Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book III: On the Truth of the Body of the Lord, from Reason
Chapter 17: The Error of the Ubiquitarians Is Refuted
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).
Of the error of the Ubiquitarians we have treated at length in the books on Christ, to which place we have thought the reader should be referred. But here we shall be content most briefly to demonstrate that by the figment of Ubiquity the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper is not only not explained or confirmed, but plainly obscured and overthrown.
First, then, from Ubiquity it follows that the Eucharist is not a Sacrament. For the Sacraments of the New Testament depend on the institution of Christ, and on the rite and words which He prescribed. But the chief thing that is in the Eucharist does not depend on the institution, rite, and words of Christ, if the doctrine of the Ubiquitarians is true; therefore the Eucharist is not a Sacrament of Christ. The proposition is granted by all, and was proved above by us in the book on the Sacraments in general, no one of the adversaries dissenting. The assumption is Luther's own, in the book “That the words of the Lord, This is my body, still stand firm.” For there he affirms that from the fact that Christ sits at the right hand of God it evidently follows that His body is in the bread, even though those words, This is my body, had neither been spoken by Christ nor written. And although Luther did not say it, yet it would openly follow from his opinion. For if by the hypostatic union the body of Christ is everywhere, certainly it was in the bread before the institution of the Sacrament, nor does that presence of Christ in the Supper depend on it in any way.
They will say perhaps that the Sacrament of the Supper depends on the institution and words of Christ as regards the symbols of bread and wine, which would not be symbols unless they had been instituted for this by the Lord. But this is to fall into the opinion of the Sacramentarians, to avoid which Ubiquity was invented. For the Sacraments and their efficacy and truth depend entirely on the institution and words of Christ. If therefore nothing depends on the institution and words of the Supper except those symbols and their signification, then the Sacrament of the Supper is nothing at all but an external symbol signifying the body of Christ: and consequently those words, This is my body, by which this Sacrament is confected, will have to be expounded, as the Sacramentarians do, by these, This bread signifies my body, or is a sign of my body.
Secondly, from Ubiquity it follows that the body of Christ cannot be truly eaten by the bodily mouth, but only by the spiritual mouth through faith and grace, or energy and effect; and consequently cannot be eaten except by the pious. But this is the very heresy of the Sacramentarians, to destroy which Ubiquity appeared in the world. That this follows I show thus. What is everywhere cannot be moved, nor pass from place to place; therefore although the body of Christ be in the bread, yet it is not eaten when the bread is eaten, because it is not moved, nor does it pass with the bread from the hand to the mouth, and from the mouth to the stomach: for it was even before in the mouth and in the stomach, before the bread came there. And it is explained by the example of God. God is everywhere, and because He is everywhere He is not moved with the things in which He is, neither of Himself nor by accident; and therefore, although He be in the bread, yet He is not eaten with the bread; although He be in the air, yet He is not drawn with the air into the breast, nor cast out when we breathe. And it is confirmed. For if the body of the Lord, because it is in the bread, is eaten with the bread, then because it is in the earth it is trodden with the earth; and because it is in wood, it is burned with the wood; and because it is in the saliva, it is spat out with the saliva. But that these and the like are false is established. And if the body of Christ is not really and by the bodily mouth received, it follows either that the Lord's Supper is empty, or at least that He is received spiritually through energy and through faith, and only by the pious who have faith; and this is what the Calvinists will.
Thirdly, even if the body of Christ could be received by the bodily mouth, they will nonetheless be compelled to confess that there is no fruit of the Lord's Supper except a certain energy, as the Calvinists say. For if the body of Christ is everywhere, we do not need the Lord's Supper in order to have the body of Christ, nor is it necessary to go to the Church, or prepare oneself for Communion, or hear the institution, but we can have the body of Christ in our own home, in bread and wine, and in any food, nay even in the air which we breathe. To what purpose then the Lord's Supper? What does it profit us?
Luther objected this argument to himself, in the book “That the words of the Lord stand firm”: and answered that the body of Christ is everywhere, but cannot be received everywhere, but only in that thing which He Himself instituted for this. And he sets down an example of the sun's rays, which, although they surround and fill us on every side when we stand in the sun, yet we cannot fill a chest with them and carry them with us. The like he says in his sermon on the Eucharist, where he teaches that the body of Christ is everywhere, but ought not to be sought or received apart from His word: and the word does not say that the body of Christ ought to be sought or received except in the bread of the Lord's Supper. For it is even in the noose (for in such examples the new Prophet wonderfully delights), and yet I ought not to put my neck into the noose and make a long letter of myself, because the word of God does not say this.
