UBERTINO, u"bar-ti'no, OF CASALE: Italian Franciscan; b. at Casale-Monferrato (32 m. w. of Turin) 1259; d. about 1350. He entered the Franciscan order in 1273, and taught at various places in Italy, later in Paris (1289-98). After 1298 he devoted himself chiefly to propagating the views of Pierre Olivi, whose pupil he had been in the house of Santa Croce. After the death of Olivi Ubertino was recognized as the leader of the "spirituals," the strict party among the Franciscans which insisted upon the rigid rule of poverty (see OLIVI, PIERRE). On Oct. 1, 1317, he received permission from John XXII. to enter the Benedictine monastery of Gembloux, though it is doubtful whether he availed himself of this permission, as he was certainly living at Avignon during 1320-25. In 1325 he fled from Avignon to escape arrest in connection with the condemnation of the works of Olivi, and later he is said to have joined the Carthusians. Besides some minor works (in ALKG, iii.) and a defense of Olivi (ALKG, ii. 377 sqq.) he wrote Arbor vitae crucifixae (Venice, 1485), a defense of Olivi's doctrine in the style of the mysticism of Bonaventura and the apocalyptics of Joachim of More. See Francis, Saint, of Assisi, III., §§ 4-5.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. C. Huck, Ubertin von Casale und dessen Ideenkreis, Freiburg, 1903; J. J. I. von Döllinger, Sekten geschichte des Mittelalters, ii. 508-528, Munich, 1890; Ehrle, in ALKG, ii. 377-418, iii. 48 sqq.; KL, xii. 168 172; F. X. Kraus, Dante, pp. 479, 738 sqq., Berlin, 1897.


Preliminary History (§ 1).
Luther's Doctrine (§ 2).
The Reformed Doctrines; Brenz (§ 3).
Chemnitz (§ 4).
Formula of Concord (§ 5).
The Two Schools (§ 6).

1. Preliminary History.

Ubiquity is the term applied to the non-spatial ("repletive") omnipresence of the body of Christ set forth by Luther in the eucharistic controversy. All statements of the Eastern Church which apparently involve the question of ubiquity from Origen to John of Damascus affirm, on the unity of the natures, the logical, not the real, transfer of the qualities of one nature to the other, thus teaching an "exchange," or "community," of names, not an exchange of attributes. Augustine, with his local concept of the "right hand of God" as contrasted with the non-local view of John of Damascus, gained favor in the Middle Ages, and later


with the Reformed and with Melanchthon. He nowhere clearly expresses the realistic concept of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, but confines the omnipresence to the divine nature of Christ. Scholasticism gained increasing interest in the question of omnipresence in proportion as the doctrine of the real presence gained the recognition of the Church and obtained its theory in the dogma of Transubstantiation. Here Augustine remained the prime authority, and Hugo of St. Victor held that "Christ is humanly in heaven, divinely everywhere." Peter Lombard and Thomas Aquinas followed John of Damascus, in distinguishing between Christ as totus and totum, Christ being omnipresent in the former case in virtue of the unity of his person, but not in the latter as conception of both natures. Thus the omnipresence of the body was rejected. According to the anhypostasis of Leontius the Logos is essentially the person of Christ; deity follows humanity everywhere, but not vice versa. Radbertus taught that in each case the body was created anew from the bread by a special miracle. Arno of Reichersberg taught "a special power of Christ of being bodily present wherever he wished," not exercised until after death; and in like manner Peter Lombard taught the presence in one place of the exalted body of Christ, omnipresence of his divinity, and multipresence of his sacramental body. This remained, in all essentials, the teaching of scholasticism. The difficult problem now arose of explaining how the circumscribed celestial body of Christ, with its attributes of quantity and dimension, could replace the bread in the host. Albert the Great (see ALBERTUB MAGNUS), distinguishing between a natural and a spiritual body, held that "the glorious body" of Christ was present in the host "in the fashion of the spiritual body." This, however, combined with the subintration theory (see TRANSUBSTANTIATION, II., § 4), rendered uncertain not only the spatiality but also the actuality of the body of Christ in the host. Bonaventura and Thomas Aquinas accordingly sought to prove "the dimensive quantity of Christ's body" in the host, and to unite their teaching with the theory later taught by William of Occam as "definitive existence," namely, "whenever anything is in place so that the whole is in the whole and in any part whatsoever." The theory of Bonaventura and Thomas Aquinas, however, was self-contradictory in that the portion present in the host was conceived as at once quantitative and non-quantitative. Occam resolved this realistic doctrine of space and quantity critically. To him quantity was something substantial involving "circumscribed existence." "Definitive existence" (ut sup.) pertains only to non-quantitative things. The body of Christ in the host must, therefore, be conceived as non-quantitative, thus returning to the original position of scholasticism, except that the theory of subintration was replaced by a sort of condensation hypothesis, whereby, through divine omnipotence, a substance might be reduced to the mathematical non-extensibility of a point. But Occam proceeded still further, dialectically postulating, at least, the possibility of the "repletive existence" (and thus of the ubiquity) of the body of Christ. He accordingly taught, (1) the actual "repletive existence" of God; (2) the local presence of the body of Christ in heaven; (3) the non-quantitative, definitive presence in many places of the body of Christ in the host; and the possibility of the ubiquity of this body in the universe.

