anything other than a substance's being of a certain character, nor is any form anything other than that which makes a substance to be formed or beautiful; therefore it is the same thing to posit that a quality exists per se without a substance and to posit that a substance is of a certain character without being a substance; and thus it involves a formal contradiction for an accident to exist without an underlying subject -- save only that the substantial form by which a man's body is formally living is the life which is accidental both to the body and to that spirit. And they are united in the same person of the man, as is here supposed. As regards the threefold evidence raised at the beginning of the argument, it is clear that the decree speaks tropically that bread sacramentally becomes the body of Christ -- and not identically, that the nature of bread is the nature of the body of Christ; and thus, although whiteness is a sacrament, it is nonetheless not a sacrament per se, but rather inherent in that sacrament; and that underlying subject is infinitely more perfect than quantity or whiteness.

English

As for the second argument, it is clear that the sacrament is white by reason of the nature of the bread. Third, further, concerning the denomination of an accident, it must be noted that denomination is of three kinds: subjective, respective, and intrinsic. By subjective denomination alone is substance denominated, since every accident makes the substance to be accidented, so that nothing is the subject of an accident except substance; an accident, however, is the foundation and cause of something else, but not the subject. Respective denomination, however, does not require that the thing denominated be the subject of the denominating accident; it is sufficient that it be the foundation to which the absolute accident looks, causing in it a respective relation — as is evident from the seven relations founded on quantity and quality. And in this way Augustine in De Trinitate at the end and Anselm in Monologion XXVII say that God is the foundation of a relative relation, which, because it does not require that its foundation be moved by its acquisition, is called by some a relation of reason. For it does not require that the foundation of that subject be an absolute accident. The third denomination, intrinsic, is that by which the same thing denominates itself through itself, which can occur in multiple ways; for God through Himself, excluding every other cause, denominates Himself wise, just, powerful, etc. — and therefore these are not accidents in God. Quantity also is said to be of itself large, though equivocally so with substance; thus also whiteness is white, and likewise with other accidents, even respective ones. For otherwise there would be an infinite regress, so that a quality would be intensified by a distinct intensification, and so on to infinity, unless one were to posit something intensified through itself.

English

I do not see, however, that quantity is denominated subjectively by whiteness or vice versa; rather, just as a surface is white or whitened, as philosophers say, so quality is great in bulk — so that neither of these accidents is the subject of the other, but they denominate each other reciprocally and respectively, because the one accompanies the other in the same subject. Thus, because whiteness belongs to the superficial or thin part of a substance, it is therefore called superficial whiteness; and because quality belongs to the foot-length quantity of the subject, it is therefore called a foot-long quality — so that quantity does not subject quality, nor does quality subject quantity. But quality is denominated in more ways — as intense, active, large, etc. — than quantity itself is denominated, even though it is the foundation and basis according to species, not as an individual, for the corporeal quality in its subject.

English

The sacrament, however, is of itself the subject of both quantity and quality, since the adversaries concede that when the accident of the whiteness of the wine is infused into the consecrated wine, both the quantity and quality are moved, since the sacrament will be greater and different; therefore it is necessary to posit there a subject prior to both quantity and quality, because it is certain that a bundle of accidents is posterior to each of them; and it is evident in part how accidents regard one another by denomination. And from this the answer to the third argument is clear. For secondary qualities denominate primary qualities, matter and form, and even God by respective denomination. But by subjective denomination they denominate only the material substance through which they are extended. Respective denomination, however, is produced by an accident however distant from that which is not its subjective basis — as the whiteness of Peter in Rome makes him similar to John in England; it therefore causes at every point both nearness and distance, and in some manner makes it so that God is the cause of it. Therefore one must first silence this foolishness, whereby it is believed that every being, insofar as it acquires an accident, is thereby moved.

English

For every motion must be subjected to a moved substance through the acquisition or loss of quantity or quality. Second, one must distinguish between respective and subjective denominations, and between efficient and formal denomination — as whiteness, which denominates Peter as respectively white, formally, denominates Paul, however far distant, as similar to Peter, efficiently. And third, one must note the aforesaid divisions and descriptions in order to remove sophistries and errors. For certain great men err so grievously that they believe an accident denominates a subject however extrinsic, without any denomination of the accident — even a respective one — being applied to the thing so denominated, as they illustrate with examples of vision, time, and motion. But they give little weight to passive vision, which is the being-seen, a predicate of the category of where and when, caused in time with formal and effective denomination. But, returning to the matter, it is repeated (as was touched upon) that a man, in seeing anything whatsoever, sees God with the bodily eye, because every sensible or insensible thing signifies Him. And this is confirmed by the testimony of multiple scriptures; for in Gen. XXXII:30 it is said that Jacob saw the Lord face to face; and in Isa. VI, it says that he saw the Lord sitting upon a high and exalted throne.

English

And in Joh. VIII, Christ says that Abraham, the father of the Jews, rejoiced to see the day of the Messiah, and he saw it and was glad; and so with many similar cases. If, therefore, a man can handle and touch the body of Christ in the host, much more can he see it there, since sight is the most subtle and supreme of the senses. Here one must recognize the equivocations involved in knowing the truth of scripture. For there is corporeal vision, imaginary vision, and intellectual vision. Corporeal vision is that by which a waking person perceives a visible object according to the form of the visible thing through the organ of the sense of sight. Whence, to speak more clearly on this matter, I declare that no one sees the body of Christ there in the host with the bodily eye — which ought to be certain for the faithful. Hence the Solemn Doctor, in his first Quodlibet, question VI, when asking whether a faithful person sees the body of Christ in the host with the bodily eye, declares that he does not — and moreover that the eye of Christ in the host does not see itself there, on account of a lack of limitation both in the visible object and in the visible species and in the visual power. And the same is said quite often by the law of the church, as in the Third of the Decretals, On the Celebration of Masses, in the chapter Cum Marthe, where it is said that the visible form of the bread and wine is the sacrament but not the thing of the sacrament; and what is believed is different from what is seen, for the body of Christ is indeed believed, while its species — which is only the sacrament — is seen.

English

Hence many wonder with what boldness anyone dares to say that he sees the body of Christ in the host with the bodily eye. For it does not follow: Peter sees God in the host intellectually or by faith through the bodily eye, because through its ministry — therefore he sees God there with the bodily eye. For the sophists argue in this way that a man sees through his heel, through his fingers, and so on. The Solemn Doctor is Henry of Ghent.

English

— and the other organs irrelevant to the seeing of God and every sensible or insensible thing, because those are incidental instruments that move the mind to conceive what is knowable and hidden from all material truth. But they see that this is a reasoning to be ridiculed, since when it is said, "Peter sees this with a bodily eye," it is noted that the bodily eye is informed by the visual faculty apprehending this through its natural species, in such a way that only color, light, or their subject, or the privation of these, is seen — as is plain to the philosopher who knows the limits of vision.

English

The second kind of vision is called imaginary vision, or imaginative vision — which is the vision by which, according to the imaginative faculty, the visible object is formally apprehended. It differs from the prior kind in three ways. First, every corporeal vision, whether by direct intuition, by reflection, or by refraction, occurs through the limitation of a species of the visible object present to the organ of the sense of sight; imaginary vision, however, is not like this, since it often occurs in the absence of its object. The second difference is that corporeal vision belongs only to one who is awake and watching, but imaginary vision belongs both to one who is asleep and to one who is awake; for all dreams occur through imaginary vision during sleep, just as many imperfect prophecies occur to a waking man through the mystery of imaginary vision — as is plain in the case of Daniel, who both waking and sleeping saw the dream of Nebuchadnezzar through imaginary vision, and by this saw prophetically, beyond the king, the interpretation of the dream, as is plain in Dan. 2. Third, they differ in this: imaginary vision is more extensive than corporeal vision both as to object and as to time. For no one sees corporally except color or present light, or their subject, or their privation; but a man sees imaginatively those things that have no existence — such as a golden mountain — and many imaginable things that never exist. A man also often sees imaginatively, for the purpose of giving a sign of time, those things that do not then exist but exist afterwards or before. In the first manner it is read in Act. 10, how Peter saw in a rapture of mind the heaven opened and a certain vessel like a linen sheet descending, let down from heaven to earth by four corners, in which were all four-footed animals and creeping things of the earth and birds of the sky — which scripture is most true in the sense stated. In the second manner scripture speaks in Act.

English

9 — that Ananias, by the command of the Lord, should speak to Paul: "Go," He said, "into the street called Straight, and seek in the house of Judas a man named Saul of Tarsus. For behold, he is praying. And he saw a man named Ananias entering and laying his hands on him so that he might receive his sight." Behold, Paul saw imaginatively the future act of Ananias, as appears probable from the text. And by this kind of vision Elisha saw Gehazi, who was very far away locally, how he received the gifts of Naaman simoniacally in exchange for the spiritual grace that God had bestowed upon Elisha (as is plain in 4 Kings 5). And so it appears that imaginary vision is threefold, just as corporeal vision is threefold — namely, imaginary vision of a past or future non-existent thing; imaginary vision of a non-existent thing that is nonetheless possible for sight; and the vision of any estimable thing, as the apprehension of the estimative, fantastic, or memorative faculty in organic fashion. But the third is intellectual vision, by which the visible object is seen first by the intellect; and for the blessed it is pure, without the inferior corporeal vision or the slower imaginary vision.

English

Now these three species of vision are concomitant, so that I see at the same time a sensible sacrament with these three faculties in a threefold vision. Intellectual vision, moreover, is threefold: intuitive, abstractive, and enigmatic. By the first vision the blessed in their homeland see God, just as they see angels and sensible things. And since acts are specified by their objects, it is held that these are three species of intuitions, inasmuch as a blessed person intuits a sensible thing differently than does a wayfarer. Intellectual intuition has this rationale: that it is caused of itself from the capacity of the intellect and the presence of the thing seen, so that, given the visible object with its application — which is expressed through presence — and with a sufficient capacity of the intellect, intuition follows. But it is not so with abstractive vision, for that requires the discursive operation of reason, just as philosophers came to know God naturally from His effects (as the Apostle says in Rom.). And the doctors say that this abstractive vision is required for the actual merit of a wayfarer, and that no one can merit it at the first instant at which he begins, except Christ. For such merit must proceed from the will freely moved by reason toward meritorious action, which requires time — for everyone other than Christ. The third intellectual vision is enigmatic, which is a dark knowledge infused regarding what is purely believed, in the manner in which the Apostle speaks in Cor.

English

13: "We see now through a mirror in an enigma, but then face to face." And this kind of knowledge belongs both to the good and to the wicked at any beginning of knowledge of an insensible thing, so that sometimes these three kinds of knowledge run together simultaneously. And the enigmatic vision commonly comes first, since we must proceed from the imperfect to the perfect. Thus, then, vision is taken in scripture in nine sufficiently equivocal ways. Sometimes, moreover, vision is taken collectively for many visions; hence with respect to God there is distinguished the vision of intuition, by which God sees present, past, and future existents — for He intuits all those things when they are present to Him. But God sees possible things that do not exist by the knowledge of simple apprehension. Hence, although those things must be, it is nonetheless not necessary that they exist (as is shown at length elsewhere).

English

And by this distinction one can understand scripture that appears to contradict itself. For in Exod. 33, God says: "No man shall see Me and live" — that is, he shall not then live a natural life while he has beheld the deity, as was the case with Moses and Paul in their raptures, and as happens with the blessed; for they then live another spiritual life, having died to the world. And this is the reason why we ought to abandon the world and not entangle ourselves in earthly things, but to long for spiritual things. And in this way is understood that saying of John, "No man has ever seen God." And that of the Apostle in Cor. 2: "Neither eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor has it entered into the heart of man" — with similar passages. It must be noted, however, that such negative statements sometimes exceed the clear intuition of the divine essence, and sometimes the equality of divine visibility. For although the blessed shall clearly see the divine essence, they shall not see it according to the uttermost of its visibility, since that is proper to God alone. It is therefore necessary to know such distinctions; for it is said that on account of such ignorance and other malicious acts, Manasseh king of Judah accused Isaiah of heretical wickedness and sawed him to death.

English

For he says (as I explained above in chapter 6): I saw the Lord sitting upon a high throne. And God says to Moses: No man shall see Me and live. But these are reconciled by the fact that the prophet saw the Lord with abstractive vision together with another vision that he had of an image or figure; for because Isaiah saw such an image with the bodily eye and the vision of the deity was infused in him together with the abstractive vision which, under God's prompting, he drew forth, he understood God above all others. And so in general under the old law, when it is said that someone sees or hears the Lord, it is understood as a sense-perception of the sign together with an abstractive knowledge of the divine essence — not that he then beheld God directly, as Augustine frequently declares, and especially in the first sermon of his Book of Sermons: God deigns, he says, to appear through His own substance as He truly is only to the pure in heart, as the Gospel says; but to the bodily eyes of the saints, whenever God wished to appear, He appeared not through Himself but through a sensible creature, as much as He is able to be perceived through that flesh. And afterward he expounds that judgment at length. And it is evident that just as no one is able to see God with the bodily eye, so neither is the body of Christ able to be seen in the consecrated host, because if it sufficed to see that body there in that manner, it would suffice to see that body as being there and to discern what kind of thing it is there — which is contrary to experience and to the determination of Urban V together with his cardinals. One sees the body of Christ in the consecrated host, I say, by faith and by the intellect, and so by this distinction concerning vision the other scriptures are to be understood, as in Matt.

English

In Matt. 5, where it is promised as the final reward to the pure in heart that they shall see God. And Exod. 33 makes this plain, where it is evident that he speaks of the beatific vision of the homeland. But in Joh. 14, he says: Philip, whoever sees Me, sees also My Father; where he appears to speak of abstractive vision and infused vision. For whoever sees the natural Son of God under the aspect by which He is such, sees God the Father abstractively; and that vision of Christ belongs to the believer, above the beasts.

English

But a first objection is raised against this, namely that the bodily eye is the cause of our vision of God, and therefore we see God with the bodily eye. But whoever argues in this way must be sent back to the grammarians to learn the government of the ablative case, as I have said frequently. For such people perceive and understand with their heels and feet whatever they have grasped, as they imagine; and therefore those who wish to speak on this matter must attend to grammar, logic, and philosophy together with the aforesaid distinction concerning vision, and otherwise they are to be dismissed from the disputation of this subject. A second objection is raised, namely that according to what has often been said, the consecrated host is the body of Christ, and it is seen there with the bodily eye, therefore the body of Christ is also seen there. But it is evident that those who grant the premise correctly stated are to be glossed as follows: the sacred host figures the body of Christ sacramentally; but granted that the church admits this logic as formerly, it is evident that the inference fails on account of equivocation, when the argument runs: the host figures the body of Christ and the host itself is perceived there, therefore the body of Christ is also perceived. For by the same reasoning it would be argued that the deity is perceptible by any of the five senses whenever anything is perceived, since every creature figures and declares the deity. A third objection is raised, namely that no visible substance is seen with the bodily eye except because its accident is seen with the bodily eye directly; since therefore the garment or covering, the armor of Christ's body, is seen directly through the host, it seems that the body of Christ will consequently be seen. This is confirmed from the aforesaid statement of Augustine, who says that God in that flesh is able to be perceived with bodily eyes, just as we say a wall is colored and seen through the thick paintings applied to the wall. The ignorant, however, magnify this argument, asserting that only the accident is truly perceived.

English

But they are ignorant of philosophy, which shows that no accident can be perceived except by virtue of the sustaining substance, since no accident is anything except the accidental mode of a substance. Yet an accident is seen directly and the subject of the accident is seen accidentally; since therefore no accident of the body of Christ is seen with the bodily eye in the host, it is manifest that the body of Christ is not seen there accidentally, but rather the host itself is seen. And as regards Augustine, it is evident that he extends sense-perception to cover all intuitive knowledge, according to that word of the Apostle in Rom. 11: For who has known the mind of the Lord? But it must further be noted that Augustine says that God appears to bodily eyes in the said case in that flesh; yet he speaks of a remote and abstractive appearing. For when, in beholding a body assumed by an angel in order to perform a service, Scripture frequently says that a man sees that angel, the word sight must be taken in an aggregate sense, for the vision of sense and the vision of the intellect together, both terminating upon the aggregate visible object composed of the assumed body and the angel himself. And Scripture frequently says that a man in this manner sees God; whence in one case a man sees the angel, yet a beast or another man beholding the same bodily form does not see the angel, because that one lacks the intellectual vision appropriate to the spirit, elaborated through such sensitive knowledge. But the case of the vision of a man is different, since the man himself really is that very body. A fourth objection is raised as follows: A man sees an angel, as one must grant from the faith of Scripture, and so the nature of the angel is hidden in that assumed body, just as the body of Christ is hidden in the consecrated host; therefore by the same reasoning a man sees the body of Christ sensibly through the host. Nor is it valid to say that a man sees the body with the eye of the body and the angel only with the eye of the mind, because then Scripture would be false in Gen.

English

And in Marc. 16, it is said of the same angel that the women entering the tomb saw the stone rolled away and a young man sitting on the right, clothed in a white robe. Here and in any number of other places it is evident that it speaks of bodily vision. Since therefore it is not lawful for a believer to deny this Scripture nor an argument drawn from it by way of a fully parallel analogy, it seems that if a man can see an angel, who is by his own nature wholly invisible, through vision of the body most closely joined to him, then much more would a man see the body of Christ in the sacrament, since it is equally present in the host, to which it is joined more permanently than an angel is joined to a body that is more alien to it, and the host has the character of a sensible object. Here it is said that the holy fathers who deny bodily vision of the body of Christ in the host fully anticipated this evidence and as many other objections as we know how to raise. Scripture is therefore granted as faith, but in the Catholic sense, namely that a man sees with the bodily eye the body assumed by an angel and sees with the eye of the mind the nature of the angel; and that aggregate vision terminates upon a twofold aggregate visible object, namely the body that is perceived by sense and the angel. Hence, to teach us this second part of vision, it is said in Genes. 18 in this singular manner: Lord, if I have found favor in Your eyes, do not pass by Your servant.

English

And there are many similar things said particularly concerning mental vision, which was directed principally toward God. And as regards that passage in Num. 22, it is clear that he is speaking of bare sensory vision, which was directed toward the body that, according to the figure often mentioned, is called an angel; for the donkey was not elevated to the knowledge of God, but taught the man insofar as pertained to it. Now a threefold reason for the difference is given as to why it is conceded that a man thus sees an angel, but does not thus see the body of Christ in the host. First, because the figure, motion, and living voice that appear in the assumed body signify the angel more expressly — signifying the presence of a rational nature — than the host or its accident signifies the body of Christ; therefore the latter is grasped by intellect and faith alone. The second cause appears to be noted by blessed Gregory, who observes that the angel, being a rational creature, assumed a body with unity of person, and so in seeing the same body a man sees the supposit that is the angel, because that body by nature would be the person of the angel. And third, because the nature of the angel is coterminous with that body, but the body of Christ, although it is truly and really present there, is there nonetheless no more truly than sacramentally, that is, as a sign.

English

But I do not discuss these difficulties here; rather, let the adversary furnish a complete similarity on both sides, and I will grant him that he sees the body of Christ in the host with the bodily eye. Third, it is argued principally for the identification with Scripture that, according to the faith of Scripture, according to the holy doctors, and according to the laws of the church, the sensible bread will become the body of Christ, and consequently will become the same as the body of Christ, and will thus be identified with it. For otherwise the conversion, consecration, or change of such bread would not need to be signified unless it extended to identification with the body of Christ; and to this many authorities resound, which the Master of the Four Books of Sentences cites. It is said first here that many terms have been found and invented for honoring this sacrament, as is evident with transubstantiation, conversion, identification, and impanation, together with similar terms — from all of which the faithful must beware of heresy, because just as the first heresy of the disciples arose concerning this sacrament, so also a more manifold heresy has arisen from it. Therefore one must attend to the catholic sense of Scripture and to the prudence of the holy doctors who speak on this subject; and this will be maintained as a theorem: that Scripture must everywhere be granted as catholic faith, and especially the words of Christ by which the sacrament is consecrated — "This is my body" — the sense of which I have often expounded. Nor does it follow that whoever states such a sense will be reciting sacred Scripture, since it is necessary that the Holy Spirit imprint the sacred sense upon him with respect to sacred Scripture. Therefore, while fully safeguarding the truth of sacred Scripture, it is permitted to us Christians to deny that the bread which we consecrate is the body of Christ by way of identification, although it is an efficacious sign of the body.

