Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book IV: On the Sacrament of the Eucharist Itself
Chapter 18: That All Those Receive the Eucharist Unworthily Who Approach with the Consciousness of Mortal Sin
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).
That the opinion of the Catholic Church is most true is proved first from chapter 6 of John. For in that chapter, although the adversaries deny that the Sacrament of the Eucharist is treated of, as regards the symbols, yet they grant that spiritual eating is treated of, and also the fruit or effect of the Eucharist. For they say that in that chapter is treated in general of the eating of the body of the Lord, which can be done both in the Sacrament and outside the Sacrament: but that afterward, in Matthew 26, the Lord added the symbols. In this chapter, then, it is nowhere taught that the Eucharist was instituted to preserve and increase spiritual life, as is clear from chapter 6 of John, where it is nowhere said, He that eateth this bread shall rise from his sins, or shall begin to live; but it is said, He shall not hunger, he shall not die, he shall live forever, he abideth in me and I in him, and the like. Wherefore the adversaries, if they will confess the truth, teach what they teach not because it is had in the word of God, but because it necessarily follows from the doctrine of Luther.
Secondly it is proved from those words of the same chapter: My flesh is truly food, and my blood is truly drink. From which passage we learn that the proper nature of this Sacrament is that it be spiritual food. Which also both the external species of bread and wine, and the action by which it is applied to us, which is eating and drinking, openly cry out. But it is most absurd to give food and drink to the dead, since they can no more be nourished thereby than if they were stones.
Wherefore Calvin argues ineptly, Book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 17, § 42, where he proves that the Eucharist brings no benefit to the healthy and just; because it is a kind of food, and without food men waste away and fail. For that men waste away without food does not make it that food ought not to be given except to the sick, but that it ought to be given to the healthy, lest they fall sick: for the healthy are in danger of falling sick and wasting away; otherwise men bodily healthy ought not to eat bodily. Finally, even if food were given only to the sick, yet Calvin will never prove that it ought to be given to the dead: therefore it ought not to be given to those who are known to be dead to God.
Thirdly it is proved from the figures and likenesses of divine Scripture. For first the paschal Lamb, which was a most evident figure of this Sacrament, could not be eaten except by men purified and clean: and God rather permitted that some should defer to another month the eating of the paschal Lamb, than that the unpurified should eat, Numbers 9 and 2 Paralipomenon 30. Then the loaves of proposition, which also were a figure of the Eucharist, could be eaten only by the clean, as is clear from 1 Kings 21. Finally, whoever, polluted with any uncleanness, ate of the flesh of the sacrifices, his soul perished from among his people, Leviticus 22.
Then in the New Testament, John 13, the Lord washes the feet of the disciples before He gives them the Sacrament to eat; and Matthew 22, he is most severely punished who presumed to enter the royal banquet without a wedding garment. Finally, Luke 15, the prodigal son is first reconciled to his father, and adorned with garments and a ring, and then at length admitted to eat the fatted calf.
Fourthly it is proved from chapter 10 of the first to the Corinthians, where it is said: We being many are one bread and one body, who partake of the one bread. For hence we understand that this Sacrament profits none but members united with the head and the other members, and living by the same spirit, as Augustine declares, tract 26 on John; and this same the external symbol of bread and wine testifies, which are made of many grains, or grapes, coalescing into one thing. But those who are in mortal sin are not living members of Christ and the Church, nor do they live by the Spirit of Christ; therefore the Sacrament profits them nothing; nay rather harms them, because by that sign they lie, that they are what they are not.
Fifthly it is proved from the words of St. Paul, 1 Corinthians 11: Let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of that bread. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself. This passage the adversaries marvelously deprave, for they refer all to proving whether we have faith.
Peter Martyr, in his commentary on that place, makes three grades of those who approach unworthily. The first, of those who are plainly atheists and believe nothing. The second, of those who have historical faith, but care nothing for penance and the purpose of amending their life: and all these, who lack true justifying faith, receive the Sacrament unto the judgment of eternal death. The third, of those who are adorned with true faith, and yet live more remissly and negligently; and these he says receive usefully, not unto the judgment of temporal chastisement, of whom the same Apostle says, But while we are judged, we are chastised by the Lord, that we be not condemned with this world. By like reason Kemnitz and others expound all things of faith, or confidence toward the promises.
