Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book II: On the Real Presence, from the Testimonies of the Fathers
Chapter 8: The Testimony of Origen
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).
Origen, who was not much later than Tertullian, speaks of the sacrament of the Eucharist in many places. And first, homily 13 on Exodus, expounding chapter 25 of that book, when he wished to exhort the people not to despise the word of God, he adduces the example of the diligence of all Christians in preserving the body of Christ: “I wish,” he says, “to admonish you by the examples of your religion. You who are wont to be present at the divine mysteries know how, when you receive the body of the Lord, you keep it with all caution and veneration, lest anything of it fall away, lest anything of the consecrated gift slip down; for you believe yourselves guilty, and rightly you believe, if anything of it fall away through negligence.” So he. Now the adversaries neither preserve the body of the Lord, since they acknowledge no Sacrament except in use, nor consecrate, nor think themselves guilty if anything of that bread or wine fall to the ground. And rightly they do not think so, because they have nothing but bread; but if they truly had the body of the Lord, or believed themselves to have it, certainly they would either preserve it most diligently, as the Church always did, or would openly testify themselves impious and sacrilegious. To this testimony, as also to the following, I have not seen an answer of the adversaries.
Another testimony of Origen is in homily 5 On Diverse Passages of the Gospel, in which he treats of the centurion’s servant: “When thou receivest the holy food and that incorrupt banquet, when thou enjoyest the bread and cup of life, thou eatest and drinkest the body and blood of the Lord; then the Lord enters under thy roof. And thou, therefore, humbling thyself, imitate this centurion, and say: Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldst enter under my roof. For where He enters unworthily, there He enters unto judgment for the receiver.” So he. Truly these things cannot rightly be said except of the true body of the Lord, which is truly received by the mouth of the body. For if Origen spoke of the body of the Lord by metonymy, that is, of the bread signifying the body of Christ, he would not call that bread an incorrupt banquet, nor would he wish it to be said to it, Lord, I am not worthy, and so forth. But if he spoke of Christ Himself signified by the bread, who is received by faith, he would not say, “Where He enters unworthily, there He enters unto judgment for the receiver.” For according to the adversaries, Christ cannot be received by faith except by the pious, and unto life; for what is received unworthily by the wicked is nothing but the external symbol, according to the adversaries. But Origen wishes it to be said, to Him who enters to the pious and the wicked, Lord, I am not worthy; therefore he either wishes the bread to be adored and invoked, which is most absurd, or he wishes that under those species Christ Himself be truly contained.
The third passage is homily 7 on the book of Numbers: “Then,” he says, “the manna was food in an enigma; but now the flesh of the Word of God is in open form (in specie) a true food, as He Himself says: For my flesh is meat indeed.” So he. But certainly ‘open form’, when it is opposed to ‘enigma’, signifies the same as truth compared to a figure. But if the Eucharist were the body of Christ only tropically, it would have to be called the flesh of the Lord not in open form, but in an enigma; for the manna too was the body of the Lord tropically, that is, significatively. And the argument is confirmed from the preceding words, where Origen says that the Hebrews had Baptism in an enigma, when they crossed the Red Sea, but that to us regeneration is conferred in open form through Baptism. But true regeneration is given us in Baptism, which the passage of the Red Sea did not give, but only foreshadowed; therefore in the same manner true flesh is given us in the Eucharist, which the manna of the Jews did not give, but signified in an enigma.
To this passage the adversaries answer, and especially Peter Martyr in his book against Gardiner, part 4, that Origen speaks of the manner of speaking, not of the existence of things; that is, that he asserts that the Jews had the body of Christ in an enigma, because it was not declared to them what the manna signified; but that to us it is given in open form, because it is openly told us what the bread of the Eucharist signifies.
But Peter Martyr is deceived, or deceives. For Origen says both: that God spoke of old in an enigma what He now gives in open form. For he says thus: “But truly, before Moses took the Ethiopian woman, it is not written that God spoke to him in open form and not in an enigma; but when he took the Ethiopian woman, then God says of him that He would speak to him mouth to mouth, in open form and not in an enigma. For now, when Moses has come to us, and is joined to this our Ethiopian woman, the law of God is now recognized not in figures and images, as before, but in the very open form of the truth; and the things which before were designated in an enigma are now fulfilled in open form and truth.” So he. Do you see here that God not only speaks more clearly, but also really renders what He designated in an enigma? The Eucharist, then, contains the true flesh which the manna designated in an enigma.
Let us now see what they bring against us from Origen. Peter Martyr brings forward six passages of Origen in his book against Gardiner, objection 162 and following, which, however, either conclude nothing, or favor us more than the adversaries. The first passage is from homily 16 on Numbers: “We are said,” he says, “to drink the blood of Christ not only by the rite of the Sacraments, but also when we receive His words.” So he. Hence the adversaries strive to prove that in the Sacraments the blood of Christ is not drunk except spiritually, just as it is drunk in the sermon only spiritually.
