Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book IV: On the Sacrament of the Eucharist Itself
Chapter 23: That No Greater Usefulness Is Received from Communion Under Both Species Than Under One
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).
There follows the third question, concerning the fruit which is received from Communion. For after we have demonstrated that the whole Christ and the entire Sacrament are received in one species, this one thing remains, that we see whether any fruit is lost to those who receive the Eucharist under one species only. And because concerning the fruit of the Sacraments the heretics of our time dispute far otherwise than the Catholics do, we shall treat of the fruit of the Eucharist according to the opinion of each.
And to begin from the opinion of the heretics, I lay down this first proposition: “That fruit which all the Lutherans seek in the Sacraments, those receive no less who communicate under one species than those who under both.” It is proved. For the fruit which the Lutherans seek in the Sacraments is the excitation of faith, or its confirmation: for they say that the Sacraments do not profit otherwise than by their signification, as by a visible word representing the promises of God. Which opinion of theirs we copiously declared and confuted in Book 2 on the Sacraments in general, in the disputation on the effect of the Sacraments. But this fruit is better obtained by seeing the Eucharist on the table than by eating it. For while it is eaten, the signification immediately perishes; but while it is beheld and attentively considered, it always represents and signifies the promises of God, even if anyone should wish to behold it for a whole year. Moreover the signification is better apprehended by the eyes than by the sense of taste, since the former is far more spiritual and more apt to assist the understanding. No fruit, therefore, perishes to those who communicate under one species; because although they receive only one by the mouth, yet they receive both by the eyes no less than the priests, and can, if they will, from that beholding receive the signification.
Let this now be the second proposition, concerning the fruit of the Sacrament according to the Catholics: “From either species is received as much of that fruit which the Catholics seek in the Sacrament as is necessary for salvation.” This proposition is had in the Council of Trent, session 21, canon 3, where the Council directly condemns the opinion of the heretics concerning the necessity of both species. For the fruit which the Catholics seek in the Sacrament is the grace of God infused into the soul, by which the life of the soul is preserved, as bodies are preserved by the nourishment of foods: but either species confers grace, as we demonstrated above, since it is a true Sacrament, and any degree of grace suffices for fulfilling the commandments, nay even for expelling all sins. And it is confirmed from John 6, where the Lord promises life to him who receives one species: He that eateth this bread shall live forever.
Third proposition: “Although more grace and fruit were received from both species than from one alone, it would not therefore be needful, or expedient, that all should receive both species.” It is proved. For of two evils the less evil is always to be chosen: and it is a less evil that some men lack some good not necessary than that the Sacrament of God be exposed to an evident danger of irreverence. But it would be exposed to an evident danger if the Eucharist were commonly given to the people under the species of wine; for it could not morally come about but that the blood of the Lord be often spilled. And this reasoning is confirmed by like examples. Certainly the priesthood confers grace, and yet it is not expedient for all to be made priests. To little children the Eucharist would confer grace, and yet, because they do not necessarily need it, nor could it be given them without irreverence, it is not given them, neither by Catholics nor by heretics.
Moreover more grace can be received from frequent Communion under one species than from rare Communion under both: therefore Communion under both is not necessary, since the loss, if there be any, can be easily compensated. For if they now communicate every month under both, let them communicate every fifteenth or eighth day under one, and without doubt they will gain much more.
Finally, the truth of the second conclusion being laid down, which is most certain, he gains more who (that he may obey the Church) communicates under one, than he who under both, without that immense fruit of obedience.
Let this be the last proposition: “No spiritual fruit is received from the two species which is not received from one.” This proposition is not so certain as the former: for concerning this the Theologians think variously, nor does the Council seem to define it openly. Yet it is our opinion, and the common and most probable assertion, so that it can be simply asserted, and proposed from the pulpit in a sermon to the people. For first the Council of Trent, although it did not define this most openly, yet sufficiently indicates it, session 21, canon 3, when it says that under one species the whole Christ, the fount of all graces, is received: for it signifies by these words that under one species is received all the grace which can be received from the Eucharist. In the Council of Basel too the chalice was granted to the Bohemians on this condition, as Ruard testifies, that they should believe that no more fruit is received from the two species than from one.
Moreover, this is the common opinion of the Theologians, both of the ancients, as St. Thomas, opuscule 58, chapter 29 at the end, and Part 3, question 80, last article; St. Bonaventure and Richard on Book 4, distinction 11; and of the more recent, as Gabriel, lecture 84 on the canon of the Mass; John Fisher of Rochester; Cajetan; Dominic Soto; Ruard; John of Louvain; and others.
