Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book III: On the Truth of the Body of the Lord, from Reason
Chapter 10: The Other Objection, Taken from the Unworthiness of the Thing, 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).
The other, and last, objection of the heretics is taken from the unworthiness of the thing. For Calvin writes, Institutes Book IV, chapter 17, § 32, that absurdities must be rejected which are unworthy of the heavenly majesty of Christ. But what those absurdities are, he does not say in that place: but by others they are wont to be enumerated in about this way — that it will be necessary to grant that Christ falls to the ground, is ground by the teeth, goes into the belly and into the privy, is gnawed by mice, or even devoured, rots, or turns sour, and finally even is burned. All which things are both now objected by the heretics, and of old were objected by the Berengarians, as is clear from Guitmund, Book 2, and from Alger, Book 2, chapter 1.
But we answer what to like objections the ancient Fathers, our elders, answered. For not only this mystery, but almost all the others, the Jews, pagans, and heretics have mocked as unworthy and foolish: concerning which Augustine says in Epistle 49 to Deogratias, question 6: “We should not believe in Christ Himself, if the Christian faith feared the guffaw of the pagans.”
And first, among the Jews, the Sadducees themselves dared to propose to Christ a ridiculous question against the resurrection, that from the absurdity which thence followed they might conclude that there would be no resurrection of bodies. For it seems to follow that, if some woman here has had seven husbands succeeding one another by death, in the other life they will either contend for her as wife, or one woman will be the wife of seven husbands at once. In the same way the Marcionites in Tertullian, in the book on the resurrection of the flesh, and the Origenists in Jerome, in the letter to Pammachius against the errors of John of Jerusalem, in order to explode the resurrection of the flesh, sought arguments from absurdities: because if there will then be distinct sexes, there will also be procreation, there will be nurses and midwives; if belly and palate, there will also be foods, there will be excretions, there will be latrines, etc. But the Lord answered: You err, not knowing the Scripture nor the power of God: for in the resurrection they shall neither marry nor be given in marriage; which same we can say to the heretics: You err, not knowing the Scripture nor the power of God. For Christ truly exists in the Sacrament, but can in no way be harmed; and therefore He does not fall to the ground, is not ground, is not gnawed, does not rot, is not burned: for these things are received in those species, but do not affect Christ, although those species are joined with Christ. Is not the divinity itself too everywhere present, and yet neither is defiled in filth, nor burned in flames, nor rots in rotting things?
You will say: if the body of the Lord is truly in the Eucharist, when the Eucharist falls to the ground, the body of the Lord does not fall; therefore in that fall the body of the Lord is separated from the Eucharist, and one remains on the ground, the other on the altar, or in the hands of him to whom the Eucharist fell.
I answer that the body of the Lord is not separated from the Eucharist so long as those species remain entire; and therefore, if the Eucharist falls to the ground, the body of the Lord will be on the ground, but will not be said to have fallen; for that properly falls which is a body and exists corporeally and is moved. Wherefore, when a man falls, the body falls, the soul does not fall, although it is moved by accident: so also the body of the Lord, which remains indivisibly in the Eucharist, changes place when the host falls, but does not properly fall.
Secondly, many philosophers, and especially the Epicureans, denied the providence of God with respect to those things which are below the moon, because they said it was unworthy of God to lower Himself to procure things so vile. But Christians learned from the Scriptures that it is not unworthy of God, nay most worthy, that without any labor or inconvenience of His own He should show His benevolence toward sparrows, the grass, and all things, however minute. Which same we can say to the heretics: for it is not unworthy, but most worthy, of Christ, without any harm to Himself, so to offer Himself to us as to show the highest love toward us.
Thirdly, those who denied the Incarnation seemed to themselves to object almost no stronger arguments than those from unworthiness. Hence the Marcionites in Tertullian, in the book on the flesh of Christ, objected that it was unworthy of God to be enclosed in a woman's womb, to be laid in a manger, and other things of that kind. And Nestorius, in Theodoret, Book 4 of the fables of the heretics, and in Evagrius, Book 1 of his history, chapter 2, brought forward nothing stronger than that it was unworthy for God to be called two months old and two cubits tall; which nevertheless seem able to be said, if Christ was truly once an infant and at the same time God. Moreover the Jews and pagans dreaded and mocked nothing more in the Christian religion than that unworthiness, that Christians were said to believe in a man hanged, and to have hope in a man crucified among robbers, as is to be seen in Justin in his dialogue with Trypho, and Minucius Felix in the Octavius. But the Church despised their mockeries, taught by the Apostle, 1 Corinthians 1, that the mystery of the cross is to the Jews indeed a scandal, and to the Gentiles foolishness, but to the elect themselves the power of God and the wisdom of God. For neither could the Divinity be in any way harmed by all the sufferings of Christ, and yet thence was born immense glory to God and the highest usefulness to men. The same we can answer to the Sacramentarians, and with much greater reason. For it seems a greater unworthiness that Christ, God and man, could be harmed in His proper species than in the species of bread. And moreover Christ as man in the species of bread suffers absolutely nothing: but in His proper species He truly suffered stripes, wounds, and death itself, and that with the highest ignominy on a gibbet and among robbers.