But rather the contrary follows. For Origen does not say that the blood of Christ is drunk in the Sacraments in the same manner in which it is drunk in the sermon; nay, since he distinguishes these two modes, he indicates that they are diverse modes; and by this, that it is drunk in the sermon spiritually, but in the Sacraments really.
The second passage is from Origen’s commentary on chapter 20 of Matthew, where we read thus: “This bread, which God the Word confesses to be His body, is the word nourishing souls.” Martyr notes that the bread itself is called the body of Christ, and therefore that there is material bread in the Eucharist. Then he adds that this bread is called the word, because the sacraments are visible words. He adds finally that the bread cannot be called a nourishing word if it vanish through transubstantiation; for that which is nothing cannot nourish anything.
I answer: Origen, passing over the literal sense known to all, expounds this whole passage mystically. Nor does he understand by bread material bread, which is a visible word; but he understands the discourses of Christ, or the words of God, not visible but audible; for he says that this word is a word proceeding from God the Word, and a bread from the heavenly bread, that is, that it is the discourse which Christ speaks, who is God the Word and the heavenly bread. See the whole passage, volume 35 on Matthew, and you will not doubt that Origen’s exposition is mystical, not literal.
The third passage is in homily 7 on Leviticus, where, after Origen had said that the flesh of Christ is the word of God, he subjoins: “For if thou follow according to the letter this which is said, Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, this letter kills.” Where he seems to admit no other sense but the mystical.
I answer, first: If this testimony proves anything, it only proves that in chapter 6 of John the Eucharist is not treated of; but it does not prove that in the Eucharist there is not the true body of Christ. For the adversaries too teach that in John 6 the Eucharist is not treated of; and yet they would not concede that the flesh of Christ is not eaten except by hearing a sermon; for this would be plainly to abolish the sacrament of the Eucharist.
I say secondly that those words, Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, can be expounded in three ways. In one way, wholly mystically and figuratively; and in this manner Origen expounds in this place, when by the flesh of the Lord he understands the divine discourses. In another way, wholly to the letter, that is, without any adjunct of mystery; and in this manner the Capharnaites took it, who thought the flesh of Christ was to be eaten in the manner in which other flesh is eaten, that is, by tearing and consuming it; and of this sense Origen rightly says in this place: The letter kills; and Augustine, Book 3 On Christian Doctrine, chapter 16, says that the words of the Lord, so taken to the letter, sound a certain crime. In the third way, not wholly to the letter, nor wholly figuratively, but to the letter as regards the substance of the thing and of the eating, and figuratively as regards the manner of eating; so that, namely, the sense is that the flesh of Christ is truly eaten, but without any injury to itself, as we said above in explaining the opinion of Saint Augustine on these words; and this sense in this place Origen does not touch, but does not reject; and in homily 7 on Numbers he openly receives it, when he expounds of the Eucharist, to the letter, those words: My flesh is meat indeed.
The fourth passage is homily 9 on Leviticus, near the end: “Cling not to the blood of the Word, and hear Him saying to thee: For this is my blood, which shall be shed for you unto the remission of sins.” Here Peter Martyr contends that we are taught not to think that in the Sacrament there is the true blood of the flesh of the Lord, but to raise our mind to the signification of the Word. For if the blood of the Lord were really in the Eucharist, we should have to cling to it as to our price, and adore it humbly.
I answer: In this place Peter Martyr wanders by the whole heaven, with the other Calvinists, when he thinks that the blood of the Word is the preaching or signification of the words of the Lord. For Origen calls the blood of the Word the true and bodily blood of God the Word, that is, of Christ; and admonishes us not to cling to that blood as to the blood of the flesh, as if it were nothing but a certain human blood, but to consider that it is the blood of God Himself, by which we are redeemed. Or (what seems more probable) he admonishes us not to cling to the blood of the flesh, that is, to the blood of calves and goats, of which Moses speaks in that passage of Leviticus; but, leaving it, to ascend to the blood of God the Word, which was signified by that blood of calves and goats. And that Origen understands by the blood of the Word the very true and bodily blood of Christ is clear, because of this blood of the Word Origen says that by it we are redeemed. But we are redeemed not by the signification of words, but by the shedding of true blood. Likewise he says of this blood that it is written: This is my blood, which shall be shed for you. But these words cannot be understood of a sermon, but of true blood, as is clear. Finally, Origen adds in the same place these words: “He who is imbued with the mysteries knows both the flesh and the blood of the Word of God; let us not, then, linger on these things, which are both known to those who know, and cannot lie open to the ignorant.” Where Origen says that the faithful know well enough what is the flesh and blood of the Word of God, but that the unbelievers can neither know nor learn unless they first come to the faith. But what a sermon is, what the preached passion of Christ is, even the unbelievers know; for the Gospel is preached to all in common; he speaks, therefore, not of a sermon, but of the most lofty mystery of the Eucharist, which the unbelievers do not know, nor can learn. Do you see how the testimony of Origen brought against us favors us most of all?