There is one of the ancients who thought the contrary, Alexander of Hales, in part 4 of his Summa, question 53, member 1. And of the more recent, Caspar Cassalius, in his second book on the Supper and the Chalice, chapter 25, calls the matter into doubt. And although Ruard seems at times to incline to the contrary opinion, he does this that he may in some way reconcile Alexander with the common opinion: for otherwise in very many places he most openly teaches that no more usefulness at all is received from the two species than from one, which places John of Louvain diligently noted.
Our proposition, then, is proved. If the reception of both species confers more grace or spiritual fruit than the reception of one, this would necessarily arise either from the containing symbol or from the contained thing. From the symbol it cannot arise, because the symbol does not operate except by the power impressed upon it; but in the Eucharist, in place of the impressed power, is Christ Himself, or His body and blood: therefore from the symbol greater grace does not arise.
You will say: Although the symbol operates by the impressed power, yet it operates what it signifies: therefore when the symbol signifies more amply and more fully, it operates also a fuller and greater effect. But two species signify more amply and more fully than one.
I answer: The symbol effects what it signifies, but it effects this not by the signification, but by the operative power: for the signification does not operate except in the mind, by exciting some affection when it is apprehended. That symbol, then, which signifies more amply and more fully, if it signify more fully, that is, something fuller and better, then without doubt it operates also a fuller effect, because the operative power is proportioned to the signification. But if it signify more fully, that is, more distinctly and more clearly, it does not effect the same thing better, or a greater effect: otherwise a coin better stamped would be worth more than another; and letters by which diplomas are contained, the more accurately they were written, the greater would be their authority. And to use our own examples, Baptism conferred by triple immersion would justify more: and the sacred host with the image of the crucified impressed on the outer surface would refresh more. But such is the signification of the two species, because namely it signifies more exactly and more clearly that Christ is the nourishment of souls; yet it signifies nothing which is not signified, though a little more obscurely, by either species.
The symbol, then, being set aside, let us come to the contained thing. If from the contained thing that greater grace arises, this happens either because the things contained in the two species are really two and diverse, and each operates something in the soul of the receiver; and this cannot be said, since one and the same Christ is in both species: or because one and the same thing is indeed contained in both species, but is received twice when both species are received, and only once when one species is received. But neither can this be said. For grace or fruit is not increased when it is received twice at the same time, because it is received by way of one refreshment; otherwise he who received two or three particles one after another would in the same participation of the mystery receive more grace than he who received only one: for in each of the particles is Christ. And by like reason, when a priest receives the blood of the Lord not in one draught but in two or three, he would receive more grace than he who drinks the whole in one draught; which indeed are most absurd by the consent of all.
But certain arguments which are objected against this must be resolved. First, Calvin objects, Book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 17, § 47, that the people are defrauded of a great confirmation of faith: for the two species signify to us much more clearly than one that Christ is the food and drink of our souls.
I answer, I have already taught above that the fruit from both species can be received by the people, even if both species be not eaten; for by seeing the symbols a man better perceives their signification than by eating them. Moreover that opinion of Calvin and the Lutherans, that the fruit of the Sacraments consists in confirming faith, is most absurd, and therefore the argument by which they wish to prove the necessity of both species rests on a false foundation. For if the fruit of the Sacraments consisted in this, that the mind be moved when the signification is apprehended, rude men would receive almost no usefulness from the Sacraments; infants would gain nothing at all from Baptism; and finally the more ingenious anyone was, the greater fruit he would receive; and thus the effect of the Sacraments would depend more on nature than on grace. But of this matter we have said enough in the book on the Sacraments in general.
Secondly, George Cassander objects, in John of Louvain (for I have not seen the book of George himself), that the holy Fathers attribute a peculiar effect to the blood of the Lord, which is received from the chalice. For thus Ambrose speaks, Book 5 on the Sacraments, chapter 3: “As often as thou drinkest, thou receivest the remission of sins, and art inebriated with the Spirit.” And Cyprian, Book 1, letter 2: “How do we teach or provoke them to shed their blood in the confession of the name, if to those about to fight we deny the blood of Christ?”
I answer: The holy Fathers do not attribute a peculiar effect to the blood of the Lord, as it is distinguished against the body of the same Lord, but simply attribute a certain effect to the blood of the Lord, because it truly belongs to it, but they do not deny that the same belongs also to the body of the Lord; just as often many things are attributed to God the Father, or the Son, and yet they are not denied of the Holy Spirit, although the Holy Spirit be not then expressed. And that this is true is clear, because the same authors in other places attribute the same effects to the body of the Lord. For Ambrose, who in Book 5, chapter 3, attributes to the blood the remission of sins, the same in Book 4, chapter 3, says thus: “He that shall eat this body, there will be made to him the remission of sins.” And Cyprian, in that very letter where he says that the future Martyrs ought to be confirmed and armed by the drink of the Lord's blood, in the same place says that they ought to be fortified by the protection of the Lord's body. The Apostle too, when he speaks of the fruit of the Lord's Passion, now attributes all to the body, now to the blood, as is clear from Colossians 1: Making peace, he says, through the blood of His cross. And below: He hath reconciled in the body of His flesh through death. Add that the Fathers do not attribute that effect to the species of wine, but to the Lord's blood itself: but they receive the blood who communicate under one species, although they receive not the species of wine.
