Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book II: On the Real Presence, from the Testimonies of the Fathers
Chapter 15: The Testimony of St. Basil
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).
Saint Basil flourished at the same time as Ambrose; and in Book 2 On Baptism, chapter 2, he speaks thus: “If such threats are set against those who rashly approach those holy things which are sanctified by men, what must be said of him who is rash toward so great and such a mystery? For by how much something is greater than the temple, according to the word of the Lord, by so much is it graver and more terrible, being constituted in impurity of soul, rashly to touch the body of Christ than to approach rams or bulls,” and so forth. In this passage Basil affirms that those who receive the body of Christ unworthily sin so much more gravely than those who unworthily received rams and bulls immolated to God, by how much Christ is greater not only than rams and bulls, but even than the temple of the Lord itself; which opinion certainly cannot be true unless in the Eucharist the body of the Lord be truly present. For between Christ and the rams which the Hebrews were wont to immolate the distance is plainly infinite; but between the bread of the Eucharist, according to the adversaries, and those rams there is almost no distance; or if the distance is notable, the rams excelled, not the bread of the Eucharist, as we demonstrated above. But Basil affirms that those who unworthily handle the Eucharist sin so much more gravely than those who unworthily handled those old sacrifices, by how much Christ is greater not only than the sacrifices, but even than the temple.
Peter Martyr, in his book against Gardiner, part 4, attempts to answer, but he entangles himself, and fights basely with himself on the same page. For he says first that Basil so compares the Eucharist with the sacraments of the ancients that on one side he places bare symbols, that is, in the sacraments of the ancients, on the other he places the thing itself, no mention being made of the symbol, that is, in our Eucharist. And so he will have the body of Christ, in that comparison of Basil, signify the body of Christ properly so called; for that is, according to him, the thing and truth of the sacrament, as it is opposed to the external symbol. But because Basil says that that body of Christ is received by the unworthy, and the unworthy do not receive the thing of the sacrament, but the bare symbols according to the adversaries, therefore Peter Martyr a little after adds that Basil speaks of the symbols of the Eucharist, which alone are received by the wicked, and compares them with the old symbols.
But these openly fight among themselves, and the one destroys the other; and besides, both statements are false. That they fight, I show thus. When Basil names the body of Christ in that comparison with the sacrifices of the ancients, he understands either the true body of Christ or the symbolic. If the true body of Christ, then the latter statement is false, in which Peter Martyr asserted that Basil speaks of the symbols, which alone are received by the wicked. If the symbolic body, then the former statement of the same is false, in which he asserted that Basil compares the thing itself, that is, the body of Christ, with the old symbols. And that both statements of Peter Martyr are false absolutely also, I demonstrate thus. For Basil does not compare with the sacrifices of the ancients the true body of Christ alone, which was the first statement of Peter Martyr; for the wicked do not receive the true body of Christ according to the adversaries, nor do they receive that body outside the symbols according to the Catholics. But Basil says that that very body is received by the wicked; therefore he does not speak of the true body of Christ alone. Add that Basil neither ought, nor could, so compare the old Sacraments with the Eucharist as to place in them only a bare sign, in this a true body, since either sacrament contains the body of Christ in the same manner according to the adversaries; nay, the old better than the new, because they represented better. But of this we have spoken elsewhere.
Nor indeed does Basil compare with the sacrifices of the ancients the symbol of the Eucharist alone, which was the second statement of Peter Martyr; for the symbols of the Eucharist alone do not excel the sacrifices of the ancients, but are inferior to them, as we showed elsewhere; and yet Basil in this place sets an infinite distance between the body of Christ and the sacrifices of the ancients. It follows, therefore, necessarily that Basil speaks of the true body of Christ, as it is contained under the species of bread truly and really; for so all things cohere. For this body truly excels the sacrifices of the ancients by an infinite distance, and is truly received by the wicked by the bodily instrument. And this whole argument is confirmed from the following words of the same Basil in that place; for he admonishes that we who are about to receive the Eucharist should most diligently be cleansed from the filth of sins, lest we fall into the sin of those who slew Christ. For that comparison of those who communicate unworthily with those who slew Christ compels us altogether to understand that the body of Christ is truly and really contained in the Eucharist. For these sins are compared together because each touches Christ in Himself; and Christ, not as He is in heaven, but as He is in the Eucharist; because the wicked cannot touch Christ as He is in heaven, but only as He is in the Eucharist.
