Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book II: On the Real Presence, from the Testimonies of the Fathers
Chapter 23: The Testimony of St. Jerome
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 Jerome was the equal of Chrysostom, though he survived him some time; for he died in the year of the Lord 422, whereas Chrysostom died in the year 409. From this author, then, certain testimonies can be produced. The first is in the commentary on Matthew 26, where we read thus: “After the typical Pasch had been fulfilled, and He had eaten the flesh of the lamb with the Apostles, He takes bread, which strengthens the heart of man, and passes over to the true Sacrament of the Pasch; that, as in its prefiguration Melchizedek, priest of the most high God, had done, offering bread and wine, so He too might represent the truth of His body and blood.”
This passage too the heretics adduce for themselves, as Peter Martyr in his book against Gardiner, objection 210, on account of that last little word, “represent”; but the passage is plainly wholly ours. For “to represent” in Jerome signifies to exhibit really, as we said above in the testimonies of Tertullian; for Ambrose too uses it in this signification, Book 1 On the Offices, chapter 36, when he says: “Understand first what dishes are had on the platters, and then put forth thy hand, that what thou readest or receivest from God, thou mayest carry out in works, and represent by thy offices the grace conferred on thee”; where he takes “to carry out” and “to represent” for the same.
That Jerome so took it is clear, first, from this, that he opposes the typical Pasch of the Jews to the true Sacrament of the Pasch of the Christians. For if the Eucharist only represented the body of Christ in a symbol, and not really, there would be no cause why it should be called a true sacrament, and why it should be opposed to the typical; for the Pasch of the Jews too represented the body of Christ in a symbol. Secondly it is clear from this, that he says that Melchizedek, by offering bread and wine, prefigured; but that Christ, by instituting the Eucharist, represented the truth of the body; where the antithesis requires that Christ exhibited the truth of the body, whose figure had preceded in the oblation of Melchizedek. Which he himself explains more clearly in his commentary on Psalm 109: “As Melchizedek, king of Salem, offered bread and wine, so thou too shalt offer thy body and blood, true bread and true wine. This Melchizedek delivered to us these mysteries which we have; He it is who said: He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood,” and so forth. Here we see plainly opposed to the bread and wine of Melchizedek the body and blood of Christ, which are called true bread and true wine, not by reason of nature, but by reason of effect; in the manner in which the same Lord says: I am the true vine. For otherwise the bread of Melchizedek too was most truly bread, if you regard nature.
The second testimony is in the epistle to Hedibia, question 2: “Let us hear,” he says, “that the bread which the Lord broke and gave to the disciples is the body of the Lord and Saviour.” And below: “Nor did Moses give us true bread, but the Lord Jesus Himself, both guest and banquet, Himself eating and He who is eaten.”
This passage too Peter Martyr adduces for himself, because he reads the name of bread in this testimony; but that the passage is for us cannot be doubted, both because Jerome declares that that bread is not material bread, but the very body of the Lord; and because he would not truly say that Moses did not give true bread, that is, the body of Christ, if the Eucharist were not the body of Christ except significatively.
The third testimony is in the commentary on chapter 1 to the Ephesians: “The flesh and blood of Christ,” he says, “is understood in two ways: either that spiritual and divine flesh, of which He Himself said: My flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed; or the flesh and blood which was crucified, and which was shed by the soldier’s lance. According to this division, a diversity of the blood and flesh is understood also in His saints: so that there is one flesh which shall see the salvation of God, another flesh and blood which cannot possess the kingdom of God.” So he. Where he distinguishes the flesh which is in the Eucharist from that which was crucified, only as to accidents, namely that on the cross it was passible flesh, in the Eucharist it is impassible, and holding itself in a certain spiritual and divine manner; just as our mortal flesh is distinguished from our own immortal flesh, such as it will be after the resurrection. Nor can it be answered that the spiritual flesh which is in the Eucharist is only in a sign, and not really; for if he so took it, he would destroy that which he wished to establish, the true flesh that shall rise, against the Origenists. Then the flesh of Christ, as it is signified in the Eucharist, cannot be distinguished from that which was on the cross, nor called divine; for the Eucharist is a Sacrament, or symbol, of the passion of Christ; Jerome, therefore, would not distinguish the one from the other, if he spoke only of a symbol. Nor can the adversaries answer that Jerome speaks not of the Eucharist, but of the spiritual eating of the flesh of the Lord, of which they understand the words of the Lord cited by Jerome. This, I say, they cannot answer; for the words of the Lord, according to the adversaries, are understood of the flesh of the Lord as it was on the cross, which is eaten spiritually by faith, to which eating the Lord afterward, as they say, joined external symbols. But Jerome distinguishes the flesh of the Lord, which is truly food and which we eat, from the crucified flesh; therefore he speaks not of the eating by faith, but of the true and real, as we said.