But all these things are said in vain. For either Luther will have that the body of the Lord, which is everywhere, cannot be usefully had everywhere, or simply cannot be had everywhere. But this latter, which I said, can be defended by no reason. For what is everywhere, it is impossible not to be had everywhere; for it implies a contradiction that I should have bread and not have in it the body of the Lord, if it is everywhere as the body of the Lord. Nor does the example of the sun's rays bear upon the matter: for those rays are not everywhere. Nor is that reasoning about the word of God worth anything. For either the word of God teaches that the body of Christ is everywhere, or not: if it does not teach it, then the Lutherans rashly teach Ubiquity: but if it does teach it, then not apart from the word, but plainly by the word, we have and receive Christ everywhere. But it is likely that Luther understood what we set down in the first place, namely that not everywhere, but only in the Supper, is the body of Christ had usefully and efficaciously: for so Brenz expounds in his book on the two natures and the Ascension of Christ. For he says that the body of the Lord is everywhere personally, but in the Supper is also definitively, that is, by the definition and decree of God; which mode of being adds only efficacy, for in the Lord's Supper it is received efficaciously, and nowhere else. But what is this other than to introduce Calvinism while you try to attack it? For in this way we have nothing in the Supper which we do not have outside the Supper except a certain efficacy; and consequently by force of the Supper the body is not received, but its energy, which is the opinion of Calvin.
Fourthly, it is a dogma received by all the Lutherans that the body of the Lord is not in the Eucharist outside its use, that is, is not except while it is received: and for this cause they do not reserve the consecrated species, nor carry them to the sick. But Ubiquity destroys that dogma: for if the body of the Lord is everywhere, it will be in the bread even before its use.
And ridiculous is the answer of Schmidlin in his book against Albert Sperling, where he says: “That which the Lutherans say, that the body of the Lord is not in the Eucharist outside its use, is not understood of the presence, but of the distribution, because namely it is not distributed outside its use.” But either Schmidlin speaks of any use whatever in general, or of the use of the Lord's Supper, that is, of that rite which we use in the consecration and distribution of the Eucharist. If of any use whatever, it is the same to say that it is not distributed outside its use, and that it is not distributed except when it is distributed; which is certain, but was never in controversy. If of the use and rite of the Lord's Supper, it is false that the body of the Lord is not distributed outside that use. For whatever we hold out, or distribute, in any place whatever, in it we distribute the body of the Lord, if the body of the Lord is so everywhere that yet it can be distributed. For (as I demonstrated above) what is everywhere cannot be distributed, since it is necessarily immovable.
Fifthly, let there be added the confession of the Ubiquitarians themselves, who, although they strongly press Ubiquity, yet openly enough indicate that they were driven by want of reasons to take refuge in it. For Brenz, in the book entitled Recognition of Brenz, openly confesses that the Lutherans cannot escape being compelled to admit the consecration of the Papists, unless this Ubiquity be posited. And so we see that Ubiquity does not please of itself, but only because they have nothing to say when it is asked of them whence it comes that the body of the Lord is in the Eucharist, if consecration is rejected.
Illyricus, in his book on the mystical, Sacramental, and external presence of the body of the Lord in the Supper, says that it is necessary to admit the presence of Christ in the Church, even here on earth, according to His human nature, because otherwise the Church would lack a head, and would be compelled to admit His Vicar, that is, the Pope. Wherefore that Ubiquity did not please Illyricus because it is in itself very specious, but because it seems to confer something against the Pope.
