Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book I: On the Real Presence of Christ the Lord, from the Word of God
Chapter 3: The Presence of the Body of the Lord in the Eucharist Is Demonstrated from the Figures of the Old Testament
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. IV, De Sacramento Eucharistiae, Book I: On the Real Presence of Christ the Lord in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, from the Word of God. The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
Now, that we may come to the proof, we shall confirm the Catholic truth by four kinds of arguments, and at the same time we shall answer the things which the adversaries object in each kind. To the first kind of arguments belong the testimonies of Scripture; to the second, the testimonies of the ancient Fathers; to the third, the consent of the Church; to the fourth, various reasons. From the Scriptures four arguments can be sought. The first, from the figures. The second, from the promise. The third, from the institution. The fourth, from the use.
From the figures, then, of the Old Testament this argument is taken. Figures must necessarily be inferior to the things figured. But the figures of the Sacrament of the Eucharist are either more excellent than, or not inferior to, simple and natural bread signifying the body of Christ; therefore the Eucharist is not simple and natural bread signifying the body of Christ, but is the very body of Christ, the truly heavenly and supersubstantial bread.
The major proposition is most certain from the Apostle Paul, who in Colossians 2 compares the figures of the Old Testament to shadows, and the fulfillment to the body. And in Hebrews 10 he compares the same figures to shadows, and the truth to an image. For a shadow is not a true image, but is either an empty likeness of an image, such as is produced when someone walks in the sun; or certainly an image sketched on a panel, not yet expressed and perfected. Jerome, on chapter 1 to Titus (that I may not multiply witnesses in a clear matter), says: “There is as much difference between the loaves of proposition and the body of Christ as between a shadow and bodies, between an image and the truth, between the exemplars of things to come and those very things which were figured by the exemplars.” But even without these testimonies it cannot be doubted that a figure serves the truth, and is fulfilled and perfected by it.
The minor proposition can be proved in two ways. First, from those figures which are equal to bread. Then from those which are more excellent. The equal figures are those which were placed in bread. First, the bread which Melchizedek brought forth, Genesis 14; for that this was a figure of the Eucharist Chrysostom teaches, homily 35 on Genesis: “Thou seest,” he says, “how our Sacrament is intimated: thou hast seen the type; consider, I pray, the truth.” Other Fathers hold the same: Cyprian, Book 2, epistle 3; Arnobius on Psalm 109; Ambrose, Book 4 On the Sacraments, chapter 3; Jerome on chapter 26 of Matthew; Clement, Book 4 of the Stromata; Eusebius, Book 5 Demonstration of the Gospel, chapter 3; Damascene, Book 4, chapter 14. Then there was the bread of proposition, which could be eaten only by the pure and sanctified, Exodus 40 and 1 Kings 21; which Jerome, on the chapter to Titus, Damascene in the place noted, and Cyril, Catechesis 4 Mystagogical, testify to have been a figure of the Eucharist. Likewise the bread of the firstfruits, Leviticus 23, alluding to which Irenaeus, Book 4, chapter 32, calls the Eucharist the firstfruits of the divine gifts in the New Testament. Finally, that angelic bread by which Elijah, strengthened, walked the space of forty days, even to the mountain of God, Horeb, where he also in a manner saw God, 3 Kings 19.