But they wander far from the aim of blessed Paul. For the Apostle does not reprehend the Corinthians for believing nothing, or for having only historical faith, or for not trusting enough the promises of God, or finally for not having the purpose of changing their life: none of these can be found in that whole chapter. But he reprehends the Corinthians because certain of them, the richer, brought into the church a sumptuous supper, which they took after the Communion of the mysteries, and consumed it apart from the others, especially the poor: in which they sinned in many ways. For they both did injury to the body of Christ, when they mixed with it other foods, as Augustine notes, letter 118, chapter 3, and offended their neighbor, and scandalized the Church itself, while they themselves feasted sumptuously, the poor looking on and hungering: and finally they sinned by the vice of intemperance and drunkenness. This is clear from the words of the Apostle, who reprehends these vices alone: One, he says, is hungry, another is drunk; and, Have you not houses to eat and drink in? or do you despise the church of God, and put them to shame that have not? And at the end he concludes: Wherefore, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another; if any man be hungry, let him eat at home, that you come not together unto judgment. Since therefore blessed Paul reprehended certain sins concerning morals in the Corinthians, when he adds, Let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of that bread, he is to be deemed to admonish nothing else than that each see whether he have the consciousness of these or other sins: for he who approaches with the consciousness of sin, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself.
Then this same is proved from the tradition and consent of the Fathers. And first, in the Greek Liturgies the deacon cries: “Holy things to the holy.” By which words not the Catechumens alone are excluded, as Kemnitz wrongly expounds, in Part 2 of the Examination, page 506, session 13, chapter 7, but all sinners, as Chrysostom rightly expounds, homily 61 to the people of Antioch. Justin, in his Apology 2 near the end: “Moreover this nourishment is called by us the Eucharist, of which it is lawful for no other to partake than one believing our doctrine to be true, and washed in the laver for the remission of sins and regeneration, and living as Christ delivered.” Cyprian, Book 3, letter 14, reprehending some who admitted to the Eucharist sinners not yet absolved: “Penance not yet done,” he says, “the exomologesis not yet made, the hand not yet imposed on them by the bishop and clergy, the Eucharist is given them, whereas it is written: He that shall eat the bread or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.” The like he has in letters 15 and 16, and in the whole book on the lapsed, where both by words and by examples he shows how pernicious it is to approach the Eucharist with the consciousness of deadly sin. Basil treats expressly of this matter, Book 2 on Baptism, chapter 3, the title of which chapter is: “Whether it be safe, if anyone not purged from all defilement of flesh and spirit, eat the body of the Lord.” Ambrose, Book 6 on Luke, chapter 37, expounding chapter 9: “Everywhere,” he says, “the order of the mystery is kept, that first by the remission of sins medicine be given to the wounds: afterward the nourishment of the heavenly table abound.” And Book 7, chapter 66, in his commentary on chapter 15 of Luke, expounding the parable of the prodigal son, he affirms that no one ought to approach the Eucharist unless he have kept, or recovered, the seal of righteousness.
Then he proved the same in deed also, when he did not admit the emperor Theodosius, after a certain slaughter made at Thessalonica, to Communion, until public penance was done and the sin plainly purged. Of which thing he himself makes mention in his letter 28 to Theodosius, where he exhorts him to penance; and in his oration on his death, where he praises his penance. The whole history is written also by Theodoret, Book 5, chapter 17, and Sozomen, Book 7, chapter 24, and Paulinus in the life of blessed Ambrose.
Jerome, in his commentary on chapter 1 to Titus, from the figure of the loaves of proposition proves that the highest purity is required in those who approach the Eucharist. Chrysostom repeats nothing more often than that those who approach the Eucharist ought to be pure and purged, and proves it by many arguments and examples: homily 30 on Genesis, homily 83 on Matthew, homily 45 on John, homily 24 on the first to the Corinthians, homily 3 on the epistle to the Ephesians, in which last place he most fully, by arguments drawn from every side, proves that the soul which approaches this Sacrament ought to be most pure: “With such purity,” he says, “approach always, without it presume never. Thou wouldst not dare to kiss a king if thy mouth stank foully, and dost thou impudently kiss the King of heaven, thy soul stinking with vices, etc.?” Augustine, tract 26 on John: “Bring innocence to the altar.”
Finally see Leo, sermon 2 on the Resurrection; Cyril, Book 4 on John, chapter 17; Hesychius, Book 7 on Leviticus, chapter 16; Gregory, Book 2, chapter 1, on the first book of Kings; and Bernard in his sermon on the Lord's Supper.