English

For it is permitted to us to vary our logical formulation while faith stands firm, just as the primitive church baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and afterward, according to the more explicit form of the Gospel, baptized in the name of the Trinity; as it was said to be lawful for a prudent governor to open and close the gates of a fortress in various ways. For just as many went back believing that the flesh of Christ and His blood were a bodily food to be bodily eaten by them, as is evident from Joh. 6, so to this day there are many who suppose that the sensible bread on the altar is the body of Christ by way of identification, not distinguishing between that figure and what it figures, nor attending to that figurative sense. But let us suppose that the whole Christian community irregularly grasps this sense — not fabricating a falsehood on the part of accidents existing per se — and let us admit such a manner of speaking, "This sign is the body of Christ," in the catholic sense, so that "is" signifies to figure sacramentally in this way; still it does not follow that the bread is identified with the body of Christ, as is evident to one attending to the senses. For it does not follow from Joh. 6 that, if the bread figures the body of Christ in this way, it thereby becomes numerically the same as that same body; nor is there sufficient authority for conceding one expression rather than another. For the fathers of the true church never believed that that bread is numerically the same as the body of Christ, just as neither do the priests who consecrate it believe today; for in that case the sick would touch it more devoutly than the woman who touched the hem of Christ's garment, Luc.

English

8, and they would handle the living and glorious body of the Lord with infinitely greater reverence than they in fact handle that bread. And it is evident that neither the faith of Scripture, nor the holy doctors, nor the laws of the church declare that every such consecrated bread becomes the body of Christ by way of identification. And if the objection is pressed by way of a parallel argument — that the bread which Christ took in His hands became and becomes the body of Christ through consecration, and by the same token the bread which a priest today duly consecrates would become and would be the body of Christ in this way — it is evident that the modern doctors would deny the premise as supremely heretical; but the one who faithfully conceded the consequent, namely that that bread is the body of Christ in the sense expounded, would deny that that bread becomes or will be numerically the same as the body of Christ, because to be in the sense of figuring in this way is not to be identified in this way; and such a faithful person would often concede without contradiction that that bread both is and is not the body of Christ, so that the equivocation, which is not a contradiction, may be the better detected. But there is a difficulty concerning the virtue by which the bread is altered, or, as others say, converted, transubstantiated, or consecrated so as to be a sacrament. It is said first here that the multitude of such terms introduced without the authority of Scripture has greatly altered and disturbed the church; it is said second that the virtue which the bread possesses is transitory and imperceptible to us, and we do not know at what moment it arrives or departs, since it is grounded in the body of Christ as a kind of species of light; and therefore some philosophers say that the bread is not thereby altered, while others say that it is altered spiritually — speaking broadly of alteration — and that it is directed toward a conversion of the bread into the body of Christ, as Ambrose says.

English

And by that conversion different people understand differently: some less correctly, that the bread according to its whole self is destroyed, and others that the bread becomes the body of Christ in the sense expounded; and in this way Thomas can be understood to mean that the body of Christ is present there through the conversion of the bread itself; just as Christ is present in His humanity to the faithful gathered in His name through faith and love turned toward Him. Nor is there any other sanctity of the sacrament, as is evident from what has been said; and that sanctity appears to be subjectively in the body of Christ and to be in the sacrament by way of containment or definition, not bodily but causally — just as the sacrament has a certain virtue for moving the faithful soul to the devout remembrance of Christ, which virtue is subjectively in the soul and objectively in the sacrament; yet it is never known with certainty that such virtue is a thing capable of existing per se, or that that change or conversion terminates in the numerical identity of the sacrament and the body of Christ. But concerning these changes, it must be noted that they can be understood either well or badly. Well: so that transubstantiation is a conversion when one substance passes into another or becomes another. And the higher authorities of the church would be content with the sense of transubstantiation while the essence of the transubstantiated thing remains, since no other sense is to be established. For they hold that the pope is created at his enthronement with a changed name, and that he creates those whom he promotes; but that would be more than transubstantiation, which takes place when God changes a substantial creature for the better. Hence Ambrose in the second book of De Paenitentia says: "The flesh," he says, "has perished, since its substance passes into Christ." Therefore the doctors often say that the one who is converted is Christ Himself.

English

Likewise Augustine, in De Paenitentia: "No one passes over to Christ; let him begin to be what he was not, unless he repents of having been what he was." And thus the saints, in accordance with the usage of the church, posit such a conversion or transubstantiation of essence, even though the nature itself remains the same. And it is evident from the principles of the sect of signs that this sense is agreeable. For they posit, on account of the difficulty of faith and the increase of merit, many things that they do not know how to establish; how much more shall we posit catholic truths that are grounded and venerable and that exclude incongruities. For through this we can posit that the essence of the bread undergoes transubstantiation, which they hold to exist without a subject, although they cannot understand this, as they say. Through this we can also preserve the catholic statements of the saints, of the laws, and of the usage of the church, which concordantly say that bread becomes the flesh of Christ. And third and most powerfully, because the faith of Scripture — with five evangelists relating that the Truth who cannot lie asserts that the bread is His body — it therefore seems to be highly heretical that by virtue of the blessing of Christ the bread is utterly destroyed, as is evident from the definition of heresy. And as regards the decretal which appears to say that an accident exists without a subject, it is said that this is —

English

It is possible by force of the words, as is clear from Augustine's determination; but it can rightly be understood in this sense, that the sensible accident of the Eucharist exists without the body subjected to it — a fact which actually exists for the consideration of the faithful, to which one ought to attend more closely. For (as has been said) our thought ought principally to be about the body of Christ in heaven, and thought about the nature of the Eucharist is therefore to be suspended. And in this sense the saints appear to say that in the host only the qualities remain. But fourthly, the unbeliever gropes principally through another empty crack, arguing for identification on the ground that the more harmonious and devout manner of the Eucharist is to be posited; but an assumption of this kind is impanation, as one who holds this opinion says — that just as the Word assumed humanity, making from deity and humanity one suppositum, so the matter of the Eucharist appears to be. Hence certain people call it impanation, by which bread becomes the flesh of Christ, and invination, by which wine becomes the blood of Christ, just as they call it incarnation by which flesh becomes God, as is said in Joh. 1. And in favor of this the sentence of Augustine appears to stand in the book of the Sentences of Prosper, and it is placed in De Consecratione, distinction II, Hoc est, where it is said thus: that the sacrifice of the altar is made of two things and consists, namely, of the visible species of the elements and the invisible flesh and blood of Christ, that is, of the sacrament and the reality of the sacrament, just as the person of Christ is constituted of man and of God; therefore, just as Christ is true God and true man, so it is with this sacrifice. Here is touched upon the third delusion by which the blind grope through their fictions in order to cloak their lies.

English

For (as in Decree, Third Part, dist. II, ch. XLVIII, cited above) the first is transubstantiation, by which they posit that the bread and wine are entirely destroyed. The second is identification, by which they posit that one suppositum is made identically to be another. The third is impanation, by which they posit not that a suppositum assumes a suppositum, but that a nature is assumed hypostatically into a suppositum — so that the first fiction posits concerning the transubstantiated thing that neither matter nor form remains, but that the whole ceases to exist. The second posits, more tolerably, that bread and wine remain in their supposita; which supposita are bread and wine, and by way of identification become the body and blood of Christ. The third way says more plausibly that the supposita of the bread and wine do not remain, but that the natures of bread and wine are preserved through hypostatic union. And in this way certain people understand the threefold sentence which the Master of the Sentences recounts in Book IV, distinction XI, chapter one. But arguing against this sentence, it is first to be noted that (as the chroniclers report) there was a certain Friar Preacher in Paris who, on account of his promotion of this sentence, was excommunicated there, and upon appeal to the Avignon curia was condemned for this sentence in the time of Clement V; just as in the time of Urban V another preacher and inquisitor of heretical depravity was condemned because he wished to defend that a man sees the body of Christ in the host with the bodily eye. And it is reasonable that one who sows matter of faith beyond what he knows how to defend or to ground should be denounced as an enemy of the church, since the Holy Spirit gave to His bride what and how much she ought to believe.

English

— what and how much she ought to believe. Therefore, those are hateful who, to the burden and mockery of the church, fabricate lies. And would that the Avignon church would weigh this sentence.

English

For although up to the time of Clement VI the Roman bishop remained (as he ought) within Rome or his own diocese, as the Cistercian chronicler records in the last book, ch. XXXIV, and long before this generation began to decline from the ancient faith concerning the quiddity of the host, nevertheless that entire church may be called Avignonese on account of its long-continued irreligious wantonness — just as it pretends to be the Roman church; for if it claims universal jurisdiction, as Peter did, it ought according to the rules of Christ to go where the more populous country knows that barbarian paganism burns more fiercely. For here simoniacal avarice is said to intoxicate the western regions like a raven resting after it has found a carcass. Let it note (I say) how from the time of the apostles up to the four doctors of the church, the church flourished in faith, not by introducing unknown accidents concerning the quiddity of the sacrament of the altar, and how after that it continually fell back; and let it weigh with an even balance the evidences that would compel one to sow this unintelligible and unfounded sentence, so contrary to the ancient teaching. If (I say) it introduced the school of this lie arrogantly, without prior revelation or evidence, who doubts that it is a treacherous seducer of the church and a chief disciple of Antichrist? Hence I used to put it to my colleagues that we are in the middle period of time before the church was defamed by this blindness, and that they should for the present produce evidences that such things ought to be believed by the church; for although it is permitted to examine the rationale of faith, why then not the rationale of the statement of Innocent III, since it appears contrary to reason, and consequently to faith and to the decree of the Roman church? But it has been established that the sentence of Thomas is far too weak in this respect; nor do I doubt that no new sufficiency will come in, because it is not grounded in scripture or in the greater doctors. Second, it is to be noted that among all the decrees of the saints, this decree with its gloss does most to support our position.

English

For Augustine, distinguishing between sacrifice and sacrament, says that the sacrifice is made from the sacrament and the reality of the sacrament, which is the body of Christ and His blood, as is the person of Christ — not that deity and humanity are parts of Christ, but His quiddities, each of which is the whole Christ. Thus he calls the sacrifice, in an aggregative sense and not by way of composition from parts, the sensible sacrament together with the body and blood of Christ. Further, Augustine, approving the tropological manner of speaking, writes thus: The flesh of Christ, which we receive covered in the form of bread under the sacrament, and His blood, which we drink under the species and taste of wine — so that the flesh is the sacrament of the body and the blood is the sacrament of the blood. Here it is plain that this holy man speaks tropically as does scripture, and teaches that the body of Christ is hidden there in such a way that it is not seen there with the bodily eye. And thirdly he explains and applies this sense more explicitly: The heavenly bread, he says, which truly is the flesh of Christ, is in its own way called the body of Christ, since in reality it is the sacrament of the body of Christ — which he expounds earlier through this, that by these things the true flesh and blood of Christ is signified. Hence the gloss says that this heavenly sacrament, when it thus represents the flesh of Christ, is called the body of Christ.

English

— but improperly, that is, by the mystery of signification. Thus, Augustine says, the very immolation of the flesh which is performed by the hands of the priest is called the passion, death, and crucifixion of Christ — not in the truth of the thing but by the mystery of signification — just as the sacrament of faith, baptism, is faith. From this and other things like it, rivals ought to note the distinction of double predication and the sense of sacramental proposition; and then they would not wonder at the decrees of the holy doctors together with the laws of the church, nor at us who at that point expound them. Who (I ask) doubts that this gloss is a double one, drawn from the lies of the glossators, which is given to the decree of Nicholas II, Ego Berengarius — when the text speaks thus: I confess that the bread and wine which are placed upon the altar are, after consecration, not only the sacrament but the true body of Christ and the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. Upon this text the gloss gives as a rule that one should refer all things to the species themselves, so that this is the sense: I confess that not bread and wine but the species of bread and wine placed by themselves are not only a sacrament, nor the body of Christ, but that under them the body of Christ is contained. And thus the confession of Berengarius is impossible and heretical by force of the words; but it ought to be glossed by its own contradictory — since it is heretical that bread and wine should remain after consecration as a sacrament, but they are things of an alien nature, not bread and wine but accidents, which cannot be the body of Christ, but to which the body of Christ belongs. How detestable is a gloss that so often expounds a text by its own contradictory, and with the same proposition changes the sense of the same term against its own proper rule.

English

He should recall, I say, the text of Augustine, where he says that it must be maintained by every argument that flesh is the sacrament of flesh and blood is the sacrament of blood; and this holy man calls that flesh the heavenly bread which is truly the body of Christ in its own manner. For then he would be ashamed of the gloss he attributes to it, namely: it is improperly called the body of Christ in its own manner, but not according to the truth of the thing. But the blessed Augustine explains himself that the consecrated bread appears to be the body of Christ in the manner of a sign, since it truly signifies the body of Christ tropically and sacramentally. Nor is there any doubt that Augustine intends by bread the nature of bread, not the accident, which he so expressly asserts cannot exist by itself. And in conformity with this, the blessed Ambrose understands that decree: Bread is at the altar — for it is not a good gloss when the blessed Ambrose proves and asserts that bread can be the body of Christ; which gloss the glossator attributes to himself, saying: It is impossible for bread to be the body of Christ, but such things must be understood in a sound sense. Nor is there any doubt that this glossator would not have raved so madly had he not been seduced by the theological glossators. Hence a sign of his prolixity and doubt on this matter is that at the beginning of that distinction he recites as a probable opinion that bread and wine remain after consecration, which he proves from that decree Ego Berengarius and does not refute.

English

Having grasped the sense of the great decree of Augustine and of the other saints, I argue against this opinion, first by the fact that, according to the judgment of the saints, the material bread of blessing becomes the body of Christ through the blessing, which would not be true according to this way; therefore that way is contrary to the judgment of the saints. Although the assumption is against the rules of the modern doctors, it is shown by the blessed Augustine, in Sermon 61 for the second day of Easter, placed in On Consecration, Distinction 2: Remember, he says, dearest brethren, how the Lord Jesus willed to be recognized by those whose eyes were held so that they might not recognize Him, through the breaking of bread. Not every bread, he says, but that which receives the blessing of Christ becomes the body of Christ. Nor is there any doubt that he is speaking of material bread, as in Book 4 of On the Trinity: We call the body and blood of Christ that which, taken from the fruits of the earth and consecrated by mystical prayer, we rightly receive for the saving remembrance of the Lord's passion. He would be forgetful of his own meaning, unless it seemed to him that the sense of that passage works in favor of this way. We must therefore understand the saints together with scripture to mean that they figuratively and truly call the sign by the name of the thing signified.

English

There is no doubt that he does not mean some unknown accident taken from the fruits of the earth and sacramentally blessed, but (as the words sound) the true ordinary bread so consecrated. Likewise, every nature or quiddity of a body is the suppositum of that same body, as is shown elsewhere; therefore, if the nature of bread and wine were identified with the body of Christ, it would follow that the suppositum of bread and wine is identified with the body and blood of Christ.

English

And to the blood, it appears that bread and wine are identified with the body of Christ and His blood, and by the same logic God could identify anything with anything — which is contrary to what has been said about identification. For the question for this way is: whether both the matter and the form of bread and wine remain after consecration, or not. If not, impanation is eliminated just as with transubstantiation, where it is said that the whole substance is annihilated. For bread does not become the flesh of Christ when it is entirely destroyed before it could become the flesh of Christ; nor is its nature converted into the suppositum of a part of Christ, since both natures of that part cease to be according to their whole. But if both the matter and the form of bread and wine remain, it appears that the suppositum of bread and wine remains wholly intact; and since neither of them becomes the nature of the body and blood, it appears that all the bodies remain distinct as at the beginning, except that through consecration they bear the relation of sign and thing signified, as the ancient judgment of the saints declares. Nor will the advocate of impanation escape the difficulty by carefully inquiring what happens to the elements of bread and wine. For quiddity does not accrue to a natural body, nor can it be imagined that through consecration any material or formal part is added to the body of Christ in heaven.

English

Likewise (as I have often asserted), one must not dream up a falsehood in this matter, lest the idolater sacrifice to the father of lies. The Apostle, in 1 Cor. 10, beginning to treat of this sacrament, urges his dearest ones to flee from the worship of idols. Since, therefore, this impanation has no evidence from scripture, from reason, or from testimony that gives faith, it appears that a Catholic, in order to avoid danger, ought not to assert such impanation. And I have used this rule against the transubstantiation of the Church of Avignon and against every novelty beyond holy scripture dreamed up concerning this matter. It is known, I say, that this church has frequently gone astray even in matters of faith. Since, therefore, the law of scripture has delivered to us what is sufficient to believe concerning the Eucharist, it appears to be presumptuous folly to add novelties beyond its foundation; let us therefore set the expositions of the saints side by side and see where impanation is founded — indeed, we shall not find, by an argument from analogy, any place where its possibility might be grounded.

English

For the Word of infinite power personally assumed humanity in order to redeem it; but what is this — that the flesh and blood of Christ should assume bread and wine to themselves? And again, that humanity did not exist before it became God, because otherwise there would be identification, nor can it be lost; both of which opposites occur in the sacrament of the altar. And again, the same suppositum is the person of true man and of God, which if it were evidently similar in impanation, the same suppositum in impanation would be the bread that pre-existed and the true flesh of Christ. This is denied, because then there would be identification and not mutation — which the laws of the church together with scripture deny. Indeed, just as Christ by assuming many humanities would be many men, so the flesh and blood of Christ would be many breads and wines however variously their accidents might differ; and so Christ would be moved by the same motion by which any such body is moved; and through such bread He would receive many superfluous and dishonorable predicates, as has been touched upon in the matter of the Incarnation, where this way is disproved. For it follows: the bread that Peter the baker made is God, and another bread that Paul the baker kneaded is the same God, therefore many created substances would be God, and thus God would most easily be made by a baker and most dishonorably and most shamefully handled not only by man but even by a beast, just as He was handled according to His humanity in that way. But nothing is more heretical, impious, and insane. And so the confession of Berengarius must be understood, who at first denied the tropical predication — namely, how the sign that is broken must be referred to it, and not Christ. It must be noted that the logical variation among the faithful on this matter is manifold: some faithfully concede that the propositions of Christ and of all scripture are most true, and yet deny that the bread which Christ took and consecrated is or was His body, and equally no bread of the subsequent priests; nor does the proposition of holy scripture signify that, but it signifies that bread sacramentally becomes the body of Christ. Now in our propositions we ought not to give such a tropical sense, since Christ conceded this: the Baptist is Elijah, and the Baptist denied that he himself was Elijah, reserving the trope for the Master. The second way concedes generally that sacramentally consecrated bread is the body of Christ, because it sacramentally figures it and will be and was, and consequently can be the body of Christ; but it does not concede more together with other adjective words, as that a man sees, breaks, or perceives the body of Christ with bodily eyes. And in support of both parts of this logical position there are many sayings of the saints and determinations of the church; and unless it were so stated, one would be compelled to reject the sayings of the saints and of the church as heretical, and there would be for me no effective testimony to my way.

English

And as to their meaning, I would have a thousand commentators against me, and by denying the sayings of the saints as heretical I would lack the force to reply. The third way speaks more loosely, holding that the consecrated bread not only is, becomes, or will be the body of Christ in the sense explained, but that the body of Christ is bodily moved, is prepared, is sanctified, and so with the other predications which the consecrated bread receives. Nor is it contrary to the body of the Lord that it be a sign; hence the decree of Jerome set down in De Consecratione, distinction II, distinguishes the twofold body of Christ. And thus the flesh of Christ and the blood are understood in two ways: either the spiritual flesh of which He says, My flesh is truly food, or the flesh that was crucified; and likewise of the blood. Nor do I contend, with respect to this logical variation, against the sound understanding that bread is not essentially but only tropically the body of Christ, but rather that the nature of bread remains after consecration, serving as the subject of such accidents, even though awareness of it is lulled by the presence of the more noble body. Nor do I contend that it should be granted in equivocal senses both that bread is the body of Christ and that this bread is not the body of Christ, since Christ and the Baptist were not contraries on account of equivocation. Sometimes, however, for the instruction of the people it is expedient to speak now in one way and now in another. Therefore, because danger lies in the third way, as is evident from the gradual deception of the church, it is expedient to avoid it by inclining toward the first way, and not to express either of the two following ways except in the sense explained. With regard to the third way, one must note what belongs to bread as a sacrament and what belongs to it as bread; and the former can be granted to apply to the body of Christ in the equivocal sense explained, but the latter cannot — thus it is not granted that the body of Christ was made into fine sifted bread, pounded through a sieve, seen, broken, or ground.

English

De Consecratione, dist. II, cap. LXII: The body of Christ is understood in two ways — as that which is thus to be transformed through man or beast. And in this boundary region, because of the hidden ambiguity of meaning, danger lies.