Among the more excellent there are three chief figures, which furnish the Catholics with the most robust arguments. The first, the paschal lamb, which many of the ancients teach to have been a figure of the Eucharist: as Tertullian, Book 4 against Marcion; Hesychius on chapter 23 of Leviticus; Jerome on chapter 26 of Matthew; Chrysostom, homily On the Betrayal of Judas; Cyprian, in the book On the Unity of the Church; Augustine, Book 2 against the letters of Petilian, chapter 37: “One thing,” he says, “is the Pasch which the Jews celebrate of a sheep, another that which we receive in the body and blood of the Lord”; Leo, sermon 7 On the Passion of the Lord; Gregory, homily 22 on the Gospels. And from the Gospel itself, Matthew 26, Luke 22, it is manifestly gathered; for the Lord, after the paschal lamb eaten by the Jewish rite, immediately instituted the Sacrament of the Eucharist for no other cause than to signify, as Leo says in the place cited, that the ancient observance was fulfilled and taken away by the new Sacrament. Finally, it is established that the ceremony of the paschal lamb was placed not so much in the immolation as in the eating, as is clear from Exodus 12. Therefore to it corresponds in the New Testament that Lamb who taketh away the sins of the world, inasmuch as He is eaten; which certainly is not wont to be done otherwise than in the Eucharist.
Now that the paschal lamb of the Jews was a more excellent thing than our Eucharist, if in it the body of Christ is not truly contained, can be demonstrated with no difficulty. For if we consider the lamb and the bread as natural things, it cannot be doubted that the lamb excels; but if we consider them as Sacraments, that is, as external symbols, in that manner too the lamb excels. For the flesh of Christ is better signified by the flesh of a lamb than by bread; likewise the death of Christ is better signified by the death of the lamb than by the breaking of bread; the innocence, meekness, and other properties of Christ are better signified by that chosen lamb, a yearling without blemish, which in the law was commanded to be immolated and eaten, than by bread, which has none of these things; the effect too of the Sacrament, whether it be a certain spiritual nourishment or an excitation of faith, is better obtained through the eating of the lamb than the eating of bread. For flesh nourishes more than bread; and that also more excites faith which better represents the death of Christ. Wherefore those words of the Lord, This is my body, can more aptly be said by metonymy of the paschal lamb than of the bread of the Eucharist.
The second figure is the blood of the testament. For in Exodus 24 and Hebrews 9 the Old Testament is described, where we read that Moses in the name of God set forth the commandments of the law, then sprinkled the blood upon the people, and said: This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.
Now this figure was fulfilled in the institution of this Sacrament; which can easily be proved. For someone might think that this was a figure of the passion of Christ, and not of the institution of this Sacrament. It is proved therefore, first, because in Luke 22 the Lord says in express words: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood; therefore in the supper itself the testament was instituted. Secondly, because the Lord seems to have deliberately wished to use nearly the same words which Moses had used; for Matthew 26 writes that He said thus: This is my blood of the new testament, and so forth. Thirdly, then the Lord also set forth a law, as Moses had before done, when He said, John 13: A new commandment I give unto you, that you love one another, and He sprinkled blood upon the breasts of the disciples; neither of which we read was done in the passion. Fourthly, a testament ought to be made by a free man, before death, in the presence of witnesses, and by some public instrument which remains for a memorial. All these things we see to have been present in the last supper, but not in the passion. For in the last supper the Lord was still free, but in the passion He was in a manner under another’s right, being bound in the hands of the Jews. Likewise in the last supper the Apostles were present as witnesses, and a public instrument was made remaining for a memorial, that is, the Sacrament of the Eucharist itself. But in the passion enemies were present, not witnesses, except John, nor was any instrument then made. Finally, in the last supper the Lord was living; in the passion He was not so much living as dying. Whence the Apostle, Hebrews 9, says: A testament is confirmed by death; for it is not of force while he liveth that made it—as if to say, it is made before death, but confirmed by the death that follows.
This being laid down, that that blood of the Old Testament was a figure of the blood which is given to us in the Eucharist, by the same arguments it could be proved that the figure was better than the thing figured, if there was true blood, here there is only wine, by which we proved the Lamb to be better than bread. For blood is both a nobler substance than wine, and better represents the blood of Christ than wine does.
