Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book IV: On the Sacrament of the Eucharist Itself
Chapter 5: The Answers of the Adversaries to the Testimonies of the Fathers Are Refuted
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. IV, De Sacramento Eucharistiae, Book IV: On the Sacrament of the Eucharist Itself. 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).
To these and like testimonies John Calvin, answering in one word, Book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 17, § 39, says: “But those who do so have the example of the ancient Church. I confess it. But in a matter so great, and in which one errs not without great danger, nothing is safer than to follow the truth.” So he. But there was never a question whether it be safer to follow truth or falsehood, but the question is on which side the truth stands: and indeed, unless we are plainly out of our wits, it is safer, in a matter so great, and in which one errs not without great danger, to follow the ancient custom and doctrine of the Church than new inventions.
Peter Martyr does not dissent from Calvin in this part, except that more impudently and by name he reprehends now Ambrose, now Nazianzen, now Bernard, now Damascene, now others.
There is one Martin Kemnitz who so confounds all things that you cannot tell whether he has resolved to follow the Fathers or to dissent from them. Yet two answers are gathered from his most verbose disputation. The first is that those testimonies are simply to be admitted which say that from the very action of the Supper the Eucharist was sent to the absent or to the sick, that they might immediately receive it: for he thinks that during that whole time the action or use of the Supper perseveres.
But here the answer of Kemnitz fails in many ways. First, because this answer cannot manifestly be fitted except to the single testimony of St. Justin; for the rest indicate a preservation of the Eucharist, not a carrying from the very action of the Supper.
Secondly, because if it be true, which Kemnitz so often repeats, that there is no Sacrament except while is done what Christ expressly did or bade be done, how will there be a Sacrament in that carrying to the absent? for Christ neither carried it to the absent nor bade it be carried.
Thirdly, that carrying is superfluous according to the principles of the Lutherans; therefore it ought not to have been admitted by Kemnitz. For (as Calvin gathers from the common doctrine of the Lutherans, which Kemnitz too acknowledges and receives at the end of his disputation in chapter 6, session 13 of the Council of Trent) those who carried the Eucharist to the absent or the sick were either going to recite the institution in their homes and repeat the rite of the Supper, or not. If they were going to recite the institution and repeat the rite of the Supper, what need was there to carry the bread so far? could they not have taken the bread from that very house? And moreover, if that carrying is included within the action of the Supper, and therefore the body of the Lord perseveres in it, as Kemnitz there teaches, what need is there of a new consecration? But if they were not going to repeat the institution, they would have brought no usefulness to those absent: for the external symbols without the word profit nothing, nor can they be called Sacraments unless they be employed to confirm the word.
Add, fourthly, that it is certain that those who in the time of Justin carried the Eucharist to the absent were not wont to celebrate the rite of the Supper in their homes, and in that way to consecrate the Eucharist: for they were Deacons, not Priests, as Justin testifies in the clearest words. And that it was never lawful for Deacons to consecrate the Eucharist is most certain, both from the Council of Nicaea above cited, and from Jerome in his letter to Evagrius, and other Fathers, and from the perpetual practice of the whole Church. Wherefore it is necessary that Kemnitz either reject the testimony of Justin, or confess that there is no need to repeat the consecration of the Eucharist in the homes of those to whom it is carried; the contrary of which he himself affirms in the place noted.
The other answer of Kemnitz comprises the other testimonies of the Fathers, who in this matter seem to have erred; and what he says of them can all be reduced to four heads. First, then, he says that they can be pardoned, because they erred simply, as Cyprian says of those who from ignorance put in the Lord's chalice water alone, Book 2, letter 3. Secondly he says that there were not lacking other ancient Fathers who held the contrary, and therefore that it was not a universal custom to preserve the Eucharist. And he cites Clement, Origen, Hesychius, Nicephorus, the Second Council of Macon, Humbert, and Gabriel. Thirdly he says that the custom which existed somewhere of preserving the Eucharist was afterward abrogated, because namely the Church at length noticed that that preservation fought with the institution of Christ: and he cites for this abrogation the Council of Toledo and of Saragossa. Finally, fourthly he says that the ancients who preserved the Eucharist did so without superstition, because they preserved it that it might be eaten: but now by the Catholics it is preserved superstitiously, because it is preserved not for eating, but for pomp, and carrying, and adoration, and other ends of this kind alien to Christ's institution. And this is the sum of the most verbose and most confused disputation of Kemnitz.
