Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book III: On the Truth of the Body of the Lord, from Reason
Chapter 9: The Objection Drawn from the Uselessness of the Real Presence Is Resolved
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. IV, De Sacramento Eucharistiae, Book III: On the Truth of the Body of the Lord in the Eucharist (from Reason). 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).
There are, as we said above, two objections of the adversaries. The first is of this kind: God is not wont to do anything in vain. But the true presence of the Lord's body would be posited in the Eucharist in vain, since it is enough if we have it there in a sign. First, because the end and fruit of the Eucharist is to nourish souls. But Christ, existing in a symbol, nourishes souls no less than lying hidden really in the bread. For souls are nourished by faith and charity; and faith and charity can embrace Christ as well in heaven as in the Eucharist. Calvin, Institutes Book IV, chapter 17, § 32, says: “We feed our faith by that participation of the body which we have set forth, no less richly and abundantly than those who draw Christ Himself down from heaven.” The like has Peter Martyr in his book against Gardiner, objections 52 and 60, where he also adds the testimony of Scripture. For in John 16 the Lord says to the Apostles, It is expedient for you that I go: for if I go not, the Paraclete will not come to you. The bodily presence of Christ was therefore not useful to the Apostles; otherwise it would have been expedient that He remain with them, and not depart from them. But the bodily presence of Christ in the Eucharist cannot be more useful than that same presence, manifest and visible, with the Apostles was: therefore if that was useless after a certain time, how much more will this be useless?
Secondly, Baptism confers grace, regenerates the soul, and therefore confers spiritual life, although the water is not transmuted into Christ or the Holy Spirit, but true and mere water remains as it was before: why, then, cannot the Eucharist confer grace, and preserve and increase the life already received, even though the bread be not changed into flesh, but true and mere bread remain as it was before?
Thirdly, the very presence of Christ is invisible, nay perceptible by no sense, nor even by the mind itself, except through faith. But faith did not need that presence in order to be able to apprehend Christ: therefore that presence of Christ in the Eucharist confers nothing.
Fourthly, those who by faith alone receive Christ in the symbol without doubt obtain the fruit of the Lord's passion; those who receive Christ really in the Eucharist without faith obtain no fruit.
Fifthly, Calvin argues against Westphal: “This real presence brings more disadvantage than advantage: for it makes the body of Christ common to the pious and the impious, which certainly is no light disadvantage. And moreover it is present with us for a very short time, namely as long as that species is preserved; which is a slight advantage; therefore that presence is useless.”
I answer that these arguments are most trifling. To the first the consequence can be denied, and the antecedent. For that consequence, if it proves anything, proves only that it was not absolutely necessary that the Lord's body be really placed in the Sacrament, but does not prove that it was not useful, or is posited in vain. For everything is useful, and is not done in vain, by which some good is conferred on us, although that same could have been conferred another way. And this is manifestly gathered from many like cases. For in the same way we could argue in the mystery of the Incarnation. God could have freed us without the Incarnation of the Son; therefore in vain did God become man. Likewise Christ as man could have merited for us reconciliation with the Father by any good work whatever; therefore in vain did He sustain labors and sorrows. Likewise one drop of blood could have redeemed us; to what purpose then so many mockeries, stripes, wounds, and the shedding of all His blood? Likewise He could without a descent to Hell have drawn thence the holy Fathers, bound the demons, and worked other things of that kind by His command alone; to what purpose then that descent? Finally, the sick could have been healed by faith alone in Christ, without the touch of His hands or of His hem; to what purpose then did the Lord lay on His hands? to what purpose did they with so great eagerness run to His hem? And of this kind I could bring forward infinite examples. So therefore it does not follow that the Lord's body is exhibited really in the Eucharist in vain, even though we could receive the same fruit from the symbol alone through faith.
Next, I deny that the same fruit is received from the symbol alone through faith. For, first, faith, charity, devotion, piety, reverence are more excited when we think that Christ is really united with us than if we believed only that He sits in heaven. And this experience itself abundantly testifies: for the pious faithful are affected far otherwise toward the venerable Sacrament than toward images of the Savior, which are mere symbols of Christ. Next, Christ Himself, while He is really joined to us, bestows on us many things which He would not bestow without that conjunction, even though He could. Just as He healed all, as many as touched Him, of all their diseases, whom certainly He would not have healed unless they had touched Him; while He did not heal countless others who touched Him — and yet who denies that He could have healed all without that touch? Often too princes, if they visit prisons, free many whom they would not otherwise have freed, although they could free all by their command alone without that visitation of the prison.