The third figure is the manna, which rained upon the Jews in the desert, Exodus 16. For that the manna was a figure of the Eucharist is clear from the words of the Lord, John 6: Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and are dead; he that eateth this bread shall live for ever. The same, moreover, is gathered from the Apostle, who in 1 Corinthians 10 compares the Red Sea to Baptism, and the manna to the Eucharist. The same too the Fathers teach: Chrysostom, Cyril, Theophylact, and Augustine on chapter 6 of John; and besides, Ambrose, Book 5 On the Sacraments, chapter 1, and in the book On the Initiated in the Mysteries, chapters 8 and 9. Finally, so great is the similitude between the manna and the Eucharist that the very thing cries out that the former was a type of the latter. The manna was given in the desert, while the children of Israel, having crossed the Red Sea, were journeying to the land of promise; so also (as Augustine notes, tract 11 on John) the Eucharist is given in the desert of this life, while after Baptism we press on to our true fatherland, which is eternal life. Then the manna had this singular property, that although some seemed to have gathered much, some little, all nevertheless found the same measure, Exodus 16. Which certainly fits most aptly with the Eucharist, since there is the same Sacrament, the same power, the same fruit in a great part of the signs and in a small. Finally, it is not without mystery that both the manna and the water from the rock, by which either species of the Sacrament is figured, suffered contempt, doubts, and contradictions, and on that account many perished from that whence they ought to have been refreshed. Of the manna, Psalm 77: Can He furnish a table, or provide bread for His people? And in Numbers 20 we read that that water was called the water of contradiction. And Numbers 21: Our soul now loatheth this very light food. In the same place is described the slaughter of the slain on account of such murmurings. Now doubts, murmurings, and contradictions concerning the Eucharist are most well known especially at this time. And certainly if (as the Apostle says, 1 Corinthians 11) many slept, that is, died bodily of old, because they received the Eucharist unworthily, it must be believed that many more die eternally on account of the contempt and blasphemies against so admirable a Sacrament.
Now that the manna was a thing far more excellent than the Eucharist, if it does not truly contain the body of the Lord, can easily be proved. For if we consider the manna and the bread of the Eucharist as certain gifts, abstracting from the signification: the manna was made by the hands of Angels, whence it is called the bread of Angels, Psalm 77 and Wisdom 16; the bread of the Eucharist is made by the hand of bakers. The manna rained from heaven; this bread comes forth from the oven. The manna had every savor, nay by a supreme miracle it tasted to each one what he desired, Wisdom 16; bread savors of nothing but bread. What is it, then, that Christ says, John 6: Moses gave you not bread from heaven, but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven; and the other things which He there subjoins, far preferring His Eucharist to the manna of the Jews? But if they be considered as external symbols, the manna signifies Christ better than bread, both because it was from heaven, and because it had every savor, and because it was received in equal measure by all, although it seemed to be diverse.