To the first part of this answer I say that the case of which Cyprian speaks is very unlike this ours. For Cyprian speaks of a few certain priests who out of simplicity kept, in celebrating the sacrifice, a custom contrary to that which is kept in the whole Church: wherefore he deservedly reprehends them, and yet is willing that their simplicity be pardoned. But the doctrine and custom of preserving the Eucharist was kept not by a few, nor for a short time, but by the Fathers of all ages, and by the very Council of Nicaea, and by the whole Church absolutely. But who would bear that, after 1560 years, one minister of Brunswick should say that he pardons the Council of Nicaea, very many Fathers, and the whole Church of Christ simply erring?
To the second I deny that there are any testimonies contrary to our opinion. Clement of Rome is adduced in the first place, who in his second letter bids that as many burnt-offerings be placed on the altar as seem able to suffice for the people: but if anything be left over after the Communion, that it be not kept for the morrow, but consumed by the clerks. I answer that this passage ought to be understood with the exception of those parts which were to be kept for the Communion of the sick: for he was unwilling that too much of the Eucharist be preserved. Moreover from Clement himself I manifestly prove that a part of the Eucharist ought to be preserved: for in that second letter, not far from the beginning, he says thus: “To three grades are committed the Sacraments of the richer secrets, to the Presbyter, the Deacon, and the Minister, who with fear and trembling ought to keep the remains of the fragments of the body of the Lord, lest any putrefaction be found in the sacristy, lest, when the matter is negligently handled, a grave injury be done to the portion of the body of the Lord.” So he. But what keeping would have to be employed, and what danger of putrefaction could have been feared, if nothing were to be preserved? The same Clement too, Book 8 of the Constitutions, chapter 13 (otherwise 20), bids that, the Communion being finished, what is left over of the body of the Lord be carried by the Deacons into the pastophorium, as we cited above. Add that Ivo of Chartres, part 2 of the Decree, and Burchard, Book 5 of the Decree, inserted that decree of Clement about consuming the remains in the midst of various decrees in which it is expressly bidden that the Eucharist be preserved for the sick; which certainly they would not have done if that decree were opposed to the preservation of this Sacrament.
In the second place Origen is brought forward, or Cyril, on chapter 7 of Leviticus, homily 5, where he says thus: “The Lord did not defer the bread which He gave to the disciples, nor bid it be deferred to the morrow.” I answer: It is true that the Lord did not bid the Eucharist consecrated by Him be deferred to the morrow; but it cannot thence be gathered that the Eucharist ought never afterward to be preserved: for many things the Lord did not Himself bid, which afterward He bade through the Apostles, even concerning the Sacrament of the Eucharist, as Augustine testifies in Epistle 118. Nor did Origen aim at proving that the Eucharist cannot be preserved, but, since he wished to teach that a fresh and new and spiritual sacrifice of praise pleases God, not an old one, he used the example of the Lord, who bade the Eucharist consecrated by Him be immediately eaten; and also that testimony of the Gospel where the Lord forbids bread to be carried on the way, and another testimony from the book of Joshua, where the Gibeonites are reprehended for bringing old loaves to deceive the Israelites. And indeed Origen does not wish to show that it is not lawful now to carry loaves on the way, or to use old bread; but simply uses those examples inasmuch as they in some way help his purpose.
