Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book II: On the Real Presence, from the Testimonies of the Fathers
Chapter 25: The Testimony of St. Cyril of Alexandria and the Council of Ephesus
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 Cyril, bishop of Alexandria, who flourished a little after the times of Augustine, furnishes us many testimonies. But in the first place must be set the testimony which was approved by the third general Synod, over which he himself presided, and then in the fourth and fifth. There exists an epistle of Saint Cyril to Nestorius with twelve anathematisms, which, as I said, was approved by the Synod of Ephesus and by two others; in it we read thus: “So also we approach the mystical blessings, and are sanctified, made partakers of the holy body and precious blood of Christ, the Redeemer of us all; not receiving it as common flesh—which be far from us—nor as the flesh of a man sanctified, and so forth, but as made the very own flesh of the Word.”
To this passage Peter Martyr answers, in the last part of his book against Gardiner, that Cyril speaks of the participation of the true flesh of Christ, but such as is made in the soul and by faith, not by the bodily mouth.
But that this interpretation is false can easily be proved, both from this very passage, and from other testimonies of the same Cyril; for no better interpreter can be found than the author himself. And indeed in this place he openly speaks of the Eucharist, to which we approach to communicate, which he calls the sacred blessing, and that very thing he says is the flesh of the Word of God. But let us see his other passages, still clearer. Book 4 on John, chapter 3, explaining that, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” “Applying firm faith to the mysteries,” he says, “let us never, in things so sublime, either think or utter that word, ‘How?’” So he. Then he shows that nothing is impossible to God, and proves that He could give us His flesh to eat, because He did many other marvelous things, as when He changed the rod into a serpent, and the waters into blood; when He divided the sea, when He made waters gush from the rock, and so forth; all which would be most ineptly said if the Eucharist were nothing but a sign of the body of the Lord. In the same Book 4, chapter 14, he teaches that not only does the soul ascend through the Holy Spirit into the blessed life, but also our corruptible body, through the contact and eating of the incorruptible flesh of Christ, becomes immortal; and chapter 13 he repeats this same, and illustrates it by a notable likeness: “For just as a spark of fire cast into hay or straw inflames the whole, so the Word of God, through the Eucharist joined to our corruptible nature, will make the whole rise immortal and glorious”; and chapter 16 he says that we are members of Christ, because through the Eucharist we receive the very Son of God; and chapter 17 he says that this is an arduous thing, and comprehended by faith alone, and again illustrates it by another likeness of melted wax mixed with other wax. The same Cyril, Book 10 on John, chapter 13: “We do not deny,” he says, “that we are joined to Christ spiritually by right faith and sincere charity; but that we have no manner of conjunction with Him according to the flesh, that indeed we utterly deny, and say that it is altogether alien from the divine Scriptures.”
And because Peter Martyr denies that Cyril speaks of the bodily conjunction which we have with Christ through the Incarnation, because our nature is in Christ, hear how Cyril himself expounds himself; for a little below, explaining what that conjunction is, he says thus: “Or does he perhaps think that the power of the mystical blessing is unknown to us? Which, since it is in us, does it not make Christ dwell in us bodily also by the communication of the flesh of Christ?” And below: “Whence it must be considered that Christ is in us not by disposition only, which is understood through charity, but also by natural participation.” And below: “For this corruptible nature of the body could not otherwise be brought to incorruptibility and life, unless the body of natural life were joined to it. Believest thou me not saying these things? I beseech thee, give faith to Christ.” Similar things he repeats at length, Book 11, chapter 26. Finally, there is wont to be cited everywhere the epistle of Saint Cyril to Calosyrius, in which he says three things. First, that the words of the Lord, This is my body, are firmly to be believed. Secondly, that in the Eucharist there is the body of the Lord, even outside the use of eating. Thirdly, that the bread is transmuted into the truth of the flesh of Christ. See this passage in John Garetius.