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT III. Ex figuris Testamenti veteris demonstratur praesentia corporis Domini in Eucharistia. Nunc, ut ad probationem accedamus, Catholicam veritatem, quatuor argumento¬ rum generibus confirmabimus, ac simul re¬ spondebimus ad ea, quae adversarii in uno¬ quoque genere objiciunt. Ad primum genus argumentorum pertinent Scripturae testimo¬ nia ; ad secundum, testimonia veterum Pa¬ trum ; ad tertium, Ecclesiae consensus ; ad quartum, variae rationes. Ex Scripturis qua¬ tuor argumenta peti possunt. Primum, ex figuris. Secundum, ex promissione. Tertium, ex institutione. Quartum, ex usu. Ex figuris igitur Testamenti veteris sumi¬ tur hoc argumentum. Figurae necessario in¬ feriores esse debent rebus figuratis. Figurae autem Sacramenti Eucharistiae, vel sunt excel¬ lentiores, vel non inferiores simplici, et natu¬ rali pane, significante corpus Christi : igitur Eucharistia non est simplex et naturalis pa¬ nis significans corpus Christi, sed est ipsum corpus Christi, panis vere coelestis, et super¬ substantialis. Major propositio ex Apostolo Paulo certis¬ sima est, qui Coloss. n. comparat figuras Testamenti veteris umbris, impletionem au¬ tem corpori. Et Hebr. x, comparat easdem figuras umbris, veritatem autem imagini. Umbra enim non est vera imago, sed vel est inanis similitudo imaginis, qualis efficitur, cum quis ambulat in sole ; vel certe adum¬ brata imago in tabula, nondum expressa, et perfecta. Hieronymus in cap. i. ad Titum , ut in re clara non multiplicem testes : « Tan¬ tum, inquit, interest inter panes propositionis et corpus Christi, quantum inter umbram et corpora, inter imaginem et veritatem, inter exemplaria futurorum, et ea ipsa, quae per exemplaria figurabantur. « Sed etiam absque bis testimoniis dubitari non potest, quin figura serviat veritati, et per eam impleatur, ac perficiatur. Minor propositio dupliciter probari potest. Primum, ex his figuris, quae sunt aequales pani. Deinde ex his, quae sunt praestantiores. Figurae aequales sunt illae, quae in pane sitae erant. Primum panis, quem protulit Mel- chiscdech, Genes, xiv. eum enim fuisse figuram Eucharistiae docet Chrysostomus hom. 35. in Genes. «Vides, inquit, quomodo Sacramentum nostrum insinuatur, vidisti typum, cogita, oro, veritatem. » Idem habent alii Patres, Cyprianus lib. n. epist. 3. Arno¬ bius in Psal. cix. Ambrosius lib. iv. de Sacra¬ mentis , cap. 3. Hieronymus in cap. 26 Matth. Clemens lib. iv. Stromat. Eusebius lib. 5. Demonstrat. Evangel. cap. 3. Damascenus lib. iv. cap. 14. Deinde erat panis proposi¬ tionis, qui solum a puris, et sanctificatis comedi poterat, Exod. xl. et I Regum xxi. quem figuram Eucharistiae fuisse testantbr Hieronymus in cap. ad Titum. Damascenus loco notato, et Cyrillus Cateches. 4. mystag. Item panis primitiarum Levit, xxiii. ad quem alludens Irenaeus lib. iv. c. 32. vocat Euchari¬ stiam primitias divinorum munerum in novo Testamento. Denique panis ille Angelicus, quo Elias roboratus, quadraginta dierum spatio ambulavit, usque ad montem Dei Ho- reb, ubi et Deum quodammodo vidit III Reg. XIX. Ex praesta ntioribus tres sunt praecipuae figurae, quae robustissima argumenta Catho¬ licis praebent. Prima, agnus paschalis, quem figuram Eucharistiae fuisse docent multi ve¬ terum ; ut Tertull. lib. iv. in Marcion. Isichius in cap. 23. Levitic. Hieronymus in cap. 26. Matthaei. Chrysostomus hom. de Proditione Judae. Cyprianus lib. de Unit. CAPUT III, 11 Ecclesix. Augustinus lib. n. contra litteras Petiliam cap. 37.