To the passage of the Gospel two expositions are given by the Fathers: neither is opposed to us. One is Augustine's, tract 94 on John, and Bernard's, sermon 3 on the Ascension of the Lord, who say that the Apostles, allured by the most sweet company of Christ, loved Him with a certain human love while He dwelt on earth; but that it behooved them to be drawn away, and as it were weaned, from that human consolation, that they might be advanced to the spiritual love of Christ. Which exposition is not opposed to our opinion, because the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, since it is invisible, conciliates no human love (for we do not see Him or hear Him or converse with Him, as the Apostles did), but plainly a divine and spiritual love: wherefore that presence can only profit, and in no way hurt.
The other exposition is that of the Greeks, Cyril, Book 10 on John, chapter 32, and Theophylact on chapter 16 of John, who say that it was expedient that Christ depart, not because His bodily presence could ever be useless, but because His departure through death and Ascension into heaven was more useful to the Apostles and to us all than that converse on earth. For God had determined not to send the Holy Spirit unless first the sacrifice of the cross were accomplished, and unless the dispensation of Christ were completed through His ascension. And so the bodily presence of Christ did not impede the coming of the Holy Spirit, but it impeded that decree of God which had established that the death and ascension of Christ should precede.
To the second argument I grant that God could, through the Sacrament of the Eucharist even without the real presence of the Lord's body, preserve and increase in us the spiritual life acquired in Baptism; but that presence is not therefore useless. For God could also, without the symbols of water and bread, that is, without the sensible Sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist, confer on us the same grace which He confers through those symbols: and yet the adversaries do not say that the external symbols of water and bread are useless.
Add that the case of Baptism and the Eucharist is not the same. For Baptism is nothing else but the Sacrament of regeneration: but the Eucharist is not only the Sacrament of refreshment, or of change, but is besides the memorial of all the miracles, and as it were a compendium of the life, passion, and resurrection of the Lord, according to that of Psalm 110: The merciful and compassionate Lord hath made a remembrance of His wonderful works: He hath given food to them that fear Him. Wherefore it had to be a thing full of miracle, and not some simple symbol, that it might be not inferior but superior to the manna of the Jews, which likewise was a memorial of the wonders that befell the Hebrews in the desert. Next, it is the testimony and as it were the pledge of Christ's love toward His spouse the Church; and therefore, as that love is infinite, and the power of Christ Himself is infinite, so this pledge had to be beyond measure wonderful. On which matter many excellent things stand in Chrysostom, homily 24 on the first to the Corinthians, and elsewhere. Thirdly, it is the cause and as it were the seed of the resurrection of our bodies, and that through the contact and conjunction of the glorious body with our mortal bodies, as we demonstrated above from Irenaeus, Hilary, Cyril, and other Fathers. Finally, it is the sacrifice of the Christian religion (whether the heretics will or no); and because the sacrifice of the Christians had to be the fulfillment of the old figures, and therefore more excellent than all the sacrifices of the Hebrews, it could not be constituted in bread and wine alone, which are far inferior to calves and rams, but it was necessary that the very true body of the Lord be contained in this sacrifice, that in that way the truth might most aptly answer to the image, and the exemplar to the figure, and the body to the shadow.
To the third I deny that the body of the Lord in the Eucharist is not perceived except by faith. For although in its proper species and immediately it is attained by no sense, nor by the mind itself, except through faith; yet in an alien species and mediately it is attained by the eyes, hands, tongue, and even the breast itself. In the way too that sometimes most healthful medicines are given to the sick so wrapped in various coverings that they are perceived immediately by no sense, and yet, because they truly penetrate to the stomach, are most useful.