The fourth testimony is in the commentary on chapter 1 of the epistle to Titus, where, when he had said that those who wish to receive the body of the Lord ought to abstain from the conjugal office, and had adduced the example of Achimelech, who was unwilling to give David the loaves of proposition to eat unless he had first heard that he had for some time contained himself from his wife, he subjoins: “There is as much difference between the loaves of proposition and the body of Christ as between an image and the truth; between the exemplars of true things and those very things which were prefigured by the exemplars.” This passage certainly is most plain. For if the Eucharist is the very truth which was figured by the loaves of proposition, certainly there is not in the Eucharist material bread signifying the body of Christ, but the very true body; for that, by the consent of all, is the truth foreshadowed by those loaves. Now what Peter Martyr says, that the Eucharist is called the very truth because it is a clearer symbol than the loaves of proposition were, has been refuted above, when we treated of the figures.
Further, Peter Martyr adduces certain passages from Jerome, in his book against Gardiner, objections 207, 208, and 209, in which Jerome seems to say that the body of Christ is not eaten by the wicked. But those passages conclude nothing; for he speaks of a profitable and fruitful eating, that is, which really nourishes and refreshes spiritually. The passages which they cite are in the commentary on chapter 46 of Isaiah, on chapter 22 of Jeremiah, and on chapter 8 of Hosea; against which passages must be set the commentary on chapter 1 of Malachi, where in express words Jerome says that the table of the Lord is polluted by the wicked, when they, unclean, drink the most pure blood.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XXIII. Testimonium sancti Hieronymi. S. Hieronymus aequalis Chrysostomi fuit, licet ei aliquamdiu supervixerit : obiit enim anno Domini 422. cum obiissctChrysostomus anno 409. Ex hoc igitur auctore quaedam te¬ stimonia' produci possunt. Primum est in coinment. Matth. xxvi. ubi sic legimus : «Post¬ quam typicum Pascha fuerat impletum, et agni carnes cum Apostolis comederat, assu¬ mit panem, qui confortat cor hominis, et ad verum Paschae transgreditur Sacramentum: ut quomodo in praefiguratione ejus Melchi- sedech, summi Dei sacerdos panem et vinum offerens fecerat : ipse quoque veritatem sui corporis, et sanguinis 1’epracsentaret. Hinc locum etiam haeretici pro se addu¬ cunt, ut Petrus Martyr lib. contra Gardine- rum objecto 210. propter illam ultimam vo- culam, repraesentaret ; sed locus plane noster est totus. Nam repraesentare aipud Hierony¬ mum, exhibere reipsa significat, ut supra diximus in testimoniis Tertulliani : quia si¬ gnificatione utitur etiam Ambi’osius lib. i. de Officiis cap. 36. cum ait : « Intellige prius, quae habentur in ferculis dapes, et tunc mitte manum, ut quae legis, vel accipis a Deo, tu operibus exequaris, et collutam in te gratiam officiis repraesentes: » ubi pro eodem accipit, exequi, et repraesentare. Sic accepisse Hieronymum, patet primo ex eo, quod opponit typicum pascha Judaeo¬ rum vero Sacramento Paschatis Christiano— rum. Nam si Eucharistia solum repraesenta¬ ret corpus Christi in symbolo, et non reipsa; (1) Prov. IX, 5. 108 LIBER II. nulla esset causa cur diceretur verum sacra¬ mentum, et cur opponeretur typico : nam etiam pascha Judaeorum reprsesentabat in symbolo corpus Christi. Secundo patet ex eo, quod dicit Melchisedechum offerendo panem, et vinum prseflgurasse ; Christum autem instituendo Eucharistiam reprajsen- tasse corporis veritatem : ubi antithesis re¬ quirit, ut Chistus exhibuerit corporis verita¬ tem, cujus figura inMelchisedechi oblatione praecesserat. Quod ipse idem clarius exponit in comment. Psal. cix. « Quomodo, inquit, Melchisedech rex Salem obtulit panem, et vinum : sic et tu offeres corpus, et sanguinem tuum : verum panem et verum vinum. Iste Melchisedech ista mysteria , quae habe¬ mus, tradidit nobis, ipse est : qui dixit : Qui manducat meam carnem, et bibit meum sanguinem etc. » Hic videmus a- perte opponi pani, et vino Melchisedechi, corpus et sanguinem Christi, quae dicuntur verus panis, et verum vinum, non ratione naturae, sed ratione effectus ; quomodo idem Dominus ait : Ego sum vitis vera. Nam alio- qui etiam panis Melchisedechi fuit verissi¬ mus panis, si naturam spectes. Secundum testimonium est in epist. ad Hedibiam , quaest. 