« Aliud est, inquit, Pascha, quod Judeei de ove celebrant, aliud, quod nos in corpore et sanguine Domini accipi¬ mus. » Leo serm. 7. de passione Domini. Gre- gorius hom. 22. in Evangelia. Et ex ipso Evangelio Matth. xxvi, Luc. xxn, manifeste colligitur : non enim alia de causa Domi¬ nus post agnum paschalem ritu judaico manducatum, continuo sacramentum Eu- charistise instituit , nisi ut significaret, ut ait Leo loco citato , antiquam observan¬ tiam novo sacramento adimpleri, et tolli. Denique constat agni paschalis caeremoniam non tam fuisse positam in immolatione, quam in manducatione, ut patet Exod. 12. Igitur illi respondet in Testamento novo Agnus ille, qui tollit peccata mundi, quate¬ nus manducatur ; quod certe non aliter fieri solet, quam in Eucharistia. Jam vero agnum paschalem Judaeorum rem fuisse praestantiorem Eucharistia nostra, si in ea non vere Christi corpus continetur nullo negotio demonstrari potest. Si enim consideremus agnum, et panem, ut res natu¬ rales, dubitari non potest, quin agnus excel¬ lat : si vero ea consideremus ut Sacramenta, id est, symbola externa, eo modo etiam agnus excellit. Nam caro Christi melius significatur carne agni, quam pane : item mors Christi melius significatur morte agni, quam fra¬ ctione panis ; Christi innocentia, mansuetudo, et aliae proprietates melius significantur per agnum illum electum, anniculum sine macula, qui in lege jubebatur immolari, et man¬ ducari, quam pane, qui nihil horum habet : effectus etiam Sacramenti, sive sit nutritio quaedam spiritualis, sive excitatio fidei, melius obtinetur per esum agni, quam esum panis. Magis enim caro nutrit, quam panis ; et id etiam fidem magis excitat, quod melius repraesentat Christi mortem. Quare illa verba Domini : Hoc est corpus meum , aptius per metonymiam dici possunt de agno paschali, quam de pane Eucharistiae. Altera figura est sanguis Testamenti. Nam Exod. xxiv. et Hebr. ix. describitur Testa¬ mentum vetus, ubi legimus, Moysem nomine Dei mandata legis proposuisse: deinde asper¬ sisse sanguinem in populum, ac dixisse : Hic est sanguis Testamenti, quem misit ad vos Deus (1). Impleta est autem haec figura in institutione hujus Sacramenti ; quod facile probari potest : posset enim aliquis existimare, illam esse figuram passionis Christi, et non insti¬ tutionis hujus Sacramenti. Probatur igitur primo, quia Lucae cap. xxn. disertis verbis Dominus ait: Hic calix novum Testamentum est in meo sanguine (2): igitur in ipsa coenaTesta- mentum institutum fuit. Secundo, quia vide¬ tur Dominus de industria uti voluisse iisdem fere verbis, quibus usus fuit Moyses : nam Matth. cap. xxvi. ita scribit eum dixisse : Hic est sanguis meus novi Testamenti , et prae¬ terea. Tertio, tunc Dominus proposuit etiam legem, ut antea fecerat Moyses, cum ait, Joan. xm : Mandatum novum do vobis, ut dili¬ gatis invicem (3), et aspersit sanguinem in pe¬ ctora discipulorum; quorum neutrum in pas¬ sione factum legimus. Quarto, Testamentum fieri debet ab homine libero, ante mortem coram testibus, et per aliquod publicum instrumentum, quod exstet ad memoriam. Haec omnia videmus adfuissein ultima ccena, non autem in passione. Nam in ultima coma Dominus adhuc liber erat, in passione autem, erat quodammodo juris alieni, cum vinctus esset in manibus Judajorum. Item in ultima coma testes aderant Apostoli, et confectum est publicum instrumentum exstans ad me¬ moriam, id est, Sacramentum ipsum Eucha¬ ristiae. In passione autem inimici aderant, non testes, excepto Joanne, neque ullum tunc instrumentum factum est. Denique in ultima ccena Dominus vivebat, in passione non tam vivebat, quam moriebatur. Unde Apostolus Ilebr. ix. dicit : Testamentum morte confirmari ; non enim valet dum vivit, qui testatus est, quasi dicat, ante mortem fieri, sed morte consequente firmari. Hoc ergo