To the fourth I grant that the body of the Lord apprehended by faith alone without the real presence profits; and on the contrary that the body alone received through the real presence without faith profits nothing: but I deny that it thence follows that the real presence and bodily reception are useless. For although these without faith do not profit, and faith without these profits, yet faith profits more with these than without these. Just as good works without faith do not profit, but faith without works profits, when namely one is lawfully hindered from works. And yet good works with faith profit more than faith alone: and it would have profited Blessed Mary nothing to conceive and bear Christ in body, unless she had also conceived Him in mind through faith and charity; and on the contrary it would have profited much to conceive Him in mind alone, though she had not conceived Him in body. And yet who would dare to say that it did not profit her more to conceive Christ in mind and body than in mind alone?
To the last I say that no disadvantage, but the greatest advantage, follows from the real presence: for the body of the Lord is not harmed by the fact that it is communicated to the impious; and in it is shown the highest charity of God. And although we have the Lord among us for a short time, yet in that short time He bestows on us the greatest gifts; besides, many sick people touched the hem of Christ for a short time, who nevertheless were healed by that touch.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT IX Solvitur objectio deprompta ab inutilitate rcalis prsesentix. Duae sunt, ut supra diximus, objectiones adversariorum. Prima est ejusmodi : Deus nihil frustra facere solet. At frustra ponere¬ tur in Eucharistia vera corporis Domini praesentia, cum satis sit, si eam illic habea¬ mus in signo. Primo, quia finis, ac fructus Eucharistiae est, nutrire animas. Non minus autem nutrit animas Christus in symbolo existens, quam reipsa delitescens in pane. Animae enim nutriuntur fide, et charitate : fides autem, et charitas tam bene possunt complecti Christum in coelo, quam in Eu¬ charistia. Calvinus lib. i Institut. cap. 17. § 32. Fidem . inquit, nos ista, quam enarra¬ vimus, corporis participatione non minus laute , afflue ni er que pascimus, quam qui ipsum C /mis¬ tum e coelo detrahunt. Similia habet Petrus Martyr lib. contra Gardinerum , objecto 52. et 60 ubi etiam addit Scripturae testimo¬ nium. Nam Joan. 16. Dominus ait Apostolis. Expedit vobis, ut eqo vadam : ’ Si enim non abiero, Paracletus non veniet ad vos. Non erat igitur utilis Apostolis corporalis Christi praesentia, alioqui expedivisset ipsum ma¬ nere cum eis, non autem ab eis recedere. At non potest esse utilior corporalis Christi praesentia in Eucharistia, quam esset illa eadem cum Apostolis manifesta, et visibilis : igitur si illa inutilis erat post certum quod¬ dam tempus, quanto magis ista inutilis erit ? Secundo, Baptismus confert gratiam, re¬ generat animam, ac proinde vitam spiritua¬ lem confert, licet non transmutetur aqua in Christum, vel Spiritum sanctum, sed vera et sola aqua maneat, ut antea erat : cur er¬ go non poterit Eucharistia conferre gratiam, et vitam jam acceptam conservare, et au¬ gere, etiamsi non mutetur panis in carnem, sed verus et solus panis maneat, ut antea erat ? Tertio, ipsa pnesentia Christi invisibilis est, imo nullo sensu, ac ne ipsa quidem mente perceptibilis, nisi per fidem. At fides non egebat ista prresentia, ut Christum ap¬ prehendere posset : nihil igitur confert prte- sentia ista Christi in Eucharistia. CAPUT IX. 161 Quarto, qui sola fide in Symbolo Chri¬ stum recipiunt, fructum passionis Domini sine dubio consequuntur; qui Christum reipsa in Eucharistia sine fide percipiunt, nullum fructum consequuntur. Quinto , argumentatur Calvinus contra Westphalum : « Ista praesentia realis plus incommodi, quam commodi affert : nam facit, ut corpus Christi sit commune piis, et impiis, quod certe incommodum est non leve. Et