Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book II: On the Real Presence, from the Testimonies of the Fathers
Chapter 4: The Testimony of St. Justin Martyr (Second Age of the Church)
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).
After the disciples of the Apostles, in the second age of the Church we have three notable and undoubted witnesses: Justin Martyr, Pope Pius I, and Irenaeus. Justin Martyr, then, in his second Apology to the Emperor Antoninus, speaks thus of the Eucharist [here Bellarmine quotes the Greek text of Justin], which he renders into Latin word for word: “For we take these not as common bread, nor as common drink; but just as, through the word of God, Jesus Christ our Saviour, being made incarnate, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so also the food made Eucharist by the prayer of the word of God from Him—from which our blood and flesh are, by change, nourished—is, we have been taught, both the flesh and the blood of that incarnate Jesus.” This I have translated word for word from the Greek, because the heretics are wont very often to complain of the translations of the Catholics. Only there could be doubt about that phrase, “made Eucharist”; for the Greek word [eucharistētheisan] can signify ‘over which thanks have been given’, or, in a barbarous term, ‘Eucharistized’, or (as we rendered it) ‘made Eucharist’; but this matters nothing to the proposed point.
From this passage, then, in two ways it is gathered that Justin held that the true flesh of Christ is properly contained in the Eucharist. First, from this, that he simply asserts that the bread of the Eucharist is not common bread, but the flesh of Christ, and makes no mention of any trope or figure. For if the Eucharist were significatively the flesh of Christ, and not really, Justin ought altogether to have said so; for he was writing an Apology for the Christians, against whom, among other crimes, the eating of human flesh in their sacred rites was objected, as is clear from Tertullian in the Apologeticum, chapter 7, and from Minucius Felix in the Octavius; and, what is greatest, from Athenagoras, who in his Apology to the same Antoninus refutes three crimes falsely objected to the Christians: that they believed there was no God; that they fed on human flesh; that they used promiscuous intercourse. For certainly, to abolish this crime, it would have been altogether necessary to say that the flesh of Christ is not eaten by the Christians except significatively. And even if that crime had not been objected to the Christians, Justin would have been foolish if, without any necessity, he himself had by his words made the most easy mysteries of religion incredible, writing to a heathen emperor.
Secondly, we gather this from the comparison of the Eucharist which Justin makes with the mystery of the Incarnation. For to teach that the Christians did not rashly believe the bread to become flesh, he brings forward another mystery equally difficult; for by the same power by which it could come about that God was incarnate, he says it could come about that the bread became flesh. Here, unless he means to affirm that the bread really becomes flesh, and not only significatively, he brings forward the example of the Incarnation in vain; for it is no miracle to bring it about that bread signifies the body of Christ.
Both arguments Peter Martyr strives to solve, and to gather the contrary too from this passage of Justin, in his book against Gardiner, objections 13 and 151. To our first he answers that Justin did not say that the bread of the Eucharist is a figure of the body of Christ, but said it is the body itself, because the Christians were wont so to speak among themselves at that time; and that there was no danger lest the heathen think that we truly and properly eat the flesh of Christ, both because Justin had said that bread and wine are set forth on the sacred table; and because the Gentiles could easily gather that those words of Christ, This is my body, cited by Justin, were to be understood sacramentally; and finally because Justin said that not any man’s flesh is eaten by the Christians, but only Christ’s, who had already risen and ascended into heaven.
But Peter Martyr, by saying much, says nothing. For even though the Christians so spoke among themselves, yet the defender of the Christians ought to have explained to a heathen emperor, unskilled in our affairs, the trope contained in those words; otherwise he did not take away, but increased, the suspicion of the crime objected to the Christians. Then, even though Justin said that bread and wine are set forth on the sacred table, yet he added that after the mystical prayers they are no longer common bread and wine, but the very flesh and blood of Christ. And it is ridiculous that a heathen Emperor ought or could of himself have understood that the words of Christ are to be taken sacramentally; for whence would a Gentile man gather this, who had not even heard whether there were Sacraments? Perhaps Peter Martyr supposes that that Emperor had been trained in the school of the Calvinists, so as at once to reduce all things to tropes. Finally, what is added about the resurrection of Christ does not so much explain as further entangle the difficulty, and without any cause renders our faith utterly incredible to a Gentile man. And so this dilemma remains insoluble: either Justin could truly say that the flesh of Christ is eaten by the Christians only in a sign, or he could not. If he could, he was a betrayer of the Christian cause; for he rendered the faith most odious and increased the suspicion of the crimes, when he could with one word both have made the faith probable and dissolved the crime. If he could not, certainly he could not for this reason, that the flesh of Christ is given us to eat truly, and not in a sign only.