2. Luther's Doctrine.

On this dialectic straining of the doctrine of the ubiquity of the body of Christ Luther based his doctrine. Luther's original eucharistic theory was based entirely on opposition to the Roman Catholic opus operatum. The essential part of the Eucharist was held to be the word, faith being the right disposition. Luther affirmed his belief in the real presence and transubstantiation in 1519, but within a year he had replaced the latter by the teaching of the consubstantiation (of Occam), postulating, without any attempt at explanation, the substantial coexistence of the bread and the body of Christ in the Eucharist. When, however, Johann Carlstadt and Zwingli denied the real presence, Luther proceeded further than Occam; and in Wider die himmlischen Propheten von den Bildern und Sakramenten, in reply to Carlstadt, he set forth the initial statement of the synecdochical theory of the real presence, and the first intimations of the doctrine of ubiquity. Luther maintained that the "this" of the words of institution implied the presence of the body already in the unbroken bread. When Christ says, "This is my body," he takes the "whole" (bread and body) "for the part" (body); this is the synecdoche of Luther, later modified by Melanchthon. Luther introduced his teaching on ubiquity in his Sermon vom Sakrament des Leibes (Wittenberg, 1526), and developed it in his polemics against Zwingli and Oecolampadius. Dass diese Worte (das ist mein Leib) noch fesfstehen (1527), and Bekenntnis vom Abendmahl (1528). Maintaining the real presence as an immutable article of faith established by the Scriptures, Luther sought with equal zeal to defend the doctrine of the true reality of the body as well as to dispel all gross notions. He teaches that the body of Christ is exceptional and supernatural, different from ordinary human flesh and blood; that his flesh is born of the spirit, of a spiritual nature, and fit for spiritual food; and that the attributes of magnitude and extension do not apply to his body. Two deductions were then drawn: all things being present and permeable to Christ, he can enter and pass through them, being as energy without matter (as proved by the sealed tomb and the closed door), and the entire body of Christ may be in the smallest atom, though not circumscribed by it. This mode of "definitive existence" explains, however, only how it is possible for a corporeal being to be present in material substances without changing itself or them. For an answer to the further problem, how the body of Christ can be present simultaneously in heaven and in the host in countless celebrations of the Lord's Supper, recourse becomes necessary to the omnipotence of God, and Luther returns to the doctrine of the presence in an indefinite number of localities according to his will (Arno) taught by scholasticism. He continually emphasizes the necessity