Now from Cyril the adversaries have attempted to gather many things against the truth, but plainly in vain. First they produce from the book to Euoptius, in the explanation of the eleventh anathematism, where Cyril says that in the sacrament of the Eucharist is not contained the eating of a man; for that is to lead the minds of believers to gross thoughts. Peter Martyr adds, in his book against Gardiner, objection 211, that this same is had in the Council of Ephesus, or in the epistle of Cyril approved by the Council: “Among other things,” says Peter Martyr, “he says that our Eucharist is not the eating of a bare and pure man; which is nothing else than, in changed words, to deny [anthropophagia].” So he.
But their malice has blinded them. For Cyril in both places denies that the Eucharist is the eating of a pure man, as Nestorius thought, and affirms that it is the eating of the God-man; and he calls it a gross and human thought, if anyone should think that in the Eucharist there is the flesh of a pure man, which would really be nothing but flesh, that is, an earthly and corruptible thing, which could not bring life. Let both passages simply be denied, and no question will remain.
Secondly, Peter Martyr produces certain passages where Cyril says that the flesh of Christ brings life, as Book 4 on John, chapters 10, 14, and 17, and in the epistle to Calosyrius; and thence he concludes that the flesh of Christ is not eaten by the wicked, and consequently is not eaten by the bodily mouth.
But these are most empty, and often refuted. For it does not follow that the wicked do not eat the flesh of Christ, even though they receive no life thence; for the flesh of Christ of itself has the power of giving life, but on account of the indisposition of those approaching it sometimes brings death, not life, in the manner in which the sun illumines sound eyes, but harms weak ones.
Thirdly, the same Peter Martyr produces a testimony from the same epistle to Calosyrius, where Cyril says that in the bread and wine the flesh and blood of the Lord are received. Likewise another from Book 4 on John, chapter 24, where Cyril says that Christ gave the Apostles fragments of bread when He said: Take ye and eat, this is my body.
I answer: Cyril calls the Eucharist bread, or fragments of bread, because it is given in the species of bread; for otherwise, in the same epistle to Calosyrius, Cyril says in express words that the bread is changed into the truth of the flesh of Christ.
Fourthly, Peter Martyr produces a testimony from Book 6 on John, chapter 14, where we read that Christ withdrew hence the presence of His body, yet is always present by the majesty of His divinity.
But here the pseudo-martyr betrays his negligence and impudence. For that sixth book is not Cyril’s, but Jodocus Clichtove’s, as the inscription of the books too indicates; for of the twelve books of Cyril on John four intermediate ones perished, but Clichtove supplied them. And since Clichtove lived a few years ago, and wrote against Oecolampadius on the Eucharist, and was most openly an enemy of the Sacramentarians, it cannot be doubted that those words of his do not repugn the truth of the Eucharist. And hence we learn that it is not to be wondered at if Augustine, Theodoret, and other ancients said certain things which in appearance seem to favor the heretics, since even Jodocus let fall certain things which are drawn by the adversaries to their cause. He meant, therefore, to say that Christ, according to the presence of the flesh, is not everywhere nor always present with us, but according to the divinity everywhere and always.