Thirdly, the same objects certain arguments of Ruard, who proposed them not to prove the opinion of the adversaries, but to show the difficulty of the matter. Let this, then, be the third argument. The effect of food is one, of drink another; for food allays hunger, drink extinguishes thirst. But the Eucharist under the species of bread is food, under the species of wine is drink: therefore the Eucharist under both species produces more effects than under one.
I answer, the effect of food which is only food is one, and of drink which is only drink another. But the effect of food and drink is not diverse when each contains both, such as among bodily things is milk, by which infants are nourished: for that is a food-drink which allays both thirst and hunger: and bread soaked in wine or water, which is indeed food, but containing drink. Such, then, is the food and drink of souls, as we demonstrated above: for one and the same thing, whether it be given under the species of bread, or under the species of wine, or of both, allays both the hunger and the thirst of the soul. Nor can any difference be discerned, except in the external symbols, by which, through a certain likeness, the effects and properties of the spiritual nourishment are set forth.
The fourth argument. The Eucharist under the species of bread is a Sacrament; therefore it confers grace. Either, then, the superadded reception of the chalice increases the grace, or does not increase it. If the first, then more fruit is received from the double species than from one. If the second, then a true Sacrament does not confer grace; therefore it is received in vain by the priests.
I answer: The same argument could be made of two particles of consecrated bread, and of two draughts of consecrated wine, as we said above: from which it is clear that this argument about the double species does not conclude. I say, then, that the reception of the Eucharist under the species of bread confers grace, but that this grace is to be referred to the reception of both species as to one cause, since both species contribute to one refreshment. Wherefore the Eucharist under the species of wine, which is received a little after, does not bestow any new grace, unless perhaps it be received with some greater ardor of spirit.
It could also be said that the Eucharist under the species of bread does not confer grace except when the whole reception of the Eucharist is completed. And because, when both species follow, the reception is not deemed completed until both species are received, therefore the Eucharist under the species of bread confers grace indeed, but not before the reception of the other species. And then both together confer grace, but the same which one species alone would have conferred, if it alone had been received; just as also in Baptism, when triple immersion is employed, grace is not given except when all three are completed, whereas after the first it is given when one alone is employed.
Nor is both species therefore received in vain or uselessly by the priests: for that is not useless which does something, although even without it that could have been done. Which is manifestly clear in the miracles of the Lord. For the Lord sometimes worked miracles by will alone, as when He converted water into wine: sometimes by will and word, as when He raised Lazarus: sometimes by will, word, and touch, as when He raised the dead girl: sometimes by will, word, touch, and another instrument, as spittle, as when He gave light to the blind man, and elsewhere cured a deaf and dumb man. In all these there was nothing useless and superfluous, because all operated, and yet all were not necessary, nor did all together produce a greater effect than one or two only. For the girl did not revive better than Lazarus, even though He called her both with His voice and grasped her with His hand, but Lazarus He only called. Moreover the priests receive both species not only not uselessly, because both species, as I said, operate, but also because that reception, although it be not necessary on the part of the receiver, is yet necessary on the part of the Sacrament. For because the Sacrament was instituted under a double species, both species must necessarily be received by some; but not necessarily by all. But most of all, as we said above, the reception of both species is necessary for the perfection of the sacrifice.
The fifth argument. The Eucharist under the species of wine is an instrument of conferring grace, distinct from the Eucharist under the species of bread; therefore it operates a diverse and distinct grace. The consequence is most well known. For the same God through diverse Sacraments confers diverse grace, because He uses diverse instruments. The antecedent is proved; for in the Eucharist under the species of bread the instrument of conferring grace is only the body of the Lord, not the blood or the soul; but in the Eucharist under the species of wine the instrument is only the blood of the Lord, not the body or the soul. Which, if perhaps it be denied, will be thus proved: in the species of bread only the body of the Lord is there by force of the consecration, the rest by concomitance, and plainly by accident, as regards the Sacrament; therefore only the body of the Lord is the instrument of conferring grace in the Eucharist under the species of bread. For that alone is the instrument which per se pertains to the Sacrament; but the soul and blood, although they belong to a living human body not by accident but per se, yet to the body as it is under the species of bread, only by accident. For if in the three days of the Lord's death some Apostle had consecrated the Eucharist, it certainly would have had only the body without soul and blood, and yet would have been of the same power as it now is.
