Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book II: On the Real Presence, from the Testimonies of the Fathers
Chapter 2: The Testimony of St. Ignatius
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. IV, De Sacramento Eucharistiae, Book II: On the Truth of the Body of the Lord in the Eucharist, from the Testimonies of the Fathers. The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
The second author, in the time of the Apostles, is Saint Ignatius, of whose epistles there can be no doubt, since they are most frequently cited by Eusebius, Athanasius, Jerome, Theodoret, and other ancients. He, then, in his epistle to the Smyrnaeans (as Theodoret cites, Dialogue 3), says thus: “They admit not Eucharists and oblations, because they confess not that the Eucharist is the flesh of the Saviour, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, by His goodness, raised up.”
To this passage Beza answers, in his Dialogue Cyclops, that he confesses the true flesh of Christ is given to us to be eaten by faith. But Ignatius does not say that the flesh of Christ is given to us in any manner whatever, but says that the Eucharist is the flesh of Christ. Peter Boquin, in his book On the Supper of the Lord, answers that Ignatius disputes against those who denied that Christ had true flesh, and drew an argument from the Eucharist: that if Christ had not true flesh, the Eucharist cannot be true flesh, that is, a sign or symbol of true flesh.
But on the contrary; for Ignatius says that those heretics against whom he acts wholly repudiated the Eucharist, lest they be compelled to confess that Christ had true flesh, if they had admitted the Eucharist, which is the very flesh of Christ. For it must be observed that those heretics (as is clear from the epistle to the Smyrnaeans itself) taught that Christ was born, suffered, died, and rose in appearance only; and by this they did not deny that Christ had some visible and apparent flesh, but denied that He had true human flesh. From which it follows that they ought not to have repudiated images and figures of the flesh of Christ, but only the true flesh itself. For apparent human bodies can be painted and expressed in figures, although they be not truly human, as is clear of the images of Angels. Therefore those heretics did not deny that the Eucharist could signify the flesh of Christ, but denied that it is the flesh of Christ (as Ignatius expressly says), lest, namely, they be compelled to admit that Christ had true flesh. But they are reproved by Ignatius; therefore Ignatius held the contrary, namely that the Eucharist is truly and properly the flesh of Christ. There are other passages in the epistle to the Romans and in the epistle to the Ephesians, but they can more easily be eluded.
Further, from Ignatius Peter Martyr objects, in his book against Gardiner, part 1, objection 149, those words from the epistle to the Philadelphians: “I beg you that you press on toward one faith, one preaching, using one Eucharist; for one is the flesh of the Lord Jesus, and one His blood, which was shed for us; one also is the bread broken for all, and one the chalice of the whole Church.” For Peter Martyr notes that Ignatius distinguishes the bread and the chalice from the flesh and blood of Christ, when he says: “One flesh, one blood; one also bread, one chalice.” From which it seems to follow that in the Sacrament there is nothing but bread and wine, which nevertheless signify the flesh and blood, which are the thing of the Sacrament. He adds also an argument from the name of bread and of breaking, which do not properly suit any but true bread.
I answer: As regards the names of bread and breaking, no new question is to be made, since these are the very words of Paul, 1 Corinthians 11: The bread which we break, and so forth, of which we spoke above. But as regards that distinction of the flesh and blood from the bread and chalice, I say that Ignatius distinguishes the flesh, as suffering on the cross, and the blood, as shed on the cross, from the sacrament of the Eucharist; and most rightly. For the sacrament of the Eucharist, whether it truly contains (as we believe) the flesh of Christ, or contains it not, is a sign representing the flesh of Christ as dying on the cross, and the blood as shed on the cross, and consequently is distinguished from them. Now in that place Ignatius wishes to exhort to the pursuit of unity and charity, and to the fleeing of schisms and heresies. And so he admonishes that they remain in one faith, give their labor to the same preaching, and use one Eucharist, that is, communicate together, make not schisms, erect not contrary altars. And he proves that they ought to communicate together, because the sacrament of the Eucharist is one; and that the sacrament is one he proves because the flesh of Christ is one, and the blood one. Which proof would be efficacious even if this sacrament signified only the flesh of Christ, as the adversaries will; but it is more efficacious if the sacrament not only signifies, but also truly contains, the flesh of Christ.