Kemnitz too, in Part 2 of the Examination, chapter 4, session 13, and the Book of Concord, say that the presence of the body of the Lord in the Eucharist is not to be placed in Ubiquity, but in the words of the Lord, This is my body; and yet afterward, when it comes to the point, because they can render no reason for that presence, having rejected consecration, they take refuge in Ubiquity and maintain it with all their strength. But of these things enough.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XVII. Refellitur error Ubiquis tarum. Dc errore Ubiquistarum fuse tractavimus in libris de Christo, ad quem locum lectorem remittendum putavimus. Hic autem contenti erimus brevissime demonstrare, per figmen¬ tum Ubiquitatis, non modo non explicari vel confirmari, sed plane obscurari, et everti Sacramentum Cocnse Domini. Primo igitur ex Ubiquitate sequitur, Eu¬ charistiam non esse Sacramentum. Sacra¬ menta enim novi Testamenti a Christi institu¬ tione pendent, et a ritu, et verbis, quoc ille prsescripsit. At praecipuum quod est in Eu¬ charistia , ab institutione , ritu, et verbis Christi non pendet, si vera est Ubiquistarum doctrina; non igitur Eucharistia Sacramen¬ tum Christi est. Propositio conceditur ab omnibus, et supra a nobis in lib. de Sacra¬ mentis in genere probata est, nullo ex adver¬ sariis dissentiente . Assumptio autem est ipsius Lutheri in lib. quod verba Domini, Hoc est corpus meum, adhuc firmiter stent. Ibi enim affirmat exeo, quod Christus sedet ad dexteram Dei, evidenter sequi ut ejus corpus sit in pane, etiamsi illa verba, Hoc est corpus meum, neque a Christo dicta fuissent, neque scripta essent. Et quamquam id Lutherus non diceret, tamen aperte sequeretur ex ejus sententia. Si enim ex unione hypostatica Christi corpus est ubique, certe fuit in pane ante Sacramenti institutionem, neque ab ea ullo modo pendet preesentia ista Christi in ccena. Dicent fortasse, Sacramentum Ccena; pen¬ dere ab institutione, et verbis Christi quan- 172 LIBER III. tum ad symbola panis, et vini, qua? non es¬ sent symbola, nisi a Domino aci hoc instituta fuissent. Sed hoc est incidere in sententiam Sacramentariorum, ob quam cavendam, in¬ venta erat Ubiquitas. Nam Sacramenta et eorum efficacia et veritas integre pendent ab institutione et verbis Christi. Si ergo ab insti¬ tutione et verbis Coeme non pendent, nisi symbola illa, et eorum significatio ; ergo Sacramentum coeme nihil omnino est, nisi symbolum externum significans corpus Chri¬ sti : et proinde illa verba, Hoc est corpus meum , quibus hoc Sacramentum conficitur, exponenda erunt, ut Sacramentarii faciunt, per illa, Hic panis significat corpus meum, vel est signum corporis mei. Secundo, ex Ubiquitate sequitur, Christi cor¬ pus non posse vere manducari ore corporali, sed solum ore spirituali per fidem et gratiam, seu energiam et effectum; et consequenter non posse manducari, nisi apiis. At haec est ipsissima hacresis Sacramentariorum , ob quam destruendam Ubiquitas in mundo ap¬ paruit. Quod id sequatur, sic ostendo. Quod est ubique, non potest moveri, nec transire de loco ad locum ; ergo licet corpus Christi sit in pane, tamen non manducatur, cum panis manducatur, quia non movetur, nec transit cum pane e manu ad os, et ab ore ad stomachum: nam etiam antea erat in ore et in stomacho, priusquam panis eo veniret. Et ex¬ plicatur exemplo Dei. Deus ubique est, et quia ubique non movetur cum rebus, in quibus est, nec per se, nec per accidens ; et ideo licet sit in pane, non tamen manducatur, cum pane; licet in aere, non tamen attrahitur cum aere intra pectus, neque ejicitur cum respira¬ mus. Et confirmatur. Nam si corpus Domini, quia est in pane, cum pane manducatur, ergo quia in terra cum terra calcatur ; et quia est in ligno, cum lignocomburitur; et quia est in saliva, cum saliva expuitur. At haec et simi¬ lia, falsa esse constat. Quod si Christi corpus re ipsa et ore corporali non sumitur, sequi¬ tur aut esse inanem Ccenam Domini, aut sal¬ tem spiritualitcr sumi per energiam, et per fidem, et solum a piis, qui habent fidem, et hoc est quod volunt Calvin istse. Tertio, etiamsi posset sumi corpus Christi ore corporali, cogentur nihilominus fateri, nullum esse fructum Coena3 Domini, nisi ener¬ giam quamdam, ut dicunt Calvinistae. Nam si Christi corpus est ubique, non egemus Coena Domini, ut Christi corpus habeamus, neque opus est ad Ecclesiam ire, aut parare se ad Communionem, aut institutionem audire, sed possumus domi nostrae in pane, et vino, et in quolibet cibo, imo et in aere quem inspira¬ mus, Christi corpus habere. Quorsum igitur Caena Domini? quid illa nobis prodest? Lutherus hoc argumentum sibi. ipse ob¬ jecit, in lib. quod verba Domini firmiter stent : ac respondit, Christi corpus esse ubi¬ que, sed non posse