The fifth testimony they take from the commentary on chapter 15 of Matthew, where Origen, treating those words of the Lord, What goeth in by the mouth defileth not a man, says certain things about this Sacrament which Peter Martyr and the other Calvinists adduce for their opinion. First he says that the bodily eating of the Eucharist is an indifferent thing, that is, neither good nor evil: “As regards eating in itself,” he says, “neither from this, that we do not eat of the bread sanctified by the word of God and by prayer, are we defrauded of any good; nor from eating do we abound in any good; since the cause of defect is malice and sins, and the cause of abundance is justice and right deeds.” So he. But if the body of the Lord were really in the Eucharist, it would rightly profit by its own power, and not only from the goodness of the receiver. Secondly he says that in the Eucharist there is the matter of bread, because it is cast out into the privy: “And that food,” he says, “which is sanctified by the word of God and prayer, as regards what it has material, goes into the belly and is cast out into the privy.” And below: “It is not the matter of the bread, but the word spoken over it, that profits him who eats it not unworthily of the Lord.” Thirdly he calls the Eucharist a typical and symbolic body, and distinguishes it from the true body of Christ: “And these things indeed,” he says, “concerning the typical and symbolic body. But many things too could be said of the Word Himself, who was made flesh and true food,” and so forth. Fourthly he says that the body of Christ cannot be eaten by sinners: “If it could be,” he says, “that anyone still persevering in evil should eat the Word made flesh, since He is the Word and the living bread, it would by no means have been written: Whosoever shall eat this bread shall live for ever.” On account of these passages Peter Martyr so triumphs that he says, in his book against Gardiner, objection 169: “This passage he will never wrest from us; the words are so clear that they can be softened by no shifts or fictions.”
To these passages some answer that these commentaries are not of entire fidelity, nor is it altogether certain whether they are Origen’s; for the manner of speaking (whatever be the truth of the matter) is not a little dissonant from those passages which we cited above from the genuine books of Origen.
Others answer that Origen in this place does not speak of the Eucharist, but of a certain sanctified bread which was given to the catechumens in place of the Eucharist, of which Augustine too writes, Book 2 On the Merits and Remission of Sins, chapter 26. Which bread could rightly be called the symbolic body of the Lord, because it represented the Eucharist, since it was given in its place. One thing stands against this explanation, that Origen understands, of that bread eaten unworthily, the Apostle in 1 Corinthians 11, where he says: For this cause are there many weak among you, and many sleep. Unless perhaps Origen wished to extend those words of Paul, which properly pertain to the Eucharist, to that bread of the catechumens; for in its own manner, that is, keeping the proportion, he too sins who despises that sanctified bread, though much less than he who despises the Eucharist.
But, omitting these things, I answer that all those things which Origen says can rightly be understood of the sacrament of the Eucharist. To the first, then, I answer that Origen speaks precisely of the bodily eating of the Eucharist, abstracting from the goodness or malice of the receiver; and in this manner it is true that that eating does not profit if it be present, nor harm if it be absent. For it profits nothing to eat the Eucharist bodily, unless there be present also a spiritual eating; because this is a food of the mind, not of the belly; nor does it harm not to eat, if the sacramental eating be omitted not out of contempt, but for some just cause. Nor ought it to be gathered from this that the Eucharist is an indifferent thing, and has no power of sanctifying except from the faith of the receiver. For Origen does not say that it has no power of itself, but says that it does not exercise that power on those who receive unworthily; which is most true.
But, you will say, “Origen compares the Eucharist with common foods, which are truly indifferent.” I answer: He compares it not as regards all things, but only as regards the effect; otherwise the same man had said that that holy bread has the power of sanctifying from the word of God by which it is consecrated.
To the second I answer that the material which goes out into the privy is called by Origen the visible accidents. Nor does it stand in the way that Peter Martyr says those accidents pertain rather to the form than to the matter, since they are certain qualities, that is, accidental forms. For in this place something is called material not with respect to the natural form, but with respect to the sanctification and signification. And besides, of the accidents of the Eucharist the chief is magnitude, in which all the others are founded; and magnitude pertains rather to matter than to form.
To the third I answer that the symbols of bread and wine are rightly called a typical and symbolic body, provided it be understood soundly and in a Catholic manner; for all Catholics say that the Eucharist is a sacrament, a sign or symbol of a sacred thing, that is, of the body of Christ. But the question between us and the Sacramentarians is whether these symbols are of an absent or of a present thing; for we say that under those symbols the body of the Lord is truly contained, they deny it. And besides, the very true body, as it is in the Eucharist, is a type and symbol of itself, as it was on the cross, and as it is now in heaven. For through the Eucharist we not only commemorate the passion of the Lord, but also receive a pledge of eternal glory. From this symbolic and at the same time true body, then, Origen distinguishes the incarnate Word as it is received by faith outside the Sacrament.