In the third place Hesychius is brought forward, Book 2 on Leviticus, chapter 8, where he says that it is the custom of the Church to burn what is left over of the Sacrament of the Eucharist. But in the same place is the solution. For Hesychius adds that the preservation of the Sacrament for one or two or more days is not forbidden, but that that ought to be burned which, either from length of time or for some other cause, cannot be consumed by eating: which is expressly provided also in the Council of Orleans, as Ivo and Burchard witness in the places above cited; for the Council ordained that only the corrupted species be burned, but not that which can be consumed by eating. See Guitmund, Book 2, and Alger, Book 2, chapter 1, who teach that the Sacramental species are then wont to be consumed by fire when something happens whence there is horror to eat them: for fire is the purest of all the elements.
In the fourth place Nicephorus is brought forward, Book 17 of his history, chapter 25, where it is reported that it was the custom in the Greek Church for the remains of the Eucharist to be given to innocent children to eat: which same Evagrius had before written, Book 4 of his history, chapter 35, and Gregory of Tours, Book 1 on the glory of the Martyrs, chapter 10. But here too there is no difficulty: those authors speak of the remains which namely superabounded. For (as we said above) not too many particles of the Sacrament ought to be preserved, but as many as are required for the necessities of the sick. Wherefore that consumption of the remains was not done daily, but only on Wednesday or Friday, when namely the Sacrament in the pyx was renewed. And the same answer is to be employed to the Second Council of Macon, canon 6: for there it ordains that on Wednesday and Friday innocent little ones be called, and, a fast being enjoined on them, there be given to them whatever is to be consumed of the particles of the Sacrament.
In the fifth place Humbert is brought forward, in his book against Nicetas, who reprehends the custom of the Greeks who in Lent, as we said above, from the Council in Trullo, use the presanctified daily, except on Saturday and Sunday. But Humbert does not reprehend the preservation of the Sacrament, but that the Greeks celebrate the sacrifice of the Mass from those presanctified: for a sacrifice truly cannot be made unless bread be consecrated and consumed.
In the sixth place Gabriel Biel is brought forward, who in lecture 36 on the canon of the Mass says thus: “After He consecrated His body, He did not stop at the consecration. Nor did He give it to the disciples that they might keep it honorably, but gave it for its use, saying: Take and eat.” I answer: This truly is to handle impudently the writings of Catholic authors, and to wish by fair means or foul to make heretics of those who always most strongly resisted heresies. For Gabriel in that very work most strongly defends the sacrifice, and the adoration of the Eucharist, and transubstantiation, and other things of that kind: to refute which the adversaries devised that opinion of the presence of Christ only in the use of the Supper. Moreover there stand three sermons of the same Gabriel delivered on the feast of the body of the Lord, in which is treated that most celebrated carrying of the body of the Lord in the public procession. And in the cited place Gabriel disputes of the primary fruit and use of the Eucharist, and teaches that the Eucharist profits much more while it is really eaten than while it is preserved in the pyx. Which is most true, and is proved by Gabriel from the words of the Lord, in which no mention is made of honorable preservation, but only of eating: for thence it is manifestly gathered that the primary fruit consists not in the preservation, but in the eating.
Finally, that most ancient use of sending the Eucharist to foreign Bishops as a sign of peace and Communion, which Irenaeus mentions in Eusebius, Book 5 of his history, chapter 24, openly indicates that the use of the Eucharist was not eating alone: for there was no necessity which compelled those Bishops to communicate to the body of the Lord either on the journey or as soon as they came to the city.
To the third part of the answer, I deny that the custom of preserving the Eucharist was ever abrogated in the Catholic Church. And the First Council of Toledo, canon 14, and of Saragossa, canon 3, do not forbid the Eucharist to be preserved in the Church, but bid the faithful communicants to communicate in the Church, and not to carry away with them the venerable Sacrament, as was sometimes done. And the reason of this prohibition is rendered in the Lateran Council under Innocent III, chapter 20, namely lest some abuse so great a Sacrament for poisonings and other crimes of this kind. From which it follows that this prohibition makes nothing against our opinion, but rather marvelously confirms it. For if outside the use of the Supper there were no Sacrament, nor the body of the Lord, that sanctified bread could be permitted to anyone whatever: for there would be no danger of any sacrilege, if outside the use of the Supper there were nothing but mere bread. The Councils, therefore, which so severely, on account of the dangers of sacrileges, forbid the carrying away of the Sacrament, manifestly indicate that even outside the use of the Supper there most truly remain both the body of the Lord and the Sacrament.