Lastly let reasons too be added. The first reason. The Sacrament of the Eucharist is diverse from the Sacrament of Baptism and from the other Sacraments; therefore it ought to have a proximate end, or proper effect, diverse from the end and effect of the other Sacraments. But the other Sacraments have for their end or effect the remission of sins; therefore the Eucharist ought to have another proper end or effect than the remission of sins.
And indeed among those Lutherans who admit three Sacraments, Baptism, the Eucharist, and absolution, our argument evidently concludes. For Baptism has for its proximate end the remission of original sin, and of the others which are found joined with it, whence it is properly called regeneration and washing. Absolution has for its proximate end the remission of sins committed after Baptism: wherefore the Eucharist, if it is a Sacrament, and diverse from those two, ought to have another end than the remission of sins. But among the Calvinists and other Lutherans who acknowledge only two Sacraments, the same argument can be made a little otherwise. For they substitute Baptism in place of the Sacrament of Absolution; for they say that Baptism suffices to blot out sins to the end of life: for by the memory of Baptism once received they think all sins blotted out. And if this is so, to what purpose was it needful to institute the Sacrament of the Eucharist for blotting out sins?
The second reason is taken from the most ancient custom of the Church, of giving the Eucharist to the newly baptized immediately after Baptism, as is clear both from Ambrose, in his book on those who are initiated in the mysteries, and from the mystagogical catecheses of Cyril of Jerusalem; and from the very use of the Church, which still flourishes. For if by Baptism men are so washed from all sins that they can be called holy and immaculate, according to that of the Apostle, 1 Corinthians 6: You are washed, you are justified, you are sanctified, certainly the Eucharist coming immediately after Baptism does not find sins to take away; therefore its primary effect is not to remit sins.
The third reason. It was always the custom in the Church to exclude from Communion the Catechumens, the possessed, and the penitents, that is, those who do penance but are not yet absolved and reconciled. This is clear both from Chrysostom, homilies 60 and 61 to the people; and from the use of the Church; and from the ancient Councils, as of Ancyra, canons 4, 5, 6, and 7; the First of Nicaea, canons 11 and 12; of Elvira in almost every canon, and many others: for the tomes of the Councils are full of decrees of this kind. But if the Eucharist is nothing else but a medicine of the sick and a solace of sinners (as Calvin says), and if its primary effect is (as Luther and Kemnitz will) to remit sins; why are the Catechumens and penitents defrauded of that medicine? why is it not given them while they are sick, but only when they are healed by Baptism or reconciliation?
Nor can they answer that the Catechumens and penitents are not fit for Communion because they lack faith, or the purpose of changing their life, or even penance, which alone the adversaries require. For many Catechumens and many penitents have all these things: and they are not admitted to Communion unless first the Catechumens be loosed from their sins by Baptism, and the penitents by absolution. The effect of the Eucharist, therefore, is not to take away mortal sins, and the true preparation for the Eucharist is to be plainly absolved and purged from sins.
The fourth reason is taken from the doctrine and custom of the adversaries. For all confess that before Communion faith is required; and some of them require also penance, and some also absolution, as we showed above. But faith even alone justifies, among the Lutherans; and much more penance, because then the remission of sins is announced from the word of God, and apprehended by faith. What, then, will the Eucharist do? It certainly finds the sins already taken away and purged.
To this argument Kemnitz tries to answer, but the more he strives to extricate himself, the more he entangles and involves himself. He employs three solutions. The first is in the Examination, chapter 2, page 361, where he says that the remission of sins is not in the soul as a color in its subject, so as to inhere immovably, and therefore that there is need of a perpetual and daily exercise of faith; nay that there is no moment in which it is not necessary to apprehend by faith Christ and the remission of sins, if we wish to retain it. Wherefore, although by faith and penance the remission of sins is acquired, yet by faith in the use of the Sacrament the remission of sins too is acquired.
This solution is most inept. For either Kemnitz will that the remission of sins does not last except so long as the act of faith lasts: or he will that it remain and inhere for a little while, but not long. If he say the first, as really his words indicate, nothing more absurd was ever said. For then it would follow that those who cease actually to believe, without any fault of their own, fall back again into all their sins: and those who sleep are always sinners; and those who die without the use of reason, which happens to very many, can in no way be saved. Then, be it so, what need is there of the Eucharist? will not the remission of sins be more easily retained by a repeated act of faith? But if he say that the remission of sins inheres for some time, but not for a long time, then our argument remains in its strength. For it can happen that after an act of faith, and the justification received by it, the Eucharist be immediately received, the remission of sins received still remaining; therefore then the Eucharist will not remit sins.