English

It remains to consider further the multiplication of the body. For the question here is not how a species or universal is multiplied in its supposita, since each of its singular instances is essentially and numerically distinct. Rather, the question is how the same suppositum in number can be multiplied through distinct and distant places — just as we say that the same soul of a man is wholly present in each of his members. The faithful must likewise grant that both the soul of Christ and His whole body are simultaneously, at the same time, in diverse places and in many churches and altars; and this we call the multiplication of the body, just as the whole body is said to be present at every point of the consecrated host. Now on this subject there are two ways. The first is attributed to the Subtle Doctor and his followers, who hold that the same body can be multiplied dimensionally an indefinite number of times simultaneously through any number of non-communicating places. The second is attributed to the Common Doctor and his followers, who hold that the same body can simultaneously be multiplied dimensionally through any number of places, in such a way that through one place it exists dimensionally, and through other non-communicating places it exists virtually or sacramentally — as is the case with the body of Christ, which is dimensionally in heaven and sacramentally in any number of other distant places, because wherever the consecrated host is, it is not dimensionally present in any of those places; for if it were, it would be extended through a space equal to the host, so that each part of the space occupied by that host would have its own proper part of the body of Christ individually occupying it, as is the case with other bodies that are diffused through spaces equal to themselves — for then it would be entirely equal to its total space and entirely conformed to it in shape. Against the first view it is argued: first, that every body would then be of infinite power. For Peter would be of the same infinite power as if he were multiplied dimensionally through a thousand miles or through any number of places; but then, correspondingly, a greater multiplication would imply greater power — therefore he is already of such great power now. The assumed premise is evident from the fact that power is one absolute quality that has no bearing on location, since otherwise one who kept moving continually would keep varying in power. The possibility of the assumed premise is evident if its truth is supposed; and the minor is proved from the fact that wherever Peter of such great power is, he suffices, together with his equals, to accomplish just as much, and consequently, by the measure by which the magnitude of power ought to be assessed, he is proportionally of greater power. For if the power he now has suffices to accomplish as much as a thousand men, why is he not now of as great a power as they? And the assumed premise is evident if we suppose that the very strong Peter were multiplied dimensionally through a thousand places — he would be as powerful as a thousand equally strong men, since wherever he might be, so great a power remains with him, unsuspended. Peter thus multiplied would therefore suffice to fight against a thousand men, and so on to infinity.

English

Here certain people draw astonishing conclusions — for instance, that Peter alone constitutes a dance or an army of any size, and wounds and kills himself as savagely as one could wish, and simultaneously receives in diverse places contrary descriptions of any kind whatsoever. For Peter multiplied through a thousand places would constitute a dance or an army more harmonious and just as large as that many men; he would therefore move more uniformly and help himself more steadily by the force of natural love than would a multitude that does not have one heart. And since he could be ignorant of himself through the variety of his sensations, it seems that in that case Peter could wound himself as savagely as one could wish. For a single, unmultiplied man may in some instance voluntarily kill himself; why then would this not be possible for a multiplied man who does not recognize himself? For according to the laws of perspective, being thus multiplied, he would see in one place what is hidden from his eyes in another place — otherwise he would have infinite vision — and might by chance look inward and outward indifferently according to every difference of position, as those who are particularly preoccupied with this subject draw out to produce astonishing conclusions, just as sophists argue. This also destroys the rules concerning the velocity of motion, since Peter by way of multiplication could suddenly or however quickly acquire however long a location however slowly, and similarly with other absurdities that follow. This having been established, a second question is asked: whether Peter would merit anything in a case where he suffers death while he himself inflicts it unjustly and irrationally upon himself; and why he does not stop, since he feels pain on both sides and remains in his right mind — for sensible acts are individuated by place and time, and consequently, on account of their diversity, those acts would be diverse. And God, who by His omnipotence can be miraculously co-multiplied in this way, can also de-multiply, restrict, or contract, so that a spiritual accident is multiplied in one place and supernaturally impeded from multiplication elsewhere, with its contrary superinduced upon it — since contraries are repugnant only when simultaneous and in the same instance; indeed God can place all contraries simultaneously. Nor can the law of nature prevent God from doing what they claim; and if God can do the greater, He can do the lesser too, as is commonly assumed in this subject. The form of humanity and the form of deity would therefore, according to these people, be more contrary and more distant from each other than these qualities are from each other; and so virtue and vice, merit and demerit, could simultaneously but in diverse places inhere in the same simple person, who would be both predestinate and foreknown to damnation. How then would the blessed Peter, seeing by the word his own damnation, not have compassion on himself, whom he loves so greatly in charity? For he has whatever he wills and wills nothing evil; nor would contrary descriptions be destroyed, as the saints describe them — indeed, speaking consistently, there would be a thousand forms contrary in nature. For God could co-extend anything hot with anything cold and cause those forms to inform simultaneously. In the third question it is asked why the following inference does not hold: Peter is here moved locally, is altered, is increased, or is of this kind — therefore he is simply of this kind; and so concerning a contrary description with respect to another place, and why a proposition with a contrary predicate does not entail an affirmative proposition with an infinite predicate, and why the contradictory of what is conceded with a finite predicate does not hold with an infinite predicate. For otherwise it would be possible for the same thing elsewhere to be simultaneously and at once wholly hot and cold, saved and damned, and altogether lacking the perfection it has of being more excellent or less excellent than itself in very many descriptions. Furthermore, granted that Peter is in infinite ways contrarily accidentated, and at whatever latitude of human description, with contrary and remitted degrees of the same latitude in distant places, it would be possible for God that Peter move toward himself and be co-extended with himself, thereby constituting however intense a quality out of however remitted a quality, and all species of secondary quality would result from the same quality co-extended with itself; and so, as they argue, the same body could be in the same place infinitely many times. They take evidence of this multitude from the deeds of Christ, who from five loaves and two fish satisfied five thousand men, and twelve baskets of fragments still remained (as is evident in Marc. 6); and they confirm the same from the seven loaves and a few small fish from which four thousand men were satisfied and seven baskets of fragments were left over (concerning which Marc. 8); and this is confirmed a third time from the formation of Eve from the rib of the man (concerning which Gen. 3); indeed it is commonly said that all the essential matter of man after Adam was present in Adam himself, nor is anything increased through the incorporation of food of this kind, as Christ seems to define in Matth.

English

Matth. 15: "Everything," He says, "that enters the mouth passes into the belly and is cast into the sewer" — nor could numerical identity be preserved otherwise for animate bodies, and especially for trees. From all of which the possibility of the existence of the same body in diverse places is inferred, and that the same body, as many times as one wishes, can be in the same place. Against this, however, it is replied first that such a body is only once in a given place, since after it once entered that place it never departed, as I suppose. Just as, therefore, you are not a man as many times as you have eaten (as logicians say), because you are a man continuously and just once, so it seems that one must say you are in that place only once. This is confirmed by the fact that otherwise every body would be in a place infinitely many times, because it could be extracted from a place infinitely many times while that place itself continuously remained the same, and it would be in that place as many times as it was put there; for however many times God might extract it from some place, He would find it there that many times — which would not be the case unless God had placed it there that many times. But let us speak of some mode not as it refers to the succession of time but as it refers to the multiplicity of natural order; and then one must say that God cannot place a creature somewhere unless He places it there infinitely many times. Likewise, it seems that every material substance is infinitely rare and at the same time infinitely dense, because it could be placed through a given space so many times that it would be infinitely dense — and so it is now that dense — and by the same argument it would be infinitely rare in the case where God extracted it infinitely many times.

English

Likewise, it seems that every body, whether intense or remitted in a quality, is both infinitely intense and infinitely remitted in that quality, because through the multiplication and subtraction of itself from itself it could, with the same quality, be precisely of this degree. Furthermore, it seems that every body is infinite in every bodily description whatsoever; for a body can be infinite without acquiring any quantity beyond what it already has, and however great it can be with those same parts, so great is it now — therefore every body is infinite. The consequence is evident from the fact that it now has every quantity it can have with those same parts. And the assumed premise is proved by taking a cubic foot and multiplying it through six places so that it touches itself according to six different surfaces and continuity is made; and it is evident that this is equivalent to a six-foot rectangle without any quantity being generated as a whole in itself. I further suppose that each successive proportional part of this body together with the whole remainder is multiplied through twelve places and continuity is made according to unequal surfaces, and it is evident that this will be equivalent to a body double the six-foot body — and so to infinity in every dimension — given this principle: if there are two quanta and one is superimposed upon the other, and it neither exceeds nor is exceeded by it, then they are equal. For it is equal to the place or position through which it is thus extended. Nor does it avail to say that a new quantity is generated, because none is generated as a whole in itself, just as no surface, point, or line is generated. Since, therefore, the magnitude of quantity is assessed according to the multiplication of points, it is evident that it is not increased in the proposed case; and by the same argument it would not be diminished if it were again de-multiplied — indeed, one half being co-extended with its quantity together with the other half, and so on down to a punctual position, it seems that the quantity, however multiplied, will remain continuously equal in magnitude.

English

Its quantity will continuously remain equally great, because it will lose no quantity but will acquire some accidentally. From which it seems that it will acquire or lose no magnitude, and so every quantum would be infinitely great and infinitely small; indeed a world as great as this one and one infinitely greater could be constituted through a single point. Who therefore knows whether it is so in fact, since everything could be accomplished more briefly with punctual matter as regards blessedness or any end in itself; nor does reason or experience prove the contrary. How then would so great a multitude of superfluous things be posited for a philosopher who has no revelation, given the abbreviated word of God, which most concisely orders means to the ends it intends? Furthermore, by this method all measurement of place would be destroyed, as also every species of figures; for if God can thus multiply in general the same body in number, He can also multiply in general position, place, and figure. Nor do we know when He might do so, since it would be more concise, more philosophical, and in every way more consonant with reason, if it were possible. Therefore God, multiplying a punctual position throughout the whole world, could not locate anything more concisely, because given this foundation, He Himself would be the place of every creature, and so He could be all things to all on earth.

English

Granting this, therefore, it seems first that every place is indivisible and consequently no place is greater than another; for an indivisible position, multiplied, would be every place. From which it seems that nothing is greater than anything else in respect of bulk. Second, it seems to follow that nothing could, with those same parts, be moved locally, and there would be a complete illusion with respect to every sensation and especially with respect to sight; for natural bodies would have their natural location and vision according to which they would cause the appearance of motion. Third, it seems to follow that there is a contradiction in terms, since position of anything is only through an individual, unmultiplied situation. How then is a position multiplied throughout the whole world, when every situation is everywhere, given this indivisible situation? And every difference of position would be destroyed, and consequently every sign of day or night, every figure of a man; and infinite errors would follow for those whose opposites are implied. As for differences of figures, it is evident that those presuppose a difference of position that is destroyed; for if we mark a triangle that is half a square and multiply it through two immediate positions in such a way that one extremity of the base is applied to the other extremity of the same base, so that continuity is made at every point of it, it is evident that, with the other half annihilated, a square would be formed; and so a figure however large and of whatever species can exist even through a single multiplied point. For if a point is multiplied through every punctual position that is already in the world and the whole remainder is annihilated, it is evident that nowhere will position or figure be lacking. And the emptiness of the response is evident — the response that says no figure is constituted except through a quantity taken as a whole and not multiplied — because if the same person can be multiplied, filling positions just as many men do, then by the same argument the same quantity and figure can be, because otherwise it would not be a multiplication but a placement of a person through one position. Furthermore, I suppose that a point is multiplied through every position in the world with the whole remainder annihilated; it is still evident that matter remains for moving locally — just as Peter constitutes a dance by way of multiplication — for otherwise a multiplied person would be excessively constrained, unless wherever he might be he could move himself locally and perform whatever bodily actions lie within his natural power. And every operation of this kind that a naturally multiplied body can perform, a fully qualified multiplied quantity can perform, as is evident from the consecrated host; and by the same argument God can do with the greatest thing multiplied down to the smallest as much as is done with any one thing, because otherwise it would detract from divine power. Let God therefore move the whole equinoctial circle, causing motion and time regularly as now, yet in such a way that the whole equinoctial contains only a multiplied point; and it seems first that throughout the whole there is no motion, because it is at rest at each pole, and elsewhere there is no position, since every position is multiplied everywhere, as I suppose. And if there is no variation of motion, there is no variation of time or of an instant, since time or an instant, which is a property of motion, would not vary or be individuated except by motion; and days, years, and all times would perish, as has been set forth in the treatise On Time. And along the same lines one fantasizes, supposing that God with each instant places infinite instants, and with each time infinite equal non-communicating times; and then it seems that everything which endures for a time endures for an infinitely long time, because for an infinitely great time — namely, for infinitely many equal non-communicating times, which is equivalent.

English

Indeed, it seems that God, from two coextensive things, can constitute one time, just as from two surfaces, positions, or acts of the same species that are partly composable He can constitute a third composite — and thus, just as no one would know whether something infinite will endure for a long time, so one would not know whether it will move quickly or whether the day of judgment will follow immediately on account of the multiplication of time and on account of times and places hidden from us; and knowledge of sensible things, and consequently all science, would perish throughout the whole world, since every man, like a man afflicted with vertigo, would not know how to discern anything regarding any sensible thing. And the origin of all the absurdities of these errors is the falsehood fabricated concerning the sacrament of the altar. For the worshiper of accidents cannot deny that the power of God is limited to so great a marvel as He can perform and no further, or that the situation is in fact the same with respect to the world and other sensible things and not in some manner infinitely more marvelous hidden from us — and so the ancient opinions would return, as Aristotle speaks in the first book of the Ethics, and especially the opinion that every man knows nothing but only holds opinions. And since there would be no vacuum except a quality lacking material substance, every worshiper of accidents is ignorant whether throughout the whole world there exists a vacuum, even an infinite one. And so, by straightening out an infinite strip of bark caught between two helical lines wound around a cylindrical body, one would at last arrive at the last proportional part of the cylinder and at the last foot of the helical line; and it would be necessary to give the location of the other extreme, since when a located thing is given, its location must be given — just as one would also have to give the location of the point which is continuously fixed to the moving extreme of the bark. For it is said that if one holds a ribbon by its two ends with hands fixed at a distance, and the ribbon is infinitely extended and correspondingly wound around a cylindrical body caught between the hands, it would be wound around proportionally as the ribbon requires to revolve around itself; which being done, the ribbon would be infinite and yet held at both its ends in your hands. There are a thousand cases by which the church is thrown into confusion, all of which depend upon or are founded on a fantasy that is supremely impossible and heretical, introduced on the occasion of the matter concerning the sacrament of the Eucharist. Therefore (as I have often said), the Catholic doctor ought to hold himself within the bounds of nature, asserting that God alone is of infinite power, such that neither the world nor any creature can be infinitely large, nor can the infinitely large be such, and thus, granting the premises of the arguments, that leap and that infinity are to be denied. I would, however, admit all such cases on the understanding that they would be subject to divine power, and so an infinite number is denied, just as a finite continuous quantity is denied, as is evident in the matter of the composition of a continuum from non-quantities and in the matter of time. For that whose quantity is unknown to us we call, in the manner of speaking of Scripture and the philosopher, equivocally infinite, and thus such multiplication of the body and other cases groundless in Scripture are denied.

English

But for the multiplication, the argument commonly runs as follows: it is no more repugnant that the same body in number be multiplied simultaneously through diverse places than it is repugnant that diverse bodies be located simultaneously through the same place adequate to them; since the distance and diversity are equally great on both sides. But the second is quite possible, as is evident in the case of glorified bodies according to the gift of subtlety and coextension, and in the case of intermixed elements — therefore the first is equally possible by the same reasoning. This is confirmed in the second place from miracles by which it is reported that the same body has been experienced as simultaneously multiplied dimensionally in this way — as it is told of blessed Ambrose that he was in distant places at the same time and celebrated the ecclesiastical office there; for just as the same body can be multiplied through diverse times, so also through diverse places. And it is confirmed in the third place from the evidences touched upon in the third argument from the faith of Scripture. As to this, it is said that the major premise is false, since it is necessary that mixed bodies occupy their individual positions correspondingly arranged according to their indivisible parts, and so the gift of subtlety pertains to penetration, not to division or coextension; and thus after the day of judgment the heavens will be more extended as to place toward the earth, correspondingly as they will have more points from the sublunary or elementary sphere, so that the womb of the heavens will be enlarged, preserving its shape (as is assumed here). And the same judgment holds concerning quantity and quality and other things coextensive with material essence. For if quantity, quality, form, and matter had dimensions per se, as material substance has (as the aforesaid error concerning the Eucharist fantasizes), then there would be four quantities besides the common quantity coextensive through five coextensive places, and quantity with its place would be prior in consequence to the other places or the four other quantities following it, because (as is fantasized) quantity with its place could exist as a vacuum without any of the other four, but not the reverse; and (as it seems to me) then the place of the world would be diminished, since four multitudes of individuals from the community would be lacking; for it would be one thing for one of these five things to be located per se and another thing for another of them to be located in the same way.

English

Since God could annihilate the posterior while preserving the prior (as they say), either it is necessary to grant material substance without such limited quantity, or if this cannot occur, then such quantity is far prior to material substance. For God (as they say) can miraculously preserve quantity without material substance, but not the reverse; and so it appears that at every point of the world that remained there would be an infinitely great vacuum, since God (as they say) could place in the position of this world infinite bodies and other things that could exist per se of infinitely diverse species, and for each of them a proper place would have to be given. For place is not prior by nature to corporeal substance, but the reverse; therefore it is not possible for the same place in number to receive in turn as many species of material substance, of substantial and accidental forms as one wishes, because then place would be a vacuum — something that God, who precedes all these things, could not move. But what could be more foolish or more faithless? Therefore everything that can be located per se must have its own proper place, which is for that essence to be situated (as is now assumed). And it is evident that the second part of the assumed major premise is false and is not proved by the minor. And as to the miracles (as it is told secondly concerning blessed Ambrose), it is said that deception is possible both as regards time and as regards sight.

English

As to time: because it easily happens that men err concerning the identity of an instant — as is evident from the fact that no one knows how to mark by motion or sense the first instant or the middle of a day or of a period of time — how then would various men in distant places note that at the same instant the body of blessed Ambrose was here and there? And by a difference of time imperceptible to us, the body of blessed Ambrose could be carried by angels from one place to another and so transferred, as is evident in the case of the leading of Elijah, so that the ministry of the saint appears to be continuous in both places. But grant that through the same time without interruption the saint was present in those distant places — it would still not be necessary to concede that proposition, since an illusion of the senses is possible on account of a likeness regarding the identification of the body; for similar bodies can be fitted to the spirit of the holy Ambrose, and the same person can minister simultaneously in time through those diverse bodies in diverse places; therefore that miracle, assuming its truth, is far too weak to establish the proposition. And as to that saying, it is evident that it does not support the proposition, since the same body in number can successively be in diverse places, just as the same body can be in diverse instants. Hence if it were applied to the proposition, one would have to concede that the same body can be simultaneously in diverse instants — meaning that it could be simultaneously in diverse places — for the one would be just as irrational and impossible as the other. Therefore, just as it cannot be that the same body is simultaneously in diverse instants, so it cannot be that it is simultaneously in diverse places, speaking of dimensional existence. Let the one who holds this opinion therefore show or prove that diverse instants of a body exist simultaneously, and then there would be evidence for the opinion; for just as times cannot be simultaneously extended, so neither can places. For we are speaking of an immobile location equal to the linear, surface, or solid line of the located substance, which is place subjectively — this sense of place (I say) is more proper than the sense of the cavity of a containing body. And it is evident that it is more clearly the case that no instants can exist simultaneously in time than that places can exist simultaneously as to location; they can indeed be immediate, I say, but they cannot be simultaneous, because if a place is simultaneous with a place equal to it, then from equal containment each one locates the other, and so each is superfluous in composing with the other intensively — and the same holds if many instants are simultaneous. For we are not speaking of the simultaneity of immediacy but of the simultaneity of adequation, such that the same thing belonging to the genus of place or time contains anything that is simultaneous with it adequately. As to the third point, it is said in accordance with the opinions of the saints that in the said miracles God provided hidden materials and caused those few and small forms to have the power to assimilate to themselves imperceptibly those materials, so that no material essence comes to be simultaneously and at once in diverse places; and thus it is true that from so much food Christ worked so great a miracle by satisfying so great a people — partly because, in a synonymous sense according to the part of the food, and principally according to the power given to Him for assimilating to Himself as much of such nourishment as God willed for the purpose of such ministry — nor does there follow from this an illusion of the senses, a jest on God's part, a diminishment of the miracle, or any other inconvenience that should be named. And the solution to that threefold text of Scripture alleged for the multiplication of the body is evident in general.