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XXV. Testimonium S. Cyrilli Alexandrini, et Synodi Ephesinse generalis. Sanctus Gyrillus Episcopus Alexandrinus, qui paulo post Augustini tempora floruit, multa nobis testimonia praebet. Sed primo loco poni debet testimonium, quod a III Synodo generali, cui ipse praesedit, ac deinde in IV. et V, approbatum fuit. Exstat epistola S. Cy¬ rilli ad Nestorium cum duodecim anathema- tismis, quae ut dixi, ab Ephesina Synodo, et ab aliis duabus approbata fuit : in ea sic legi¬ mus : « Sic etiam ad mysticas benedictiones accedimus, et sanctificamur participes sancti corporis, et pretiosi sanguinis Christi, om¬ nium nostrum redemptoris effecti : non ut communem carnem percipientes, quod absit; nec ut viri sanctificati etc. sed ipsius Verbi propriam factam. » Ad hunc locum respondet Petrus Martyr in libro contra Gardinerum extremo, Cyril- lum loqui de participatione verse carnis Christi, sed quse fit in animo, et fide, non ore corporali. Verum falsam esse istam interpretationem facile probari potest, tum ex hoc ipso loco, tum ex aliis testimoniis ejusdem Cyrilli : nullus enim interpres melior ipso auctore in¬ veniri potest. Et quidem hoc loco aperte lo¬ quitur de Eucharistia, ad quam accedimus communicaturi, quam ille vocat sacram be¬ nedictionem, et illam ipsam dicit esse carnem Verbi Dei. Sed videamus alia ejus loca adhuc clariora, lib. iv. in Joannem, cap. 3. ex¬ plicans illud : « Quomodo potest hic nobis carnem suam dare ad manducandum. Fir¬ mam, inquit, fidem mysteriis adhibentes, nunquam in tam sublimibus rebus illud, (quomodo?) autcogitemus, aut proferamus. » Haec ille. Deinde ostendit, Deo nihil esse im¬ possibile, et probat, potuisse nobis dare 1 19 carnem suam ad manducandum, quia multa alia mirabilia fecit, ut cum virgam in serpen¬ tem, et aquas in sangui.iem mutavit ; cum divisit mare, cum ex petra scaturire fecit aquas etc.; quse omnia ineptissime dicerentur, si enim esset Eucharistia, nisi signum corpo¬ ris Domini. Eodem lib. iv, cap. 14. docet non solum animam per Spiritum sanctum in beatam vitam ascendere, sed etiam corpus nostrum corruptibile, per contactum, et manducationem carnis Christi incorrupti¬ bilis, immortale fieri : et cap. 13. idipsum repetit, atque illustrat similitudine insigni : « Sicut enim scintilla ignis in fcenum, aut paleam immissa totum inflammat ; sic Ver¬ bum Dei per Eucharistiam natura; nostra; corruptibili conjunctum totam resurgere faciet immortalem, et gloriosam; et cap. 16. dicit, nos membra Christi esse, quia per Eu¬ charistiam ipsum Dei Filium suscipimus, et cap. 17. dicit, rem istam esse arduam, et sola fide comprehensam, et rursum illustrat alia similitudine do cera liquefacta et alteri cerae admixta. Idem Cyrillus lib. x. in Joan. cap. 13. « Non negamus, inquit, recta nos fide, charitateque sincera Christo spirituali- ter conjungi, sed nullam nobis conjunctionis rationem secundum carnem cum illo esse, id profecto pernegamus, idque a divinis Scri¬ pturis omnino alienum dicimus. » Et quia negatur Petrus Martyr loqui Cy- rillum de conjunctione corporali, quae nobis cum Christo per incarnationem, quia natura nostra in Christo est; audi quomodo Cyril¬ lus ipse se exponat : is enim paulo infra exponens, quae sit ista conjunctio, sic ait : <( An fortassis putat ignotam nobis mysticae benedictionis virtutem esse ? quae eum iri nobis sit nonne corporaliter quoque facit communicatione carnis Christi Christum in nobis habitare? Et infra: Unde consideran¬ dum est, non habitudine solum, quae per cha- ritatem intelligitur, Christum in nobis esse, verum etiam participatione naturali. » Et infra : « Non poterat enim aliter corruptibilis haec natura corporis, ad incorruptibilitatem, et vitam traduci, nisi naturalis vita; corpus ei conjungeretur. Non credis mihi haec di¬ centi, Christo, obsecro te, fidem praebe. » Similia fuse repetit lib. ii. cap. 26. Denique citari solet passim epist. S. Cyrilli ad Calosy- rium, in qua tria dicit. Primo, firmiter esse credendum verbis Domini : Hoc est corpus meum. Secundo, in Eucharistia esse corpus Domini, etiam extra usum manducationis. 