To the fourth part of the answer I answer most briefly that it is false that among the ancients there was no other use of the Sacrament than for eating: which is clear from the testimonies above brought forward. For Gorgonia, sister of Nazianzen, as Nazianzen himself witnesses in his oration on the death of Gorgonia, used the Sacrament of the Eucharist to obtain from God bodily health, adoring, invoking, and applying to her eyes the body of Christ in the Sacrament. Satyrus, brother of Ambrose, as the same Ambrose witnesses in his oration on the death of Satyrus, used the same Sacrament hung about his neck to escape shipwreck. Cyril of Jerusalem, catechesis 5 of the Mystagogics, warns communicants that after Communion they touch with the finger the lips sanctified by contact with the body and blood of the Lord, and then with the same finger sanctify by contact the eyes, forehead, and other members. Augustine, Book 22 of the City of God, chapter 8, writes that by his Presbyters the sacrifice of the body of the Lord was offered to God to cure a certain house from the vexation of demons.
Then it is false too, which Kemnitz says, that among us the Eucharist is not preserved for eating, but for other ends alien from the institution: for, as we said above, the primary end of preserving the Eucharist always was, and is, eating: for it is preserved chiefly on account of the viaticum of the sick. But meanwhile, while it is not consumed, nothing forbids taking from it other usefulnesses, as the Fathers did.
Finally, whatever be the case with this, that whole fourth part of the answer is brought forward beside the purpose. For to the question which we treat, whether outside the use of eating the Eucharist is a Sacrament and the body of the Lord, it is impertinent for what use this Sacrament is preserved. For whatever be the case with that use, it is evidently proved from the consent of the ancients that the Sacrament remains outside the use of the Supper, since they preserved it.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT V. Diluuntur responsiones adversariorum ad testimonia Patrum. Ad haec, et hujusmodi testimonia Joan. Calvinus uno verbo respondens, lib. iv. In¬ stitui. cap. 17. § 39. « Sed enim, inquit, qui sic faciunt, habent veteris Ecclesiae exem¬ plum. Fateor. Verum in re tanta, et in qua non sine magno periculo erratur, nihil tutius est, quam veritatem sequi. » Haec ille. Sed non fuit unquam quaestio, tutiusue sit sequi veritatem, an falsitatem, sed quaestio est a qua parte stet veritas : et sane nisi plane de- sipimus, tutius est in re tanta, et in qua non sine magno periculo erratur, veterem Ec¬ clesiae consuetudinem et doctrinam, quam novas adinventiones sequi. Petrus Martyr a Calvino in hac parte non dissentit, nisi quod impudentius, et nomina- tim nunc Ambrosium, nunc Nazianzenusn, nunc Bernardum, nunc Damascenum, nunc alios reprehendit. Unus est Martinus Kemnitius, qui sic om¬ nia confundit, ut nescias, utrum Patres se¬ qui, an ab eis dissentire, constituerit. Duae tamen colliguntur ex ejus verbosissima dis¬ putatione responsiones. Prima est, illa testi¬ monia simpliciter admittenda, quae habent ab ipsa actione Ccenee missam fuisse Eucha¬ ristiam ad absentes, vel ad aegrotos, ut eam continuo sumerent : existimat enim toto illo tempore perseverare actionem, sive usum Coenae. Hic autem multis modis deficit responsio Kemnitii. Primo, quia haec