The second solution is had in the same place; for Kemnitz says that in temptations the mind is often anguished, and doubts whether sins be remitted to it: and because the promise of the word of God speaks in general, not in particular to this or that man, therefore the Sacrament of the Eucharist is added, which applies the promise in particular, and in that way excites justifying faith.
This solution is worse than the former. For first, if it were worth anything, it would only prove that the Eucharist remits sins to those who from the sole promise of the word of God could not conceive faith: but to others, who conceive faith from the promise of the word of God, it profits nothing. Then, if the Eucharist is not required except to apply the promise in particular, it is plainly superfluous. For that application is made before Communion by absolution, which Kemnitz says is laudably observed in his church: and moreover it can be made more easily by the memory of Baptism. Finally, either men have faith before Communion, or they have not. If they have, then they are justified from all sins; if they have not, then they approach unworthily, because they approach without the necessary preparation. Wherefore whatever be said, the Eucharist either does not find sins to remit; or if it finds them, it does not take them away, but increases them, since it is received unworthily.
The third solution is had in the Examination, chapter 7, page 499. For he says that the Eucharist is given as a testification and sealing of the remission of sins, that we may be made more certain of the grace already received.
But this solution is a testification of the victory of the Catholics. For if the Eucharist only seals the remission of sins already received, then it does not exhibit it, but presupposes it; therefore it is not lawful to approach the Sacrament with the consciousness of sin.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XYIIT.
Indigne sumere Eucharistiam omnes illos, qui
accedunt cum conscientia peccati mortalis.
Esse autem verissimam Ecclesia? Catho¬
licae sententiam, probatur primo ex cap. G.
Joannis. Nam in eo capite etiamsi negent
adversarii, tractari de Sacramento Eucha¬
ristia?, quod ad symbola attinet, tamen con¬
cedunt agi de spirituali manducatione, et
etiam de fructu, seu effectu Eucharistia?.
Dicunt enim in eo capite tractari in genere
de manducatione corporis Domini, qua?, et
in Sacramento, et extra Sacramentum fieri
potest : sed postea Matt. xxvi. Dominum ad¬
didisse symbola. In hoc igitur capite nus¬
quam docetur, Eucharistiam institutam ad
vitam spiritualem conservandam, et augen¬
dam, ut patet ex cap. 6. Joan. ubi nusquam
dicitur : Qui manducat hunc panem, resur¬
get a peccatis, vel vivere incipiet; sed dici¬
tur : Non esuriet, non morietur , vivet in x ter¬
num, in me manet et ego in eo et similia. Quare
adversarii si verum fateri velint, id quod
252
LIBER IV.
docent, non ideo docent, quia in verbo Dei
habeatur, sed quia necessario sequitur ex
doctrina Lutheri.
Secundo probatur ex illis verbis ejnsdem
capitis : Caro mea vere est cibus, et sanguis
meus vere est potus (1). Ex quo loco discimus
propriam rationem hujus Sacramenti esse,
ut sit cibus spiritualis. Quod etiam aperte
clamat tum externa species panis, et vini ;
tum actio per quam nobis applicatur, quae
est manducatio, et potatio. At absurdissimum
est cibum, et potum dare mortuis, cum inde
non magis nutriri possint, quam si lapides
essent.
Quare inepte argumentatur Calvinus lib.
iv. Instit. cap. 17. § 42. ubi probat Eucha¬
ristiam nullum afferre emolumentum sanis,
et justis ; quia est cibus quidam, et sine cibo
homines tabescunt, et deficiunt. Nam quodsine
cibo homines tabescant, non id efficit, ut cibus
non debeat dari nisi aegrotis, sed ut debeat
dari sanis, ne aegrotent : sanis enim pericu¬
lum imminet aegrotandi, et tabescendi ; alio-
qui homines corporaliter sani, non debe¬
rent corporaliter manducare . Denique
etiam si cibus non daretur nisi aegrotis ,
tamen numquam probabit Calvinus, debere
dari mortuis : non igitur dari debet illis, qui
sciuntur mortui esse Deo.
Tertio probatur ex figuris, et similitudini¬
bus divinae Scripturae. Nam in primis Agnus
paschalis, qui erat figura evidentissima Sa¬
cramenti hujus, non poterat edi, nisi ab ho¬
minibus purificatis, et mundis : et potius per¬
mittebat Deus, ut aliqui differrentin alterum
mensem manducati onemAgni paschalis, quam
ut non purificati manducarent, Num ix. et ii.