To the fourth I answer that Origen speaks of the eating of the body of Christ outside the Sacrament, when he says it cannot be eaten by the wicked. And this too is most true; for outside the Sacrament it is eaten only spiritually. And that Origen speaks of eating outside the Sacrament is clear, both because he distinguishes this eating from the eating of the bread sanctified by the word of God, which is the Sacrament of the Eucharist; and also because he alleges those words of John 6, He that eateth this bread shall live for ever, which words are understood not of the Eucharist, but of the very incarnation of Christ. For in that place two breads are distinguished by the Lord. One, which was already then present, was to be eaten by faith, that is, the incarnate Word; and of this He says: I am the living bread, which came down from heaven; he that eateth this bread shall live for ever. The other, future, namely in the Sacrament; and of this He subjoins: And the bread which I will give is my flesh for the life of the world. Finally, it is wonderful why the adversaries make so much of this passage, since they think there is nothing in chapter 6 of John pertaining to sacramental eating.
The last testimony of Origen they take from Book 8 against Celsus, a little before the middle, where he says thus: “We, who study to please the Creator of all things, with prayers and thanksgiving for the benefits received, eat the offered breads.” Where he calls the Eucharist bread.
I answer: This passage favors us most of all. For Origen does not say that we simply eat bread, but breads changed into the body of Christ; for he says thus: “We eat the offered breads, made a certain holy body by prayers, and sanctifying those who use it with a holy purpose.” By which words Origen says not only that the breads are changed into the body, but also that they are offered to God and sanctify men; both of which the adversaries deny.
But Peter Martyr insists, in his book against Gardiner, objection 168, that Origen did not say the breads are changed into the holy body of Christ, but into a certain holy body; for that word ‘a certain’ is a diminutive, as when we say: This is a certain Isidore, tears are a certain blood.
I answer: If Origen had said that the breads are changed into a certain body of Christ, the objection of the adversary would have place; for it could be signified that the breads are changed into a body not true, but representative. But he did not so say, but that they are changed into a certain holy body; where that word ‘a certain’ is not a diminutive, but declarative, in a confused way, of the true body of the Lord. For Origen was unwilling openly to say to a heathen that the breads are changed into the body of Christ, lest he give him occasion to mock the more the mysteries which he did not understand; but he said more obscurely that they are changed into a certain holy body; which body the faithful knew whose it was.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT VIII. Testimonium Origenis. Origenes, qui Tertulliano non multo po¬ sterior fuit, multis in locis de sacramento Eucharistia! loquitur : ac primum homil 13. in Exod. exponens cap. xxv. hujus li' ri, cum hortari vellet populum, ut non contem¬ neret verbum Dei, adducit exemplum dili- (1) Gen. XLIX, H. gentise omnium Christianorum in conser¬ vando Christi corpore : « Yolo, inquit, vos admonere religionis vestrae exemplis: nostis, qui divinis mysteriis interesse consuevistis, quomodo cum suscipitis corpus Domini, cum omni cautela, et veneratione servatis, ne ex coparum quid dicedat, ne consecrati mu¬ neris aliquid dilabatur ; reos enim vos cre¬ ditis, et recte creditis, si quid inde per ne- gligentiam dicedat. » Ha3C ille. Porro adver¬ sarii, neque corpus Domini servant, cum non agnoscant Sacramentum, nisi in usu, neque consecrant, neque reos se putant, si quid illius panis, aut vini in terram cadat. Et me¬ rito non putant, quia nihil nisi panem ha¬ bent : at si vere corpus Domini haberent aut habere se crederent, certe vel diligentissime conservarent, ut semper Ecclesia fecit, aut se aperte impios, et sacrilegos testarentur. Ad hoc testimonium, ut etiam ad sequens, non vidi responsionem adversariorum. Alterum testimonium Origenis est in ho¬ mil. 5. in diversa loca Evangelii, in qua tractat de puero centurionis: « Quando sanctum ci¬ bum, illudque incorruptum