of the belief that with God all things are possible, and that, therefore, the heavenly body of Christ is miraculously present in the host. Such is wrought by the creative word and the command of God. Although satisfied that "definitive existence" and presence in as many places as Christ willed to be were sufficient to faith in view of the omnipotence of God, he brought still higher arguments to bear against his opponents, developing the one into "repletive existence," and the other into omnipresence. This was done by the symbolic interpretation of the "right hand of God" and by the logical consequences of the Communicatio idiomatum. Definitive existence and multipresence pertain, through divine omnipotence, also to angels and demons. The body of Christ, however, possesses a far higher supernatural character, especially as he was at once God and man. Luther then affirmed that "the right hand of God" everywhere followed the divine omnipotence, and he deduced that Christ's body was at the same time at the right hand of God, and in the Eucharist by his syllogism: The body of Christ is at the right hand of God; the right hand of God is everywhere; therefore the body of Christ is in the bread. The same conclusion he reaches also by his Christology, as is fully set forth in his larger Bekenntnis. Accordingly, the two natures of Christ in one person demand the participation of the exalted humanity of Christ in the omnipresence of God. Luther now sought to complete his demonstration of ubiquity by developing the communicatio idiomatum from the premise of personal union. That the real presence in the host naturally follows repletive existence is self-evident, but proved too much; for it imperiled the unique sacramental presence, making it superfluous. To avert this Luther asserted that the sacramental, distinct from the ubiquitous, presence was such only by the word of God, whereby he binds himself to the bread for the reception of the communicant. This was a recourse to a particular act of the divine will or a retreat to a multiple presence subject to Christ's will. Luther's doctrine of ubiquity remains important only for Christology. There are, then, according to Luther, three demonstrable ways in which the humanity of Christ may anywhere be present: "circumscriptive or local existence," as it was on earth; "definitive existence," as it was during the resurrection through the sealed tombstone, and afterward through the closed door, and as it is also in the host; and "repletive existence," as the humanity is, in virtue of its personal union with God and exaltation to his right hand, everywhere and nowhere, also in the communion substances, yet in itself inapprehensible and inactive (wirkungslos). Luther did not restrict the body of Christ or the omnipotence of God to these three modes of being, but merely emphasized the ways human thought can and must establish the doctrine in accordance with faith and the Bible. Though transcending reason, if not contrary to it, yet here is primarily a matter of faith in the miracles of God in nature and grace.

3. The Reformed Doctrines; Brenz.

Zwingli, on the grounds of humanistic and rationalistic criticism, denied ubiquity and the real presence, and opposed the communicatio idiomatum with the disparity of the mode of existence of the two natures, maintaining the presence of Christ to be circumscriptive and local in heaven. Calvin advanced to the doctrine that the predicates of redemptive activity apply also really to the human nature of Christ, but recoiled from the doctrine of ubiquity. He held that the redemptive powers of the passion and resurrection of Christ are really imparted through the symbols of bread and wine. The believer receives, not the substance, but "the communion of the body of Christ" (I Cor. x. 16), mediated by the Holy Ghost. Melanchthon at first adhered to Luther's concept of the real presence, but always remained skeptical regarding the doctrine of ubiquity. The real presence he desired to see established on mandatory, not magical, grounds. His loyalty to the doctrine is shown by his stanch defense at the Marburg Conference (1529), as well as in art. 10 of the Augsburg Confession (1530-31). But after his dialogue with Oecolampadius he inclined more and more to restrict this presence to Christ as God. As early as 1535, in a letter to Johann Brenz, he adopted the figurative exegesis of the "is" in the words of institution, and he finally came absolutely to deny the doctrine of ubiquity, coming to prefer the "communion of the body of Christ" as the membership of the faithful in the body of Christ, later emphasized by Calvin. His increasing hostility to ubiquity led to the local view of "the right hand of God"; and the eucharistic presence of Christ was to him his "power in the believing." Melanchthon thus stood much closer to Calvin than to Luther. However favorable the prospects for Protestantism, they were definitely destroyed by the Stuttgart Synod in 1559, when the confession drawn up by Brenz, and adopted, fastened the tenet of ubiquity as a symbol upon the church in Württemberg. The result was that in the bitter polemics with Heinrich Bullinger and Pietro Martire Vermigli, Brenz in a series of writings erected on the basis of Luther's arguments an imposing Cbristological system. In his De majestate Domini nostri (1562) he re-affirms the two natures in one person upon the broader basis of the incarnation of the Son of God, and consequently the deification of the Son of man. This afforded a double point of departure for the demonstration of ubiquity: "the personal union," and the "deification." The first, which is indissoluble and effected by divine omnipotence, does not involve a mutation of humanity into deity nor a duplication of persons; it is the immediate ground of the communicatio idiomatum, which is not an interchange of specific properties in name only but in fact. To save the human nature from total elimination Brenz drew a distinction between essential and separable, accidental qualities. Deity being without accidental properties, humanity is composite with a constant substance but with such accidents as suffering, mortality, and locality, which may be discarded and replaced by hyperphysical qualities, as accidental accessories, however. Brenz's weakness consisted in reducing local existence to an accident or negligible quantity, when it was the brunt of his contention. As to the second basis,