Paralip. xxx. Deinde panes propositionis, qui
etiam erant figura Eucharistia;, non nisi a
mundis edi poterant, ut patet I Reg. xxi.
Denique quicumque aliqua immunditia pol¬
lutus edebat de carne sacrificiorum, peribat
anima ejus de populo suo. Levit, xxn.
Deinde in Testamento novo Joan. xm. Do¬
minus lavat pedes discipulorum, antequam
eis Sacramentum edendum porrigat et Matth.
xxii, severissime punitur, qui ad convivium
regium sine veste nuptiali intrare praisumpsit.
Denique Luca; xv, filius prodigus, prius
patri reconciliatur, et vestimentis, et annulo
ornatur, et tum demum ad vitulum saginatum
edendum admittitur.
Quarto probatur ex cap. x. prioris ad Co¬
rinthios, ubi dicitur : Unus panis , et unum
corpus sumus, qui de uno pane participamus (2).
Hinc enim intelligimus hoc Sacramentum
non prodesse nisi membris unitis cum capite
et aliis membris, et de eodem spiritu viven¬
tibus, ut declarat Augustinus tract. 26. in
Joan. et hoc idem testatur externum sym¬
bolum panis, et vini, qua; fiunt ex multis
granis, vel uvis in unam rem coeuntibus. At
qui sunt in peccato mortali, ii non sunt
membra viva Christi, et Ecclesia;, neque vi¬
vunt de Spiritu Christi ; ergo nihil eis Sacra¬
mentum prodest ; imo nocet potius, quia
mentiuntur eo signo, se esse id, quod non
sunt.
Quinto probatur ex verbis S. Pauli I. Co-
rinth. xi. Probet seipsum homo, et sic de pane
illo edat. Qui enim manducat, et bibit indigne,
judicium sibi manducat, et bibit (3). Hunc
locum adversarii mire depravant, omnia
enim referunt ad probationem, dum fidem
habeamus.
Petrus Martyr in commentar, illius loci,
facit tres gradus indigne accidentium. Pri¬
mum eorum, qui plane sunt aQsoi, et nihil
credunt. Secundum eorum qni habent fidem
historicam, sed nihil curant de poenitentia,
et proposito emendanda; vitee : atque hos
omnes, qui carent vera fide justificante, in
judicium rntemse mortis sumere Sacramen¬
tum. Tertium eorum, qui sunt ornati vora
fide, et tamen remissius, et nogligentius vi¬
vunt; et hos dicit utiliter accipere, non in
judicium temporalis castigationis, de quibus
idem Apostolus dicit Dum judicamur autem
a Domino corripimur, ut non cum hoc mundo
damnemur (4). Pari ratione Kcmnitius et alii,
omnia exponunt de fide, seu fiducia erga
promissiones.
Sed longe aberrant a scopo B. Pauli. Si
quidem Apostolus non reprehendit Corinthios
quod nihil crederent, aut quod tantum hi¬
storicam ficlem haberent, aut quod non satis
fiderent promissis Dei, aut denique quod non
haberent propositum vita; mutanda; : nihil
horum in toto illo capite inveniri poterit. Sed
reprehendit Corinthios, quod quidam ex eis
ditiores afferent in Ecclesiam sumptuosam
ccenam, quam sumerentpost Communionem
mysteriorum et eam seorsim ab aliis, maxime
pauperibus, absumerent : in quo multis mo¬
dis peccabant. Nam et Christi corpus injuria
afficiebant, dum cum illo miscerent alios
(l) Joan. VI, 57. - (2) I Cor. X, 17. - (3) I Cor. XI, 28. - (4; I Cor. XI, 32.
CAPUT XVIII.
253
cibos, ut notat Augustinus epistol. 118. cap.
iii. et proximum offendebant, et Ecclesiam
ipsam scandalizabant, dum ipsi laute convi¬
varentur, pauperibus videntibus, et esurien¬
tibus : et denique peccabant intemperantiae,
et crapulae vitio. Id patet ex verbis Apostolis
qui haec sola vitia reprehendit : Alius , inquit,
esurit , alius ebrius est ; et, Numquicl domos non
habetis ad manducandum, et bibendum? aut
Ecclesiam Dei contemnitis, et confunditis eos ,
qui non habent? Et in tine concludit : Itaque ,
fratres mei, cum convenitis, invicem expectate ;
si quis esurit, domi manducet , ut non in judi¬
cium decidatis. Cum ergo B. Paulus peccata
quaedam circa mores reprehenderit in Co¬
rinthios, cum addit : Probet seipsum homo,
et sic de pane illo edat (1), nihil aliud monere
censendus est, nisi ut quisque videat, an
habeat conscientiam ejusmodi, vel aliorum
peccatorum : qui enim cum conscientia peccati
accedit, judicium sibi manducat, et bibit.