Fourthly, the Arians, in order to attack the Divinity of Christ, always objected that the honor of God the Father required it, as is gathered from Hilary, Book 12 on the Trinity, and in his book against Constantius. The Novatians too (as Ambrose relates, Book 1 on Penance, chapter 2), in order to deny the Church's power of absolving sinners, said it was unworthy if that were attributed to men which is proper to God. But the Fathers answered that by none was God the Father more affected with contumely than by those who would not believe His words: This is my Son. And: Whatsoever you shall loose upon earth. The same we too answer to the Sacramentarians; for God did not say those things more clearly than Christ said, This is my body. God does not love such patrons, who know not how to defend His honor and dignity except by corrupting His words and making Him (as far as in them lies) a liar.
Finally, because some can scarcely bear that Christ can in any way be enclosed in a small pyx, fall to the ground, be burned, be gnawed by a beast, I would gladly learn from them whether they do not believe that Christ as a little infant was truly enclosed first in a most narrow and dark woman's womb, then wrapped in swaddling-bands and cloths? that the same not only could fall to the ground, but even often lay on the ground? that the same little infant, miracle set aside, could both be burned and be bitten by a beast? If therefore He could suffer these things in His proper species, and with harm, why should it seem strange if we say that like things can befall Him in an alien species, and without any harm? And I said in an alien species, because absolutely we do not grant that the body of Christ in the Eucharist can be burned or gnawed, lest we seem to signify that Christ can suffer these things in His proper species.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT X. Solvitur altera objectio, qux sumitur ab indignitate rei. Altera, eaque postrema haereticorum ob¬ jectio ab indignitate rei sumitur. Scribit enim Calvinus lib. 4. Institut. cap. 17. §. 32. absurda oportere rejicere, quae coelesti Christi majestate indigna sunt. Quae autem illa sint absurda, ipse eo loco non dicit : sed ab aliis ista fere enumerari solent, quod oportebit concedere Christum in terram ca¬ dere, dentibus atteri, in ventrem, et in se¬ cessum ire, a muribus corrodi, vel etiam de¬ vorari, putrescere, vel acescere, denique CAPUT XI. 163 etiam cremari. Quae omnia, et nunc ab hae- reticis objiciuntur, et olim a Berengarianis objiciebantur, ut patet ex Guitmundo lib. 2. et ex Algero lib. 2. cap. 1. Sed respondemus, quod ad similia objecta veteres Patres majores nostri responderunt. Neque enim solum hoc mysterium, sed omnia fere alia Judeei, pagani, haeretici tanquam indigna , et stulta irriserunt : de quibus Augustinus in epistol. 49. ad Deo gratias quaes. 6: « In ipsum , inquit, Chri¬ stum non crederemus, si fides Christiana ca¬ chinnum metueret paganorum. » Ac primum apud Judaeos Saducaei ipsi Christo quaestionem ridiculam proponere ausi sunt contra resurrectionem, ut ex ab- surditate, quae inde sequebatur, conclude¬ rent, nullam futuram esse corporum resur¬ rectionem. Videtur enim sequi, ut si mulier aliqua hic habuerit septem viros per mortem ■ sibi invicem succedentes, in altera vita, aut pro uxore litigent, aut una sit uxor septem virorum simul. Eodem modo Marcionistae apud Tertullianum in lib. de resurrect. carn. et Origenistee apud Hieronymum in epist. ad Pammachium contra errores Joan. Hierosolymit. ut resurrectionem carnis ex¬ ploderent, argumenta petebant ab absurdis : quia si erunt tunc sexus distincti, erit etiam procreatio, erunt nutrices, et obstetrices : si venter et palatum, erunt etiam cibi, erunt egestiones, erunt latrinae etc. Dominus au¬ tem respondit: Erratis, nescientes Scriptu¬ ram. , et virtutem Dei: in resurrectione enim, neque nubent , neque nubentur [i) ; quod idem nos haereticis dicere possumus ; Erratis, igno¬ rantes Scripturam, et virtutem Dei. Christus enim vere in Sacramento existit,sed nullo mo¬ do laedi potest ; proinde non cadit in terram, non teritur, non roditur, non putrescit, non crematur : ista enim in speciebus illis reci¬ piuntur, sed Christum non afficiunt, licet conjunctae sint species illae cum Christo. Ipsa quoque divinitas nonne ubique est prae¬ sens, et tamen nec sordescit in sordibus, nec crematur in flammis, nec putrescit in putre¬ scentibus rebus. Dices, si vere corpus Domini in Euchari¬ stia est, cadente in Eucharistia in terram, non cadit