English

As to the matter of augmentation and diminution: it has been said elsewhere that, in view of the unity of the spirit who is the person of man, there is no difficulty in how augmentation occurs through nutritive moisture, since a small form is generated by it — for example, the form of flesh, or of bone, or of such a simple and composite part — nor indeed is it an obstacle that a vegetative soul or even a sensitive soul is generated that is subordinated to the ultimate soul. Nor does it avail to say that such a form is a quantitative part of the whole form; it is sufficient that it be a form subordinated to the whole form, by which this partial substance has its quiddity, just as the whole body has its quiddity from the form of the whole. Concerning the multiplication of forms, both of souls and of forms of mixed things, this has been set forth at length elsewhere, as has the order of augmentation and the reason why it is not necessary for the ultimate form to increase or decrease, even though the forms of the parts may come and go. With respect to trees that have a vegetative soul there is here a certain diversity, since it is commonly the case that over the course of time there is new wood; and that successive thing is commonly augmented and diminished, and that successive thing is individuated by its elements — and thus it is now greater, now smaller (as is here assumed as having been declared elsewhere). As to the authority of Christ at Matth. 15, it is evident that those who say that our Jesus did not know philosophy on this point are to be dismissed as utterly faithless. For they must acknowledge the force of His speech and the sense in which He said these things, He to whom all things are subject. Now the speech of Christ runs thus: Do you not understand that everything that enters the mouth goes into the stomach and is expelled in the latrine? But the things that proceed from the mouth come out from the heart, and these defile a man. And He then enumerates seven things that defile a man. Matth. 15.

English

man. Here it is evident, first, that Christ would not have rebuked the lack of understanding in Peter and his companions by adding to them an expository judgment unless that judgment were subtle, most true, and wholesome. Second, it is evident that He first speaks of the mouth of the body, corresponding to the carnal Jews who observed bodily rites; and third, He speaks of the mouth of the mind, corresponding to the fathers of the new law, who ought to observe a precaution against the contagion of sin by means of unclean or common bodies — such as animals and other things forbidden by the old law — as Augustine teaches in the book Against Faustus. And third, regarding the subtlety of Christ's words, it is to be noted, first, that Christ understands, according to a fitting and appropriate distribution, that every unclean part of food that passes through complete digestions defiles a man with bodily defilement, once the pure part of the food has been separated from the impure. Therefore the text of Mark 7 runs thus: Do you not understand that everything that enters from outside a man cannot defile him, because it did not enter his heart but his stomach, and it goes out into the latrine, purging all foods? Hence Matthew also reports that these seven things proceed from the mouth, so that we may understand the mouth of the mind. And he states that they go out from the heart of the inner man, which is to proceed beyond the limits of reason. And the literal sense of inviolable truth is evident. But this word of Christ is laden with manifold moral meaning. First, it is noted that no one is defiled mentally unless the defilement originated from himself. Second, it is noted that carnal observance for the sake of temporal things —

English

Under the old law it was permitted, but now it defiles, since after it has been fully digested it passes out as waste. And third, we are instructed that no foul bodily thing defiles the mind of a man unless it has been separated from the purity of good nature and, according to the logic of the stench of sin, taken back up again through unnatural abuse as though it were vomit. A thousand other subtleties the faithful person can draw from these pure words of Christ, free from every stain of falsehood. For it was not His concern to distribute these matters more extensively, but to teach, lest His followers be occupied with the observances of bodily food while neglecting concern for the spiritual food of the soul. Therefore the Apostle says, 1 Tim. 1: All things are clean to the clean.

English

And 1 Tim. 4, Every creature of God is good and nothing is to be rejected, which is received with thanksgiving; and 1 Cor. 10, Eat whatever is sold in the meat market, asking no question on account of conscience. And from this those who forge lies are to be rebuked — to the effect that as catholic faith the sign of the body of Christ, which is the sacrament, is blasphemously worshipped and the veneration of the signified body of the Lord is abandoned. But returning to the other opinion of the Common Doctor, it must be noted first how he differs from others on the matter of measure; for he posits many things which he elsewhere says are impossible, and those are then without doubt either explicitly or implicitly heretical — for instance, he posits the impossibility of a continuum being composed of non-extended indivisibles, yet appears to concede the possibility of the immediate succession of instants. For it is written on the part of Thomas in his commentary on the Sentences, Distinction, Question 25: It must be said, he states, that one can assign the last instant in which an angel was good and the first in which he was evil.

English

Nor was there a mediate time between the instants; and because time is formally a number, continuity does not follow for it except on the part of motion. Hence, since the succession of states in the angel, through which he is good and evil, is not continuous and ordered to any continuous motion, yet the number of them will be called time, because they are related according to prior and posterior, but it is not continuous.

English

Hence between two instants a mediate time need not be taken, just as between two unities a number need not be taken. But this assertion is corrupt. The Oxford sophists, I say, would argue that either the goodness of the angel ceases to exist by the removal of the present, or his wickedness began by the removal of the present, so that he was neither good and evil at the same instant, nor were the two instants immediate — because by the same reasoning Peter, made well immediately after his illness, since contraries are immediate, would cause the immediacy of instants; and by the same reasoning a point flowing continuously over two contiguous lines and, in general, the changing of an indivisible is preceded by its own instant of having been changed, as is shown elsewhere. Furthermore, if time is discontinuous, because it is intrinsically a continuous number and continuity accrues to it from motion, it follows that time can only be discrete; for there can be no time unless there is number, and there can be no number unless it is discrete; therefore there can be no time unless it is discrete. Otherwise one argues far too nakedly that time is discontinuous from the mere fact that it is a number, and great foolishness is imputed to Aristotle, who says that number is the genus of time; and yet there can be no time unless it is continuous. For since, at the time of the angel's fall, there was continuous motion in the world, it seems that with equal force of evidence by which time was then discrete through two immediate instants, it was also simultaneously continuous by reason of the then-continuous motion. Indeed, in mathematical entities such as points and instants, continuity and contiguity do not differ. Furthermore, it is proved in general that instants are immediate at the same time, from the principle of this school, taking as conceded that continuity accrued contingently to the same time from continuous motion — as when one asserts that time can intrinsically follow the state of the angel. Since, then, an angel continuously varies its state at an instant, and other things are generated suddenly (as is credibly held) or at least it is possible, it seems that with equal force of evidence any time is discrete; for time is naturally prior to continuous motion along this path, because it could exist without the continuous motion of angelic states. Since, then, time is not naturally prior to being discrete, which is its essential difference, it seems that the continuity of motion that accrues here so contingently neither removes the discreteness of time nor adds a continuity that would change its nature. For, given a time one half of which is continuous and the other half discrete, all arguments that would proceed against the immediacy of instants would also proceed against that. And the adversaries prove the possibility of this by positing that God continuously, for half an hour, creates and annihilates an angel without any intermediate interval, and for the second half-hour ceases from all such activity; then it is evident that there is no force of argument against the composition of a continuum from non-extended indivisibles that would not equally proceed against the composition of such a time. Therefore the root of this position stands with the composition of a permanent continuum from non-extended indivisibles.

English

To this I argue from the principles of the adversary, positing that God annihilates every continuum of this sensible world while preserving every point of its motion, and creates at every indivisible position one angel, so as to multiply the same angel in both cases, and beyond this preserves an indivisible point that is moved locally in continuous succession from indivisible to indivisible; and it is evident that there would then be continuous time just as there would be a permanent continuous space from the immediacy of indivisibles, and yet time would be composed of instants. For every position that previously existed in the world would be filled to the highest degree with indivisible points, since a vacuum cannot be given; therefore the bodily space would be equally continuous, as it was at the beginning. Similarly, if a shape is caused by a forest, the stars of heaven, and similar bodies positioned at a distance — as natural philosophers, optical theorists, and geometers say — much more so by indivisibles placed immediately with a plenum preserved everywhere; for once the continuity of place is conceded, the continuity of what is placed must also be conceded. Similarly, one legion of angels, which faith calls one being (as is evident in Luc. 8), could be led around in a circle, and so the local motion and the time consequent upon it would be truly continuous; indeed it seems that that legion, which is one angel, would be in some manner circular, because the circular leading-around requires continuity, and the continuous circularity of that motion requires the continuity of its subject, which is the legion. It is therefore evident that neither sense nor reason now indicates continuity to the world without equally implying that there was continuity in both cases then. Nor is there any doubt that if a sphere or an indivisible point were then moved continuously, there would then be an immediacy of motions and instants, just as there would be an immediacy of indivisible positions; from which a continuum would be composed in both cases. Indeed, a cubic body would have corresponding to its indivisible points a heap of indivisible points subjected to it and led around in every direction, and everywhere there would be such great continuity. And so this school, ignorant of its own voice, has babbled something true, because it was manifestly self-contradictory. Thus it now upholds Aristotle and now denies him; now it upholds the laws of men and now denies them; now it upholds the decrees of the church and now denies them; and it does not ground itself in this variation upon the faith of Scripture; therefore the testimony of this school is vain. As regards the catholic sayings of Aristotle concerning the genus of accident, it is evident that this school rejects them without cause.

English

But those other sayings of Aristotle concerning the composition of a continuum from non-extended indivisibles — in which Plato, Augustine, and the Lincolnian agree — this school explicitly concedes to Aristotle's credit, yet implicitly denies them. As regards the laws of men, it is evident that this school has so far favored them that it says a judge ought on their account to contradict in a given case the divine judgment — something that the devil himself would not dare to concede. As regards the laws of the church, it is evident that it contradicts the decree of Nicholas II concerning the Eucharist. But concerning indulgences without any scriptural foundation or cause, it concedes that the Avignon bishop can take the superabundant merit from the blessed and distribute it at will to the dissolute without limit. Who, then, would trust such a man, so thrice-errant in these ways, and others like him, as a witness?

English

But perhaps it is said that this doctor posits two kinds of time, continuous and discrete; the discrete is composed of instants measuring the motions of angelic affection. Thomas touches on this opinion in his commentary on Sentences II, dist. 2, q. 13, saying: an angel can be considered in two ways — either with respect to its being, which is without change, and in that case it is measured by the aevum, or with respect to its operation, and in that case, with respect to some operations, it is likewise measured by the aevum — namely the operation by which it contemplates things in the Word; for in that operation there is no change. But with respect to the operation in which there is change, it is measured by time. That time itself is other than the time that measures the motion of the first mobile, because that change is not ordered to the latter, and that time is not continuous but is a discrete number of non-continuous change. For continuity accrues to time from the side of the numbered motion. And just as it posits one time measuring the whole sensible universe, so it posits one aevum measuring the whole angelic nature according to its being and its permanent understanding, which does not belong to the genus of the successive. Against this fiction one argues first from the fact that nothing should be posited without philosophical reason or scriptural testimony; but neither of these teaches this duality of time; therefore it should not be posited. The assumption is clear from the fact that otherwise the positing would be an unfounded dream, an irrational positing, and by equal evidence infinitely many other things would have to be fabricated against the rules of nature, which always acts in the most economical manner without superfluity; and God would irrationally burden the church of the faithful to believe it, and Truth would impose falsehood and lying. The minor is clear by consequence — and this is the common tentative argument by which one who holds an opinion is compelled to give evidence for his way. Furthermore, since time is the common measure of all things that exist temporally, and every angel, insofar as it undergoes temporal change, exists temporally, it seems that common time suffices to measure every temporal change of an angel; for it is not necessary to posit a new genus of time for this purpose, since the old time suffices to number that change, just as it measures the motion of an angel and other imperceptible changes. Otherwise one would have to posit for God a time on account of the variation of His external action — a time that would measure it more limitedly than eternity does.

English

If therefore our time suffices to measure even God's successive creating, it would by equal or greater reason suffice to measure the successive affection of an angel; for the time of merit measures the motions of the human intellect that involve change. Furthermore, God by His absolute power could permit a variation in the affection of an angel without producing a new genus of time, but would measure the affections succeeding each other by common time; therefore a new genus of time does not follow from the variation of such affections. Otherwise one might argue thus: one affection can be permanent however long, measured by the aevum, after which another permanent affection can succeed, and God would not be necessitated by the measure of one affection, nor by the measure of the other, nor by an intervening instant of time to produce a new genus of time — therefore this would be possible for God; for common time would suffice to measure the subsequent affection, and a discrete time cannot suddenly be produced as a whole at a single instant of time. Indeed, as Thomas says in his commentary on Sentences IV, dist. 11, that one should grant a last period of time and not a last instant in which the form of bread will remain, and a first instant in which the body of Christ will be under those accidents — so it seems one should say consequently the same about an angelic affection varied without the creation of a new genus of time. For neither can the aevum be a part of time, nor can two or finitely many instants of time constitute time however long, since in that case it would be a discrete time accidentally long as measured by our continuous time. And it is evident that this fiction is irrational and without cause. Furthermore, by equal evidence a new genus of time would be created from the variation in the affections of one angel and another, and thus there would simultaneously be as many times as you please, none of which would be a part of any other time — which is impossible. And the consequence seems to follow from the fact that no reason should be fabricated why, because one evil angel is varied in affection, the genus of time should vary, since by the same token it would apply to the change of any whatsoever — indeed to the local motion of an angel or the variation of the affection of a soul, since that motion is not ordered to the motion of the first mobile. For it is not known or required that the change of angelic affection be measured by the variation of the affection of the first angel as its primary measure, since God can freely vary the affection of any angel while the affection of any other remains. If therefore this is the duration of an angelic affection that can be time, and no time can accidentally be time (since time is per se a species of quantity), it follows that this duration is time. And accordingly it follows that every aevum of an angel is either an instant of time or a time, because it can be a time or an instant of time, and it is whatever it can be.

English

For if an angel were to vary its affection in the future, then the duration of these two affections would be a time having one part measuring the first affection and another measuring the second. And since no aevum can be longer or shorter — just as no instant of discrete time can — it follows that every such thing is equal to sempiternal time. And so it seems that every discrete time is composed of only two instants, or at least is coequal to such a great time. To what purpose, then, would such a discrete time be posited, whose duration establishes no certainty? For just as an angel would be the same whether it endured perpetually or were annihilated sooner or later, so it is with its aevum; therefore philosophers must say that aevitas is accidentally eternity, just as it accidentally regards the duration of time. Furthermore, discrete time derived from the affection of angels is prior and worthier than our continuous time, and equally sufficient to measure every sensible motion or change; therefore it is superfluous to posit another. For the reason that the duration of the motion of the first mobile suffices to measure all other motions is the reason this sect holds it to be time in a special sense. If therefore angelic duration suffices to measure that motion in a prior manner, it follows that it would be time with respect to that motion, and its duration would be the only "when." Nor is it valid to say that angelic change is not continuous, because each of its halves, which is an instant of that time, is truly continuous; why then is not the whole continuous, since one part follows immediately upon the other, and this suffices for the continuity of time? Indeed it seems that at every instant of our time there is a change in the angelic affection; for an angel sees creatures not only in the Word but also by its own proper genus. Since therefore an angel continuously sees in a new way the presence and novelty of a creature generated at every instant of our time, it seems that it continuously has new knowledge or a mode of knowing. For just as discrete time follows upon the affection or volition of an angel, so it follows upon its intuition and every variation on the part of the angel. And so — as the Subtle Doctor argues against this way — not only would there be many times simultaneously, but as many as the number of angels varying their affections; and these times as subjects and objects would be distinct in species. Indeed the same angel, according to the numerical variations of its intentions and affections regarding diverse objects in species, would simultaneously cause diverse times in species. This is confirmed by the fact that the same person looking at a colored or luminous object moving quickly continuously varies his vision and thus his intuition; therefore an angel that is swifter at changing its intuition by its own proper genus and affection can do so much more. For although it is held that God and an angel always contemplate all past and future things in the Word, yet angels do not contemplate those things by their own proper genus except when they are present, because otherwise the devil would always contemplate his own fall. And however this may be, just as God can change the affection of an angel at one instant, so He can do so continuously at any instant whatever.

English

Nor is there any doubt for this sect — if it acts this way — that the duration of such an angel's affection would be a continuous measure of the whole sensible world and a time composed of instants, such that no argument could be made against the composition of the continuum from non-quantities without proceeding equally against that which this sect nevertheless denies to be possible. Furthermore (as I have often assumed) there would simultaneously be, according to this sect, many times having no communication with each other and being no part of any third time — which is impossible. For positing that each permanent creature has its own time inhering in it formally (as is conceded of the aevum with respect to angels), it then truly follows that time is composed of its coextended parts, every permanent thing would endure for an infinitely great time, everything would be coextensive with everything else, a quantitative part would infinitely exceed its own whole, and all certainty about the duration of measuring time would perish. The first of these five conclusions seems clear from the fact that every duration of a temporal thing can be time, but the duration of every such thing is whatever it can be; therefore the duration of every such thing is time. The assumption is clear from the fact that time and "when" are accidents of diverse genera, so that every time is per se primarily time, just as every man is per se a man, and likewise with "when." Positing therefore of any permanent thing that it would per se be successively enduring, its duration would be time, which the proponent says is contingent. Whether therefore it be a form, or matter, or an accident posited per se, it could per se underlie time; indeed since time is a quantity it could per se exist — which is more than to be able to inform any permanent substance. Therefore this sect will not deny the possibility of the assumption. Nor is it valid to cite Aristotle or Averroes that time follows only the motion of the first mobile as its sole subject, because they deny that an accident can exist per se; therefore I marvel with what face these persons would cite them for their opinion, since their principles are so greatly at odds with it. For these persons say that God cannot bring it about that time begins to be, since — as they say — He cannot create the world, nor can He move any part of the world except through the motion of the first mobile; each of which is supremely heretical. Therefore it is a far too weak reed to take these heretical opinions to establish the subject of time. Accordingly, following the opinion of Augustine in Confessions XII, the whole world is the subject of time; for with the whole heaven at rest and a potter's wheel moving, there would be the same time as now. Since therefore time cannot migrate from subject to subject, it is manifest that time is individuated and underlies the world; for with any part of the world at rest, it would not underlie time, and by the same token neither would it now.

English

And this sect should have considered this opinion before making so many heretical statements on the matter of the sacrament of the altar. For it holds that it is impossible for bread to remain after consecration (as was said in Chapter 5) and is founded upon that supremely heretical principle: "Nothing can be where it previously was not, unless it is either moved there locally or something else is converted into it" — which would undoubtedly destroy the whole faith, because then God could not create heaven or anything, nor could the Lord Jesus Christ grow bodily (as was deduced there), nor could the Holy Spirit elevate a person to conversation in heaven unless it moves his body there locally. These three things would destroy the whole faith. Therefore the faithful person must search out another foundation to establish the subject of time upon which it depends. And the first of these conclusions is clear from the opinion: taking one inanimate body enduring per se, the duration of each of its parts would be time, and with the matter and the substantial and accidental form coextended, their durations would be coextended times. And the second conclusion is clear, because every enduring thing would endure through time by infinitely many non-communicating times, each of which would be as great as this one hour, as is evident from the intensive or quantitative parts of a given substance or from equal lines or surfaces. And the third conclusion — namely that everything would be coextensive with everything else — seems clear from this: everything would be coextensive with the time of everything else, but nothing is coextensive with the time of a subject unless it exists with it; therefore everything would be coextensive with everything else.

English

Wherefore the more eminent modern doctors say that nothing sublunary would exist in the time of the first heaven, except because every sublunary body has a dependence of causal order upon it, just as we say every temporal thing is ordered to the world. Nor is there any doubt that every temporal thing coexisting with any time exists in that same time, because it exists along with that time through which it can exist; and this suffices for something to exist in that time. For in this way two quantities of the same species can inform the same subject, just as holds for qualities. And the fourth conclusion — namely that a quantitative part can be infinitely greater than its own whole — is clear by taking a foot-measure with its duration, and I posit that God annihilates the second half with its duration while preserving the remainder of the duration perpetually. Then it seems that the quantitative half of the time is just as long and consequently just as great as some time, and the whole time ceases to be just as its subject now ceases to be. For in this way there would be a first instant and a last instant of time. And so it seems that, given infinitely many times altogether equal in magnitude, one is infinitely lesser in duration; and as one is lesser in magnitude relative to another, it is greater than it in duration. From these things inconveniences follow, given that it follows that time is so great in magnitude or duration; therefore time is so great. And from the same the fifth conclusion is clear — namely that all certainty about the duration of time would perish — because however brief a time, even an instant, can be preserved however long; therefore duration and brevity would be accidents separable from time just as from any permanent thing, because otherwise time could not per se exist or be extended. Yet among all accidents time depends least of all upon its subject.