Another testimony of Basil is in his book On the Holy Spirit, chapter 27, where he says thus: “The words of invocation, when the bread of the Eucharist is shown—which of the Saints has left them to us in writing?” For hence we have it that it was the custom in the ancient Church that after consecration the Eucharist should be shown to the people, which we see done even now; and that it should be invoked with set words, which words some suspect were ‘Kyrie eleison.’ But certainly from the invocation the truth of Christ in the Eucharist is manifestly gathered; for we cannot invoke bread, however much it signify or represent the body of Christ. In the same place Basil, speaking of these mysteries, says that it is not lawful even to behold them for the uninitiated. But certainly no cause can be rendered why they would not permit the Eucharist even to be seen by unbelievers, or even by catechumens, if it were nothing but a sign. For the thing signified, that is, the passion of Christ, they preached publicly, and they impressed even a most manifest sign of that same passion upon the catechumens almost daily, when they signed them with the sign of the cross. Those, then, who granted the clearest signs, why would they deny an obscurer sign?
Further, the adversaries object from Basil that in his liturgy he calls the Eucharist [antitypa], that is, a figure of the body of Christ; concerning which Peter Martyr writes much in his book against Gardiner, objection 183.
To this argument three solutions are wont to be given, but the two former do not seem to me solid. The first is that that word [antitypa] is not always taken for a figure, but is sometimes taken for the exemplar; of which signification they bring forward an example from 1 Peter chapter 3, where Baptism is called the antitype of the flood, whereas the flood was a figure of Baptism, not Baptism of the flood. And so, by this acceptation, some contend that the Eucharist is called by Basil an antitype, because it is the exemplar of the old figures.
But this opinion can easily be rejected. For the word ‘antitype’ (as we also noted in Book 1 On the Sacraments in General) is never taken for the exemplar, but for the image which corresponds to the exemplar over against it, and so imitates it that it seems almost to contend with it. In which manner the image which is reflected in a mirror, when someone looks into it, is very properly called an antitype; for in it the image so represents to the life that it seems to contend with the man himself concerning the form of the man. And in this manner this word is taken by the Apostle, Hebrews 9, and by authors everywhere; nor is it taken otherwise in 1 Peter 3. For Baptism is in one manner the exemplar, in another the image of the flood, and as image, not as exemplar, it is called by Saint Peter the antitype of the flood. For if we consider the signification by convention or divine ordinance, the flood was a figure of Baptism, not, on the contrary, Baptism of the flood; for God did not institute Baptism to represent the flood, but on the contrary, God brought the flood upon the world both for other causes and also that it might be a figure of Baptism. But if we consider the natural likeness, Baptism is rather the image of the flood than the flood of Baptism; since more properly and truly the flood suffocated the wicked men than Baptism suffocates sins—for the former is a true and proper, the latter a metaphorical suffocation. But because the effect of Baptism, that is, the suffocation of iniquities, is very like the effect of the flood, that is, the suffocation of wicked men, therefore Saint Peter called Baptism the antitype of the flood. But besides, even though ‘antitype’ could be taken for the exemplar, yet it would not profit us. For Basil does not say that the Eucharist is the antitype of the old Sacraments, but of the body of the Lord; wherefore it is certain that by Basil this word is not taken for the exemplar, but for the image imitating the exemplar itself.
The other solution is of others: that the bread of the Eucharist is called by Saint Basil the antitype of the body of the Lord, but before consecration, not after. So John Damascene of old answered, Book 4 On the Faith, chapter 14, and Epiphanius in the Seventh Synod, act 6, volume 3.