corpus Domini ; ergo separatur in illo casu corpus Domini ab Eucharistia, et unum manet in terra, alterum in altari, vel in ma¬ nibus ejus, cui cecidit Eucharistia. Respondeo, corpus Domini non separatur ab Eucharistia, donec species ilice integrae manent, et ideo, si Eucharistia, cadat in terram, corpus Domini in terra erit, sed non dicetur cecidisse ; id enim proprie cadit quod corpus est, et corporaliter existit, ac movetur. Quare cadente homine, corpus cadit, anima non cadit, licet per accidens moveatur: sic etiam corpus Domini, quod indivisibiliter manet in Eucharistia, locum mutat cadente hostia, sed non proprie cadit. Secundo, multi philosophi, ac praesertim Epicuraei, negabant providentiam Dei re¬ spectu rerum earum, quae sunt infra lunam, quod dicerent, indignum Deo, ut ad res tam viles procurandas se dejiciat. Sed Christiani ex Scripturis didicerunt, non esse Deo indi¬ gum, imo dignissimum, ut absque ullo suo labore, et incommodo erga passeres, foenum et res omnes, quamvis minutissimas bene¬ volentiam suam ostendat. Quod idem nos haereticis dicere possumus : non enim indi¬ gnum est, sed dignissimum Christo, sine ulla sui laesione ita se nobis praebere, ut summum erga nos amorem ostendat. Tertio, qui negabant Incarnationem, nulla fere argumenta fortiora sibi videbantur obji¬ cere, quam ab indignitate. Hinc Marcionistae apud Tertullianum in libro de carne Christi, objiciebant indignum esse Deo in utero fcemi- neo includi, poni in praesepi, et alia id genus. Et Nestorius apud Theodoretum, lib. 4. hae¬ ret. fabular, et Evagrium lib. i. histor. cap. 2. nihil fortius afferebat, quam, indignum esse, si Deus dicatur bimestris, et bicubitus; quae tamen dici posse videntur, si vere infans aliquando fuit Christus , et simul Deus. Porro Judaei et pagani nihil magis horrebant, et ridebant in Christiana religione, quam indignitatem illam, quod dicerentur Chri¬ stiani credere in hominem suspensum , et spem habere in homine inter latrones cruci¬ fixo, ut videre est apud Justinum in dialogo cum Tryphone, et Minutium Felicem in Oc¬ tavio. Sed contempsit Ecclesia illorum irri¬ siones edocta ab Apostolo, i. Corinth. i., mysterium crucis Judaeis quidem scandalum, Gentibus autem stultitiam esse, sed ipsis electis, Dei virtutem , et Dei sapientiam. Neque enim ex omnibus Christi passionibus, Divinitas laedi ullo modo potuit, ettamen inde ingens Deo gloria, et summa hominibus uti¬ litas nata est. Idem nos, et multo majore ra- (1) Mattii. XXII, 29 et 30. 164 LIBER III. tione Sacramentariis possumus respondere. Nam major indignitas videtur Christum Deum, et hominem in propria specie, quam in specie panis laedi potuissse. Et praeterea Christus homo in specie panis, nihil omnino patitur : at in specie propria, vere passus est verbera, vulnera, et ipsam mortem, eamque cum summa ignominia in patibulo, atque inter latrones. Quarto, Ariani, ut oppugnarent Christi Divinitatem, semper objiciebant id requirere honorem Dei Patris, ut ex Ililario colligitur lib. xii. de Trinit. et in lib. contra Constan¬ tium. Novatiani quoque (ut Ambrosius refert lib. i. de Pcenit. cap. 2.) ut negarent Ecclesiae potestatem absolvendi peccatores, dicebant, indignum esse, si id hominibus tri¬ buatur, quod est proprium Dei. Sed respon¬ derunt Patres, a nullis magis Deum Patrem affici contumelia, quam ab illis, qui non cre¬ derent verbis ejus : Hic est Filius meus. Et : Quaecumque solveritis super terram (I). Idem et nos Sacramentariis respondemus ; non enim clarius dixit illa Deus, quam Christus dixe¬ rit : Hoc est corpus meum. Non amat Deus ejusmodi patronos, qui nesciant honorem, et dignitatem ipsius tueri, nisi verba ejus cor¬ rumpant, et mendacem (quantum in se est) efficiant. Denique, quia nonnulli vix ferre possunt, Christum quocumque modo posse includi in parva pyxide, cadere in terram, comburi, rodi a bestia; ab ipsis ego libenter discerem an non credant Christum infantulum inclu¬ sum vere fuisse primum in angustissino, et obscuro fcemineo utero, deinde fasciis ac pan¬ nis involutum? Eumdem non modo cadere in terram potuisse, sed etiam humi saepe ja¬ cuisse? eumdem infantulum remoto miraculo et comburi, et a bestia morderi potuisse ? Si igitur ista pati potuit in propria specie, et cum laesione, cur mirum videri debet, si si¬ milia in specie aliena, et sine ulla laesione eidem accidere posse dicamus ? Dixi autem in aliena specie, quoniam absolute non con¬ cedimus, Christi corpus in Eucharistia posse comburi, vel corrodi, ne in propria specie Christum haec pati posse significare videa¬ mur.