the exaltation, Brenz argues the "assumption of humanity into deity," and the infinite domination of the latter. The incarnation is really deification, which transpired in utero; then was Christ raised to the right hand of God and to full divine majesty, as Lord of all creatures. The human nature is only passively endowed with this power through the grace of the hypostatic union. There is, therefore, a threefold ascension: at the instant of the incarnation, immediately after the resurrection, and, finally, a merely spectacular one. In the state of exinanition Christ lived, during his earthly period, a twofold existence; a divine-human in heaven dominated by his deity, and a human-divine on earth, dominated by his humanity. The "repletive existence," by virtue of the exaltation at the incarnation, is the real state also of his humanity, only temporarily interrupted or rather attended by the "circumscriptive existence." The "inanition," therefore, postulates only a figurative mode of existence of the man Christ; there was only a "concealment," not a real "kenosis of the function" of the divine properties. Nevertheless, deity was, in an indefinable manner, involved in the process by the communicatio idiomatum. God, although impassible, so appropriated the suffering and death of Christ, or was affected by the same, through the hypostatical union, as though he himself suffered and died. But to take part in suffering and mortality and be impassible at once is a contradiction; so is also an indissoluble union in one person of deity and humanity, both dwelling in bliss and reigning over all the world, and at the same time suffering, dying, and rising again on earth; or, that the man Christ was at once alive and dead. The communicatio proved incapable of logical conclusion. On the other hand, the humanity was imperiled, inasmuch as the man Jesus, invisible by his exaltation, i.e., incarnation, was only in loco subject to his condescension. With the proof of ubiquity, the real presence was also established for Brenz. The
Maulbronn Conference of 1564 served to reveal the weakness of the Christology of Brenz, yet more enfeebled by Jakob Andreä;. The doctrine prevailed in Wurttemberg for the remainder of the century.

4. Chemnitz.

Martin Chemnitz sought vainly to mediate between the Swabian followers of Brenz and the Philippists of Wittenberg, who rejected ubiquity and the "scholastic disputations" over the real presence. His teachings, however, remained a mass of disparate elements of both factions (De duabus naturis in Christo, 1571). Like Melanchthon, following Aristotle's dictum, "properties do not pass out of their subjects," he held properties to be essential, not accidental; and locality was, therefore, an essential, not accidental, property of human nature. The genus majestaticum (see CHRISTOLOGY, VIII., 1) thus negated was by degrees regained. Although conceding that human nature can appropriate divine properties only according to the finite human capacity, in the manner of a reenforeement, yet he argued that in Christ this capacity was so augmented by the "personal union" that the humanity possessed the divine attributes not in substance but efficient power. The humanity was the automatic organ dynamically of the Logos; the humanity is permeated with deity, after the analogy of heat in the iron, by a process which he termed Perichöresis. In the humiliation, the Logos, though never wholly quiescent, retreated to a "concealment of function," and even to its "kenosis." Thus, at the same time, a compensation was rendered for the doctrine of inherent ubiquity, which as an intrinsic possession of the humanity was positively declined, and then regained as a sort of potential ubiquitous presence. This was in conflict with his other assertion of the hypostatic union according to which the humanity embracing all creatures is ever present in the Logos. Chemnitz loses himself, therefore, in distraction between an a priori ubiquity and an a posteriori potential multipresence, and in conflict with his Aristotelian dictum as premise. The logical result of his theories was that the humanity of Jesus was at once essentially circumscribed and potentially omnipresent.