accipis epulum, quando vita! pane, et poculo frueris, man¬ ducas et bibis corpus et sanguinem Domini, tunc Dominus sub tectum tuum ingreditur. Et tu ergo humilians temetipsum, imitare hunc centurionem, et dicito : Domine, non sum dignus, ut intres subtectum meum. Ubi enim indigne ingreditur, ibi ad judicium in¬ greditur accipienti. » Hsec ille. Sane ista non possunt recte dici nisi de vero corpore Do¬ mini, quod vere ore corporis accipiatur. Nam si loqueretur Origenes de corpore Domini per metonymiam, id est, de pane significante corpus Christi, non vocaret eum panem in¬ corruptum epulum, nec ei dici vellet : Do¬ mine , non sum dignus , etc. Si vero loqueretur de ipso Christo per panem significato, qui per fidem accipitur, non diceret : «Ubi indi¬ gne ingreditur, ibi ad judicium ingreditur accipienti. » Nam secundum adversarios Christus per fidem non potest accipi nisi a piis, et ad vitam ; quod enim indigne acci¬ pitur ab impiis, non est nisi externum sym¬ bolum, secundum adversarios. At Origenes illi, qui ingreditur ad pios, et impios, vult dici : Domine non sum dignus , ergo vel vult adorari, et invocari panem, quod est absur¬ dissimum ; vel vult sub illis speciebus vere Christum ipsum contineri. Tertius locus est homil. 7. in libro Numeri: 76 UBER II. • « Tunc inquit, in ccnigmate est manna cibus, nunc autem in specio caro Verbi Dei, et ve¬ nis cibus, sicut ipse elicit, quia caro mea vero est cibus ». Haec illo. At certe species cum aenigmate opponitur, idem significat, quod veritas collata figurcc. Si autem Eucharistia esset corpus Christi, solum tropice; non in specie, sed in aenigmate dici deberet caro Domini : nam etiam manna erat cobpus Do¬ mini tropice, id est, significative. Et confir¬ matur argumentum ex verbis praecedentibus ubi Origenes dicit Hebraeos habuisse Bap¬ tismum in aenigmate, dum transirent mare Rubrum, nobis autem in specie per Bapti¬ smum conferri regenerationem. At vera re¬ generatio nobis datur in Baptismo, quam non dabat, sed adumb rabat solum transitus maris Rubri : ergo eodem modo vera caro no¬ bis datur in Eucharistia, quam non dabat, sed in aenigmate significabat manna Judaeorum. Ad hunc locum respondent adversarii, ac maxime Petrus Martyr in libro contra Gar- dinerum , part. iv. Origenem loqui de modo lo¬ quendi, non existentia rerum, id est, asserere Judaeos habuisse corpus Christi in aenigmate, quia non declarabatur eis, quid significaret manna : nobis autem dari in specie, quia aperte nobis dicitur, quid significet panis Eucharistiae. Sed fallitur, aut fallit Petrus Martyr. Nam Origenes utrumque dicit, et Deum locutum olirn in aenigmate, quod nunc in specie dat. Sic enim ait :« Verum tamem Moyses prius¬ quam acciperet /Ethiopissam, non est scri¬ ptum, quia in specie locutus sit ei Deus, et non in aenigmate : sed ubi accepit ^Ethiopissam, tunc dicit de eo Deus, quia os ad os loquar ad eum, in specie, et non in aenigmate. Modo enim cum Moses venit ad nos, et conjunctus est huic nostrae Mtthiopissae, lex Dei, jam non in figuris, et imaginibus, sicut prius, sed in ipsa specie veritatis agnoscitur : et quae prius in aenigmate designabantur, nunc in specie, et veritate complentur». Haec ille. Vi¬ des hic non solum Deum clarius loqui sed etiam reipsa praestare, quae in aenigmate de¬ signabat? Eucharistia igitur veram carnem continet, quam in aenigmate manna desi¬ gnabat. Videamus nunc quid illi contra nos afle- rantex Origene. Profert Petrus Martyr loca sex Origenis in libro contra Gardinerum , ob¬ jecto 162. Et sequentibus, qua; tamen, aut nihil concludunt, aut nobis magis, quam ad¬ versariis favent. Primus locus est ex horni!. 1G. in Numeros : «Biberet, inquit, dicimur sanguinem Christi non solum Sacramento¬ rum ritu, sed etiam cum sermones ejus reci¬ pimus. » Haec ille. Hinc adversarii probare nituntur in Sacramentis non bibi sanguinem Christi, nisi spirituali ter, sicut non nisi spiri- tualitcr bibitur in concione. At contrarium potius sequitur. Non enim dicit Origenes eodem modo bibi Christi san¬ guinem in Sacramentis, quo bibitur in con¬ cione ; imo cum distinguat hos duos mo¬ dos, indicat esse modos diversos ; et per hoc bibi in concione spiritualiter , in Sacra¬ mentis autem reipsa. Secundus locus est ex commentario Ori¬ genis in cap. 20. Matthaei, ubi sic legimus : « Panis iste , quem Deus Verbum corpus suum esse fatetur, verbum est nutritorium animarum. » Notat Martyr panem