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT II. Testimonium S. Ignatii. Secundus auctor Apostolorum tempore est S. Ignafius, de cujus epistolis dubitari non potest, cum eae citentur ab Euscbio, Athana- sio, Hieronymo, Theodorcto, et aliis veteri¬ bus frequentissime. Is ergo in epist. ad Smyrnenses (ut citat Thcodoretus dialog. 3.) sic ait : « Eucharistias, et oblationes non ad¬ mittunt, quod non confiteantur Eucharistiam esse carnem Salvatoris, quee pro peccatis nostris passa est, quam Pater sua benignitate suscitavit. » Ad hunc locum Beza respondet in Dialogo Cyclops, fateri se veram carnem Christi no¬ bis dari fide manducandam. At Ignatius non dicit, carnem Christi nobis dari quocumque modo, sed dicit Eucharistiam esse carnem Christi. Petrus Boquinus in lib. de Ccena Do¬ mini , respondet Ignatium disserere contra eos, qui negabant Christum habuisse veram carnem : et ex Eucharistia argumentum duxisse, quia si Christus non habuit veram carnem, non potest Eucharistia esse caro vera, id est, signum, seu symbolum verse carnis. CAPUT III. 65 At contra; nam Innatius dicit/ haereticos illos, contra quos agit, omnino repudiasse Eucharistiam, ne fateri cogerentur, Christum habuisse veram carnem, si Eucharistiam, quae est ipsa caro Christi, admisissent. Ob¬ servandum enim est, haereticos illos (ut ex ipsa epistola ad Smyrnenses patet) docuisse Christum putative natum , passum, mor¬ tuum, resurrexisse : ac per hoc non negasse Christum habuisse carnem aliquam visibilem, et apparentem, sed negasse habuisse eum veram carnem humanam. Ex quo sequitur, ut non debuerint repudiare imagines, et figu¬ ras carnis Christi, sed solum ipsam veram carnem. Nam corpora humana apparentia depingi possunt, et figuris exprimi, licet vere humana non sint, ut patet c!e imaginibus An¬ gelorum. Ergo haeretici illi non negabant Eu¬ charistiam significare posse carnem Christi, sed negabant esse carnem Christi (ut Igna- tius diserte dicit) nc videlicet cogerentur ad¬ mittere, Christum habuisse veram carnem. Reprehenduntur autem ab Ignatio ; igitur Ignatius contrarium sentiebat, nempe Eu¬ charistiam esse vere et proprie Christi car¬ nem. Habentur alia loca in epist. ad Rom. et in epist. ad Ephes . sed facilius eludi pos¬ sunt. Porro ex Ignatio objicit Petrus Martyr in lib. contra Gardinerum i. part. objecto 149. illa verba ex epist. ad Pbiladelphienses : « Rogo vos, ut instetis uni fidei, uni praedi¬ cationi, una Eucharistia utentes : una est caro Domini Jesu, et unus ejus sanguis, qui pro nobis effusus est : unus etiam panis pro omnibus confractus, et unus calix totius Ec¬ clesiae. » Notat enim Petrus Martyr Ignatium distinguere panem, ct calicem, a carne, et sanguine Christi, cum dicat : « Una caro, unus sanguis : unus etiam panis, unus calix.» Ex quo sequi videtur, ut in Sacramento non sit nisi panis, et vinum, quae tamen carnem, et sanguinem, queo sunt res Sacramenti, si¬ gnificent. Addit etiam argumentum ex no¬ mine panis, ct fractionis, quae non conve¬ niunt proprie, nisi vero pani. Respondeo : Quod attinet ad r omina pa¬ nis et fractionis, non esse faciendam novam quaestionem, cum sint ista ipsa vocabula Pauli, 1. Corinth. xi : Panis, quem frangimus etc., de quibus supra diximus. Quod autem pertinet ad illam distinctionem carnis, et sanguinis a pane, et calicc, dico Ignatium distinguere carnem, ut in cruce passam, et sanguinem, ut in cruce fusum, a sacramento To.m. IV. Eucharistiae ; et rectissime. Sacramentum enim Eucharistiae, sive contineat vere (ut nos credimus) Christi carnem, sive non con¬ tineat, est signum repraesentans carnem Christi, nt morientem in cruce, ct sangui¬ nem, ut in cruce effusum, et proinde distin¬ guitur ab illis. Vult autem co loco Ignatius hortari ad unitatem et charitatem consec¬ tandam, et ad schismata, ct haereses fugien¬ das. Itaque monet ut in una fide maneant, eidem praedicationi dent operam, et una utantur Eucharistia, id est, simul communi¬ cent, non faciant schismata, non erigant con¬ traria altaria. Probat autem debere eos simul communicare, quia unum est sacra¬ mentum Eucharistia, unum autem sacra¬ mentum esse, probat, quia una est caro Christi, et unus sanguis. Quae probatio efficax esset, etiamsi hoc sacramentum significaret tantum carnem Christi, ut adversarii volunt : sed est efficacior, si sacramentum non tan¬ tum significet, sed etiam vere contineat Christi carnem.