5. Formula of Concord.

The Formula of Concord presented a loose and incongruous combination of the views of Luther and Brenz and those of Chemnitz. Directly, it may be said, the potential ubiquitous presence is taught by the admission of the views of Chemnitz just mentioned seriatim. While the full possession of the divine majesty is ascribed to the humanity, omnipresence is never mentioned as one of its attributes, being assumed as implied in omnipotence; and the "repletive existence" is never expressly asserted of the humanity. Indirectly is taught the essential ubiquity of the body of Christ, by the adoption of large citations from Luther's eucharistic writings, not excluding the statements on ubiquity and the "repletive existence," particularly by falling back on Luther's idea of the "right hand of God" for a figure of the divine majesty. Moreover, the realistic communicatio idiomatum, as the basis of all Christology, was so carried through with strong emphasis on the integrity of the natures and their properties, the non-receptivity of the divine nature for human properties, and the separation of the two states, that the moderated views of Brenz as promulgated by Andrea and the advanced Melanchthonism of Chemnitz could both accept it.

6. The Two Schools.

The inconclusiveness of the Formula proved itself in the reservation entered by Chemnitz with his signature, and the mutual efforts to advance the doctrine of ubiquity to the front on the part of the two Swabians, Leonhard Hutter, who essentially reproduced the views of Brenz; and Aegidius Hunnius, who, following Chemnitz (and perhaps even Luther), maintained an immanent universal presence of the humanity in the Logos, or a passive omnipresence. At the same time, he advanced be yond Chemnitz by raising the "internal presence," latent during Christ's humiliation, to an "external omnipresence" through his exaltation, alongside of which, however, was maintained the continuous spatial presence of the body of Christ in heaven, thus making permanent the dualism of the human existence of Christ which Luther and Brenz had restricted to his humiliation. Thus the doctrine of ubiquity had attained to recognition, and only its


[Page 54]


[Page 55]


[Page 56]


[Page 57]


[Page 58]


[Page 59]


[Page 60]


[Page 61]


[Page 62]


[Page 63]


[Page 64]


[Page 65]


[Page 66]


[Page 67]


[Page 68]


[Page 69]


[Page 70]


[Page 71]


[Page 72]


[Page 73]


[Page 74]


[Page 75]


[Page 76]


[Page 77]


[Page 78]


[Page 79]


[Page 80]


[Page 81]


[Page 82]


[Page 83]


very conservative utterances respecting the office of Jesus and the significance of miracles, but it had broadened its basis, and in 1875 welcomed "all who desire to work with it in advancing the kingdom of God." These differences were harmonized by the action of the national conference at Saratoga in 1894, which made its preamble declare: "these churches accept the religion of Jesus, holding, in accordance with his teaching, that practical religion is summed up in love to God and love to man." In 1910 there were 504 societies in the United States and Canada, and the ministers enlisted in the fellowship were 538. There are theological schools at Meadville, Penn. (founded 1844) and Berkeley, Cal. (founded 1904). Students are also trained in the Harvard Divinity School, founded in 1817 and maintained as a Unitarian institution to 1878, when it became the undenominational theological school of Harvard University.

The latest phase of the Unitarian movement is the effort to increase cooperation among those in all lands "who are striving to unite pure religion and perfect liberty." The International Council organized for this purpose in Boston in 1900 has held congresses in London (1901), Amsterdam (1903), Geneva (1905), Boston (1907), and Berlin (1910).

6. Genius of Unitarianism.

Unitarian religious thought has had successive phases. It began as a method of inquiry, the method of Socinians and Arminians. No truth was allowed prior validity to the Bible, the Bible was interpreted by reason and conscience, and the results obtained from the Bible by this method were held as historic revelation. The pioneer in a movement beyond this position was Channing. Refusing to characterize man by the sin which deprived him of his true being as man, he found the essence of human nature in the moral principle of disinterested justice and benevolence, which is sovereign over the whole self. Religion and virtue are the mind itself, are human nature, and nothing else. Therefore, "we must start in religion from our own souls. In these is the fountain of all divine truth. An outward revelation is possible and intelligible only on the ground of conceptions and principles previously furnished by the soul." "We have faculties for the spiritual as truly as for the outward world." A further development of this view with a polemic against dependence on miracle and mere Biblicism enabled Theodore Parker to inaugurate the freer critical historical valuation of the Bible and to rescue the movement from the rationalism of Locke's school, while the more poetic and romantic transcendentalism of Emerson operated as a powerful stimulus to independent spiritual intuition and emancipation from convention and formula. All these leaders infused into the movement an ardor of mystical communion with God, without ecstasy or loss of self, and at the same time an active passion for all philanthropic reforms. Others, among whom James Freeman Clarke was of greatest eminence, united the insistence on inner personal grounds for faith with more historic feeling for the Christian past. The most eminent philosopher of the Unitarian school was James Martineau, who, with splendor of diction, speculative profundity, and intense ethical interest, elaborated a view of experience in which idealistic rationalism was blended with a refined spiritual mysticism. The most complete exposition of Unitarian theology in a form related to the traditional dogmatics is found in James Drummond's Studies in Christian Doctrine (London, 1908).