praeterea brevissimo tempore, nobis adest, nimirum quandiu species illa conser¬ vatur ; quod exiguum commodum est ; igi¬ tur inutilis est ea praesentia. » Respondeo , ista argumenta levissima sunt. Ad primum negari potest consequen¬ tia, et antecedens. Consequentia enim illa, si quid probat, solum probat, non fuisse ne¬ cessarium absolute, ut in Sacramento reip¬ sa corpus Domini poneretur, sed non probat non fuisse utile, vel frustra poni. Id enim omne utile est, et non frustra fit, per quod nobis aliquid boni confertur, licet illud ipsum alia via conferri potuisset. Id vero manifeste colligitur ex multis similibus. Nam eodem modo argumentari possemus in mysterio Incarnationis. Poterat Deus sine Incarna¬ tione Filii nos liberare; frustra igitur Deus homo factus est. Item poterat Christus ho¬ mo , per quodcumque opus bonum nobis reconciliationem apud Patrem mereri, fru¬ stra igitur labores, et dolores sustinuit. Item poterat una sanguinis gutta nos redimere, quorsum igitur tot ludibria, verbera, vulne¬ ra, et sanguinis totius effusio ? Item poterat sine descensu ad Inferos sanctos Patres in¬ de eruere, damioncs alligare, aliaque id ge¬ nus operari solo imperio ; quorsum igitur illa descensio ? denique poterant segroti sola fide in Christum sanari, sine contactu ma-' nuum, vel fimbriae ejus ; quorsum igitur Do¬ minus manus imponebat ? quorsum illi tanto studio ad fimbriam accurrebant ? Atque id genus infinita exempla possem afferre. Sic igitur non sequitur frustra corpus Domini reipsa in Eucharistia exhiberi, etiamsi eum- dem fructum ex solo symbolo per fidem reci¬ pere possemus. Deinde nego eumdem fructum recipi ex solo symbolo per fidem. Nam primum magis excitatur fides, charitas, devotio, pictas, re¬ verentia, cum cogitamus reipsa nobiscum uniri Christum, quam si solum in coelo eum sedere credamus. Et hoc experimentum ip¬ sum abunde testatur: longe enim aliter affi= Tome IV, ciuntur pii fideles erga venerabile Sacra¬ mentum, quam erga imagines Salvatoris, quae sunt mera Christi symbola. Deinde Christus ipse dum nobis reipsa conjungitur, multa nobis largitur, quae non largiretur sine ista conjunctione, etiamsi posset. Quem¬ admodum omnes , quotquot tangebant eum, curabat ab omnibus languoribus, quos certe non curassct, nisi eum tetigissent ; ut infinitos alios, qui eum tangebant, non cu¬ rabat, et tamen quis negat potuisse eum si¬ ne illo contactu omnes curare? Saepe etiam principes, si carceres invisant, multos libe¬ rant, quos alioqui non liberassent, tametsi possent solo imperio omnes liberare sine illa carceris visitatione. Ad locum Evangelii dantur a Patribus duae expositiones : neutra nobis adversatur. Una est Augustini tract. 94. in Joan . et Bernardi serni. 3. de ascensione Domini, qui dicunt Apostolos allectos dulcissima Christi consuetudine amasse illum humano quodam amore, dum is in terris degeret : sed opor¬ tuisse eos abstrahi, et quasi ablactari ab humana illa consolatione, ut ad amorem spi¬ ritualem Christi proveherentur. Quae expo¬ sitio nostrae sententiae non adversatur, quia praesentia Christi in Eucharistia cum sit invi¬ sibilis, non conciliat amorem humanum (nec enim illum videmus aut audimus, aut cum eo versamur, ut Apostoli faciebant) sed plane divinum, et spiritualem : quare preesentia ista solum prodesse, non autem obesse ullo modo potest. Altera expositio est Graecorum, Cyrilli lib. 10. in Joan. cap. 32. et Theophylacti in cap. 16. Joan. qui dicunt expedivisse, ut Christus recederet, non quia preesentia ejus corpo¬ ralis unquam possit esse inutilis, sed quia utilior erat Apostolis et nobis omnibus, ejus recessus per mortem, et Ascensionem in coelum, quam conversatio illa in terris. Deus enim constituerat non mittere Spiritum sanctum, nisi prius sacrificium crucis pera¬ geretur, et nisi dispensatio Christi per ejus ascensionem compleretur. Itaque non impe¬ diebat adventum Spiritus sancti pra]sentia corporalis Christi, sed impediebat decretum illud Dei, quod statuerat, ut mors, et ascensio Christi praecederent. Ad