But this solution has many difficulties. For in the liturgy of Basil we find the bread of the Eucharist called the antitype of the body of the Lord after the recitation of those words, This is my body. Wherefore it would be necessary that Damascene and Epiphanius thought that the Eucharist is not consecrated by those words, This is my body, but by those which are placed below; which is even less probable; concerning which matter we shall dispute in Book 4, in the controversy on the words by which the Sacrament of the Eucharist is confected. Add that, although Basil did not call the Eucharist the antitype of the body of the Lord after consecration, yet Theodoret most plainly so calls it in his first dialogue, as also Macarius of Egypt, homily 27; nay, and Dionysius, chapter 3 Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, and Nazianzen, oration on Gorgonia.
There is, therefore, a third solution: that the Eucharist even after consecration is rightly called the antitype of the body and blood, not only because the species of bread and wine are signs of the body and blood there really existing, but also because the very body and blood of the Lord, as they are under those species, are signs of the same body and blood as they were on the cross; for the Eucharist represents the passion of Christ. And therefore perhaps Basil and the other Fathers do not call the Eucharist a figure or type, but an antitype; because, as we said, not all figures are called antitypes, but only those which differ almost nothing from the truth. Now bread and wine, the body of the Lord being removed, do not so represent to the life the body and blood that they can be called antitypes; for the paschal lamb represented better, and yet was not called an antitype, but a type. But if under the species of bread there be truly the body of Christ, then truly the Eucharist will be the antitype of the body immolated on the cross. Whence Chrysostom, homily 17 on the epistle to the Hebrews, says that the Eucharist is a type or figure of the sacrifice of the cross; and yet in the same place he asserts that now the same Christ is offered who was then offered. It would be similar if some king, a most grievous war being finished, wished the same war to be represented on a stage for the delight of the people, and he himself, the same who had truly fought, should represent himself on the stage; for he himself would be truly the antitype of himself. We have similar things in other representations of Christ; for when He lay hidden for three days and at length on the third day was found in the temple, He wished to signify, Ambrose being witness on chapter 2 of Luke, that He would be for three days hidden in the sepulchre, and at length on the third day would rise. And in Matthew 17, when He was transfigured on the mount before the Prophets and Apostles, He wished to signify that He would be seen in that manner in the heavenly glory by all the Saints of the old and new Testament. He Himself, therefore, was more than once a type and figure of Himself.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XV. Testimonium S. Basilii. Sanctus Basilius eodem tempore, quo Am¬ brosius floruit ; et in ii lib. de Baptismo cap. 2 sic loquitur : « Si tales minae adversus eos posita? sunt, qui temere ad ea sacra accedunt, qua? ab hominibus sanctificantur : quid di¬ cendum est de eo, qui in tantum ac tale my¬ sterium temerarius est? Quanto enim majus aliquid is est templo secundum Domini vo¬ cem, tanto gravius, et terribilius est in ani¬ ma? impui-itate constitutum corpus Christi temere contingere, quam sit