To our second argument Martyr answers that Justin explained the Eucharist by the example of the Incarnation to show, against the Marcionist heretics, that we receive the true flesh of Christ by faith. For if Christ had not assumed true flesh through the Incarnation, but simulated and feigned, as the Marcionists and Valentinians said, the Eucharist would not be a sign of true flesh, nor would we partake of true flesh.
But in this place Justin does not prove the Incarnation from the Eucharist, but on the contrary the Eucharist from the Incarnation. Besides, Justin in this place does not write against heretics, nor makes mention of them, but wishes to persuade the Emperor that the mystery of the Eucharist is not impossible for those who believe the mystery of the Incarnation. Add that the Emperors and other heathen were so far from the opinion of Marcion that they in no way doubted Christ had true flesh, since they perpetually objected to the Christians that Christ was truly crucified and slain by Pilate; there was therefore no cause why Justin should add the example of the Incarnation to prove that Christ had true flesh. Besides, if the Eucharist were nothing but bread signifying the flesh of Christ, nothing would thence be concluded against Marcion; for he would say that Christ had a phantastic and apparent flesh, and that it is signified by the Eucharist; therefore the ancients do not prove from this sign of the Eucharist that Christ had true flesh, but prove it both from the common opinion and from the faith of the Church, which was that the Eucharist is truly the flesh of the Saviour. Wherefore (as Ignatius says) those heretics simply repudiated the Eucharist. Finally, Justin compares the Eucharist with the Incarnation as to the manner in which each was done; for he says that in that manner, by the prayers of the word of God, the bread becomes the Eucharist, and is then the flesh of Christ, in which manner, through the word of God, that is, through the power or command of God, the Incarnation was made. But if the Eucharist were not the body of Christ except significatively, there would be no need of any consecratory prayer, but the first institution of Christ would suffice; whence too the Calvinists use no consecration. Therefore Justin, who writes that the bread of the Eucharist becomes the body of Christ through the prayers of the word of God, believed that the Eucharist is not only a figure, but really the body of Christ.
Now that Martyr cavils that among us consecration is done not by prayer, but by those words, This is my body, is too light; because (as we have often shown above) the holy Fathers call the mystical prayers the forms of all the Sacraments, even though they seem not to have the form of a prayer; because all those forms, in whatever manner they be pronounced, contain an invocation of God, by whose power the Sacraments and their effects are produced.
Let us now see what Peter the pseudo-martyr brings forward for his error from the true Martyr, Justin. He brings forward two arguments. One, from this very passage cited by us, that Justin says our bodies are nourished by the bread of the Eucharist; for hence he gathers that there is true bread in the Eucharist, but not the body of Christ except significatively; for our bodies are not nourished by the body of Christ, but only our souls. The same objection Boquin makes in his book On the Supper of the Lord; but Peter Martyr proposes another from the Dialogue with Trypho, where Justin calls the Eucharist bread and a cup.
But this latter has already been refuted above. To the former I answer in two ways. First, that those words, “from which our flesh is by change nourished,” are a periphrasis of the bread from which the Eucharist is made, so that the sense is: That food, from which our flesh is wont to be nourished, when it is consecrated by the mystical prayer, is made the body of Christ. Nor does it stand in the way that Justin mentions the consecration before he says that our flesh is nourished from that food; for he does not say that our flesh is nourished from the consecrated bread, as the adversary contends, but says that, through the consecration, that food, from which our flesh is nourished, becomes the body of Christ.