ipsum vocari corpus Christi ; proinde panem ma¬ terialem esse in Eucharistia. Deinde addit : eum panem dici verbum, quia sacramenta sunt verba visibilia. Addit denique non posse panem dici verbum nutritorium , si per transubstantiationem evanescat : id enim quod nihil est, non potest aliquid nutrire. Picspondeo : Origenes prectermisso litterali sensu omnibus noto, exponit mystice totum hunc locum. Nec per panem intelligit panem materialem, qui sit verbum visibile : sed intelligit sermones Christi, seu verba Dei non visibilia, sed audibilia ; dicit enim hoc ver¬ bum esse verbum de Deo Verbo procedens, et panem de pane coelesti, id est, esse sermo¬ nem quem loquitur Christus, qui est Deus Verbum, et panis coelestis. Vide totum locum t. 35. In Matthaeum , et nihil dubitabis, quin mystica sit, non litteralis Origenis expositio. Tertius locus est in homil. 7. In Le viticum, ubi postquam dixerat Origenes , carnem Christi esse verbum Dei, subjungit : « Si enim secundum litteram sequaris hoc, quod dictum est : Nisi manducaveritis carnem meam, et biberitis sanguinem meum, occi¬ dit hrec littera. Ubi videtur non admittere ullum alium sensum, nisi mysticum. Respondeo primum : Si quid probat hoc testimonium, solum probat non agi de Eu¬ charistia in vi. cap. Joan. non autem probat in Eucharistia non esse verum Christi cor¬ pus. Nam etiam adversarii docent Joan. vi. non agi de Eucharistia; et tamen non con¬ cederent, carnem Christi non manducari, nisi audiendo concionem : hoc enim esset plane tollere sacramentum Eucharistia1. CAPUT VIII. Dico secundo, illa verba : Nisi manducave¬ ritis carnem Filii hominis, tribus modis exponi posse. Uno modo prorsus mystice, et figu¬ rate, et hoc modo cXponithoe loco Ori genes, dum per carnem Domini intelligit sermones divinos. Altero modo prorsus ad litteram, id est, sine ulla adjunctione mysterii; et hoc* modo acceperunt Capharnaiue, qui putarunt edendam Christi carnem, quomodo come¬ duntur c cetera) carnes, id est, eam lacerando et consumendo : et de hoc sensu recte dicit hoc loco Origcnes : Littera occidit; et Augu¬ stinus lib. in. Doctrinx Christianx , cap. xvi. dicit, verba Domini ita ad litteram accepta, scelus quoddam sonare. Tertio modo non omnino ad litteram, nec omnino figurate, sed ad litteram quoad substantiam rei, et man¬ ducationis, figurate autem, quoad modum manducationis, ut videlicet sensus sit, man¬ ducandam vere Christi carnem, sed sine ulla sui laesione, ut supra diximus in explicatione scntentirc S. Augustini de his verbis : atque hunc sensum hoc loco Origenesnon attingit, sed non rejicit; et homil. 7. in Numeros, cumdem aperte recipit cum de Eucharistia ad litteram exponit illa verba : Caro mea vere est cibus. Quartus locus est homil. 9. in Leviticum prope finem : « Non haereas in sanguineVerbi, ct audi ipsum tibi dicentem quia hic sanguis meus est, qui pro vobis effundetur in remissio¬ nem peccatorum. » Ilie Petrus Martyr do¬ ceri contendit, ut non existimemus in Sacra¬ mento esse verum sanguinem carnis Domi¬ nica); sed erigamus mentem ad significa¬ tionem Verbi. Si enim revera sanguis Domini esset in Eucharistia, oporteret illi inhaerere, ut pretio nostro, illudque submisse adorare. Despondeo : Toto coelo hoc loco aberrat Petrus Martyr cum aliis Calvinistis, dum existimat sanguinem Verbi esse praedicatio¬ nem, seu significationem verborum Domini. Vocat enim Origcnes sanguinem Verbi, san¬ guinem verum, et corporalem Dei Verbi, id est, Christi ; ac monet ut non inhaereamus in eo sanguine, tamquam in sanguine carnis, ac si nihil esset, nisi sanguis quidam huma¬ nus ; sed consideremus eum esse sanguinem ipsius Dei, quo redempti sumus. Vel (quod videtur probabilius) monet, ut non hameamus in sanguine carnis, id est, in sanguine vitulo¬ rum, ct hircorum-, de quo loquitur Moses in eo loco Levitici ; sed eo dimisso ascendamus ad sanguinem Dei Verbi, qui per sanguinem illum vitulorum, et hircorum significabatur. Intelligere autem Origenem per sanguinem Verbi ipsum verum, et corporalem Christi sanguinem, patet, quia ile hoc sanguine Verbi dicit Origcnes, eo nos esse redemptos. At non sumus redempti significatione verbo¬ rum, sed veri sanguinis effusione. Item dicit de hoc sanguine scriptum esse : Ilie est san¬ guis meus, qui pro vobis effundetur. At haec verba non possunt intelligi de concione, sed de vero sanguine, ut pater. Denique addit ibidem Origcnes haec verba : « Novit qui mysteriis imbutus est, ct carnem, et sangui¬ nem Verbi Dei : non ergo immoremur in his, qua) et scientibus nota sunt, et ignorantibus patere non possunt. » Ubi Origcnes dicit fideles satis nossc, quid sit caro, et sanguis Verbi Dei; infideles autem nec scire, nec dis¬ cere posse, nisi prius ad fidem venient. At quid sit concio, quid passio Christi praedicata, etiam infideles norunt : omnibus enim in com¬ mune pra) dicatur Evangelium ; non igitur loquitur de concione, sed de mysterio altis¬ sime Eucharistia), quod infideles non norunt, nec discere posfeunt. Vides quomodo testimo¬ nium Origenis contra nos allatum maxime nobis faveat? Quintum testimonium sumunt ex com¬ mentario in cap. xv. Mattiaci, ubi Origines tractans illa verba Domini : Quod intrat per os, non coinquinat hominem (1) ; qiuedam dicit de boc Sacramento, qua; Petrus Mar¬ tyr ct alii Calvinista) pro sua sententia addu¬ cunt. Primo dicit, corporalem esum Eucha¬ ristia) rem esse indifferentem, id est, nec bonum, nec malum : « Quod, inquit, ad esum per se attinet, neque cx hoc, quod non edimus de pane, verbo Dei ct per obsecra¬ tionem sanctificato, fraudamur aliquo bono ; neque cx. edendo abundamus aliquo bono ; siquidem causa defectus est malitia, pecca¬ taque ; et abundantia) causa est justitia, et recta facta. » Haec ille. At si esset in Eucha¬ ristia reipsa Domini corpus, recte prodesset vi sua, ,ct non solum ex bonitate sumentis. Sccondo dicit, in Eucharistia esso materiam panis, quia in secessum emittitur : « Et ille cibus, inquit, qui sanctificatur per verbum Dei, et orationem, juxta id, quod habet ma¬ teriale, in ventrem abit, ct in secessum emit¬ titur. » Et infra : « Nec materia panis, sed su¬ per illum dictus sermo est, qui prodest non (1) Matii. XV, 11. 78 UBER II. indigne Domino comedenti illum. » Tertio, vocat Eucharistiam corpus typicum, et sym- bolicum, et distinguit illud a vero Christi cor¬ pore : « Et haec quidem, inquit, de typico, symbolicoque corpore. Multa porro et de ipso Verbo dici possent, quod factum est caro, verusque cibus etc. » Quarto dicit cor¬ pus Christi, non posse manducari a peccato¬ ribus : « Si fieri posset, inquit, ut quis malus adhuc perseveret, edat Verbum factum car¬ nem, cum sit Verbum, et panis vivus, nequa¬ quam scriptum esset: Quisquis ederit panem hunc, vivet in aeternum. » Ob hsec loca ita triumphat Petrus Martyr, ut dicat lib. i. con¬ tra Gardinerum , objecto 169. « Locum hunc nunquam nobis excutiet : verba ita sunt perspicua, ut nullis ambagibus, aut com¬ mentis possint mitigari. » Ad haec loca quidam respondent, com¬ mentaria ista non esse integrae fidei , neque omnino constare, an sint Origenis : modus enim loquendi (quidquid sit de re) non pa¬ rum dissonat ab his locis, quae nos. supra citavimus ex veris libris Origenis. Alii respondent, Origenem hoc loco non loqui de Eucharistia, sed de pane quodam sanctificato, qui dabatur catechumenis loco Eucharistiae, de quo scribit etiam Augusti¬ nus lib. 11. de Peccatorum meritis et remis¬ sione, cap. 26. Qui panis recte dici poterat corpus Domini symbolioum, quia repraesen¬ tabat Eucharistiam, cum ejus loco daretur. Unum obstat huic explicationi, quod Orige- nes de isto pane indigne manducato intelli- gat Apostolum 1. Corinth. xi. ubi ait : Pro¬ pter hoc multi inter vos imbecilles, et dormiunt multi (1). Nisi forte Origenes extendere vo¬ luerit verba illa Pauli, quae proprie ad Eu¬ charistiam pertinent, ad panem illum cate¬ chumenorum ; nam suo modo, id est, ser¬ vata proportione, peccat etiam, qui contem¬ nit panem illum sanctificatum, licet, multo minus, quam qui despicit Eucharistiam. Sed his omissis, respondeo illa omnia, quae Origenes dicit, posse recte intelligi de sacramento Eucharistiae. Ad primum igitur respondeo, loqui Origenem praecise de esu corporali Eucharistiae, abstrahendo a boni¬ tate, vel malitia sumentis ; et hoc modo verum est, esum illum non prodesse, si adsit; nec obesse, si absit. Nihil enim prod¬ est comedere corporaliter Eucharistiam, nisi adsit etiam spiritualis manducatio ; quia hic cibus mentis est, non ventris : neque obest non manducare, si non ex contemptu, sed aliqua justa de causa omittatur sacra- mentalis manducatio. Neque ex hoc colligi debet. Eucharistiam esse rem indifferentem, et non habere vim sanctificandi , nisi ex fide sumentis. Nam non dicit Origenes, eam non habere vim ex se, sed dicit non exercere eam