Deinde probatur hoc idem ex traditione,
et consensu Patrum. Ac primum in Graecis
Liturgiis clamat diaconus : « Sancta sanctis.»
Quibus verbis non arcentur soli Catechumeni
ut perperam exponit Kemnitius in 2. par.
Exam. pag. 506. sess. xm. cap. 7. sed omnes
peccatores, ut recte exponit Chrysostomus
hom. 61. ad populum Antiochenum. Justi¬
nus in Apolog. 2. prope finem : « Porro,
inquit, alimentum hoc apud nos appellatur
Eucharistia, quod nulli alii participare lici¬
tum est, quam veram esse doctrinam nostram
credenti, et lavacro propter remissionem
peccatorum, et regenerationem abluto, et
ita ut Christus tradidit, viventi. » Cyprianus
lib. iii. epistol. 14. reprehendens quosdam
qui admittebant ad Eucharistiam peccatores
nondum absolutos: «Nondum, inquit, poeni¬
tentia acta, nondum exomologesi , nondum
manu cis ab episcopo, et clero imposita,
Eucharistia illis datur, cum scriptum sit :
Qui ederit panem, aut biberit calicem Domi¬
ni indigne ; reus erit corporis, et sanguinis
Domini. » Similia habet in Epistol. 15. et 16.
et in toto lib. delapsis, ubi et verbis et exemplis
ostendit, quam perniciosum sit ad Euchari¬
stiam accedere cum conscientia peccati lctha-
lis.Basilius ex professo de hac re agitlib. n. de
Baptismo cap. 3. cujus capituli titulus est:
« An tutum sit, si quis non repurgatus ab omni
inquinamento carnis, et spiritus edat corpus
Domini. » Ambrosius lib. vi. in Luc. cap.
37. exponens, cap. 9. « Ubique, inquit, my¬
sterii ordo servatur, ut prius per remissio¬
nem peccatorum vulneribus medicina tri¬
buatur: postea alimonia mensse caelestis ex¬
uberet. » Et lib. vn. cap. 66. in comment.
cap. 15. Lucse, exponens parabolam de filio
prodigo affirmat non debere ullum ad Eucha¬
ristiam accedere, nisi signaculum justitiae
custodierit, vel receperit.
Deinde etiam facto idem probavit, cum
Theodosium Imperatorem non admisit post
caedem quamdam factam Thessalonicae, ad
Communionem, nisi publica poenitentia per¬
acta, et peccato plane purgato. Cujus rei
meminit ipse in epist. 28. ad Theodosium
ubi hortatur illum ad poenitentiam; et in
ovatione de obitu ejus, ubi ejus poenitentiam
laudat. Scribit etiam totam historiam Thco-
doretus, lib. v. cap. 17 et Sozomenus lib.
vii. cap. 24. et Paulinus in vita B. Ambrosii.
Hieronymus in comment. cap. i. ad Titum
ex figura panis propositionis, probat sum¬
mam puritatem requiri in his, qui ad Eu¬
charistiam accedunt. Chrysostomus nihil
saepius repetit, quam puros, et purgatos esse
debere, qui ad Eucharistiam accedunt, idque
multis et argumentis, et exemplis probat :
homil. 30. in Genes, homil. 83. in Matth.
homil. 45. in Joan. hom. 21. in priorem ad
Corinth. homil. 3. in epist. ad Ephesios, in
quo ultimo loco fusissime undique desumptis
argumentis probat purissimam animam esse
debere, queo ad Sacramentum hoc accedat :
« Cum tali, inquit, puritate accede semper,
sine hac ne praesumas unquam. Regem uti¬
que non audeas osculari, siquidem os tuum
olet graviter, et Regem coelorum impudens
oscularis, anima tua vitiis olente etc. » Au¬
gustinus tract. 26. in Joan. « Innocentiam,
inquit, ad altare portate.»
Denique vide Leonem serm. 2. de Resur¬
rectione, Cyrillum lib. iv. in Joan. cap. 17.
Isichium lib. vn. in Levit, cap. 16. Grego-
riumlib. n. cap. i. in lib. i. Regum, et Ber-
nardum in serm. de coena Domini.