Secondly I answer that it is nothing new among the ancients, and especially Irenaeus, Hilary, Nyssen, Cyril, and others, that the Eucharist is said to nourish our bodies. But the Fathers, when they say this, do not understand that our mortal bodily substance is nourished or increased by the Eucharist; for so they would make the Eucharist a food of the belly, not of the mind, than which nothing more absurd can be feigned; but they understand, as we shall see later, that through the Eucharist our bodies are nourished unto immortality, that is, that they receive from the contact of the flesh of Christ a certain power or disposition to a glorious resurrection and an immortal life; which they deduce from those words, John 6: He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life, and I will raise him up in the last day. But of Justin thus far.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT IV. SECUNDA /ETAS ECCLESIA AB ANNO DO¬ MINI 100. AD 200. Testimonium S. Justini. Post Apostolorum discipulos in secunda aetate Ecclesiae tres habemus testes insignes, et indubitatos, Justinum Martyrem, Pium I Pontificem, et Ireneeum. Justinus igitur Mar¬ tyr in Apologia 2, ad Antoninumimperatorem , sic loquitur de Eucharistia : Ou yap w? dptov, ouoe xoivov iropa Taota Aap6 xvopsv, dAAd Sv Tporrov oia Aoycu (rhou <japxoTroir(Gsi; Tr,<jou; Xpurro; Zior-^p 7ju.O)v xai cdpxa, xai cupa urrip cami pia; vjpwv zg/vj : outtd xai r/jv 3/ eo//,? Aoycu tgu (r)soo rap' auToii Eu/aptGT^Gstcav zpoyry, i; atpx xai crdpxs; xara pE-caSoA^v xpl-povxai djpwv, exeivou tou capxo- 7rotv;0 ivroc Tr,cou, xai adpxa, xai atpa eStSdOrjpsv clvat. « Non enim ut communem panem, ne¬ que communem potum haec sumimus, sed quemadmodum per verbum Dei incarnatus Je- sus Christus Salvator noster, et carnem, et san¬ guinem pro salute nostra habuit : sic etiam per preces verbi Dei ab ipso Eucharistiam faqtum cibum, ex quo sanguis, et carnes no¬ strae per mutationem aluntur, illius incarnati Jesu, et carnem, et sanguinem esse edocti sumus. » Haec ad verbum ex Graeco inter¬ pretatus sum : quia queri solent haeretici soe- penumero de interpretationibus Catholico¬ rum. Solum ambigi posset de illa voce : « Eucharistiam factum ; » nam Graeca vox, EO/apioTr/iEioav, significare potest, super quem gratiae actae sunt, vel barbaro vocabulo, Eu- eharistizatum, vel (ut nos reddidimusj « Eu¬ charistiam factum » sed non refert quidquam hoc ad rem propositam. Ex hoc igitur loco duobus modis colligi¬ tur sensisse Justinum, veram Christi car¬ nem proprie in Eucharistia contineri. Primo ex eo, quod simpliciter asserit panem Eucha¬ ristiae non esse communem panem, sed car¬ nem Christi : neque ullam mentionem facit CAPUT IV. 67 tropi, aut figurae alicujus. Nam si Eucha¬ ristia esset significative caro Christi, et non realiter, id Justinus omnino dicere debuisset: scribebat enim Apologiam pro Christianis, quibus praeter alia crimina objiciebatur man¬ ducatio carnium humanarum in sacris, ut patet ex Tertulliano in Apologetico cap. 7. et ex Minutio Felice in Octavio : et quod maximum est, ex Athenagora, qui in Apolo- gia ad eumdem Antoninum tria crimina re¬ fellit falso Christianis objecta ; quod Deum non esse crederent ; quod humanis carni¬ bus vescerentur ; quod promiscuo concubitu uterentur. Certe enim ad hoc abolendum crimen omnino dicendum sui Christi car¬ nem a Christianis non comedi, nisi signifi¬ cative. Et etiamsi id crimen non fuisset Christianis objectum, stultus fuisset Justi¬ nus. si absque ulla necessitate mysteria reli¬ gionis facillima ipse incredibilia suis verbis fecisset, ad ethnicum imperatorem scri¬ bens. Secundo, id colligimus ex comparatione Eucharistiae, quam facit Justinus