120 LIBER IT. Tertio, transmutari panem in veritatem car¬ nis Christi. Yitle hunc locum apud Joannem Garezium. Jam ex Cyrillo contra veritatem multa ad¬ versarii colligere conati sunt, sed plane fru¬ stra. Primo proferunt ex lih. ad Evoptium in explicat, ii. anathematismi, ubi Cyrillus dicit in sacramento Eucharistia), non contineri hominis manducationem ; id enim esse ad crassas cogitationes credentium mentes de¬ ducere. Addit Petrus Martyr in lib. contra Gardinerum , objecto 211. id ipsum haberi in Concilio Ephesino, sive in Epist. Cyrilli a Concilio approbata : « Inter ccetera, inquit Petrus Martyr, ait Eucharistiam nostram non esse comestionem nudi, et puri hominis : quod non est aliud, quam mutatis verbis negare av0pw7rocpaYiav ». Hfflc ille. Sed excaecavit eos malitia eorum. Nam Cyrillus in utroque loco negat Eucharistiam esse manducationem puri hominis, ut Nesto- rius existimabat, et affirmat esse manduca¬ tionem hominis Dei : et id vocat crassam, et humanam cogitationem, si quis existimet in Eucharistia esse carnem puri hominis, quae nihil revera esset, nisi caro, id est, res terrena et corruptibilis, qua) vitam afferre non pos¬ set. Negatur tantum uterque locus, et nulla remanebit qua)stio. Secundo profert Petrus Martyr quaedam loca, ubi Cyrillus dicit, carnem Christi af¬ ferre vitam, ut lib. iv. in Joan. cap. 10. 14. et 17. et in epist. ad Calosyrium : et inde concludit, carnem Christi non mandu¬ cari ab impiis ; proinde non manducari ore corporali. Sed ha)C inanissima sunt, et scepe refutata. Non enim sequitur, impios non manducare carnem Christi, etiamsi vitam inde non acci¬ piant : caro enim Christi ex se virtutem habet vivificandi, sed ob indispositionem acceden¬ tium aliquando mortem affert, non vitam, quomodo sol sanos oculos illustrat, infirmos laedit. Tertio profert idem Petrus Martyr testimo¬ nium ex eadem epistola ad Calosyrium, ubi Cyrillus dicit in pane et vino sumi carnem et sanguinem Domini. Item aliud ex lib. iv. in Joan. cap. 2-4. ubi Cyrillus dicit, Christum dedisse Apostolis fragmenta panis, cum ait : Accipite et manducate , hoc est corpus meum. Respondeo : Cyrillus panem, seu frag¬ menta panis vocat Eucharistiam, quia in specie panis datur : nam alioqui in eadem epistola ad Calosyrium disertis verbis Cy¬ rillus ait, panem mutari in veritatem carnis Christi. Quarto profert Petrus Martyr testimonium ex lib. vi. in Joan. cap. 14. ubi legimus Christum praesentiam corporis sui 'hinc sub¬ duxisse, tamen divinitatis majestate semper adesse. Hic vero prodit Pseudomartyr negligen- tiain, et impudentiam suam. Nam sextus ille liber non est Cyrilli, sed Jodoci Clictovei, ut etiam inscriptio librorum indicat ; perierunt enim ex duodecim libris Cyrilli in Joannem quatuor intermedii, sed eos supplevit Clicto- veus. Cum autem Clictoveus ante paucos an¬ nos vixerit, et scripserit contra QEcolampa- dium de Eucharistia, et apertissime hostis Sacramentariorum fuerit, dubitari non potest, quin illa ejus verba non repugnent veritati Eucharistiae. Atque hinc discimus non esse mirandum, si Augustinus, Theodoretus, et alii veteres, quaedam dixerint, quae in spe¬ ciem videantur favere haereticis, cum etiam Jodoco quaedam exciderint, quae ab adver¬ sariis trahantur ad suam causam. Voluit igitur dicere, Christum secundum praesen¬ tiam carnis, non ubique, nec semper nobis adesse, secundum divinitatem autem ubique et semper.