vim in eos, qui indigne su¬ munt ; quod est verissimum. At, inquies, « comparat Eucharistiam Origenes cum cibis communibus, qui sunt vere indifferentes. » Respondeo : Non com¬ parat, quoad omnia, sed solum quoad effe¬ ctum : alioqui idem ipse dixerat, panem illum sanctum vim habere sanctificandi ex verbo Dei, quo consecratus est. Ad secundum respondeo, materiale, quod in secessum abit, appellari ab Origene acci¬ dentia visibilia. Neque obstat, quod ait Petrus Martyr, illa accidentia ad formam potius pertinere, quam ad materiam, cum sint qualitates quasdam, id est. accidentales formae. Nam hoc loco non vocatur aliquid materiale , respectu formae naturalis, sed respectu sanctificationis, et significationis. Et praeterea ex accidentibus Eucharistiae principale est magnitudo , in qua fundantur omnia alia: magnitudo autem ad materiam potius, quam ad formaro pertinet. Ad tertium respondeo, symbola panis, et vini recte dici corpus typicum, et symboli- cum, modo sane, et catholice intelligatur : omnes enim Catholici Eucharistiam sacra¬ mentum esse dicunt, signum seu symbo¬ lum rei sacrae, id est, corporis Christi. Sed quaestio est inter nos, et Sacramentarios, utrum haec symbola sint rei absentis, an prae¬ sentis : nos enim dicimus sub illis symbolis vere contineri corpus Dominicum, illi negant. Et praeterea ipsum verum corpus, ut est in Eucharistia, est typus ac symbolum sui ip¬ sius, ut fuit in cruce, et ut est nunc in coelo. Nam non solum per Eucharistiam comme¬ moramus passionem Domini, sed etiam acci¬ pimus pignus aeternae gloriae. Ab hoc igitur corpore symbolico, et simul vero, distinguit Origenes Verbum incarnatum, ut extra Sa¬ cramentum fide accipitur. Ad quartum respondeo , Origenem loqui de manducatione corporis Christi extra Sa¬ cramentum, cum dicit non posse ab impiis manducari. Et hoc etiam verissimum est ; (I) I Cor. XI, 30. CAPUT IA. 7 ? nam extra Sacramentum manducatur solum spiritualiter. Loqui autem Origenem dc man¬ ducatione extra Sacramentum, patet, tum quia distinguit hanc manducationem a man¬ ducatione panis sanctificati per verbum Dei, qui est Eucharistiae Sacramentum ; tum etiam, quia allegat illa verba Joan. vi. Qui manducat hunc panem , vivet in aeternum ; quae verba non intelliguntur de Eucharistia, sed de ipsa Christi incarnatione. Distinguun¬ tur enim eo loco a Domino duo panes. Unus, qui jam tunc praesens erat, fide comedendus erat, id est, verbum Incarnatum ; et de hoc dicit : Ego sum panis vivus , qui de coelo de¬ scendi : qui manducat hunc panem, vivet in aeternum. Alter futurus, in Sacramento vide¬ licet, et dc hoc subjungit: Et panis quem ego dabo , caro mea est pro mundi vita (i). Denique mirum est, cur tantam vim faciant in hoc loco adversarii cum nihil esse putent in vi. cap. Joan. quod ad manducationem sacramentalem pertineat. Ultimum testimonium Origenis sumunt ex lib. 8. contra Celsum , paulo ante me¬ dium : ubi sic ait : « Nos qui rerum omnium conditori placere studemus, cum precibus, et gratiarum actione pro benehciis acceptis, oblatos panes edimus. » Ubi Eucharistiam panem vocat. Respondeo : Hic locus maxime nobis favet. Nam non ait Origenes, nos panes sim¬ pliciter edere, sed panes mutatos in corpus Christi ; sic enim ait : « Oblatos panes 'edi¬ mus, corpus sanctum quoddam per preces effectos, et sanctificans eos, qui cum sancto proposito ipso utuntur. » Quibus verbis non solum dicit Origenes, panes mutari in cor¬ pus, sed etiam offerri Deo, et sanctificare homines : quorum utrumque negant ad¬ versarii. At instat Petrus Martyr libro contra Gar - dinerum objecto 168. Origenem non dixisse, mutari panes in corpus sanctum Christi, sed in corpus quoddam sanctum; illud enim, quoddam, est diminutivum, ut cum dicimus : Hic est quidam Isidorus, laerymae sunt quidam sanguis. • Respondeo : Si Origenes dixisset, panes mutari in quoddam corpus Christi, haberet locum adversarii objectio ; significari enim posset panes mutari in corpus non verum, sed repraesentativum. At n©n ita dixit, sed mutari in sanctum quoddam corpus; ubi (1) Joan. VI, 51 et 52. illud, quoddam , non est diminutivum, sed declarativum in confuso veri corporis Do¬ mini. Noluit enim Origenes ethnico palam dicere, panes mutari in corpus ^Christi, ne daret illi occasionem magis irridendi mys¬ teria, quae non intelligcbat ; sed dixit ob¬ scurius, mutari in sanctum quoddam cor¬ pus ; quod corpus norant fideles cujusnam esset.