posito, sanguinem illum Testa¬ menti veteris, figuram fuisse sanguinis, qui nobis datur in Eucharistia ; iisdem argu¬ mentis probari posset, meliorem fuisse figu¬ ram re ipsa figurata, si ibi verus sanguis, hic tantum sit vinum , quibus probavimus Agnum meliorem esse pane. Sanguis enim, et nobilior substantia est, quam vinum, et melius repraesentat Christi sanguinem, quam vinum. Tertia figura est manna, quod Judaeis in deserto pluebat, Exod. xvi. Fuisse enim manna figuram Eucharistia!, patet ex verbis Domini, Joan. vi : Patres vestri manducave- runet manna in deserto , et mortui sunt ; qui (l) Exod. XXIV, 8 ; Hebr. IX, 20. — (2) Luc. XXII, 20. - (3) Matth. XXVI, 28; Joan. XIII, 34. 12 LIBER I. manducat hunc panem , vivet in se ternum (1). Idem praeterea colligitur ex Apostolo, qui I Co- rinth. x. mare rubrum comparat Baptismo, et manna Eucharistiae. Idem et Patres docent, Chrysostomus, Gyrillus, Theophylactus, et Augustinus in cap. vi. Joannis , et preeterea Ambrosius lib. v. de Sacrament. cap. i. de iis qui init, myst, cap. vm, et ix. Denique tanta est inter manna, et Eucharistiam simi¬ litudo, ut res ipsa clamet, illud hujus fuisse typum. Manna datum est in deserto, dum filii Israel transito mari rubro ad terram promissionis pergerent : ita etiam (ut notat Augustinus tract. 11. in Joannem ) Euchari¬ stia datur in hujus vitae deserto, dum post Baptismum tendimus ad veram patriam nostram, quae est vita aeterna. Deinde manna id habuit singulare, ut licet aliqui multum, aliqui parum collegisse viderentur, omnes tamen eamdem mensuram invenirent, Exod. xvi. Quod certe aptissime quadrat in Eucha¬ ristiam, cum idem sit Sacramentum, eadem virtus, idem fructus in magna parte signo¬ rum, et in parva. Denique non caret myste¬ rio, quod et manna, et aqua de petra, quibus utraque species Sacramenti figuratur, con¬ temptum , dubitationes, et contradictiones passa sint, et propterea multi inde perierint, unde refici debuissent. De manna Psal. lxxvii. Numquid panem poterit dare , aut parare mensam populo suo ? Et Numer xx. legimus aquam illam, aquam contradictionis appella¬ tam. Et Numer. xxi. Anima nostra nauseat super cibo isto levissimo (2). Ibidem describitur strages occisorum propter hujusmodi mur¬ murationes. Porro dubitationes, murmura¬ tiones, et contradictiones circa Eucharistiam hoc potissimum tempore notissima* sunt. Et certe si (ut Apostolus ait, I Corinth. xt.) multi dormiebant, id est, moriebantur corpo¬ raliter olim, quia indigne sumebant Eucha¬ ristiam, multo plures credendum est mori in aeternum, propter contemptum, et blasphe- mias in tam admirabile Sacramentum. Jam vero, quod manna res fuerit multo praestantior, quam Eucharistia, si ea non vere continet corpus Domini, facile probari potest. Nam si consideremus manna, et panem Eucharistiae, ut dona quaedam, abstrahendo a significatione ; manna fiebat manibus An¬ gelorum, unde dicitur panis Angelorum, Psal, lxxvii. et Sapient, xvi. Panis Euchari¬ stiae fit manu pistorum. Manna pluebat e coelo; panis iste prodit e furno. Manna habuit omnem saporem, imo summo miraculo, cuique sapiebat, quod is desiderabat. Sa¬ pient. 16, panis, nihil nisi panem sapit. Quid igitur est, quod Christus Joan. vi. ait : Non Moyses dedit vobis panem de coelo , sed Pater meus dat vobis panem de coelo verum (3); et alia quae ibidem subjungit, longe anteponens Eucharistiam suam mannae Judaeorum ? Si vero considerentur ut symbola externa, me¬ lius Christum significat manna, quam panis, et quia illud erat e coelo, et quia habuit om¬ nem saporem, et quia aequa mensura sume¬ batur ab omnibus, licet diversa esse videre¬ tur.