Postremo accedant etiam rationes. Prima
ratio. Sacramentum Eucharistiie diversum
est a Sacramento Baptismi, et a Sacramen-
rnentis eseteris; ergo finem proximum, sive
effectum proprium habere debet diversum
a fine, et effectu aliorum Sacramentorum.
Sed alia Sacramenta habent pro fine, seu
effectu remissionem peccatorum ; igitur
(1)1 Corinth., XI, 21,28.
LIBER IV.
23 i
Eucharistia alium finem, seu effectum pro¬
prium habere debet, quam remissionem pec¬
catorum.
Et quidem apud Lutheranos illos, qui tria
Sacramenta admittunt, Baptismum, Eucha¬
ristiam, et absolutionem, argumentum no¬
strum evidenter concludit. Nam Baptismus
habet pro fine proximo remissionem origina¬
lis peccati, et aliorum, qua) cum illo adjuncta
inveniuntur, unde regeneratio proprie voca¬
tur, et ablutio. Absolutio habet pro fine pro¬
ximo remissionem peccatorum commissorum
post Baptismum : quare Eucharistia, si Sa¬
cramentum est, et ah illis duobus diversum,
alium finem debet habere, quam remissio¬
nem peccatorum. Apud Calvinistas autem,
et alios Lutheranos, qui non agnoscunt nisi
cluo Sacramenta, idem argumentum paulo
aliter fieri potest. Nam ipsi loco Sacramenti
Absolutionis Baptismum substituunt ; dicunt
enim Baptismum sufficere ad peccata delen¬
da usque ad finem vitee : per memoriam enim
Baptismi semel accepti, omnia peccata dele¬
ri putant. Quod si ita est, quorsum opus fuit
Sacramentum Eucharistia) instituere ad pec¬
cata delenda?
Secunda ratio sumitur ex consuetudine
Ecclesia) antiquissima, Eucharistiam dandi
neophytis immediate post Baptismum , ut
patet tam ex Ambrosio, in lib. de iis, qui
initiantur mysteriis, et ex catechesibus my-
stagogicis Gyrilli Hierosolymitani ; tum ex
ipso usu Ecclesia), qui adhuc viget. Si enim
per Baptismum homines ita abluuntur ab
omnibus peccatis, ut sancti, et immaculati
dici possint, juxta illud Apostoli, I Corinth.
vi: Abluti estis, justificati estis, sancti ficati
estis (1), certe Eucharistia immediate super¬
veniens post Baptismum, non invenit pecca¬
ta, qutc tollat; non igitur est effectus ejus
primarius remittere peccata.
Tertia ratio. Semper in Ecclesia consue¬
tudo fuit arcendi a Communione Catechu¬
menos, energumenos, et pcenitentes, id est,
cos, qui poenitentiam agunt, sed nondum ab¬
soluti, et reconciliati sunt. Id patet tum ex
Chrysostomo homil. 60 et 61. ad populum;
tum ex usu Ecclesia); tum ex antiquis Con¬
ciliis, ut Ancyrano can. i. 5. 6. et 7. Nicamo
I, can. 11, et 12. Elibertino in singulis fere
canonibus, et aliis multis : pleni enim sunt
tomi Conciliorum, ejusmodi decretis. At si
Eucharistia nihil est aliud nisi pharmacum
a)grotorum, et solatium peccatorum (ut Cal¬
vinus dicit) et si ejus effectus primarius est
(ut Lutherus, et Kemnitius volunt) remittere
peccata; quare Catechumeni, et pcenitentes
isto pharmaco fraudantur? quare non datur
eis dum aegrotant, sed solum, quando per
Baptismum, vel reconciliationem sanatisunt.
Nec respondere possunt, Catechumenos,
et pcenitentes non esse idoneos ad Commu¬
nionem, quod careant fide, vel proposito
mutanda) vitae, vel etiam poenitentia, quae
sola adversarii requirunt. Nam multi Cate¬
chumeni, et multi pcenitentes ista omnia
habent : et non admittuntur ad communio¬
nem, nisi prius per Baptismum Catechumeni,
et {pcenitentes per absolutionem a peccatis
solvantur. Effectus igitur Eucharistiae non
est tollere peccata mortalia, et vera praepa¬
ratio ad Eucharistiam, est a peccatis plano
absolutum, et purgatum esse.