accedere ad aiaetes, vel tauros etc. » Hoc loco Basilius affirmat tanto gravius peccare, qui indigne sumunt corpus Christi, quam eos, qui indi¬ gne sumebant arietes, et tauros Deo immola¬ tos, quanto Christus major est, non solum arietibus, et tauris, sed etiam ipso templo Domini : qua? certe sententia vera esse non potest, nisi in Eucharistia sit vere corpus Domini praesens. Nam inter Christum, et arietes ab Hebraeis immolari solitos, distan¬ tia est plane infinita : inter panem autem Eucharistia? secundum adversarios, et illos arietes pene nulla distantia : vel si distantia est notabilis, arietes excellebant, non panis Eucharistia?, ut nos supra demonstravimus. Basilius autem affirmat tanto gravius pec¬ care , qui indigne tractant Eucharistiam , quam ii qui indigne tractabant sacrificia illa vetera, quanto Christus major est non solum sacrificiis, sed etiam templo. Petrus Martyr in lib. contra Gardiner. par. 4. respondere conatur, sed se ipse involvit, ac secum turpiter pugnat in eadem pagina. Dicit enim primum, Basiliurn ita conferre Eucharistiam cum sacramentis veterum, ut ab una parte ponat nuda symbola, id est, in sacramentis veterum, ab altera ponat rem ipsam, nulla facta symboli mentione, id est, in Eucharistia nostra. Itaque vult corpus Christi in illa collatione Basilii significare corpus Christi proprie dictum : illud enim est per eum res, et veritas sacramenti, ut op¬ ponitur symbolo externo. Sed quia Basilius dicit, illud Christi corpus sumi ab indignis ; indigni autem non sumunt rem sacramenti, sed nuda symbola secundum adversarios ; CAPUT XV. ideo Petrus Martyr paulo post addit Basilium loqui de symbolis Eucharistiae, qutc sola su¬ muntur ab impiis, ctca conferre cum symbo¬ lis veteribus. Haec autem aperte inter se pugnant, et u- num destruit aliud ; et praeterea utrumque dictum est falsum. Quod pugnent, sic os¬ tendo. Cum Basibus nominat corpus Christi in illa collatione cum sacrificiis veterum, vel intelligit corpus Christi verum, vel symboli- cum. Si corpus Christi verum ; ergo falsum est posterius dictum, quo asseruit Petrus Martyr Basiliura loqui de symbolis, quae sola sumuntur ab impiis : si corpus symbolicum ; ergo falsum est prius dictum ejusdem, quo asseruit Basilium conferre rem ipsam, id est, corpus Christi, cum symbolis veteribus. Quod autem sit falsum etiam absolute utrum¬ que dictum Petri Martyris, sic demonstro. Nam Basibus non confert cum sacrificiis ve¬ terum solum corpus Christi verum, quod erat primum dictum Petri Martyris : nam impii non sumunt corpus Christi verum secundum adversarios : neque sumunt illud corpus extra symbola secundum Catholicos. At Basilius illud ipsum dicit sumi ab impiis ; ergo non loquitur de solo corpore Christi vero. Adde, quod non debuit Basibus, nec potuit ita com¬ parare Sacramenta vetera cum Eucharistia, ut in illis tantum poneret nudum signum, in hac, verum corpus, cum utraque sacramenta eodem modo contineant corpus Christi se¬ cundum adversarios ; imo melius vetera , quam nova, quia melius repraesentabant. Sed de hoc alibi diximus. Neque vero confert Basibus cum sacrifi¬ ciis veterum solum symbolum Eucharistiae, quod erat Secundum dictum Petri Martyris : nam symbola sola Eucharistiae non praestant sacrificiis veterum, sed sunt illis inferiora, ut alibi ostendimus ; et tamen Basilius hoc loco constituit infinitam distantiam inter cor¬ pus Christi, et sacrificia veterum. Sequitur igitur necessario, ut Basibus loquatur de cor¬ pore Christi vero, ut continetur sub specie panis vere, et realiter : sic enim omnia co¬ haerent. Nam hoc corpus vere excellit sacri¬ ficiis veterum infinita distantia