cum myste¬ rio Incarnationis. Ut enim doceret non te¬ mere Christianos credere panem fieri car¬ nem, adducit in medium aliud mysterium aeque difficile ; qua enim potentia fieri po¬ tuit, ut Deus incarnaretur, eadem fieri po¬ tuisse dicit, ut panis fieret caro. Ubi nisi reipsa velit affirmare, panem fieri carnem, sed solum sgnificative, frustra adducit ex¬ emplum Incarnationis : nullum enim est miraculum facere, ut panis significet corpus Christi. Utrumque argumentum solvere nititur Pe¬ trus Martyr, et contrarium etiam colligere ex hoc loco Justini in lib. contra Gardinerum, objecto 13. et lol . Ad primum nostrum re¬ spondet, Justinum non dixisse panem Eucha¬ ristiae esse figuram corporis Christi, sed di¬ xisse esse ipsum corpus, quia ita inter se lo¬ qui solebant Christiani eo tempore, nec fuisse periculum ne ethnici putarent nos vcreetpro- prie comedere carnem Christi, tum quia dixerat Justinus pancin et vinum proponi in sacra mensa ; tum quia poteraut facile Gentiles colligere, verba illa Christi : Hoc est corpus meum , a Justino citata, esse intelli- genda sacramentaliter : tum denique quia Justinus dicebat, non cujusvis hominis car¬ nem a Christianis manducari, sed solius Christi, qui jam surrexerat, et in coelum ascenderat. At Petrus Martyr multa dicendo, nihil di¬ cit. Nam etiamsi Christiani ita ititer se lo¬ querentur, tamen debuit defensor Christia¬ norum imperatori' ethnico, et imperito rerum nostrari.m, explicare tropum in illis verbis constitutum; alioqui non tollebat, sed augebat suspicionem criminis Christianis objecti. De¬ inde, etiamsi Justinus dixerit, panem et vi¬ num proponi in sacra mensa; tamen addidit, postmysticas preces non esse amplius panem, et vinum commune, sed ipsam carnem, et sanguinem Christi. Et ridiculum est debuis¬ se, vel potuisse Imperatorem ethnicum per se intelligere verba Christi esse accipienda sacramentaliter : unde enim id colligeret ho¬ mo Gentilis, qui neque an Sacramenta es¬ sent, audiverat? Opinatur fortasse Petrus Martyr Imperatorem illum versatum fuisse in schola Calvinistarum, ut statim ad tropos omnia revocaret. Denique, quod additur de Christi resurrectione, nontam explicat, quam implicat magis difficultatem, et sine ulla causa reddit fidem nostram homini Gentili prorsus incredibilem. Itaque insolubile manet hoc dilemma : aut poteratJustinum vere dice¬ re, carnem Christi a Christianis solum in signo manducari, aut non poterat : si poterat, prae¬ varicator fuit causae Christianae ; nam odio¬ sissimam reddidit fidem, et auxit criminum suscipionem, cum posset uno verbo et fidem probabilem facere, et crimen diluere : sinon poterat, certe ideo non poterat, quia vere, et non in signo tantum datur nobis come¬ denda Christi caro. Ad secundum nostrum argumentum re¬ spondet Martyr, Justinum ideo explicuisse Eucharistiam exemplo Incarnationis, ut os¬ tenderet contra haereticos Marcionistas, nos veram Christi carnem per fidem accipe¬ re. Nam si Christus non assumpsisset per Incarnationem veram carnem, sed simula¬ tam, et fictam, ut Marcionistae, et Valentinia¬ ni haeretici dicebant, non esset Eucharistia signum verae carnis, neque nos veram car¬ nem participaremus. At non probat hoc loco Justinus incarna¬ tionem ex Eucharistia, sed e contrario, Eu¬ charistiam ex Incarnatione. Praeterea Justi¬ nus hoc loco non scribit contra haereticos, nec mentionem eorum facit, sed persuadere vult Imperatori non esse impossibile myste¬ rium Eucharistiae apud eos, qui credunt mysterium Incarnationis. Adde, quod Impe¬ ratores, et coeteri ethnici tantum aberant ab opinione Marcionis, ut nihil dubitarent Chri¬ stum habuisse veram carnem, cum id perpe- 63 LlBElt II. tuo Christianis objicerent, Christum a Pilato