responsio non potest aptari manifeste, nisi unico testimo¬ nio S. Justini; reliqua enim asservationem indicant Eucharistiae , non delationem ab ipsa Coenae actione. Secundo, quia si verum est, quod toties Kemnitius repetit, non esse Sacramentum, nisi dum fit, quod Christus expresse fecit, aut fieri jussit, quomodo erit Sacramentum in illa delatione ad absentes ? neque enim Christus detulit ad absentes, aut deferri jus¬ sit. Tertio, supervacanea est ista delatio, se¬ cundum priAcipia Lutheranorum ; ergo a. LIliER IV. .> i .) Kemnitio non fuit admittenda. Nam (ut Calvinus colligit ex communi Luthcranorum doctrina, quam etiam agnoscit, et recipit Kemnitius in fine disputationis in 6. cap. sess. xiii. Concil. Trident.) vel qui defere¬ bant Eucharistiam ad absentes aut cogrotos, in domibus eorum erant recitaturi institutio¬ nem, ac C cense ritum repetituri, aut non. Si recitaturi institutionem ac Coeme ritum re¬ petituri erant, quid opus erat tam longe pa¬ nem asportare ? nonne ex illa ipsa domo panem, accipere potuissent ? Et praeterea si illa delatio intra actionem Cee na) concludi¬ tur, et ideo perseverat in ea corpus Domini, ut ibidem Kemnitius docet, quid opus est nova consecratione ? Si autem non erant institutionem repetituri, nihil utilitatis ab¬ sentibus illis attulissent : non enim symbola externa sine verbo quidquam prosunt, nec Sacramenta dici possunt, nisi adhibeantur ad confirmandum verbum. Adde quarto, certum esse illos, qui tem¬ pore Justini deferebant Eucharistiam ad ab¬ sentes, non consuevisse in domibus eorum ritum Coeme celebrare, et eo modo Eucha¬ ristiam consecrare : nam Diaconi erant, non Sacerdotes, ut Justinus clarissimis verbis testatur. Diaconis autem nunquam licuisse Eucharistiam consecrare certissimum est, tum ex Concilio Nicaeno supra citato, et ex Hieronymo in epist. ad Evagrium, aliisque Patribus, tum ex perpetua totius Ecclesia*, praxi. Quare neeesse est, ut Kemnitius, aut rejiciat testimonium Justini, aut fateatur, non esse opus repetere consecrationem Eu¬ charistia) in domibus eorum, ad quos de¬ fertur , cujus tamen contrarium ipse af¬ firmat loco notato. Altera responsio Kemnilii complectitur alia testimonia Patrum, qui in hac re er¬ rasse videntur ; qua) autem de iis dicit, ad quatuor capita revocari possunt omnia. Pri¬ mum igitur dicit, posse illis ignosci, quia simpliciter erraverunt, ut Cyprianus dicit de iis, qui ex ignorantia in calice Dominico solam aquam ponebant lib. n. epist. <‘>. Se¬ cundo dicit, non defuisse alios antiquos Pa¬ tres, qui contrarium sentirent, et proinde non fuisse universalem consuetudinem as¬ servandi Eucharistiam. Et citat Clementem, Origcnom, lsichium , Niccphorum, Conci¬ lium Mati sco n ense II. Humberlum, et Ca- brielem. Tertio dicit, consuetudinem, qua) alicubi fuit asservandi Eucharistiam, fuisse abrogatum postea, quia nimirum advertit tandem Ecclesia, pugnare cum institutione Christi illam asservationem : citat autem pro hae abrogatione Concilium Toletanum, et Cccsaraugustanum. Denique quarto dicit, ve¬ teres, qui Eucharistiam asservabant, sine superstitione id fecisse, quia asservabant, ut manducaretur : nunc a Catholicis asservari superstitiose, quia non ad manducationem, sed ad pompam, et gestationem, et adora¬ tionem, et alios ejusmodi flues alienos a Christi instithtione, asservatur. Et luec est summa verbosissima), et confusissima' dis¬ putationis Kemnitiame. Ad primam partem hujus