2. « Nos, inquit, audiamns, panem, quem fregit Dominus, deditque scipulis, esse corpus Domini Salvatoris. » Et infra : « Nec Moses dedit nobis panem ve¬ rum, sed Dominus Jesus ipse conviva, et con vivium, ipse comedens, et qui comeditur. » Ilunc etiam locum pro se Petrus Martyr adducit, quia nomen panis in hoc testimonio legit; sed locum esse pro nobis, dubium esse non potest, tum quia declarat Hieronymus panem illum non esse panem materialem, sed ipsum Domini corpus; tum quia non vere diceret, Mosem non dedisse panem verum, id est, Christi corpus, si Eucharistia non esset corpus Christi, nisi significative. Tertium testimomium est in comment. i. ad Ephes. a Dupliciter, inquit, caro Christi, et sanguis intelligitur, vel spiritualis illa, at¬ que divina, de qua ipse dixit : Caro mea vere est cibus, et sanguis meus vere est potus : vel caro, et sanguis, quae crucifixa est, et qui militis effusus est lancea. Juxta hanc divi¬ sionem et in sanctis ejus diversitas sangui¬ nis, et carnis accipitur : ut alia sit caro, quae visura est salutare Dei, alia caro, et sanguis, qua; regnum Dei non queant possidere. » Haec ille. Ubi distinguit carnem, quae est in Eucharistia, ab illa, qua; fuit crucifixa, so¬ lum quoad accidentia, nimirum quod in cruce fuit caro passibilis ; in Eucharistia sit impassibilis, et spirituali ac divino quodam modo se habens : quemadmodum distingui¬ tur caro nostra mortalis, ab ipsa nostra car¬ ne immortali, qualis erit post resurrectio¬ nem. Nec potest responderi, carnem spiri¬ tualem, quae est in Eucharistia, solum esse in signo, et non reipsa : Nam si ita acciperet, destrueret id, quo astruere volebat, veram carnem resurrecturam, contra Origenistas. Deinde caro Christi, ut in Eucharistia signi¬ ficatur, non potest distingui ab ea, qua; fuit in cruce, nec vocari divina ; Eucharistia enim est Sacramentum, sive symbolum pas¬ sionis Christi ; non ergo Hieronymus distin¬ gueret unam ab alia, si de symbolo tantum loqueretur. Neque etiam respondere possunt adversarii, Hieronymum non loqui de Eu¬ charistia, sed de spirituali manducatione carnis Domini, de qua intelligunt ipsi verba Domini ab Hieronymo citata. Hoc, inquam, respondere non possunt : nam verba Domini secundum adversarios intelliguntur de carne Domini, ut fuit in cruce, qua; per fidem manducatur spiritualiter, cui manducationi adjunxit postea Dominus, ut ipsi dicunt, symbola externa. At Hieronymus distinguit carnem Domini, qua; vere est cibus, et quam manducamus, a carne crucifixa ; ergo non loquitur de manducatione per fidem, sed de vera, et reali, ut diximus. Quartum testimonium est in commentar, cap. i. epist. ad Titum , ubi cum dixisset, oportere ab officio conjugali eos abstinere, qui corpus Domini suscipere volunt, ct attu¬ lisset exemplum Achimelech, qui noluit Davidi panes propositionis dare manducan¬ dos, nisi prius audivisset, eum ab uxore se aliquamdiu continuisse, subjungit : « Tan¬ tum interest inter panes propositionis, et corpus Christi, quantum inter imaginem, et veritatem ; inter exemplaria verorum, et ea ipsa, qua; per exemplaria praefiguraban- tur. » Hic sane locus apertissimus est. Nam si Eucharistia est ipsa veritas, qua; per panes propositionis figurabatur, certe non est in Eucharistia panis materialis significans cor¬ pus Christi, sed ipsum verum corpus : id enim omnium consensu est veritas per illos panes adumbrata. Quod autem Petrus Mar¬ tyr dicit, Eucharistiam vocari ipsam verita¬ tem, quia est symbolum clarius quam fue¬ rint panes propositionis ; supra refutatum est, cum ageremus de figuris. CAPUT XXIV. i 09 Porro ex Hieronymo quaedam loca addu¬ cit Petrus Martyr in lib. cont. Gardinerum , objecto 207. 208. et 209. in quibus videtur Hieronymus dicere, non manducari corpus Christi ab impiis. Sed nihil ea loca conclu¬ dunt : nam loquitur de manducatione utili, et fructuosa, id est, quae revera spirituali ter nutriat, ac reficiat. Loca, quae ipsi citant, sunt in comment. in cap. xlvi. Isaiae incap. 22. Ilieremiae, et in cap. 8. Oseee, quibus locis opponi debet comment. in i. cap. Ma- lach. ubi disertis verbis Hieronymus dicit, ab impiis pollui mensam Domini, dum im¬ mundi ipsi mundissimum sanguinem bibunt.