ubique capi, sed solum in ea re, quam ipse ad hoc instituit. Et ponit exemplum de radiis solaribus, qui licet un¬ dique nos circumdent et impleant, cum in sole consistimus, tamen non possumus ex eis cistam implere, et nobiscum deferre. Si¬ milia dicit in serm. de Eucharistia, ubi docet Christi corpus esse ubique, sed non debere quaeri, vel accipi citra verbum ejus : verbum autem non dicit Christi corpus debere quaeri, vel accipi, nisi in pane Ccenae Domini. Nam etiam in laqueo (istis enim exemplis novus Propheta mirifice delectatur) est, et tamen non debeo collum in laqueum injicere, et longam litteram facere; quia verbum Dei hoc non dicit. At haec omnia frustra dicuntur. Nam aut vult Lutherus corpus Domini, quod ubique est, non ubique posse utiliter haberi, aut simpliciter non posse ubique haberi. Hoc autem, quod posterius dixi, nulla ratione de¬ fendi potest. Nam quod ubique est, impossi¬ bile est non ubique haberi; implicat enim contradictionem, ut habeam panem, et non habeam in illo corpus Domini, si ubique ut corpus Domini. Neque exemplum de radiis solaribus ad rem facit : radii enim illi non sunt ubique. Neque valet quidquam illa ratio de verbo Dei. Nam aut verbum Dei docet, Christi corpus esse ubique, vel non : si non id docet, ergo temere Luthe- rani elocent Ubiquitatem : si vero id docet, ergo non citra verbum, sed plane eluce verbo ubique Christum habemus, et sumimus. Sed verisimile est Lutherum id intellexisse, quod primo loco posuimus, nimirum, non ubique, sed solum in Coena, Christi corpus haberi utiliter, et efficaciter: nam ita exponit Brcn- tius in lib. de duabus naturis, et Ascensione Christi. Dicit enim corpus Domini esse ubi¬ que personaliter, sed in Coena esse etiam definitive , id est, ex definitione, et decreto Dei ; qui modus essendi addit solum effica¬ ciam, nam in Coma Domini sumitur effica¬ citer, et nusquam alibi. At quid 'est hoc aliud, nisi Calvinismum inducere, dum op¬ pugnare conaris? Nam hoc modo nihil habe- CAPUT XVIII. 473 mus in Coena, quod non habeamus extra Gcenam, nisi efficaciam quamdam ; et proin¬ de vi Coeme non sumi corpus, sed energiam ejus, quae est Calvini sententia. Quarto, dogma est a Lutheranis omnibus receptum, corpus Domini non esse in Eu¬ charistia extra usum, id est, non esse nisi dum sumitur: et ea de causa non servant species consecratas , neque deferunt ad aegrotos. At Ubiquitas destruit istud dogma: si enim corpus Domini ubique est, erit etiam ante usum in pane. Ridicula autem responsio Smidelini est in libro adversus Albertum Sperlingum, ubi dicit : « Quod aiunt Lutherani, corpus Do¬ mini non esse in Eucharistia extra usum, non intelligi de praesentia, sed de distributione, quia nimirum non distribuitur extra usum. » At vel Smidelinus loquitur de quocumque usu in genpre, vel de usu Coenae Domini, id est, de ritu illo, quo utimur in consecra¬ tione , et distributione Eucharistiae . Si de quocumque usu, idem est dicere non distri¬ bui extra usum ; et non distribui, nisi cum distribuitur; quod est certum, sed nun¬ quam fuit in controversia. Si de usu, et ritu Ccenae Domini, falsum est non distribui cor¬ pus Domini extra illum usum. Nam quid¬ quid porrigimus, seu distribuimus in quo¬ cumque loco , in eo distribuimus corpus Domini , si corpus Domini ita est ubique, ut tamen distribui possit. Nam (ut supra demon¬ stravi) quod est ubique, non potest distribui, cum necessario sit immobile. Quinto, accedat confessio ipsorum Ubi- quistarum, qui et si valde urgeant Ubiquita- tem, tamen satis aperte indicant, se coactos inopia rationum ad eam confugisse. Nam Brentius in libro qui inscribitur : Recognitio' Brentii ; aperte fatetur, non posse Lutlie- ranos evadere quin cogantur admittere con¬ secrationem Papistarum , nisi ponatur ista Ubiquitas. Itaque videmus, Ubiquitatem non per se placere, sed solum quia non habent quod dicant, quando ab eis petitur, unde fiat, ut corpus Domini sit in Eucharistia, si rejicitur consecratio. Illyricus autem in libro de mystica Sacra- mentali, et externa praesentia corporis Do¬ mini in Coena, dicit oportere admittere Christi praesentiam in Ecclesia, etiam hic in terris secundum humanam naturam, quia alioqui Ecclesia careret capite, et cogeretur admittere ejus Vicarium, id est, Papam. Quare Ubiquitas ista, non ideo placuit Illy¬ rico, quia sit in se valde speciosa, sed quia videtur conferre aliquid contra Papam. Kemnitius quoque in 2. parte Exam. cap. 4. sess. 13. et liber Concordiae corporis Do¬ mini in Eucharistia non esse ponendum in Ubiquitate, seil in verbis Domini : Hoc est corpus meum , et tamen postea, cum ad rem venitur, quia non possunt reddere ullam ra¬ tionem illius praesentiae, cum rejecerint con¬ secrationem , ad Ubiquitatem confugiunt, eamque totis viribus tuentur. Sed de his sa¬ tis.