et vere sumi¬ tur ab impiis corporali instrumento. Et confir¬ matur hoc totum argumentum ex sequentibus verbis ejusdem Basibi in eo loco; monet enim ut sumpturi Eucharistiam diligentissime pur¬ gemur a sordibus peccatorum, ne incidamus in peccatum eorum, ]qui Christum occiderunt. Ista enim comparatio indigne communican¬ do tium cum illis, qui Christum occiderunt, co¬ git omnino ut intelligamus vere, et realiter Christi corpus contineri in Eucharistia. Nam ideo comparantur inter se ista peccata, quia utrumque attingit Christum in scipso ; et Christum, non ut est in coelo, sed ut est in Eucharistia; quia impii non possunt Chri¬ stum attingere, ut est in coelo, sed solum ut est in Eucharistia. Alterum testimonium Basibi est in bb. de Spiritu sancto cap. 27. ubi sic ait : « Verba invocationis cum ostenditur panis Euchari¬ stiae, quis Sanctorum in scripto nobis reli¬ quit » ? Hinc enim habemus morem fuisse in Ecclesia veteri, ut post consecrationem os¬ tenderetur populo Eucharistia, quod etiam nunc fieri videmus ; et conceptis verbis in¬ vocaretur, qua; verba quidam suspicantur fuisse, Kyrie eleison. Sed certe ex invocatione manifeste colligitur veritas Christi in Eucha¬ ristia : neque enim panem invocare possu¬ mus quantumlibet significet, vel repraesentet corpus Christi. Ibidem Basilius’ de mysteriis his loquens, dicit, nec intueri fas esse ista non initiatis. At certe nulla reddi potest causa, cur Eucharistiam ne videri quidem permitterent infidelibus, vel etiam catechu¬ menis, si nihil est nisi signum. Nam rem si¬ gnificatam, id est, Christi passionem publice praedicabant, et signum etiam manifestissi¬ mum ejusdem passionis catechumenis quo¬ tidie fere imprimebant ; dum eos . signo cru¬ cis signabant. Qui igitur signa clarissima concedebant ; cur negassent signum obscu¬ rius ? Porro ex Basilio objiciuntadversarii, quod in sua liturgia Eucharistiam appellet av-tTU7ra id est, figuram corporis Christi, de qua re multa scribit Petrus Martyr in bb. contra Gardinerum objecto 183. Ad hoc*irgunientum tres dari solent solu¬ tiones, sed dua; priores mihi non videntur solide. Prima est, vocem illam dv-f-uTra non semper accipi pro figura, sed aliquando su¬ mi pro exemplari : cujus significationis pro¬ ferunt exemplum ex i. epist. Petri Cap. 3. ubi Baptismus vocatur antitypon diluvii, cum tamen diluviumfigura fuerit Baptismi, non Baptismus diluvii. Itaque hac acceptione contendunt quidam a Basilio Eucharistiam dici antitypon, quod sit exemplar veterum figurarum. Sed luee opinio facile rejici potest. Nam vox antitypon (ut etiam notavimus in i. bb. de Sacramentis in genere ) nunquam accipi- L1BEU II. 06 tur pro exemplari, sed pro imagine-, quae e regione respondet exemplari ; et ita illud imitatur, ut fere cum eo contendere videatur. Quomodo valde proprie vocatur antitypon imago, quae resultat in speculo, dum quis in illud intuetur : etenim in ea imago ita ad vivum repraesentat, ut cum ipso homine do forma ipsius hominis certare videatur. Et hoc modo accipitur haec vox ab Apostolo Hebr. ix. et ab auctoribus passim : neque aliter accipitur i Petri m. Nam Baptismus aliquo modo est exemplar, aliquo modo imago diluvii, et ut imago, non ut exemplar, dicitur a sancto Petra antitypon diluvii. Nam si consideremus significationem ad placitum, seu divinam ordinationem, diluvium figura fuit Baptismi, non contra, Baptismus diluvii: neque enim Deus instituit Baptismum, ut repraesentaret diluvium ; sed e contrario, di¬ luvium Deus induxit in mundum, tum ob alias causas, tum etiam ut esset figura Ba¬ ptismi. At si consideremus naturalem simili¬ tudinem, Baptismus est potius