Quarta ratio sumitur ex doctrina, et con¬
suetudine adversariorum. Nam omnes faten¬
tur ante Communionem requiri fidem ; et
aliqui eorum requirunt etiam poenitentiam, et
aliqui quoque bsolutionem, ut supra osten¬
dimus. At fides etiam sola justificat, apud
Lutheranos ; et multo magis poenitentia, quia
tunc annuntiatur remissio peccatorum ex
verbo Dei, et fide apprehenditur. Quid igitur
faciet Eucharistia ? certe peccata invenit su¬
blata et purgata.
Ad hoc argumentum respondere conatur
Kemnitius, sed quo magis se expedire niti¬
tur, eo se magis impedit, et involvit. Tres
solutiones adhibet. Prima est in Exam. cap.
2. pag. 361. ubi dicit remissionem peccato¬
rum non esse in anima, sicut colorem in sub¬
jecto, ita ut hoereat immobiliter, et ideo opus
esse perpetuo, et quotidiano exercitio fidei;
imo nullum esse momentum , quo non
oporteat per fidem apprehendere Christum,
et remissionem peccatorum, si eam reti¬
nere volumus. Quare licet per fidem, et poe¬
nitentiam acquiratur remissio peccatorum,
tamen per fidem in usu Sacramenti acquiri
etiam remissionem peccatorum.
Hiec solutio ineptissima est. Nam vel vult
Kemnitius remissionem peccatorum , non
durare nisi quandiu actus fidei durat : vel
vult aliquantulum quidem permanere et lne-
rcre, sed non diu. Si dicat primum, ut reve¬
ra indicant ejus verba, nihil unquam dictum
fuit absurdius. Nam tunc sequeretur, eos,
(1) 1 Cor VI, 1 1.
CAPUT XIX.
qui desinunt actu credere, sine ulla sua cul¬
pa iterum recidere in omnia sua peccata : et
qui dormiunt, semper esse peccatores ; et
qui moriuntur sine usu , rationis, quod ple-
risque contingit, non posse ullo modo sal¬
vari. Deinde esto ita sit, quid opus est Eu¬
charistia? nonne facilius actu fidei repetito
retinebitur remissio peccatorum? Si vero
dicat hserere aliquandiu, sed non longo tem¬
pore remissionem peccatorum, tunc argu¬
mentum nostrum manet in suo robore. Nam
poterit contingere, ut post actum fidei, et
acceptam per eum justificationem, continuo
sumatur Eucharistia}, permanente adhuc re¬
missione peccatorum accepta ; non igitur
tunc Eucharistia peccata remittet.
Secunda solutio habetur ibidem; dicit enim
Kemnitius in tentationibus sa}pe angi men¬
tem, ac dubitare, an sibi peccata remittan¬
tur : et quia promissio verbi Dei loquitur in
genere, non in particulari isti, aut illi, ideo
additur Sacramentum Eucharistiae, qua; in
particulari applicat promissionem, et eo
modo fidem justificantem excitat.
Ha;c solutio pejor est, quam superior.
Nam in primis si quid valeret, solum proba¬
ret Eucharistiam remittere peccata iis, qui
ex sola promissione verbi Dei non potuerunt
fidem concipere : aliis autem qui fidem ex
promissione verbi Dei concipiunt, nihil prod¬
esse. Deinde, si Eucharistia non requiritur,
nisi ad applicandam in particulari promissio¬
nem, plane supervacanea est. Nam applica¬
tio illa fit ante Communionem per absolutio-
tionem, quam Kemnitius dicit laudabiliter
servari in sua ecclesia : et praeterea potest
fieri facilius per memoriam Baptismi. Deni¬
que, aut fidem habent homines ante commu¬
nionem, vel non habent. Si habent, ergo sunt
justificati a peccatis omnibus ; si non habent
ergo indigne accedunt, quia sine piaepara-
tione necessaria accedunt. Quare quidquid
dicatur, Eucharistia aut peccata non invenit
qua; remittat : aut si invenit, ea non tollit,
sed auget, cum indigne sumatur.
Tertia solutio habetur in Examine, cap.
vii. pag. 499. Dicit enim Eucharistiam dari
in testificationem, et obsignationem remis¬
sionis peccatorum, ut certiores efficiamur
gratia; jam accepta;.
Sed ha;c solutio est testificatio victoriae
Catholicorum. Nam si Eucharistia solum ob¬
signat remissionem peccatorum jam acce¬
ptam ; ergo non illam exbibet, sed priesuppo-
nit ; ergo non licet cum peccati conscientia
ad Sacramentum accedere.