secundum argumentum concedo po¬ tuisse Deum, per Sacramentum Eucharistiae etiam sine reali praesentia corporis Domini conservare, et augere in nobis vitam spiri¬ tualem, in Baptismo acquisitam; sed noo n 162 LIBER III. ideo inutilis est ea proesentia. Nam etiam potuisset Deus sine symbolis aquae, et panis, id est, sine Sacramentis sensibilibus, Bapti¬ smi et Eucharistiae eamdem nobis gratiam con¬ ferre, quam per ea symbola confert : et tamen non dicunt adversarii inutilia esse symbola externa aquae, et panis. Adde, quod non est eadem ratio Baptismi, et Eucharistiae. Nam Baptismus nihil est aliud, nisi Sacramentum regenerationis : Eu¬ charistia autem non est solum, Sacramentum refectionis, seu mutationis, sed praeterea est memoriale omnium miraculorum, et quasi compendium vitae, passionis, et resurrectio¬ nis Domini, juxta illud Psalm. 110 : Memo¬ riam fecit mirabilium suorum misericors , et miserator Dominus , escam dedit timentibus se. Quare debuit esse res jdena miraculo, non autem simplex aliquod symbolum, ut non esset inferior sed superior mannae Ju¬ daeorum, quod similiter fuit memoriale mi¬ rabilium, quae in deserto Hebraeis contige¬ runt. Deinde est testimonium, et quasi pignus amoris Christi erga sponsam suam Eccle¬ siam ; et ideo sicut amor ille est infinitus, et potentia ipsius Christi est infinita, ita debuit hoc pignus supra modum esse mirabile. De qua re multa praeclara exstant apud Chryso- stomum homil. 24. in priorem adfCorinth. et alibi. Tertio est causa, et quasi semen resur¬ rectionis corporum nostrorum, idque per contactum , et conjunctionem corporis glo¬ riosi cum corporibus nostris mortalibus, vel supra ex Irenaeo, Hilario, Cyrillo, aliisque Patribus demonstravimus. Denique est sacri¬ ficium religionis Christianae (velint, nolint hae¬ retici) et quia sacrificium Christianorum im- pletivum esse debuit figurarum veterum, et proinde praestantius sacrificiis omnibus He¬ braeorum, non potuit in solo pane, et vino constitui, quae sunt longe inferiora vitulis et arietibus, sed necesse fuit ipsum verum Do¬ mini corpus in hoc sacrificio contineri, ut eo modo veritas imagini, et exemplar figurae, et corpus umbrae, quam aptissime respon¬ deret. Ad tertium nego, corpus Domini in Eu¬ charistia non percipi, nisi fide. Nam etiamsi in propria specie, et immediate non attingi¬ tur ab ullo sensu, nec ab ipsa mente, nisi per fidem; tamen in specie aliena, et mediate attingitur oculis, manibus, lingua, et ipso etiam pectore. Quomodo etiam interdum sa¬ luberrima pharmaca ita involuta dantur jjegrotis in variis integumentis, ut nullo sensu immediate percipiantur, et tamen quia ipsa revera ad stomachum penetrant, utilissima sunt. Ad quartum, concedo, sola fide sine reali praesentia corpus Domini apprehensum pro¬ desse ; et contra solo corpore per realem praesentiam acceptum nihil prodesse : sed nego inde sequi, realem praesentiam, et cor¬ poralem perceptionem inutilem esse. Nam etiamsi ista sine fide non prosunt, et fides sine istis prodest, magis tamen prodest fides cum istis, quam sine istis. Quemadmodum opera bona sine fide non prosunt , fides au¬ tem sine operibus prodest, cum quis videli¬ cet ab operibus legitime impeditur. Et tamen plus prosunt opera bona cum fide, quam sola fides : et B. Mariae nihil profuisset Chri¬ stum corpore concipere, et parere, nisi etiam mente per fidem, et charitatem eumdern con¬ cepisset : et contra multum profuisset sola mente concipere, licet eumdern corpore non concepisset. Et tamen quis dicere auderet, non magis ei profuisse 'mente et corpore Christum, quam sola mente concipere? Ad ultimum dico, nullum incommodum, sed maximum commodum consequi ex reali praesentia : nam non laeditur corpus Domini ex eo, quod impiis communicatur ; et in eo demonstratur summa Dei charitas. Quamvis autem brevi tempore inter nos Dominum habeamus, tamen brevi illo tempore maxima dona nobis largitur ; alioqui etiam brevi tempore tangebant fimbriam Christi multi aegroti, qui tamen ex eo contactu curaban¬ tur.