English

And the confusion in responding is evident, since the duration of time is either time itself or an accident that can exist on its own — of which we have no certainty. And so, as the sophists argue, taking infinite revolving lines each of which lasts an infinitely long time, just as it is infinitely large in mass, it then seems that a surface, a number, or a relation that exists through those times (however brief it may have been) exists through finite non-communicating times, each of which is doubly infinite; and the same would hold for every body by reason of its parts. And so uncertainty and confusion are evident. Hence the sophists note a revolving line rotating toward the east around an infinite column whose circumference is one foot in length, and suppose that its entire surface is annihilated while it is preserved on its own, and that a circular surface approaches from the east until it touches it at an instant. It is then evident that it was finite at both extremes and that it was possible to give the last proportional part of it, which was a surface, which is to give the maximum degree of curvature in rotation. All of these things this sect denies to be possible, and so it is in a most inconvenient way contradicting itself. For given the endpoint of a line, either the one-foot length of that line terminated at that point is given, or the line is not that long, as is evident when that point is removed without more, or when that line is straightened at that extreme, or when a point flows uniformly along it beginning from that extreme, or when the other extreme flows in an infinite continuous and straight direction while this extreme remains fixed, or when a circular surface whose diameter is one foot approaches from the east. And it is evident that just as one point of that surface touches the given endpoint of the line (which, for the sake of example, is the last point of that diameter), so every other point of the same circle begins or will begin to touch some point of that revolving line. Suppose that God by His omnipotence so fits the motion of the given circle that every one of its points equally and simultaneously touches the point opposite it on the revolving line. According to the principles of that sect, to deny any such case is the mark of a blasphemer who denies God's omnipotence. And correspondingly it is said of time and the instant that it would be contrary to God's omnipotence that He cannot preserve the instant or time on its own for as long as He pleases. Consequently, God can produce infinite times infinitely large in an instant and annihilate them as quickly as it pleases Him, just as He can preserve an instant or an infinitely small time on its own for an infinitely long duration. And since none of us is a counselor of the Lord who knows whether He does so, it is evident that for that sect the quantity of duration of any creature is ambiguous. Or God can bring it about, as they claim, that an instant lasts through infinitely many non-communicating times each of which is infinitely large, and He can bring it about that everything eternal lasts no longer than an instant or an hour at most, since God can preserve an hour on its own permanently, in its entirety. For if any part of it were required to fail at some point by passing away, then necessarily the whole hour would fail in a finite time, and God could neither preserve time or motion beyond its natural period nor corrupt it before that period. Nor does it avail to cite Aristotle's definitions on this point, since according to that sect one must say that Aristotle with the Peripatetic school and Augustine with many saints, in defining accidents, blasphemed. As they assert, no accident has any being other than formally inhering in a substance; the three dimensions of a body, namely length, breadth, and depth, or the very magnitude or corporeality of a substance, cannot exist on its own. But this sect says that this is heretical, since that quantity is of itself necessarily a sacrament. And so that sect would be embarrassed by the testimony of Aristotle or the holy doctors to describe anything or to assign any difference on its own.

English

Setting aside those sect-wandering ravings, it should be noted that eternity, evitas, and time differ in the following way. Eternity is the permanence of God Himself, which Boethius describes as the simultaneous and complete possession of unlimited life; and that is the first possible measure. Hence it denominates not only the divine nature, but all the relations in God, all the ideas, and all the eternal truths in God ad intra, since they are distinguished in God according to reason and not essentially; and therefore they are eternal, because they are a nature that is without beginning or end. The second is the measure of the angels, which is called the evum or evitas; and it seems to me that every essence, both spiritual and material, has a perpetual evitas, which is its permanence prior to time. The angel, however, because it has vision through the Word and through its own proper genus, which is permanent above time, therefore has in a certain excellence the name of the evum. Hence, because the angel is the first permanent thing emanating from the divine eternity, its permanence is called eviternitas. And as many as there are angels, so many and more are eva, since one evitas measures the being of an angel and another measures its intrinsic action according to the number of the species of actions that inhere permanently in angels; just as one evum measures the permanence of a human being and of every material essence, and another is time, whose foundation ceases through successive mutation. And it is evident that there are many eva, all of which are reduced to one in species though not in number, on account of the lack of one subject in number. The third measure is time, which is the most certain measure, since it is the number of instants measuring the motion of the world according to before and after, which is the same as the successive duration of the world; and it extends to every point of the world. The instant is the measure of the indivisible part of the motion of the world; and thus time follows upon the motion of the world in common, as the words of the philosopher ring out. God, however, by reason of the immensity of His eternity, is before every instant of time and after every instant, and is present to every past or future instant; but time measures the world from its beginning to its end primarily with respect to succession and to a certain kind of when-ness, which is a measure of a different genus, for each of its parts.

English

For the when is that which is left over from the adjacency of time, as is supposed here; and so after the day of judgment there will be the same evum of the world without time. Although that evum exists now, yet with reflection on it quieted, we attend to time, which is more perceptible to us. It should further be noted that there would be no past or future except by reason of time, and consequently with all time removed, God did not exist or will exist, but simply and necessarily is. And thus in eternity this distinction does not formally exist; and consequently, since God and His eternity, the angel and its evitas, were and will be, they must receive those denominations that are accidental to them by way of time, and thus they have a when. This does not presuppose for them a natural period as it does for creatures that are naturally corruptible; and so God equivocally was and will be in comparison to corruptible natures, just as other relative accidents equivocally inhere in Him. Therefore the same time in number measures the eternity of God, the evitas of the angel, and likewise for the rest that are above time, with respect to the relative denomination by which they are measured through time. And so it seems that for this reason another time need not be posited, but rather another kind of when-ness without mutation of essence. These things suffice here. But returning after this digression to the difficulty touched upon concerning multiplication, it seems that the second position must be held. For since it is impossible for the same body to be multiplied situationally or dimensionally through diverse places, and since both faith concerning the Eucharist and common philosophy teach that there is a multiplication of substance, the truth of the second position is evident. Multiplication is so called when the same created thing exists simultaneously through many places in its entirety, as the soul, universals, and instants do. Time, however, is not multiplied in this way, since for every place at any given instant its parts are lacking, as past and future parts. Yet in a broad sense of speaking it may be granted that it is multiplied, because through many of its parts it exists through diverse places; and in this way common light, a common species, or a likeness of a thing is multiplied, because it exists through one large place and through each part of it according to some supposit of it, just as a universal does, and wherever it has some singular. But if any such singular has being through every part of a given place, then that singular also is multiplied through that same place, as is posited concerning the visible species.

English

God, however, cannot be multiplied, since He necessarily exists as a whole everywhere. He cannot be defined by any place or time, nor exist somewhere according to His own motion. Therefore, on His own part neither multiplication nor definition according to time can occur. For according to the saints, there is not formally multiplicity in Him. Other things, however, although they are everywhere — namely the world, time, and the universals whose individuals they are — are nevertheless everywhere differently from God. For the world is not everywhere according to its whole self, since not every quantitative part of it is extended everywhere, nor is every subjective part of this genus of body or of this universal everywhere, nor does time have all its parts simultaneously for the same instant; but through a certain dependence arising from motion it exists differently in the heavens and differently on earth. God, however, by His immensity primarily and of Himself fills every place, and by His eternity primarily and of Himself exists through all time. No variation can occur on His part in existing through place or time; rather, the variation must belong to created substance, whose variation is called an accident. Thus God of Himself efficiently fills every place and body, or the principle of body formally fills place of itself, in such a way that the point-like element of material essence, since it cannot be increased or diminished, is of itself punctual, and its punctuality is a point. And so likewise with the quantity of a body, which follows upon its primary subject, as the capacity for laughter follows upon a human being; and according to the principle by which the immovable God posits material substance according to an immovable principle, whose situation or location is the place that Aristotle calls the first immovable thing. For God could not move that principle according to the first motion, which is local motion. And this is the primary principle of perceptible immobility by which we ascend to knowing the ultimate immobility of our God. And when we see a thing moved from place to place by God's ordering, we call that alternation of motion time or duration, and we individuate place and time by the genus of substance or motion together with the other individuating circumstances that God ordains for this purpose. And so we see our Lord through every alternation of the creature. And just as God is primarily great and immense, filling place efficiently and finally of Himself, so He is primarily enduring and eternal of Himself, measuring finally of Himself the alternations of all temporal things. Thus the immensity and eternity of God are not accidents or divisible, as is supposed here. And just as God cannot be another God, so through the same punctual place there cannot simultaneously be another point or material essence, since its entire capacity is filled; for there is nothing else but that material essence being situated there, or at least another so great or so great a species of quantity.

English

Since, however, a substantial or accidental form is nothing other than such an essence being informed, it is evident that the filling of a place is not thereby multiplied. I am speaking of situation or place, as stated above, in the sense that it denotes a material essence being situated. And it is evident to logicians that it is one thing for Peter to be in a place adequate to him and another thing for him to exist through a place adequate to him. For since there are a thousand places between him and the heavens equal to him, for as they are wider they are more tenuous, and all of them surrounding him on every side, it is evident that he is in that many places equal to him and consequently equally adequate to him; and yet he does not exist through any of those places, since no part of Peter is in any part of such a place, given that he is distant from each such place. Therefore it is far different for Peter to be in many places adequate to him and for him to exist through many places adequate to him. For a thing exists through a place when some part of it is at some part of that designated place, since every material substance is diffused through a place — in which way it is impossible for the same body in number to be extended simultaneously through distant places. Yet it can be extended in one place and have another spiritual being in another place as a sign or by virtue, as has been said concerning the thing. And so it is evident concerning the body of Christ that it is in the heavens dimensionally and in the host virtually, as a sign. But there is great disagreement concerning the mode of being of the body of Christ in the host. For some say that the body of Christ is present there only according to its essence, defined only by the place of the host, so that it could exist in that mode there and nowhere else. But others grant this, since it would be far easier for God than to preserve an accident without a subject; and so upon them falls the difficulty of how the quantity and other accidents are committed together with the body of Christ. Upon us, however, this difficulty does not fall. Grant that the body of Christ is in the sacrament of the bread, or that a power and not the body of Christ that is extended in the heavens is there, such that the body of Christ is not a non-body, but that which is there is not the body of Christ; and it is that which is extended there, but is not extended there.

English

And this is the third point on which I differ from the moderns. Yet, as I have often declared, I am ready to defer obediently to a learned man regarding whether I have been either excessive or insufficient with respect to the truth of that matter. The world wonders how, after the endowment of the church, either the sacrament should have been altered, or a reasoning should have become known to our contemporaries more than to those outside of Christ, or a revelation should have been made greater than to Paul and the earlier saints. For as if the laws of the Lord Christ could estrange the whole faith, which for a long time has been catholic. Nor is there any doubt that the Catholic truth was sufficiently taught through the authors of Scripture, although the office of the pilgrim church, to whom God has given knowledge, is to uncover the faith implicitly contained in Scripture when errors concerning its meaning proliferate. And through those authors nothing new is ever to be fabricated regarding the Catholic faith. Hence God always ordains some who attend to logic and to the meaning of Scripture, although deference is owed to whichever of these pontiffs shall have brought forward the more valid testimony of the Scriptures. And it is well known that they have failed, after the endowment of the church, in this matter as in morals.

English

For the completion of this work, we must run through seven objections, so that the faith concerning the Eucharist may become more evident. And it is first to be noted that the moderns take it gravely that bread remains after consecration, or that the sacrament is not an accident without a subject. The first objection, therefore, is urged on the ground that the decretal of Innocent III — at whose promulgation there were one thousand three hundred and fifteen prelates — states the opposite. Since, therefore, according to Augustine, no one would believe the gospel unless he first believed the church, it follows that every Catholic ought to believe this so weighty a decree of the church. But here there are many objections. The first, from the logicians, says that it is not effectively established that this was the judgment of the said Innocent III together with so many prelates. The second is that it is not established that he or they were members of the church, for only the predestined person is a member of the church; but it is doubtful whether any of them was predestined — it being the twenty-second volume, in which was the total of prelates in 1315 — and therefore, by the same doubt, none of them was a member of the church. What kind of reasoning is this, then: if a man ought to believe the church, therefore he ought to believe them?

English

Concerning this matter — how faith given to the church initiates Catholic faith — it is shown elsewhere. The third objection is that transubstantiation is the case when one substance passes into another, as bread becomes the body of Christ in the sense expounded. And as for that matter of the existence of accidents without a subject, it has been said in how many ways this can be truly understood; and if it is replied that the said church does not hold this view, the response is that the learned must assent to the truth, since that dogma would be excessively difficult; therefore, given this, it is said that this is not to be believed on the authority of the church. Hence the fourth objection truly states that no church nor angel from heaven is to be believed in a matter of faith, except insofar as it has grounded itself on reason or the authority of Scripture. Since, therefore, the sense expounded by the adversaries is grounded in neither of these two ways, it follows that that sense is not to be believed on account of any church. For none of those men was more subtle than a notable professor of Holy Scripture who errs in this matter. What pretense is there, then, if all those prelates were professors of Holy Scripture or bishops, that their decree was free from calumny? Do not the Saracens, the Tartars, and indeed the Asians — more than a thousand thousand — agree with the opposite of the said position? And just as we say that we have the right faith and are to be believed, so the Asians say the same about themselves and the contrary about us. Indeed, today many thousands of bishops and doctors could be assembled together with the bishop of Avignon who would hold that these things are contrary to the truth in this matter; and so there is no pretense that, if so many assembled together thus defined it, it is therefore true and creditable for them to assert that God must assist them in such a way that they do not err in faith, since they continually do so and have done so.

English

For the Donatists and many other unbelievers fantasized thus, but with more plausible coloring. I have spoken of this matter elsewhere; therefore, if it is true what the Subtle Doctor says — that nothing compels one to speak thus except the aforementioned decretal epistles — then the hollow reed upon which the adversaries lean is far too empty. Hence a certain doctor wonders why the moderns lean so heavily upon this decretal, setting aside Holy Scripture together with the four holy Doctors; and he answers that the people must be sunk deeper into error and malice. Therefore the argument of Satan blinding the defiled is that they ought to lean upon the judgment of this pope, believing this blasphemy — because he, among all popes, stood most firmly according to the Scriptures for the dignity of the church; therefore let us magnify his writings as we do the gospel. Against this, a faithful person tells the church and especially to kings that this pope, among all popes, most of all disguised the Scriptures in order to strip away the honor and lordships of secular laymen, accumulating for himself and his clergy, against the religion of Christ, the primacies of the age — as is found in the first of the Decretals, De Maioritate et Obediencia, chapter Solitae, where, in responding to the emperor's letter, he disguised the saying of the apostle Peter, where he says in First Peter: Be subject to every human creature for God's sake, whether to the king, etc. — claiming this ought to be understood of the simple people subject to Peter and not of priests, who are more excellent than any secular lords (as I have set out at length in the treatise On the King, chapter 6). And this judgment, by perverting the sense of Scripture, aims at overthrowing for the clergy the subjection and obedience by which the Christian religion is sustained, as is clear at Dist. XI, question 1, Si tributum, and the chapter Magnum quippe, and Dist. XXIII, question 8, De episcopis. Hence the decree speaks thus: It is indeed a great and spiritual instruction that men are taught they ought to be subject to the higher powers, lest anyone think the constitution of an earthly king is to be dissolved. For if the Son of God paid the tribute, who are you, so great, that you think it need not be paid? And there follows in the decree the judgment of blessed Ambrose, and blessed Peter the apostle writes generally to all the faithful: Be subject to your masters.

English

This judgment, together with reason, appears contrary to the gloss of the pope. How, then, should blessed Ambrose not be believed more than him, according to the first chapter of Distinction XX? Secondly, the same pope in the same decretal expounds the same passage, Matth. 16, saying: To us, he says, to blessed Peter the sheep have been committed, the Lord saying: Feed My sheep — making no distinction between sheep and others, so as to show that one who would not acknowledge Peter and his successors as masters and shepherds is a stranger to his fold — not to mention that most weighty saying which the Lord spoke to Peter, and which Peter spoke to all his successors: Whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, excepting nothing, when —

English

Part, Cause 11, question ch. 27; ibid., ch. 28. Ibid., Cause 23, question 8. Distinction 20, Part 2, ibid., in the same decretal, Solitae; ibid., Book 6. He said: Quodcunque.

English

Behold how blindly and presumptuously it is concluded that universal preeminence over the whole church belongs to whatever Roman pontiff there may be, and thus to himself. For there are many of the faithful who do not acknowledge many Roman pontiffs either as their pastors or as members of the church, because, when these men degenerate from Peter, other bishops profit the whole church militant more (as I have expounded in the treatise on the pope). Further, consider where the exposition of this gloss on the sentence — "Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven," etc. — tends: not only is it understood to refer individually to Peter, to him personally, and to any Roman pontiff, but that there is no exception for anything whatsoever that he shall decree to be done in temporal or spiritual matters. But if this were true — which is impossible — then every Roman pontiff is exalted above everything that is called God, since he is God on earth and the sinless Antichrist. And hence the said pope defines the manner in which the emperor has lordship over laymen but not over clerics, who are simply exempt from Caesar's jurisdiction. Third, he wrests from that passage in Gen. — "God made two great lights, the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night" — the claim that the Holy Spirit thereby intended him and all Roman pontiffs to be preeminent over all emperors. If all these things are true, how will the meaning of Scripture, which must be derived for the whole church, depend on such a head?

English

Hence I was accustomed to inquire of the magnates the meaning of this passage, I Cor. XI: "But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup." It is manifest (I say) that this speaks of the sacrament of the body and blood of the Lord, just as before: "The bread which we break, is it not the participation of the body of the Lord?" And: "As often as you eat this bread," etc. "Whosoever shall eat this bread or drink the cup," etc. For all these things are understood of the bread of the Lord's supper as eaten. We do not dare, however, to assert that this is the meaning of the Holy Spirit: "Let him eat of that bread" — that is, let him eat of those accidents; or that "the bread which we break" means the accidents which we break signify this — because it would be necessary to specify those accidents, which they do not know. For it is safer to speak by calling it bread, as the gospel of the Apostle does, until we shall have a revelation or a reason for the foreign meaning. And the confirmation of this is that blessed Augustine frequently answers such men that he speaks in this way because Holy Scripture speaks in this way. Why, then, ought we rather than the holy doctors to abandon the manner of speaking of Holy Scripture?

English

And especially because so foreign a position is rendered so suspect by its other errors. Among other things, it is therefore highly suspect that the decretal alleges neither reason nor Holy Scripture in support of the meaning of the decretal which it expresses. Therefore, since the testimony of the four great doctors is no greater than that of Scripture, as the decree teaches — and those men forbade belief in their own statements except insofar as Holy Scripture or reason itself teaches — what reason is there then for believing this head in this part? Nevertheless, we ought to honor and interpret papal pronouncements insofar as the Christian religion permits. Yet I do not contend that this Innocent irreligiously subjected England to himself by an obligation all too civil, of nine hundred marks to be paid to the curia annually; that he sowed discord between England and France; that he proceeded irreligiously against the emperor and other secular lords; that he proceeded irreligiously against Abbot Joachim and others — as Cestrensis narrates in book seven, chapter XXIV and below. And in his time the two orders of Friars had begun, but the church suffered many evils, which were foreshadowed by multiple portents. For as the sect of those venerating signs beyond the religion which Christ instituted grows, so the irreligion feigned in signs must grow.

English

He left behind many notable works, such as the treatise On the Misery of the Human Condition and a large portion of the commentary on the five books of the Decretals. Yet these did not receive their authority from him, since Honorius III, who is said to have confirmed the orders of the Friars Preachers and Minors, succeeded him, and after him Gregory IX succeeded, who is said to have compiled the five books of the Decretals through Brother Raymond. And in both cases his works are said to be praiseworthy, in the first place insofar as they agree with the law of God. Nor will anyone say that his statements, as such, are more authoritative than the gloss of Innocent IV, which the church accepts on its own merits insofar as it agrees with the truth. The fifth response, by which a faithful elder can rest, stands in this: that when there appears to be a scruple about a determination of the church, one ought humbly to rest in the older and more probable position, until the church shall declare the truth. For the synod under Nicholas II expressly sets forth that the bread and wine which are placed on the altar are after consecration not only a sacrament but the body of Christ and the blood.