responsionis di¬ co, valde dissimilem esse causam illam, de qua Cyprianus loquitur, ab hac nostra. Nam Cyprianus loquitur, de paucis quibusdam Sacerdotibus, qui ex simplicitate contrarium morem servabant in sacrificio celebrando ah eo, qui in tota servatur Ecclesia : quocirca merito illos reprehendit, et tamen ignosci vult eorum simplicitati. At doctrina , et consuetudo asservanda) Eucharistia?, non a paucis, nec pauco tempore servata est, sed a Patribus omnium artatum, et ab ipso Nicaeno Concilio, et ab omni omnino Eccle¬ sia. Quis autem ferat, ut post annos 15(50. unus minister Brunsuicensis dicat se igno¬ scere Concilio Nicaeno, plurimis Patribus, et luti Ecclesia) Christi simpliciter erranti ? Ad secundam nego ulla esse testimonia contraria nostra) sententiae. Clemens Itoma- namus primo loco adducitur, qui in S?. epist. jubet, ut tot ponantur in altari holocausta, quot populo sufficere posse videntur: si quid autem supersit post Communionem , non servetur in crastinum, sed a clericis, absumatur. Despondeo, iutclligi debere hunc locum exceptis bis partibus, quae ser¬ vandae erant pro Communione infirmorum : nolebat enim nimis multum Eucharistiae conservari. Porro ex ipso Clemente mani¬ feste probo partem Eucharistia» asservari debuisse : nam in illa secunda epistola non procul ab initio sic ait : « Tribus gradibus commissa sunt Sacramenta divitiorum se¬ cretorum, Presbytero , Diacono , et Mini¬ stro, qui eum timore, et tremore reliquias fragmentorum corporis Dominici custodire debent, no qua putredo in sacrario invenia¬ tur, ne cum negligenter agitur, portioni corporis Domini gravis inferatur injuria, n Ihec ille. At qiue custodia adhibenda esset, et qnodnani periculum putredinis timeri po¬ tuisset. si nihil servandum fuisset? Idem capi t v. *> < i etiam Clemens lib. vm, Constit. cap. 13. alias 20. jubet peracta Communione, quod superest corporis Domini, a Diaconis in pa¬ stophorium inferri, ut supra citavimus. Adde, quod lvo Carnotensis par. 2. Decreti, et Bur- ckarduslib. v. decreti inseruerunt decretum istud Clementis de consumendis reliquiis, in medio variorum decretorum, in quibus expresse jubetur Eucharistia asservari pro aegrotis ; quod certe non fecissent, si decre¬ tum istud adversaretur asservatiorii hujus Sacramenti. Secundo loco profertur Origenes, seu Cy- rill. in cap. vii. Levitic. hom. 5. ubi sic ait: « Dominus panem quem discipulis dabat non distulit, nec differri jussit in crastinum. » Despondeo : Verum est Dominum non jus- sisse Eucharistiam a se consecratam differri in crastinum ; sed non potest inde colligi, non debuisse unquam postea Eucharistiam conservari : multa enim Dominus per se non jussit, qmc postea per Apostolos jussit, etiam circa Sacramentum Eucharistiae, ut Augu¬ stinus testatur in epist. 118. Neque Origenes hoc agebat, ut probaret non posse Eucha¬ ristiam conservari, sed cum docere vellet, placere Deo sacrificium laudis recens , et novum, ac spirituale, non autem vetus, usus est exemplo Domini, qui Eucharistiam «a se consecratam, continuo manducari jus¬ sit; et illo etiam testimonio Evan gei i i, ubi Dominus prohibet portari panem in via, et altero testimonio ex lib. Josue, ubi Gabao- nitae reprehenduntur, quod panes veteres attulissent, ut deciperent Israelitas. Et sane non vult Origenes ostendere, non licere nunc deferre panes in via, aut uti pane veteri ; sed simpliciter utitur illis exemplis, quate¬ nus aliquo modo