BIBLIOGRAPHY: On Unitarian history consult: W. Turner, Jr., Lives of Eminent Unitarians, with a Notice of Dissenting Academies, 2 vols., London, 1840-43; O. Fock, Socinianismus, i. 263-287, Kiel, 1847; R. Wallace, Anti-Trinitarian Biography, London, 1850; J. Ferene, Kleiner Unitarierspiegel, Vienna, 1879; G. Bonet-Maury, Les Origines du christianisme unitaire chez les Anglais, Paris, 1881, Eng. transl., Early Sources of English Unitarian Christianity, London, 1884; J. Stoughton, Religion in England, 1800-50, i. 23, 211 sqq., ib. 1884; G. d'Alviella, Religious Thought in England, America, and India, ib. 1885; A. H. Drysdale, Hist. of the Presbyterians in England, i. 522 sqq., 622 sqq., ib. 1889; A. S. Dyer, Sketches of English Nonconformity, ib. 1893; J. H. Allen, in American Church History Series, vol. x., New York, 1894; A. Gordon, Heads of English Unitarian Hist., London, 1895; W. J. van Douwen, Socinianen en Doopagezinden, 1559-1626, Leyden, 1898; G. E. Evens, Midland Churches; a Hist. of the Congregations on the Roll of the Midland Christian Union, Dudley, 1899; W. Lloyd, The Story of Protestant Dissent and English Unitarianism, London, 1899; W. C. Bowie, Liberal Religious Thought at the Beginning of the 20th Century, ib. 1901; G. W. Cooke, Unitarianism in America, Boston, 1903; W. G. Tarrant, The Story and significance of the Unitarian Movement, ib. 1910; W. C. Bowie, Unitarian Churches in Great Britain and Ireland, London, 1905; Memorable Unitarians, ib. 1906; F. B. Mott, Short Hist. of Unitarianism, ib. 1906; H. Triepel, Unatarismus und Föderaliamus im deutschen Reiche, Tübingen, 1907; A. Rasmussen, Unitarismen, dens Historie og Theologi, Copenhagen, 1907; S. A. Eliot, Heralds of a Liberal Faith, 3 vols., Boston, 1909; The Fifth World Congress of Free Christians and Other Religious Liberals at Berlin . . . 1910, Boston, 1910; Lichtenberger, ESR, xii. 263-271.

For the doctrines consult: The writings of Joseph Priestley, W. E. Channing, J. Martineau, and M. J. Savage and the literature under the articles on them; J. Wilson, Concessions of Trinitarians, Manchester, 1842; J. R. Beard, Unitarianism, Exhibited in its Actual Condition, London, 1846; J. F. Clarke, Orthodoxy, its Truths and Errors, Boston, 1870; R. B. Drummond, Free Thought and Christian Faith, Edinburgh, 1890; R. Bartram, Religion and Life, London, 1891; J. Wright, Denials and Beliefs of Unitarians, ib. 1901; T. R. Slicer, One World at a Time, New York, 1902; W. G. Tarrant, Unitarianism Restated, London, 1904; J. E. Manning, The Religion and Theology of Unitarians, ib. 1906; R. T. Herford, Unitarian Affirmations, 2d ed., ib. 1909; J. P. Hoff, The Unitarians' Justification, ib. 1910; E. Emerton, Unitarian Thought, New York, 1911.


CCEL home page
This document is from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library at
Calvin College. Last modified on 10/03/03. Contact the CCEL.
Calvin seal: My heart I offer you O Lord, promptly and sincerely