English

placed on the altar are after consecration not only a sacrament but the body of Christ and the blood. Yet in no subsequent decretal is it so expressly set forth that after consecration bread or wine does not remain in the Eucharist; and in the meantime I am willing to yield readily to reason, because I know that it is not in the power of any pope, together with a thousand thousand magnates, to determine anything concerning the catholic faith, except what they shall be able to find in Scripture — because otherwise he would without doubt be the Antichrist and more than God, capable of subverting the entire faith which Christianity believes. Second, it is argued against the stated position by this: that the chief reason upon which this way relies is the testimony of Nicholas II and the synod which he convened for this matter (as is clear in De Consecratione, distinction "Ego Berengarius"). Since, therefore, this argument is subject to the same condemnation as the testimony of the decretal which is rejected, it appears that this position is suspect. Here it has been said that the decree of Nicholas II is more probable, not only because there were more bishops present there, or because it was older and closer to the fountain-head of the Christian faith, but chiefly because it is more similar to the fountain of the faith of Scripture and more conformable to the holy doctors. Hence, not on account of the language of that synod but on account of the truth of the faith of Scripture, one ought rather to believe the earlier position. And one ought to give credence not only to any part of Scripture more than to a thousand thousand bishops, even Roman or Avignonese, in their capacity as such — but also more than to blessed Augustine and the other holy doctors in the matter of faith than to popes and cardinals, who are not so approved by the faith of Scripture. In matters that concern the laws which they frame, however, they are good judges, because, as Jerome says, what belongs to physicians —

English

physicians handle, what belongs to smiths, smiths handle. And this is the position of the law of the church, in distinction XX, principle: "But if someone from the roof-top pretends to know what he does not know, it is good to test whether he confirms by work, life, and the authority of Scripture what he feigns." For the law of nature which philosophers discover directly, and the testimonies of Augustine and the other saints cited above, sufficiently teach that the accidents of which the philosophers spoke cannot exist without a subject. With what presumption, therefore, would these men sow the contrary unbelief, which they are able to color neither with reasons nor with Scripture? With what warrant, then, ought a faithful person to believe this? Since, therefore, according to Augustine one cannot believe except willingly, it is clear that even the precept of the Roman pontiff is not effective for this purpose, unless beyond the precept he shall have adduced a witness, or natural evidence, or Scripture. But if it is objected that there must necessarily be some who authoritatively teach the meaning of Scripture and other catholic truths which Scripture does not express — as is clear from the case of blessed Augustine against the Donatists and many other articles of faith that have been added — the answer here is that there must be some who are preeminent in the church who are at the same time pastors and doctors (as the Apostle concludes), and these one ought to believe not as authorities but as teachers.

English

But if prelates err in their pasture and in worldly matters: decretal epistles are thus equated in equal standing with the canons of councils. Now, however, the question is raised concerning expositions of holy scripture: are they to be equated likewise? Hence the sayings of Augustine and Jerome appear to be preferable to the constitutions of certain pontiffs.

English

Those who are zealous for the Christian faith are ignorant: how then do we run to them as heads of idols? But if such persons are lacking, it is better to rest with what we have than to raise a new opinion; indeed, when the mystical or secondary literal sense is unknown, it is better to pause with a plain sense, leaving to the Holy Spirit — together with the sanctification of life — any further sense, rather than to carve out a new sense without foundation. Therefore, since we can safely call the Eucharist bread, as the faith of scripture notes together with the holy doctors, we ought to follow their example in choosing this, and to reject the ambiguous claim about that body or any other unknown accident, unless it should happen to be declared by revelation. But God would not delay revealing this faith to His dearest disciples; nor do I believe that Augustine or the other saints would introduce anything new to be believed by the church unless it had been worked out from the faith of scripture. Would that our own people would consider the foundation of Augustine against the Donatists. For the gospel commands men to be baptized, and does not command the repetition of baptism.

English

Likewise, neither the law of Christ nor His ceremonies ought to be burdened without the authority of scripture; therefore the yoke of the church's difficulty ought not to be imposed on it by multiplying baptism. This entire position is clear from the faith of scripture, and thus, by occasion wrongly given by rivals, the saints pressed themselves beyond the expression of the faith of the primitive church. And if this position were perfectly observed, the church would never be burdened with believing that the Eucharist is a sacred quantity. And this is said generally of all faith newly expressed by the holy doctors. Third, it is argued against this position by means of the glosses on the decrees and the renowned doctors who had written the contrary on that subject: therefore one ought to believe them rather than us. To this it is said that no purely created being is to be believed except as a witness, not as lord of truth — insofar as Christ came into the world as a human being in order to bear witness to the truth; and since, as Augustine says, all truth is scripture, it is clear that no created being is to be believed except insofar as it has grounded itself in scripture. How much more ought we, as lowly witnesses, to grieve over error and falsehood, and to testify as much truth as we are able from the faith of scripture, and to humbly retract when our own error has been shown. Moreover, a witness to the truth ought not to be accepted unless he has knowledge of it — just as, regarding the truth of a human fact, according to the politicians, no one ought to be taken as a witness unless he has had knowledge of that fact, because otherwise a witness would be compelled to lie. And by this argument a certain law of England is challenged, which appears to compel a witness to assert either that he distinctly knows or does not know who committed the deed in question. And this is the reason why the laws of the church, concerning the faith of scripture, give more credence to the four holy doctors, and especially to Augustine, than to others whom they believe have come to know the truth of faith neither by God's gift nor by human study alone. Yet in matters that are ambiguous, those doctors are to be believed on the basis of topical evidence, while awaiting the inspiration of the author of faith, from whom comes all our knowledge of truth; but concerning the truth and sufficiency of scripture, one may not be in doubt.

English

Therefore, since scripture nowhere teaches either that the Eucharist is something belonging to the nine genera of accident, or that it can permit an accident to exist per se — but rather the more learned saints said the opposite — it seems foolish for recent authorities to define that this is so in fact, and to burden the church with this as an article of faith. For the bride of Christ stood in her flowering (as it is believed) for approximately a thousand years before she was burdened with this perfidy, which extended down to those who are unworthy worshippers.

English

And it is clear that the doctors of human laws are highly suspect in this matter, since they very frequently sow heretical meanings out of ignorance. But in matters that are ambiguous and outside the faith of scripture, the skilled are accustomed to be silent or to set them aside for the curious, conceding that it is expedient for us not only to be ignorant of many things but not even to think about them — such as things that are irrelevant to faith. And so, with regard to the glossators, it is clear from what has been said that the glosses ought not to be believed, especially in this matter, except insofar as they have grounded themselves in reason or authentic scripture. Wherefore, on account of the perplexity of that subject matter given to our new doctors, the glossators of the decrees waver and disagree; and therefore their pronouncements on this matter constitute an argument only ad hominem. With regard to the doctors of law, the foremost and most distinguished appears to be Lanfranc, abbot of Bec, in his little book against Berengarius, On the Sacrament of the Altar, where he appears to challenge the position that bread and wine remain after the consecration, but cease to exist by the consecration. Now this Lanfranc, though he was a holy man, nevertheless proceeds inartfully in his polemic in this regard, because without clear evidence he sometimes argues in the manner in which an abbot is accustomed to address his novices, and at other times fabricates false positions against which he then argues. For throughout his entire writing one finds (if I am not mistaken) only a threefold evidence: The first is that if bread remains, then the sacrament of a small loaf would be more unworthy than manna. The second argument is that the prophecy of the Old Testament, which prefigured the body of Christ with respect to the future, would be more solemn than our sacrament, which has only

English

— only bare efficacy for signifying the body of Christ with respect to the past; and since this is not a prophecy but a truth about the past, any simple person would know how to demonstrate it. And the third argument rests upon the church decrees that he cites. With regard to the first, it is clear that the argument militates — as I have said — more often against Lanfranc himself, since that sect holds that the sacrament in respect of its essence is either a single menu item or a mere accident, something utterly base in nature, since an accident is infinitely more imperfect than bread, and consequently a finite thing more base than the manna that descended from heaven; therefore no one will find an effective ground for that position, unless one were to say ironically that it is right to lie irreverently for the sake of the devotion of the people — a matter which I have discussed at length elsewhere. With regard to the second, it is clear that the confession of Berengarius is adduced, since the decree concerning him states that he confessed according to the instruction of the church: that bread after the consecration is not merely a sacrament — as he had confessed in his error — but the true body of Christ, that is, that it efficaciously signifies, as a sacrament of the new law, the true body of Christ sacramentally present there. The adversary says no more than this; hence it is believed that Lanfranc was arguing against Berengarius for his heretical statements made before his correction. But what is this to us? Or that Berengarius said these things to the synod out of fear and not out of faith? And thus the sacrament of the Eucharist not only declares the truth of the body of Christ with respect to the past, but also effects that the true body of Christ is truly and really present there — which the sacraments of the old law did not do. Nor does the cessation of the nature of bread or its destruction pertain to this. And with regard to the third argument, I believe that before Lanfranc and Wmund there were no decrees of the church contrary to this position. Hence the fourth Synod of Ephesus, which was celebrated immediately after the death of the blessed Augustine, in the time of Pope Celestine, condemns a certain heretical foolishness which says that it is not the true vivified flesh of Christ but the flesh of any just person that is present there by virtue of the words of the sacrament, or that is the terminus of the conversion — and whatever else is said there to the same effect. Nor is it an objection that Gregory, in his letter to the patriarchs, accepts these four councils as he does the four gospels, since none of them contradicts this position.

English

Hence it is believed that the religious who over-magnify their signs introduced that error, that the church is the punishment of a prior sin — a sign of which is that Augustine and the other fathers in whom wisdom flourished either expressly asserted the opposite and deny this as heretical because it is impossible, or kept silent about it as an unheard-of foolishness which they believed no one of sound mind would blurt out. Hence when argument is made against Lanfranc and his sect on this point, they frequently burst out with these impossible excuses of sins. "This" (they say) "can be believed in a wholesome manner, but cannot be investigated" — for (as I have often said) one part contradicts the other in a thoroughly heretical way, since absolutely and necessarily everything credible, and especially the catholic faith, can be investigated in a wholesome manner, inasmuch as blessed Augustine, under the promise of his blessedness, carefully investigated the matter concerning the Trinity, which is infinitely superior to the sacrament of the Eucharist.

English

Therefore no heretical veil could more blind the church in the matter of the Eucharist; for if, with any heretical novelty introduced without foundation in scripture, doctors begin to examine the same thing in the way that the saints examined other articles of faith, the principle of Mohammed is immediately set forth: "This cannot be investigated." And the scriptures are prostituted to give color to this saying — scriptures which teach that no one should rashly scrutinize, without faith and prior humility toward the doctors, any catholic truth. But for the distinction among doctors in this matter it is to be noted that Satan the father of lies was bound for a thousand years after the ascension of the Lord (as it is said in Apok. 20).

English

During the time of his binding, truthful doctors succeeded — upright logicians and philosophers conformed to the faith of scripture, as is evident from the four great doctors and many like them — and those saints it is fitting to defend with logic and theology as champions of truth. But at the time of the loosing of the father of lies, far too many crept in among the holy doctors who were, to a greater or lesser degree, disciples of Antichrist, departing more from the logic of the faith of scripture at the instigation of the devil. And although we ought not to believe any of those doctors, not even Augustine who was foremost in logic and theology, except insofar as he has grounded himself in scripture — as is evident from Distinction 9, "Noli meis," and the chapter "Negare non possum," and the chapter "Ego solum" — nevertheless the testimony of the earlier fathers is worth far more for establishing a topical argument than that of those who followed. However many dozens may be alleged against me from the second sect, they are worth nothing except insofar as they have grounded themselves in scripture, and they do not carry the weight of the testimony of faith except insofar as they agree among themselves. For a panel of twelve is admitted in a legal case only if each one agrees with itself. Therefore recent doctors must be brought into agreement with the earlier ones and with the norm of the faith of scripture, and only then is their testimony to be admitted.

English

But now they disturb each other's judgments, and therefore it would be the act of an unbeliever to drink such turbid water when one could drink clear water from the earlier ones — for since those who oppose us exist, more are with us than with them, because the entire army of the church triumphant is on our side. But the fourth objection is that many saints asserted this position. Who, then, are we that we presume to introduce this new position against the decree — indeed, against scripture regarding the truth of the sacramental words, and against the devotion of the people in this matter? Hence, when evidence is lacking, they cry out against us that from our statements the devotion of the people has been extinguished. To that I have often said that that garment of the devil blinds very many; for against us have been brought forward the sacred scriptures and the more excellent and prudent holy doctors with their sayings who flourished in the primitive church, and of a different kind have been set before us the deeds, sayings, and writings of the newer and more recent doctors who came after. And we despise the life, deeds, and writings of the earlier ones, but embrace the judgments and deeds of the later ones. There is no doubt, since this latter party is weaker and more prone to sin, that the blindness of sin is the reason for accepting that position which many saints asserted against us — just as many sinned both in speculative and in practical matters, but the holier and more ancient held our position. Why, then, should we not, without presumption, humbly follow the earlier ones, especially when the others assert no reasons from any other evidence for their position?

English

For all the authors of scripture who mentioned that sacrament, as well as all the holy doctors of the church up to the time of the endowment, and for a long time after — if I am not mistaken, even up to the time of Nicholas II, who was in the year of the Lord 1059 — called this sacrament bread and not an accident. But many said that it is impossible for that position concerning the accidents to be true. And so (to use the words of the one rebuking) I ask who are those four presuming to sow this groundless and novel position against the definitions of the holy fathers which the Holy Spirit set down for them. We must have recourse (I say) to one first principle that is the measure of all others, since those men are not credible — for it cannot be established that those who hold such a position were illuminated by the Holy Spirit. Therefore far be it from us to presume to beg that this ancient position be believed on our own authority — which position, on account of sin that God knows, has been put to sleep for a time — but rather as heralds of scripture and of the holy and ancient doctors who affirm it. Hence Lanfranc in his little book against Berengarius confesses (whether he wills it or not) that holy doctors such as Ambrose, Jerome, and especially Augustine generally call this sacrament bread and never an accident, because (as he truly says) this sacrament has signs which naturally signify the form of bread.

English

On the Eucharist. Since, therefore, holy scripture and the holy doctors together with the law of the church speak in this manner, we must without doubt speak in the same way, according to their meaning, and gloss them so that by "accident of bread" they understand the bread itself — just as they in turn assert the same of us. And this manner of speaking can be grounded in the fact that the riches of the world, which in their own natures are substances, are called accidents, because they happen upon or are adjacent to the rich themselves — just as it happens to bread that it is the sign of the body; and therefore that sign is said to be an accident of it. There is no doubt that it is not an accident univocally, as an accident is limited to the nine categories, or as the philosophers, Augustine, and other saints speak of it. Hence I used to explain to adversaries that such an accident naturally signifies both its subject and itself, and that it signifies itself causally first but not with respect to its consequent; and therefore the subject, by means of such a signification of its accident, receives the predications of both equivocally. And because the wakeful signification of the accident is insuppressible, but the distinct signification of the substance is put to sleep by reason of the body of Christ, it is therefore said that the accident remains without its subject in act. Hence philosophers call universal time and sensible things beings in act through the soul, when they are actually apprehended; and otherwise they are said to be beings in potency. But that statement, although it gave more color to the opposing position, I do not know whether they intended it. Thus, regarding the first point — the decree of the church with respect to faith — I marvel greatly how they do not see that no bishop, whether of Avignon or Rome, has the power to decide this matter, since no such bishop has in a pre-eminent degree the knowledge of the faith of scripture or the acuity of reason, nor has he in such a pre-eminent degree the grace or virtue to govern himself and the people in the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ. There is no doubt that for accomplishing this work one or both of these things is required. And the assumption is evident from the many such bishops after the endowment of the church who were ignorant heretics and foremost servants of Antichrist — indeed, even if it were granted that whatever place they inhabit was full of virtue and grace standing of itself (though they continually inflame these very things), all of this would still be irrelevant to them, because to make those qualities inform, without which the singular work of the Lord avails nothing, is beyond them. Let them see, therefore, whether among those walking they most closely follow Christ, and let them rejoice in this without pomp, considering that according to their own traditions, at the twentieth distinction, first chapter, with respect to causes to be decided according to their own law, their imperial power pre-eminently holds sway — but with respect to the truth of scripture and morals, more credence is to be given to Augustine and the other doctors.

English

Hence the opinion of Gratian, Distinction XXV, Question 1, seems faithless — namely, that since the Lord permitted it so that, just as He was lord of His own law and yet willed to obey it and fulfill it, so the first see, so the pope, grants right and authority to canons and at times shows himself lord of the canons whether his own or others', by commanding, defining, or acting contrary to them, although (he says) it is lawful for him to grant himself special privileges against general decrees. Indeed, in every canon the condition is implicitly understood: unless they have obtained otherwise.

English

Part, Can. XXV, quest. cap. XVI. — ...or the authority of the Roman church shall have otherwise commanded or permitted it to be done. But this opinion clearly teaches that all the decretals and decrees of the Roman church, insofar as they are not founded in Scripture, are superfluous and unjust. They are superfluous, because they depend on the will of a person who is too changeable toward all kinds of sins. The lawgiver ought therefore to consult his own intention, which is the origin of law, since his law has no force except insofar as it has been approved by him; indeed, since (whether the pope wills it or not) he permits what is contrary to his law to be done, its efficacy is nullified and its superfluousness is made plain. It is, secondly, unjust, because it is revocable whenever it pleases the pope; and it is not revocable unless it were unjust; therefore it is always ready to be unjust. Since, therefore, we do not know the will or the deed of that pope or of previous ones, we therefore rest in the faith of Scripture, whose authority we know to be immovable. Nor do we believe any other pope in matters of faith, except insofar as he has founded himself in Scripture, by which we know that neither Peter nor any other apostle usurped such great dominion, but rather consulted God by lot, when singular inspiration failed them.

English

This is clear from Acts 1, concerning the election of Matthias. Regarding the second point, concerning the truth of the sacramental words, it is clear that they are most true, since they are the constant and wholesome sentence of the Lord of Truth; and since wherever bread or wine is pointed to, neither the said transubstantiation, nor identification, nor impanation can obtain, nothing remains but the tropical sense, namely, that this sacramentally figures the body of Christ. Now, that what is pointed to is bread or wine, the fourfold Gospel attests — as I have recited many times; and the holy doctors say the same in agreement, namely Ambrose, Jerome, and especially Augustine and others following them, as do the practice and laws of the church together with those who gloss upon them, such as Rabanus in De Sacramento Altaris and others, all of whom say that the bread can be the body of Christ, will be, and is the body of Christ, which they pray may come to pass. This would be most foolish unless it were brought about by the power of the sacramental words, and consequently unless bread were pointed to by the words of consecration; and therefore it is necessary to assign the aforesaid sense to the words of Christ. Hence not only the more recent doctors but also the community of human learning proclaims that not merely from bread but through the omnipotence of the word of God the bread itself will become the body of Christ. The Common Doctor, on Distinction 40, Question 3, seems to say that this change differs from others, since there is in it a corruption and no generation of any substance, nor a subject receiving that change; and since this substantive verb 'is' signifies a certain change — for otherwise the sacramental accomplishment would not be implied — he seems to say that through the Lincolniensis what is pointed to by 'this' is the body of Christ as under those accidents. The Subtle Doctor, on Distinction 8, seems to say that what is pointed to is an analogous being under a certain contraction. The Gloss on the Decree, on Distinction 2, De Consecratione, chapter Timorem, says that nothing is pointed to, because that proposition is taken materially, since otherwise it would be false. But holy Richard, the Archbishop of Armagh, and other saints say, together with Thomas Aquinas,

English

Cf. Duns Scotus. Cf. Gloss. ord. Decr. Third Part, dist. II, De Consecr.

English

Chapter Timorem — to this I say that nothing is pointed to, for that proposition is placed there materially. From the Gospel it is clear that what is pointed to is bread, since otherwise that locution would be impertinent. Granted, therefore, that bread is pointed to by that convertible proposition — 'This is my body' — it is manifest that, supposing its truth, it follows that the bread remains after consecration; for after consecration it is true that that bread is the body of Christ, and if that bread is thus bread, therefore after consecration it remains that that bread is bread. This is confirmed by the fact that Christ immediately beforehand blessed that bread which He commanded the apostles to eat, which is a sign not of the bread's destruction but rather of its improvement. For if that blessed bread were wholly destroyed according to its own nature, that blessing would be more cruel or more severe than the curse by which Christ cursed the fig tree, Math. 21, because after that curse the substance of the fig tree remained, whereas here it is said regarding the substance of the bread to remain — and conversion does nothing against the goodness of the bread or of its essence.

English

Nor is there any doubt that Christ did not command His own to eat of this except after His consecration of it, and consequently that Truth, who hated sophistic duplicity so greatly, willed this to remain after consecration and the breaking, to be eaten by the apostles. Both those therefore who shrink from the truth of Scripture and those who love it ought alike to be exercised concerning the Catholic sense of this principle. Hence, in the light of Scripture's truth, it seems to me far preferable to grant identification or impanation rather than the aforesaid transubstantiation, as being closer to the logic of the saints — whom it is not permissible to scandalize by charging that they were ignorant of logic while sowing heretical words, since they speak more in accordance with Scripture and do not know how to ground the gloss that those others fabricate. Regarding the third word, it is clear that the adversaries falsely destroy the devotion of the people when they say that what the priest handles cannot be the body of Christ or a part of it, since it is a single unknown accident — which they neither know nor dare to disclose. For, as the sophists argue, it cannot be three-dimensional, because breadth is of another species and infinitely greater than the length of the Eucharist, and depth is of another species than either of the former, infinitely greater than the breadth of the host, greater than a deep chalice and less than one less full. The devotion of the people, therefore, would be greater according to the truthful sentence which says that the sacred bread remains, truly bearing at every point of itself the body of the Lord — indeed, is in some manner that very body — than through the fiction that only an unknown but sacred accident remains there, which cannot be the body of the Lord or a part of it. That fiction would indeed be suspect to the people. But those who employ these clamorous fictions should take note of Scripture, Acts 19, how a certain Demetrius who made silver shrines of Diana stirred up the people against Paul. For he said: 'You know that our livelihood comes from this craft, and you see that not only in Ephesus but in nearly all of Asia, this Paul has led astray a great crowd by his persuasion, saying that those are not gods which are made with hands.'