vere crucifixum, et necatum fuisse : nulla ergo fuit causa, cur Justinus exemplum In¬ carnationis adderet ad probandum Chri¬ stum habuisse veram carnem. Praeterea, si Eucharistia nihil esset nisi panis significans carnem Christi, nihil inde concluderetur con¬ tra Mnrcionem : nam diceret ille Christum habuisse carnem phantasticam, ct apparen¬ tem, et eam significari per Eucharistiam ; ideo veteres non probant ex signo isto Eu¬ charistiae, Christum habuisse veram carnem, sed probant et communi sententia, et fide Ecclesiae, quae erat, Eucharistiam esse vere carnem Salvatoris. Quocirca (ut dicit Igna- tius) haeretici illi, simpliciter repudiabant Eucharistiam. Denique Justinus comparat Eucharistiam cum Incarnatione, quoad mo¬ dum, quo utrumque factum est : dicit enim eo modo per preces verbi Dei panem fieri Eucharistiam, ct tunc esse carnem Christi ; quomodo per verbum Dei, id est, per virtu¬ tem, seu imperium Dei, Incarnatio facta est. At si Eucharistia non esset corpus Christi, nisi significative, non esset opus ulla prece consecratoria, sed satis esset prima institutio Christi : unde etiam Calvinistec nullam adbi- / bent consecrationem. Ergo Justinus, qui scri¬ bit panem Eucharistia) fieri corpus Christi per preces verbi Dei, credebat Eucharistiam non esse solam figuram, sed reipsa corpus Christi. Quod autem Martyr cavillatur, consecra¬ tionem apud nos non fieri prece, sed verbis illis : Hoc est corpus meum , nimis leve est, quia (ut supra ssepe ostendimus) sancti Patres vocant mysticas preces omnium Sacramento¬ rum formas, etiamsi non videantur habere formam piceum; quia omnes illa) forma), quocumque modo pronuntientur, continent invocationem Dei, cujus virtute Sacramenta, et eorum effectus producuntur. Yideamus nunc quid Petrus Pseudomartyr afferat pro suo errore cx vero Martyre Jus¬ tino. Duo igitur argumenta profert. Unum, ex hoc ipso loco a nobis citato, quod Justinus dicat, pane Eucharistia) ali corpora nostra : hinc enim colligit verum esse panem in Eu¬ charistia, non autem coipus Christi, nisi signi¬ ficative, non enim corpoye Christi aluntur corpora nostra, sed animi tantum. Eamdem objectionem facit Boquinus in libro de coena Domini, sed Petrus Martyr proponit alte¬ rum ex Dialogo cum Tryphone, ubi Eucha¬ ristiam vocat Justinus panem, et poculum. Sed hoc posterius jam supra refutatum est. Ad illud prius respondeo dupliciter. Primo illa verba : «Ex quo carnes nostra) per mu¬ tationem aluntur )> , esse poriphrasim panis , ex quo conficitur Eucharistia, ut sit sensus : Cibus ille, ex quo carnes nostra) ali solent, cum prece mystica conseci atur, efficitur cor¬ pus Christi. Neque obstat, quod Justinus prius meminerit consecrationis, quam dicat exeo cibo ali carnes nostras : nam non dicit ipse, ex pane consecrato ali carnes nostras, ut adversarius contendit, sed dicit, per con¬ secrationem cibum illum, ex quo carnes no¬ stra) aluntur, fieri corpus Christi. Secundo respondeo, non esse novum apud veteres, ac praesertim Jrenaeum, Hilarium, Nysscnum, Cyriilum, et alios, ut Eucharistia dicatur alere corpora nostra. Sed non intel- ligunt Patres, cum hoc dicunt, Eucharistia nutriri, vel augeri mortalem substantiam corporis nostri ; sic enim facerent Euchari¬ stiam cibum ventris, non mentis, quo nihil absurdius fingi potest : sed intelligunt, ut postea videbimus, per Eucharistiam ali cor¬ pora nostra ad immortalitatem, id est, susci¬ pere ex contactu carnis Christi vim quamdam, seu dispositionem ad gloriosam resurrectio¬ nem, ct vitam immortalem ; id quod ex ver¬ bis illis deducunt Joan. vi : Qui manducat meam carnem, et bibit meum sanguinem, habet vitam ceternam, et ego resuscitabo eum in novis¬ simo die (1). Sed de Justino hactenus.