imago diluvii, quam diluvium Baptismi : siquidem magis proprie, et vere diluvium suffocavit homines impios, quam Baptismus peccata suffocet , illa enim vera et propria, haec metaphorica suffocatio est. Quia tamen valde similis est effectus Baptismi, id est, suffocatio iniquita¬ tum, effectui diluvii, id est, suffocationi ho¬ minum impiorum : ideo S. Petrus-Baptismum antitypon diluvii appellavit. Sed praeterea licet antitypon pro exemplari accipi posset, non tamen id nobis prodesset. Nam Basilius non dicit, Eucharistiam esse antitypon Sa¬ cramentorum veterum, sed corporis Domini; quare certum est a Basilio non accipi hanc vocem pro exemplari, sed-pro imagine imi¬ tante ipsum exemplar. Altera solutio est aliorum, vocari a S. Ba¬ silio panem Eucharistia} antitypog corporis Domini, sed ante consecrationem, non post¬ ea. Ita respondit olim Joan. Damascenus lib. iv. de Fide cap. 14. et Epiphanius in VII. Synodo, act. 6. tom. 3. Sed haec solutio multas habet difficultates. Nam in liturgia Basilii invenimus panem Eucharistia} vocari antitypon corporis Do¬ mini post recitationen verborum illorum : Hoc est corpus meum. Quocirca oporteret Da¬ mascenum, et Epiphanium existimasse, non consecrari Eucharistiam illis verbis : Hoc est corpus meum; sed illis, qua} infra ponuntur : quod minus adhuc probabile est; de qua re disputabimus in iv. lib. in controversia de verbis , quibus Sacramentum Eucharistiae conficitur. Adde, quod licet Basilius non vocaret Eucharistiam ant typon corporis Do¬ mini post consecrationem : tamen Theodo- retus apertissime ita eam vocat in i. dialogo, nccnon Macarius J5gyptius hom. 27. imo et Dionys. cap. m. Eccles. hierarch. et Naz anzen. orat, in Gorgoniam. Est igitur tertia solutio, Eucharistiam e- tiam- post consecrationem recte dici antity¬ pon corporis, et sanguinis, non solum quia species panis, et vini sunt signa corporis, et sanguinis ibi revera existentium ; sed etiam quia ipsum corpus , et sanguis Domini, ut sunt sub illis speciebus, signa sunt ejusdem corporis, et sanguinis, ut fuerunt in cruce ; repraesentat enim Eucharistia passionem Christi. Et ideo fortasse Basilius , et alii Patres non vocant Eucharistiam figuram, seu typum, sed antitypon; quia, ut diximus, an- titypa non dicuntur quaelibet figura}, sed illae tantum, qua} nihil fere differunt a veritate. Porro panis, et vinum, remoto corpore Do¬ mini, non ita ad vivum repraesentant corpus, et sanguinem , ut dici possint antitypa : melius enim repra}sentabat agnus paschalis, et tamen non dicebatur antitypon, sed typus. At si sub specie panis sit vere corpus Christi, tum vere Eucharistia erit antitypon corporis in cruce immolati. Unde Chrysostomus ho- mil. 17. in epist. ad Hebrxos dicit, Euchari¬ stiam esse typum, seu figuram sacrificii cru¬ cis ; et tamen ibidem asserit, nunc eumdem Christum offerri, qui tunc oblatus fuit. Simile, esket, si rex aliquis gravissimo bello con¬ fecto idem ipsum bellum ad oblectandum populo in scena repraesentari vellet, et ipse idem, qui vere pugnaverat, in scena seipsum repraesentaret : esset enim ipse vere anti¬ typon sui ipsius. Similia habemus in aliis Christi repraesentationibus : nam cum tribus diebus latuit, et tandem tertia die inventus e st in templo, significare voluit, teste Am¬ brosio in cap. ii. Luca}, se triduo futurum in sepulchro absconditum, et tandem tertia die resurrecturum. Et Matth. xvii. cum transfi¬ guratus est in monte coram Prophetis, et Apostolis, significare voluit, se eo modo vi¬ dendum in gloria coelesti ab omnibus Sanctis veteris, et novi Testamenti. Ipse igitur non semel fuit typus, et figura sui ipsius. CAPUT XVI. 97