English

'And not only this, but also the temple of the great Diana will be counted as nothing, and the greatness of her whom all Asia and the world worship will begin to be destroyed.' And when he had said these things they cried out: 'Great is Diana of the Ephesians.' For these opponents worship Christ not only by means of a silver accidental image or a rotting stump, but they falsely fabricate accidental shrines which they cause the people to believe are Christ, and they themselves worship them as God — as is believed, for the sake of gain. And when someone probes the truth of the faith in this matter, they stir up the people against him. And those people worship only what they neither know nor recognize: what kind of accident the sacrament is, or what is pointed to by the sacramental words. For the gloss of Thomas on Distinction 8, Question 1, of the Fourth Book of the Sentences — namely, that what is pointed to is the body of Christ as under those accidents — has no plausibility. First, because for the entire duration of the uttering of the pronoun up to its end, that sense would be false, and so the whole proposition would never be true.

English

The scripture of the Lord would indeed be impoverished, were it not able to bring forth such a derived sense. The root of the dissension in that matter, therefore, stands in the understanding of the sacramental proposition; and it seems that bread is demonstrated (as was said in the fifth chapter), because Christ said of the bread: "Eat of this, all of you." And exhorting them toward the fruit of this eating, He fittingly added: "This is my body." For otherwise Ambrose and other saints would have said without cause that the bread will be the body of Christ. And our position applies figurative interpretation to that saying less tropically than the contrary position, which understands that the accidents, as the opponents hold, will be the figure of the body of Christ — for that position tropically reads both extremes without foundation; but we read only one, just as the Holy Spirit does with Paul in the same sacrament, when He says in 1 Cor. 11: "This cup is the new testament in my blood" — where it is plain that Paul applies a trope to the predicate beyond the sacrament and the thing itself, and adds a sign that does not demonstrate the nature of blood but the nature of wine, because he puts only "in my blood" in the oblique case.

English

Nor do I believe that the adversaries will find so great a foundation for tropically reading their own sayings so compactly. I know indeed that the adversary could faithlessly apply a trope to the entire history of scripture, so that all the deeds of Christ could be understood tropically — that not Christ in His own person but a free-standing accident performed those things — as Augustine touches upon in like manner in his little work On Heresies. I know indeed that we who contend, as they say irreligiously, about temporal things and the signs of our own invention, are blinded by the penalty of sin to the sense that the primitive church possessed, according to the prophecy of the old man Simeon, Luc. 2: "He is set here as a sign that will be contradicted." For just as by our conduct we contradict the deeds of Christ, so by our speculation we contradict the real words of Christ; therefore in these matters I am prepared to stand by the decree of holy mother church. Yet I shrink from introducing so foreign an accident or quantity as what the Holy Spirit intended through the bread or wine with sacramental words, just as blessed Jerome detests the name "hypostasis," lest the poison that the pure abhorred be hidden under the honey of sanctity. And so let us grant the wrong to those who strive, by extinguishing our false devotion, to destroy idolatry for us — for truly it would be far worse for such idolaters to strip hemp at home than to double the idolatry in this way; and therefore Christ, against the universal excuses of idolaters, commands His disciples to have serpentine prudence.

English

Serpentine prudence; for Paul, in committing blasphemy, believed himself to be rendering meritorious service to his God. The truth of faith, therefore, is a necessary insistence for every wayfarer. Fifth, it is principally argued against the above statements by the fact that, if the body of Christ is multiplied to every point of the host, then it would be there without extension, and since the body of bread would also be there by sign, therefore it would be simultaneously and at once extended and non-extended, and likewise for the other denominations of accident. It is commonly said here that all the absolute accidents of the body of Christ that are in heaven are co-multiplied with the body itself in the host concomitantly; and so not only the entire quantity and quality, but indeed the whole body of Christ and His soul, and thus His entire humanity and divinity, is without doubt wherever any part of Christ is; but this need not hold for the seven relational accidents. And so position, understood as the difference of continuously permanent quantity, but not position understood as the penultimate category, is co-multiplied concomitantly with the body of Christ at every point of the host. Against this it is first argued that God could multiply the body without co-multiplying the accident, since this would be less than preserving the accident without a subject; and neither the faith of scripture nor reason teaches the contrary concerning inherence; therefore this is not an article of faith to be published. The consequence is plain, both because there would be reason to fear concerning so manifest a falsehood, and because Christian religion is not to be burdened with the confused expense of faith, which the Holy Spirit willed to be free, brief, and light.

English

Nor is there any doubt on this path regarding the antecedent, since God, who is able to annihilate a substance while the accident remains undisturbed, can also multiply it and move it wherever He pleases without the accompaniment of so alien a nature. Further, miracles are not to be fabricated without an evident reason; but it would be the greatest miracle to thrust so great a mass as the entire corporeality of the body of Christ into an infinitely small place; therefore, since no reason underlies this miracle, it seems that it ought not to be fabricated. For who, I ask, would not say that it would be an unthought-of miracle to place the entire machinery of the world, undiminished, into a small nut-sized compartment — such that the same body could lose its place all the way to non-extension and thus acquire place nowhere, while it was not diminished but infinitely increased? And so a foot-length could successively occupy an infinitely great place, without being diminished to non-extension, and the certainty of local motion would perish (as was said concerning multiplication). Further, it follows that a quantitative part of quantity can be equalized with, and infinitely extend, its own whole — for suppose that the entire quantity of the world is multiplied by a cube, and the extended quantity remains with this and is connected with the remaining quantity of the world; then it appears to be equalized with the quantity of the whole world, because they are co-extended adequately through the same place. And the possibility of this case is plain on this path, since God can multiply one half of the quantity with the other half not multiplied; indeed, at every point of the host there is a continuation of each part of Christ's quantity, even as it is in heaven; and the same position of the parts that obtains in heaven, because it is wholly the same quantity in number, which can neither be increased nor diminished nor changed from species to species. From these things it is gathered that every figure of Christ's quantity in heaven is everywhere in the host, and consequently every straightness or extension of lines. Further, every accident of a multiplied substance that is independent of the external — such as quantity and quality — is co-multiplied with it; but extension, location, and many relational accidents do not depend externally on the body of Christ; therefore all such are co-multiplied with it; for it would hold, as a divine possibility, that every body or quantity could exist on its own without a greater substance, which they concede as a matter of faith. From this it seems that the extension of quantity does not depend on anything external, just as neither does the figure for which extension is required.

English

And from these things it seems that the multiplied body co-multiplies its place along with itself, because if God were to annihilate the entire remainder of creation, the body would exist only in its own place; and a confusion of places follows. Regarding position as sitting, standing, or lying, it seems that it inheres from within (as Gilbert of Poitiers says), because with Peter standing, Paul sitting, and Linus lying down, and with the rest of the world annihilated while those three were continuously preserved unmoved, it would be hard to conceive how their position would vary — since it is continuously preserved when the underlying chariot moves, or when the poles or center of the world are annihilated. And the same seems to hold for distance, for immediacy, and for other relations which it would be most evident are not preserved; for it stands that bodies at the greatest distance could be finitely proximate, since an infinitely long straight line, when multiplied, could be intercepted between however small a gap — as is plain from the length of the body of Christ intercepted between any one part of the Eucharist and another. Further, wherever the quantity or quality of the body of Christ exists, there also exists what it is to be thus extended and qualified; and consequently throughout the entire host it obtains that the body of Christ is seven feet tall and gloriously endowed as in heaven. And here the philosophers wonder: since a quality without a subject has its natural operation equally efficacious as a substance so qualified, why is it that the heavenly quality in the body of Christ, that noble subject, is suspended from action in the host? And the union by which the heavenly quality would be united to the host would strengthen action, because according to the philosophers every power united is stronger than when dispersed — indeed, since according to the opinion of the perspectivists the form of concentration aids the action of light, and if the body of Christ is present there its brightness is more resplendent than the sun, and at every point the mukefi figure — which according to Witelo is the most efficacious figure possible for concentrating light — it seems that it would act in a very sensible manner. This perhaps moves those who say that they see the body of Christ in the host with the bodily eye; but the gospel says that it was singularly granted to the private apostles to see the glory of the transfiguration of the Lord's body before His death; therefore, since they do not say with Peter, "It is good for us to be here," it is believed that they lie about seeing the four endowments of the body of Christ in the host. And with respect to quantity, a faithful theologian, even a layman, would not believe a preacher who said that the body of Christ is seven feet tall at any part of the host.

English

And the confirmation is that the body of Christ would be there only -- which is supremely possible for the adversaries -- and would be large there; how great, then, would it be there, if not as great as its own quantity is? Likewise, the quantification of a thing is just as much a spiritual matter as the quantity itself; since, therefore, the quantity together with its figure is there, its information must be there as well -- for otherwise one is compelled to blaspheme God by saying that He can preserve a quantity somewhere while suspending well the information of its subject, yet cannot dissolve that suspension. Now from logic I suppose concerning these matters that if quantification will be anywhere, then the quantified thing is there, because otherwise motion and every relation would be multiplied through the whole world. There are infinite such arguments, on account of which the Catholic says that the body of Christ is there virtually and by sign -- not the body of Christ as it is in heaven, but a vicarious sign of it, as was said at the end of the preceding chapter. But against this it is objected from logic: For it appears to the opponents, first, that the body is extended in the host, because the bread that is there is extended and thus extended -- since an extended and thus sensible sacrament would be the thing of the sacrament, which is against the laws of the church, and great confusion and contradiction of the foregoing would follow. As regards what has been said, it appears how it is necessary in this matter to note the equivocations that exclude contradiction and shed light on the variation of the response, and especially concerning the equivocation of predication and of the body of Christ. For according to tropical predication, the saints concede together with Scripture that the body of Christ is bread or a sign sacramentally signifying it; and in a conformable sense they concede that the body of Christ is at the altar and is mystically that bread, and so the body of Christ which is in heaven, born of the virgin and crucified, is at the altar -- not the body itself, nor anything else identically, but tropically it is the sign sacramentally signifying it. And thus they understand the laws and sayings of the saints to mean that the sensible sacrament is not identically the body of Christ. And just as the sophist objects that the body of Christ is extended at the altar, equivocating on the predication by taking the predicate in the neuter gender as a substantive, yet the body of Christ is not extended there -- so secondly the sophist objects: if this is extended there and this is the body of Christ, then the body of Christ is extended there; and by the same token it follows that the body at the altar is the body of Christ, because the bread which is there, wherever it is, is the body of Christ.

English

For otherwise a confused multiplication of absurdities and an excessive entanglement of sophisms would follow. It is said here, as above, that that which is called the expository syllogism manifestly fails on account of the equivocation, as is evident when the sense of the minor premise is expressed: This bread is extended there, and that bread sacramentally figures the body of Christ, therefore the body of Christ is extended there. For in the conclusion, the body of Christ is understood personally, referring to that supposition which was born of the virgin, suffered, and sits in heaven with the higher gifts of God. And so the saints equivocate in the second argument, conceding that the body of Christ at the altar is the body of Christ -- just as blessed Jerome says that the body of Christ can be understood in two ways -- and so they concede, according to the expository argument, that that bread after the conversion is carried into heaven before the eyes of God and the angels. But for all these persons the consolation of the faithful is that they know the Catholic sense and can lawfully and meritoriously speak now in one way and now in another, without contradiction, according to the capacity of the audience to whom they speak -- for one must speak differently to sophists and differently to devout simple people. I, however, have chosen to speak more plainly to laypeople: that that sacrament figures the body of Christ and is confected, worshipped, and eaten with the intention of remembering and imitating Christ. And because such great duplicity and sophistication arises in this matter, God permits sophists to contend fruitlessly over it. But it is objected in the third place that the body of Christ is not efficaciously taught to be at the altar sacramentally; and upon this the whole controversy depends. Here it is not necessary to persuade this conclusion to the faithful, since Christians rather surpass these things than detract from the truth. But when addressing unbelievers, laypeople are to be exhorted to believe in this part of the faith from the Scripture cited above.

English

Unbelieving philosophers, however, must be instructed in how one and the same thing has multiple modes of being. For God, who is the foundation of the whole of created reality, is everywhere primarily through Himself -- essentially, virtually, and potentially; and because in Him essence, power, and might are the same thing (as Augustine declares in On the Knowledge of the True Life), He is therefore everywhere indivisible according to essence, power, and might. For creatures, a threefold being precedes their existence: the first is the eternal intelligible being which, according to the seminal principles, has being in God; the second is the potential being in secondary causes according to the seminal principles; and the third is the proximate being which the creature has in its efficient cause according to the application of the higher cause, since all things have their efficacy in God. A person is secondary to his parent, and within these there are many gradations. The second kind of being, however, follows upon the existence of the creature -- and especially of the human being who, when he is made in the image of God, has existential being or actual being; secondly, he has presential being; and thirdly, he has virtual being, as the Master illustrates at the beginning of the Histories concerning the king. Hence Augustine, in the place cited above, says: God is justice, and wherever justice is exercised, God is believed to be present. Thus, in the end, the emperor is present to the robber when he condemns him, just as he is present to the soldier when he rewards him.

English

And let no one suppose that He abhors filth in general -- rather, let it be known that He execrates the filth of sins alone, and that He cannot be stained by anything, just as the ray of the sun cannot be defiled by any uncleanness. Nor is it ever believed that this holy one, or anyone from this Catholic perspective, has had the body of Christ in the Eucharist with a singular existence in His own essence. As Augustine says in the place cited above: The last, he says, will shine in the kingdom of heaven like the sun, who will then be seven times brighter than he is now. And in that brightness each person differs from another in proportion to his virtue, as star differs from star in brightness; but all of us together -- the body of Christ in brightness surpasses us as far as the Creator transcends creatures. Therefore, such a vision of such glory is called the kingdom of heaven, because only the heavenly ones, that is the just, enjoy this. For this reason we now see the humanity of Christ with the eye of the mind alone, not of the body -- just as blessed Stephen saw by faith -- as Augustine says: Thus is God.

English

Codd.: differunt. D: Hos autem; ABCE: homines autem. Cor- Peter Comestor, cap. On the creation of the empyrean heaven, etc. Cap. XXIV, cap. XLV, p. cap.

English

XI. As cited above: Stephen, he says, did not see God in the heaven beyond the firmament with bodily eyes, for no human sight can reach up to heaven in any way. Moreover, the assembly in which Stephen, standing, beheld Christ was in some building whose physical roof his bodily eye was by no means able to penetrate. It is established therefore, he says, that he saw Christ not with the eye of the body but with the gaze of the inner man, not in a corporeal but in an intellectual heaven. But if a sophist objects that a man is in the place where he is distant, let him study the philosophers who say that things exist in the soul, and let him look at the theologians who say that men existed in their parents before their own existence — men who, by the testimony of scripture, had paid tithes through them — and (as the logicians say) a man after his corruption generates or perishes, and so after death has being in his effect. And more evidently so with the body of Christ in the host. But sixthly, the argument is made principally about the movement and eating of the body of Christ in the host, and it is commonly held that the body of Christ is moved with the host substantially, and is eaten sacramentally, and so is in some cases excreted, vomited, and eaten by a mouse, not only as its sign but in its very substance. As regards the movement of the body of Christ, it seems that men speak of this matter in two ways: either tropically, in the sense in which they grant that whatever happens to the sacrament of the body of Christ happens to it (as the decree Ego Berengarius says), or without figure, identically, in the manner in which God is said to be everywhere and Peter alone to be definitively where he is. And so the body of Christ after the Ascension seems not only not to be moved on earth nor to exist there, but His power is throughout the whole world, since He perfects humanly every creature. But because of a renewal or commencement of power, the body of Christ need not move correspondingly, just as a king need not move correspondingly with the movement of a courier carrying his letters. For although the body of Christ is everywhere, even throughout the entire sublunary world, nevertheless it is present in the sacrament of the altar with a certain uniqueness. But just as it is not altered or moved in quantity with the movement of the host, so it is not moved locally in correspondence as the host itself is moved locally, because it does not acquire from the movement of the host any quantity or quality, just as it does not acquire from the carrying of the host anything new — so that, just as the body of Christ is not burned when the pyx is burned, so neither is it elevated nor lowered by the priest moving the host in this way.

English

And it is clear that the body of Christ is not vomited or excreted. And as regards eating, it is clear from what has been said that it can be understood in two ways: either tropically or identically. Identically, it is not eaten bodily but spiritually by the faithful, while his mind is nourished by the memory of the body of Christ. And so an animal cannot eat it in this sense, nor is it eaten by the faithful simply in this way; rather, the unworthy man eats the sacrament and receives the body of Christ. Hence, to receive and to eat are two different things; for many receive the Holy Spirit, who is neither mobile nor bodily edible. Air also, according to those who speak in this way, receives the body of Christ, just as does the belly of a man. The intestines of animals as well — so much so that not only is the body of Christ present at every point of the world, but it is sacramentally present within the bowels of animals, since the form of bread could be extracted from them. And as long as the consecrated form of bread or wine remains, the adversaries say that the body of Christ, even in however small a particle, sacramentally remains. And in this way Thomas seems to say, on Distinction IX, Question 2, that an irrational creature receives the body of Christ. William, however, in On the Sacrament of the Altar, seems to say that the body of Christ is received in five ways, and so a mouse (as he says) eats the body of Christ really, but not sacramentally nor spiritually. But God forbid, even if all of them (including the pope) should say that an animal and everyone who eats the host therefore eats the body of Christ — as has been illustrated in the case of the soul — indeed the logicians say that, just as a spring, a lake, or an animal receives water that is in fact the sacrament of baptism, and yet is not baptized nor receives baptism, so many things receive that bread or those accidents, which are in fact the sacrament, and yet do not receive the sacrament because they do not do so under the aspect of a sacrament. But setting aside this dispute to the logicians, I grant, with the common gloss on Distinction 2, chapter Non iste, that the body of Christ does not descend to the stomach, and how far down the throat it is carried I do not know. Hence the text truly says: This is not the bread that goes into the body.

English

For bread is taken in three senses for our purpose in sacred scripture and in the holy doctors: namely, for the ordinary bread which common people eat, for the consecrated bread which is the sacrament — which Augustine calls heavenly bread — and for the bread last signified in figure, which is Christ our God. And the theologian must take note of this equivocation, just as he must take note of the equivocal predication of these terms. For if the bread which is the body of Christ —

English

If His glorious person were with us in heaven, as we think about the host, no one living this life would be able to bear the glory and ecstasy that it would produce; for Peter at the Transfiguration fell as though dead. But the glorious body of Christ is figured for us in bread and wine, as I cited above from Augustine, Rabanus, and Damascene. For this Greek writer writes in Book III of his Sentences, chapter 8: Just as it is the custom for a man to be washed with water and anointed with oil, through which, joined with the grace of the Holy Spirit, it makes the washing of regeneration, so, because it is the custom for men to eat bread and to drink wine and water, God united to these His own deity and made them His own body and blood.

English

Nor does it conflict with, but rather agrees with, what is said in the same chapter: that bread and wine pass over and are transubstantiated into the body and blood of Christ. For by the fact that he says God made them His own body and blood, it is clear that he understands them to be tropically the body and blood of Christ, in the manner of speaking of scripture; for as Scotus says: Scriptures are to be expounded in the same spirit in which they were composed. And so the catholic church has expounded it in that sense in which she has taught. And as with baptism, since it has been established among men that they are washed with water and anointed with oil, He joined the grace of the Spirit with oil and water, so that He might make it a washing of regeneration: in like manner, because it is the custom of men to eat bread and to drink wine and water, He therefore, uniting His own divinity with these, made them His own body and blood, so that through what is customary and consonant with nature we might ascend to those things that are above nature.

English

But God forbid that a faithful person should conclude from this that, if Innocent III together with his satellites has thus defined it, then the catholic church has so understood it. Nevertheless (as I have said), there is a presumption that they understood transubstantiation and the accidents in the manner I have expounded above, and did not contradict the saints who say that quantity and quality cannot exist on their own. But in the general manner of scripture they call them bread and wine, and they understand them properly through their accidents — because in Causa XXV, Question 1, Sunt quidam, Pope Urban says catholically: But where the Lord or His apostles, and the holy fathers who follow them, have definitively defined something openly, there the Roman pontiff cannot give a new law, but rather must confirm what has been preached even at the cost of his soul and blood, because otherwise he would err far too greatly. Since therefore the authors of scripture and the holy doctors together call the sacrament the bread which they say is the body, it would be grievous to attack those words or that sense. I know, however, that even Roman pontiffs can be led astray to this and to still more, since they can err on an article more necessary to the way of salvation of the church — namely, that it is more expedient and more perfect for them to be endowed with temporal wealth than to follow the state of voluntary poverty which Christ taught in word and deed and left to His disciples to observe. For this error is greater than it would be to believe that the sacrament of the Eucharist does not exist. And since one error leads to the next, it is believed that the church, suffering the punishment of the prior error, was exposing the next by expounding sacred scripture and the holy doctors ironically through its own contradiction.