propositum ipsius adju¬ vant. Tertio loco profertur Isichius lib. ii. in Levit. Cap. 8. ubi dicit, morem esse Eccle¬ siae comburendi id, quod superest ex Sacra¬ mento Eucharistiae. Sed ibidem est solutio. Nam Isichius addit, non prohiberi asser va- tionem Sacramenti per unum, vel duos, vel plures dies, sed comburi debere id , quod vel ob temporis diuturnitatem, vel alia de causa per manducationem consumi nequit : id quod expresse etiam cautum est in Conci¬ lio Aurelianensi, testibus Ivone et Burckardo locis supra citatis ; statuit enim Concilium, ut species corruptae duntaxat combureren¬ tur, non autem id quod per manducationem absumi potest. Vide Guitmimdum lib. n. et Algerum lib. ii. cap. 1. qui docent, tunc so¬ lere absumi species Saeramenlales igni , quando aliquid accidit, unde horror sit eas manducare : ignis enim est elementorum om¬ nium purissimum. Quarto profertur Nicephorus lib. xvir. liist. cap. 25. ubi refertur morem fuisse iu Ecclesia Graeca, ut reliquiae Eucharistiae da¬ rentur pueris innocentibus manducandae : quod idem antea scripserant Evagrius lib. iv. his(. cap. 35. et Gregorius Turonicus lib. i. de gloria Martyrum cap. 10. Sed et hic nulla difficultas : loquuntur ii auctores de reliquiis, quae nimirum superabundabant. Nam (ut supra diximus) non debent nimis multae particula: Sacramenti conservari, sed quot pro aegrotorum necessitatibus requi¬ runtur. Quare non quotidie fiebat illa reli¬ quiarum consumptio, sed solum feria quarta, vel sexta, quando videlicet renovabatur Sa¬ cramentum in pyxide. Et eadem responsio adhibenda est ad Concilium II Matisconensc ean. G. ibi enim statuit, ut feria ‘quarta, et sexta advocentur innocentes parvuli, et in¬ dicto eis jejunio, detur ipsis si quid ex Sa¬ cramenti particulis consumendum est. Quinto profertur Humbertus in lib. contra Nicetam , qui reprehendit morem Graeco¬ rum, qui in Quadragesima, ut supra dixi¬ mus, ex Concilio Trullano, utuntur praosan- etifieatis quotidie, excepto Sabbato, et Do¬ minica. Verum Humbertus non reprehendit Sacramenti asservationem, sed quod Graeci sacrificium Missae ex illis praesanctificatis celebrarent : sacrificium enim vere fieri ne¬ quit, nisi panis consecretur , et consuma¬ tur. Sexto profertur Gabriel Biel, qui lect. 3G. in canonem Missae sic ait : « Postquam cor¬ pus suum consecravit, non sistebat in con¬ secratione. Neque dedit discipulis, ut ipsum honorifice conservarent , sed dedit in sui usum, dicens : Accipite, et manducate. » Respondeo : Hoc vere est impudenter tra¬ ctare scripta Catholicorum auctorum, et velle per fas et nefas haereticos facere eos, qui sem- per haeresibus fortissime fas restiterunt. Ga¬ briel enim in isto ipso opere fortissime defendit sacrificium , et adorationem Eu¬ charistiae, et transubstantiationem, et alia id genus : ad quae refellenda adversarii ex¬ cogitarunt istam sententiam de praesentia Christi solum in usu ccenae. Praeterea exstant tres sermones ejusdem Gabrielis habiti in festo corporis Domini, in quo agitur celo- \ \ LIBER IV. 21 i berrima illa gestatio corporis Domini , in publica supplicatibne. In loco autem citato Gabriel disputat de primario fructu, et usu Eucharistia?, ac docet, multo amplius prod¬ esse Eucharistiam, dum reipsa manduca¬ tur, quam dum in pyxide conservatur. Id quod verissimum est, et probatur a Gabricle ex verbis Domini, in quibus non fit mentio asservationis honorificae, sed solius mandu¬ cationis : inde enim manifeste colligitur, primarium fructum non consistere in asser- vatione, sed in manducatione. Denique antiquissimus ille usus mittendi Eucharistiam Episcopis peregrinis in signum pacis, et Communionis, cujus meminit Ire- narns apud Eusebium lib. v. histor. cap. 24. aperte indicat, Eucharistiae usum non fuisse solam manducationem : nulla enim necessi¬ tas erat, qua cogeret Episcopos illos, vel in itinere communicare Dominico corpori, vfel mox atque in urbem venissent. Ad tertiam partem responsionis , nego fuisse unquam in Ecclesia Catholica abro¬ gatam consuetudinem asservandi Euchari¬ stiam. Concilium autem Toletanum I. can. 14. et Caesaraugustanum can. 3. non prohibent asservari in Ecclesia Eucharistiam, sed ju¬ bent fidelibus communicantibus, ut in Ec¬ clesia communicent, et non secum aspor¬ tent venerabile Sacramentum, ut aliquando fiebat. Ratio autem hujus prohibitionis red¬ ditur in Concilio Lateranensi sub Innocen- tio III. cap. 20. ne videlicet abutantur aliqui tanto Sacramento ad veneficia, et alia hu¬ jusmodi scelera. Ex quo sequitur prohibi¬ tionem istam nihil facere contra sententiam nostram , sed eam potius mirifice confir¬ mare. Nam si extra usum coense non esset Sacramentum, neque corpus Domini, posset permitti cuicumque panis ille sanctificatus : neque enim periculum esset ullius sacrile¬ gii, si extra usum Coena) nihil esset , nisi merus panis. Concilia igitur, quse tam se¬ vere propter pericula sacrilegiorum prohi¬ bent Sacramenti asportationem , manifeste indicant etiam extra usum crenae verissimum permanere, tum corpus Domini, tum etiam Sacramentum. Ad quartam partem responsionis brevis¬ sime respondeo, falsum esse, apud veteres non fuisse alium Sacramenti usum, quam ad manducandum : id quod patet ex testimo¬ niis supra allatis. Nam Gorgonia soror Na- zianzeni, ipso Nazianzeno teste in oratione de obitu Gorgonia) , Sacramento Euchari¬ stia) usa est ad impetrandam a Deo corpora¬ lem sanitatem, Christi corpus in Sacramen¬ to adorando, invocando, oculis applicando. Satyrus, Ambrosii frater, eodem teste Am¬ brosio in oratione de obitu Satyri, eodem Sacramento ad collum appenso, usus est ad naufragium evitandum. Cyrillus Hierosoly¬ mitanus catechesi quinta mystagogica, mo¬ net communicantes, ut post communionem digito tangant labia sanctificata contactu corporis, et sanguinis Domini, et deinde eodem digito sanctificent per contactum oculos frontem, et alia membra. Augustinus lib. 22. de Civit. Dei cap. 8. scribit a suis Presbyteris oblatum fuisse Deo sacrificium Dominici corporis ad curandum domum quamdam a daemonum vexatione. Deinde, falsum est etiam, quod Kemnitius dicit, apud nos non servari Eucharistiam ad manducationem, sed ad alios fines alienos ab institutione : nam, ut supra diximus, prima¬ rius finis servandi Eucharistiam semper fuit, et est, manducatio : servatur enim potissi¬ mum ob viaticum infirmorum. Interim au¬ tem dum non consumitur, nihil prohibet su¬ mere ex eo alias utilitates, ut Patres fece¬ runt. Denique quidquid de hoc sit, tota ista quarta pars responsionis extra propositum adducta est. Nam ad quEestionem quam tra¬ ctamus, utrum extra usum manducationis, Eucharistia sit Sacramentum, et corpus Do¬ mini, impertinens est, in quem usum hoc Sacramentum conservetur. Quidquid enim sit de isto usu, evidenter probatur ex con¬ sensu veterum, Sacramentum permanere extra usum ceena), quandoquidem illud con¬ servabant.