English

Just as the friars conceal their Caesarean way of life with manifold consent, so they sophisticate the matter concerning the accidents of the Eucharist; but just as they are contradictory to themselves in signs, profession, and deed, so they alternately contradict one another on the matter of the accidents of the sacrament. Therefore their testimony is not fitting; and since it is evidently believed that in a general council the party of Antichrist would hold more votes on either of these articles than the party of Christ, and the church would thus be further seduced, we must press Truth all the more insistently, so that Truth may, by both of these means and especially by the first which bears more upon conduct, bring the faithful back — since with respect to pages written against scripture it is nothing other than bringing in corrupt satraps who know how to expound the truth of scripture by its opposite. And this opinion will be broadly catholic, and the contrary will be proscribed as heretical. But the faithful trust in Truth, that just as in the time of Christ they charged Christ and His apostles with the most grievous kind of heresy, which is blasphemy, and afterward tyrants who tortured the martyrs of Christ charged them with heresy and infidelity for not worshiping their gods, so it is necessary that a worse plague succeed in the church, charging the faithful with heresy because he defends the truth of scripture. For from all these examples is taught the common proverb that a vicious man more readily attacks his adversary on the very charge of which, fearing reproof, he knows himself to be more guilty.

English

And for all these things the best medicine is faith with charity and patience. We know indeed that we shall all stand before the tribunal of Truth, where not clamor or a multitude of testimony but Truth itself of the deed will accuse before the eyes of the Judge. For if we cause them to err either for our own aggrandizement or for the purpose of heaping up money for the people, we eat their sins and bind ourselves for a double crime — their sin and our own reckless blindness — as Gregory says in Homily XVII: We ought, he says, without ceasing to remember what was said of certain people in Hosea: They eat the sins of my people, and these are they who foster the sins of wrongdoers lest they lose their temporal stipends or honors. But even we who live from the obligations of the unfaithful — from what they bestow upon us for their sins — if we eat and are silent, we beyond all doubt eat their sins. For why is it necessary to feign our excellence without fruit by groundlessly magnifying the grandeur of the sacrament? Hence I have often wondered in astonishment what moved the first glossators to speak thus, and since neither reason nor testimony remains, only revelation or scripture remains. As to revelation, in their days the word of the Lord was precious; but scripture with its own sense they do not know how to cite; and since scripture so often calls the host bread, it seems dangerous to believe or teach that the Holy Spirit meant by that bread not bread but the accident of an alien nature, since the saints and reason contradict this.

English

For there is no reason why consecrated bread and wine should not simply be the sacrament of the Lord's body, just as holy water is the sacrament of baptism, and so with the other sacraments; nor is there reason that God should impair His universe by destroying the substance of the sign without cause; nor is there reason that Truth should ordain a sacrament so spiritual that those sensible accidents would signify bread or its subject as to being, while it is totally absent there. But just as we recall that Christ's life converted contraries, so God permits us to conceive evil signs. I grant, however, that it is unfitting that the church has erred so long in speculative matters; but it is a greater unfitness that she has erred even longer in practical matters, and (as I believe) the superiors and inferiors of this sect disbelieve what they profess, since they never or rarely celebrate, and yet they labor far more and more ardently for faction — not merely for temporal goods such as a small amount of gold, but for the acquiring of possession or enjoyment of them (which is the weakest kind of regard). How, then, am I to believe from his works that such a man converts his bread into the kingdom of heaven, because he is personally the body of Christ, which he thenceforth believes he has perpetually? Indeed, if he fully believed the gospel, he would labor to possess kinship with Christ, who in Matth.

English

12, says most truly: Whoever does the will of my Father who is in heaven, he is my brother, sister, and mother. This kinship, which proceeds from such great authority along with the word of abiding, would be far better than confecting, handling, or (as they themselves say) making the body of Christ. Now I do not condemn true worship but desire it and would promote it as much as I am able; but I detest the faithless and double worship by which the sacrament is adored as identically the body of Christ. I would rather concede, with Augustine, Grosseteste, and others, that every member of Christ is really and truly, yet by a certain participation, the Lord Jesus Christ; for every such member is a living member of Christ, with Christ Himself speaking and doing all His living works as though intrinsically informing them by quiddity — which the sacrament of the altar lacks — and therefore more evidently from reason and scripture would Christ make Himself to be each of His members. For otherwise, assuming the faith of scripture from Math. 25, by feeding or performing a work of mercy to one person in the name of Christ, a man would do so to two persons, and thus concerning their needs and the whole deed it would be false that Christ was then hungry, thirsty, or naked, unless that person were His member; since, given that we know after the ascension when Christ was hungry and so suffered, it is plain that His own person does not so suffer now. And let those who fabricate accidents without a subject consider this, on account of the fact that Christ truly but figuratively says that the bread is His body.

English

For both sides simply assert; nor can either one be proven more than the other from scripture, reason, or the testimony of the saints — except by recent glossators who fictitiously fabricate a new faith. And (as has been touched upon) there is no stronger argument than: if Innocent III so determines, therefore it is true. If he with his accomplices determines that the King of England ought to pay him and his see three hundred marks annually in part as money for wrongs committed, then this was consonant with reason — for in both cases the authority is equal. But the English and all the faithful would say that this was irreligious cupidity; therefore his assertion is suspect unless it is founded on scripture. Indeed, if by an impossibility our Lord Jesus had accumulated profit for crimes for Himself and His apostles, His whole evangelization would have been suspect to the faithful. Therefore, just as we learn in practice to recognize this fallacy: Robert of Pontigny asserts thus with his clergy, therefore it is true — and his sect denies that consequence with equal probability: Our Urban with his cardinals so determines, therefore it is true — so we learn to recognize fallacies from any vicar of Peter, and especially after the endowment of the church. For thus we deny as an outright fallacy: if John the archpriest, successor of St. Thomas of India, so asserts, therefore it is true. The seventh doubt concerns whether the Eucharist is to be adored with latria or dulia; and it seems to be with latria, because it is to be adored only as an image of God, and not absolutely as an image, but as figuratively and vicariously God Himself — and as such it is to be adored with latria. Therefore the conclusion follows. For we adore the cross of the Lord not under the rationale by which it is a rotting log, but under the rationale by which God suffered upon it for us. For thus Alexander the Great adored the priest of Jerusalem, as the master of the history of the Maccabees says. But against this it seems that Christ, as to His humanity, is to be adored with hyperdulia (as is assumed here), and therefore the host and images are to be adored with an inferior adoration. This is confirmed by the fact that every man, made in the image of God, more expressly represents God and is of a higher nature than the consecrated host.

English

Hence, because woman's origin was not originated from another of her own nature, the Apostle commands that the church pray with covered head, as is clear from Cor. 11. And natural philosophy together with the Lord's commandments teaches that every human being is to be loved and that great persons are especially to be honored; but the honoring or loving of the host does not carry such authority, since man is more expressly a sacrament. Here one must first recognize that something is adored as a sign of another thing that is adored for itself, and something is adored by nature in a preeminent way as God; and in this way no one rightly adores the host, especially if it be a quantity. Secondly, it must be noted that the adoration of rational nature is of various kinds: either for the excellence that it possesses from itself, in which way God alone is to be adored, or for the excellence that it participates from God, whether it be an angel or a human being according to secular excellence or priestly excellence. Hence, according to this middle rationale, Jacob adored his brother Esau, Genes. 33.

English

But in the third mode we adore images merely as signs, whereas God we ought to adore as fully as we are able. But in the adoration of a creature there consists an excessive disturbance of religion, such as idolatry and the acceptance of persons; for whenever a created image is adored in itself as God, or is adored inordinately or with an obsessive love, idolatry is committed. And in this sense the Apostle says at Ephes. 5, that the covetous man is a servant of idols. And the peoples whom we call unbelievers toil under this sin, adoring beasts or mute images as though they were images of the God whom they ultimately adore and believe in. And we who are called Christians sin in this same idolatry more frequently than the barbarians do, by adoring the images of saints, relics, and the sacrament of the altar. Hence among unbelievers there occur many so-called miracles, so as to deceive the unbelievers. But the primitive Christian religion did not have such images, nor did it canonize saints

English

but they lived more perfectly than we do in the faith of the sons of God, since all such signs are of no help except insofar as they help and stir up love for Christ the bridegroom of the church. And hence it is believed that God ordained that the body of the Lord's mother should not be adored in our habitable region, just as neither the body of Moses under the old law, nor the bodies of the Apostles are venerated so sumptuously and splendidly as the bodies of the saints are venerated in England. And hence it is believed that the Apostle so frequently calls the sacrament of the altar bread. And all these things, like the prohibition of images, were for the sake of guarding against idolatry. It is therefore conceded that relics, images, and sacraments are to be adored with prudence. He, then, who would know how to suspend attention to the sensible sign and attach his whole intention and affection to the Creator of the image, in the manner in which a learned man suspends the written text while grasping its meaning -- such a man, I say, would adore God with latria by means of that sign. But far too many are lay people and brutish persons who attend too much to sensible things, and many, as the Apostle says at 1 Cor. 12, when adoring the host are like the nations going as captives to mute idols, led to commit idolatry just as a beast is led to the yoke of servile labor.

English

But whoever adores the humanity of Christ as such in the host adores Christ Himself with hyperdulia, and no one rightly adores the host under its proper description; and so it is truly concluded that a human being is to be honored in more ways than the host, and is to be adored as an image of God and a vessel of virtues, and thus as Christ, more truly than the consecrated host. And so it is believed that error concerning the cult of the host destroys charity in name. For there are three causes of the progress and fruit of this sacrament, namely: that peace and charity among men may be increased, that the memory of gratitude toward Christ may be more freshly held, and that the participant in the Lord's Supper may carry out more vigilantly the manner of life of the Mass; and the opposites of all three of these befall the people, and especially the priests of the Mass, who by their office would labor more diligently for these three things. For no one disturbs the peace of Christ more, extinguishes charity more, or recalls the life of Christ less fruitfully so as to follow Him in conduct, than do the priests, and especially the prelates, who by virtue of their name are more bound to this. For we ought, in the manner of Christ, to attend less to the world with its rites, and to flee more from worldly desires with their contentions, since these desires extinguish the peace and charity of the church more. No one studies less to live in conformity with the life of Christ; indeed, no Antichrist degenerates more from it, since we do not study the sparing, penitential, and propertyless life which Christ undoubtedly lived on earth, but rather the lavish, luxurious, proprietary, ostentatious, and supremely worldly life. Since, therefore, the cult of the host consists chiefly in the embrace of these three things and the flight from their opposites: it consists not in precious or costly ornaments, nor in rites of bowing, genuflecting, or uncovering the head, but in purity of mind and in a holiness of life resembling the conduct of Christ. And hence it appears that the priests to whom this ministry is singularly entrusted ought in a life of poverty to follow Christ, and without offense to the church or concern for their own property to hold all things in common, as the Apostle says at 1 Cor.

English

10, "We, being many, are one bread and one body." Hence I was accustomed during the time of that disturbance and invasion of our kingdom to assert that, since the goods of the kingdom in the hands of religious persons are goods belonging to the poor, of which goods those same religious are stewards and not lords, it would be expedient for the community of the kingdom and of the parliament to press constantly that, from those goods of the poor that are more at liberty, the kingdom might be defended from internal enemies, the living goods being preserved for the uses of the poor, and the religious being provided for in their thus-relieved state with the necessities of life and their ministry -- and this would be accomplished if, after due consideration of the gravity, quantity, and quality of those goods, a portion of the goods were assigned to them with which they ought reasonably to be content. This entire position is clear from what has been said elsewhere; and the threefold argument is repeated here. For William the Conqueror took not only the temporalities but also the possessions and livelihood lawfully from the English church when it sinned lightly against God and against him: therefore much more is it lawful for the king and kingdom to receive back alms more mildly when their church sins more grievously. Second, the same is confirmed by arguing to the man, on the ground that the temporal lords of England seize temporalities too harshly from the church of France (as is credibly believed) even when their own church sins less; therefore, from stronger grounds, they may do this more freely from their own churches. And our satraps will not say that either of these was unlawful, since by virtue of the first they hold their own estates, and to the second they give counsel and assistance. Third, indeed, it is confirmed by the deeds of the kings of England, who more frequently took into their own hands the temporalities of the prelates for a minor offense; since they claim this as a royal prerogative to which the bishops have sworn without resistance; it appears evident that they will not regard this as heretical but as plainly catholic, since otherwise the clergy of England would be a monstrous supreme lord and a traitor to their king. Nor is it necessary to fear excommunication or human laws more for acting thus than the said lords had feared, since the deed would be more consonant with the law of God.

English

they have found by experience that the priests of Antichrist do not excommunicate those who persecute them to their face, since this would not accrue to their profit; but they excommunicate remote and blinded persons through their internal satraps, because by this means they think that profit accrues to them through the assistance of that adulterous generation. The second principal argument is on the ground that the salvation and utility of the whole communion of the church is to be weighed more than the utility of a part of it; but the clergy of the English church is a small part in comparison with the church of the whole of our kingdom; therefore its utility is to be weighed more; since, therefore, in this manner the whole kingdom would be saved from bodily enemies (which otherwise could easily perish), it seems that natural reason compels this. Hence those who consider the state of the kingdom more deeply say that our kingdom could be fully defended from within by the administration of the temporalities that are in mortmain; and moreover this would be a means of multiplying men who could lawfully fight for that cause. Nor does it avail to pretend that the sin of sacrilege would thereby accrue to the kingdom from this act, which would necessitate the ruin of our church; for, as the decree of the blessed Ambrose at dist. 12, question 2, says: "The church has gold, for feeding the poor, for ransoming captives, and for buildings necessary for holy places; it is even lawful to break the sacred vessels without sin." Since, therefore, this cause is greater than all those things, and it is at the same time neither necessary to sell the sacred vessels for this purpose nor to diminish but rather to increase the sustenance of the clergy and its religious life, it appears that this is wholesome in every respect. For the purpose of treasure thus accumulated for the clergy, who ought to forsake the world, appears to be nothing other than to gather and to prepare by means of idolatry.

English

Part, Causa XII, qu. II, cap. LXX. — preserve the treasure of the kingdom from foreign enemies. Thus blessed Ambrose says that the gold gathered in the temple of Jerusalem was the cause of Nebuchadnezzar's destruction of it. And this is the reason why England and many other kingdoms have been so frequently destroyed. Credence must therefore not be given to the blind, with the faith of scripture set aside, until our kingdom has been irremediably destroyed. Furthermore, (as every believer acknowledges) the multiplication of sins is the cause of the destruction of kingdoms, but among Christians it originates most of all from the clergy (as Gregory teaches in his Register, Book III, ch. XXIX); therefore the cause of the destruction of kingdoms originates from the sin of the clergy. Since, then, the chief sin of the clergy is avarice, which is the service of idols (as was said in the treatise On Simony), it appears that the most effective remedy for removing the destruction of kingdoms would be to remove from the clergy the occasion of simony; and this would most effectively be removed if the necessities of life were provided to the clergy — as to angels, or to Christ and others maintaining the state of innocence — without surplus. For otherwise they corrupt their ministry, they consecrate the Eucharist to their own judgment, and they render themselves altogether damnable through their consent.

English

Therefore it would be a lesser evil for such ministry to be altogether absent from priests, since they ought to follow Christ more closely through poverty, holding all things in common. But if we murmur against the said sentence which, according to the law of God, would be for the benefit of the church, we render ourselves unworthy -- even if we confect the sacramental bread -- of being refreshed by the bread of life. For God, on account of sin, seems to be corrupted by idols as the chiefest concern. The common good preponderates, just as the health of our kingdom is ordained to stand in the prosperity of the common people. How then should we permit avaricious men to despoil the poor people of the alms by which we live, and by holding their goods locked away not foster them, being excessively rapacious before both God and men?

English

Gathering together therefore the roots of errors in the clergy, it is clear that there are three things by which the church is beguiled with sophistry: namely, the domination of the clergy, the magnification of their traditions, and the simulation of their holiness. And from these proceed infinite sophisms of pride, such as the terrorizing by excommunication, the preponderance of the observance of their law, and excessive attention to the signs of the sacraments and sacramentals. The remedy against the first is faith in Christ's poverty, which the whole clergy ought to follow more closely and consequently by their example to draw the people to this. The remedy against the second is that human laws are valid precisely to the extent that they are founded on the law of the Lord. The remedy against the third is to believe in a life and works conformed to the law of God; for the thing in which we believe is imperceptible to the senses, and sensible perception does not apply to it except insofar as it stirs faith to adhere, according to the rules of charity, to what is believed. And in this third the danger is more concealed, as is evident from the sophistication of the sacraments beyond the faith of scripture, and especially those that have the scent of profit, as is evident with the Eucharist, penance, and burial. Therefore the faithful theologian must steadfastly resist these simulations. The purpose, then, for the sake of which I have said these things is that by removing the error in signs, the faithful may meritoriously call to mind those things that are signified. Nor do I believe there to be any class of men that more falsely calls Christ to mind -- both speculatively and practically, following Iscariot -- than the community of priests does; for insofar as we thus celebrate the memory of Christ, we ought by following Him to love peace and truth more closely; and none departs more from the contrary of both.

English

Recollecting therefore in summary the end intended by this treatise, it seems to me that as often as a priest confects, so often he obliges himself to God, professing specifically to follow Christ in life and manners and consequently, by living a poor life, to hold all things in common. And to this all pure clergy are obligated, from the pope down to the lowest priest. For curates, though they are called promoted men and lords, ought after the example of Christ and the apostles to receive from the alms of the people they edify -- or of another devout man -- as much as is necessary for them for the priestly ministry. But if any of them takes additional alms from the people in order to distribute them, let him beware of the danger that attends it. For if the King of Heaven so lived, most poor, holding all things in common, who or what manner of man are you, O priest, to whom Christ commanded: 'As often as you do this, you will make remembrance of Me' -- and yet by doing His sign you deny what is signified, as a betrayer of Christ? For you ought by exemplary deed and by word to build up Christ's church in a preeminent degree, since that office has been entrusted to you specifically for this purpose. But if you conduct yourself more voluptuously and secularly, who is more false and faithless, a greater traitor to his God? And this is the root of the disturbance of the church, since the Truth, who is its head, hates falsehood of this kind.

English

But the reason I have digressed in treating the scholastic difficulties of this subject is to make known that error of affection follows error of intellect. For just as venerators of signs err most falsely with respect to the accidents of the sacrament, so affection errs with respect to temporal things that accrue to the clergy as accidents, so that it acquires for itself by merit -- and for the people -- true everlasting riches. And just as blasphemers say that by the power of Christ's blessing the bread according to its whole self is destroyed into non-being, so that no part of it remains, so our affection is perverted by our blessings, so that -- according to the prophet -- God curses the blessings of the contrary prelates, and conversely blesses their curses. And this is shown in fact: since confession and the use of the sacrament of the altar ought chiefly to be made for the purpose of establishing and confirming the peace of the members of the church, which peace priests -- by both committing and permitting -- rather tear apart. I pass over in silence the wars and battles which prelates personally procure and wage, and I call to mind the temporal goods which they monstrously accumulate and consume. But since this rotten good is the cause of wars, it is clear that priests and especially prelates are the cause of dissension and wars among the faithful, and so by a damnable omission they neither exhort nor counsel toward peace among the kingdoms but toward war; and so degenerating in life and doctrine from the apostles they celebrate their masses most falsely. For they should ensure by word and deed that all Christians -- even secular lords, since they are one bread and eat from one bread as members of one church -- esteem above all temporal goods and honors of the world that they should not, before they eat, tear or disturb the least member of mother church.

English

Which lesson, if they have perfectly learned from the sacrament of the altar, then by attaining the end of the sacrament they truly celebrate their masses as sons of peace. And attending carefully to this with other things set aside, we would diligently study it; therefore the end of this sacrament in itself -- which through the world is threefold peace -- may God grant us to acquire with our mother's help, aiding God to confect, and in Christ Jesus finally to observe. Amen. End of this treatise, etc. Here ends the treatise on the Eucharist, etc.

English

The 60th Sunday after All Saints. Thanks be to God. Here ends the major treatise on the Eucharist of Master John. Here follows the minor treatise on the Eucharist by the same author. ON THE EUCHARIST AND PENANCE, OR ON CONFESSION.