I answer that the body and blood of the Lord, even precisely taken, are not two instruments formally, but one. For instruments differ formally by a diverse operative power: for the same operative power is both in the body and in the blood, just as it was the same in the words and in the touch, or even in the clay and spittle, when the Lord gave light to the blind. And therefore the same effect followed from the words and the touch, and from the words, touch, and clay. And that there is the same power in the body and blood is clear from this, that Scripture attributes to each the same effects, Colossians 1 and elsewhere; and each has all its power from its conjunction to the divinity. For the body operates because it is the body of the Son of God. For it is false, what is assumed in the argument, that the divinity is in the Sacrament by accident. For although the bread is not converted into the divinity, but only into the body, and therefore the divinity is there by concomitance, yet it is converted into a body not just any, but of the Son of God: for the Lord said, This is my body. Wherefore by force of the words there is in the species of bread a body not just any, but of the Son of God, and therefore a body subsisting by the divine subsistence of the Word, and consequently united to the divinity. Whence Cyril, Book 4 on John, chapter 23, says that the body of Christ (speaking of the Eucharist) gives life, because it is not the body of any man whatever, but of the author of life, and in which dwells the fullness of the divinity.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XXIII. Non majorem utilitatem sumi ex Communione sub utraque specie , quam sub una. Sequitur qua?stio tertia de fructu, qui ex Communione percipitur. Nam postquam to¬ tum Christum, et integrum Sacramentum in una specie sumi demonstravimus : id unum superest, ut videamus utrum aliquis fructus iis depereat, qui sub altera tantum specie Eucharistiam sumunt. Et quoniam de fructu Sacramentorum longe aliter disputant haeretici nostri temporis, atque Catholici fa¬ ciunt, juxta utrorumque sententiam de Eu¬ charistia? fructu differemus. Ac ut a sententia tnereticorum incipiamus, statuo hanc propositionem primam : « Ejus fructus, quem Lutherani omnes in Sacra¬ mentis qua?runt, non minus percipiunt, qui sub una specie communicant, quam qui sub 266 LIBER IV. duabus ». Probatur. Nam fructus quem Lu- therani in Sacramentis quaerunt, est excita¬ tio fidei, vel confirmatio : dicunt enim Sa¬ cramenta non aliter prodesse, quam signi- catione sua, tamquam visibili verbo reprae¬ sentando promissiones Dei. Quam eorum sententiam copiose declaravimus, et confu¬ tavimus in lib. ii. de Sacramentis in genere, in disputatione de effectu Sacramentorum. Istae autem fructus melius obtinetur videndo Eucharistiam in mensa, quam eam mandu¬ cando. Nam dum manducatur, continuo per¬ it significatio, at dum cernitur, et attente cogitatur, semper repraesentat, et significat promissiones Dei, etiamsi per integrum an¬ num quis eam cernere vellet. Praeterea sig¬ nificatio melius apprehenditur per oculos, quam per gustandi sensum, cum sit ille longe spiritualior, et aptior ad intelligen- tiam adjuvandam. Nihil ergo fructus perit communicantibus sub una, quia licet unam tantum ore sumant, tamen oculis utramque sumunt non minus, quam Sacerdotes, et possunt, si volunt, ex illo aspectu significa¬ tionem percipere. Sit jam secunda propositio de fructu Sa¬ cramenti secundum Catholicos : « Ex quali¬ bet specie percipitur tantum ejus fructus, quem Catholici in Sacramento quaerunt, quantum necessarium est ad salutem » . Ha¬ betur haec propositio in Concilio Tridentino sess. xxi. can. 3. ubi Concilium directe dam¬ nat haereticorum sententiam de necessitate utriusquc speciei. Nam fructus quem Catho¬ lici in Sacramento quaerunt, est gratia Dei animae infusa per quam conservatur vita animae, ut per ciborum nutritionem conser¬ vantur corpora: sed quaelibet species confert gratiam, ut supra demonstravimus, cum sit verum Sacramentum, et quilibet gradus gratiae sufficit ad implenda mandata, imo ad pellenda etiam omnia peccata. Et confir¬ matur ex Joan. vi. ubi Dominus po licetur vitam sumenti unam speciem : Qui manducat hunc panem vioet in seternum (1). Tertia propositio : « Licet plus gratiae, et fructus ex utraque specie, quam ex una tan¬ tum caperetur, non propterea opus esset, vel expediret, ut omnes utramqoe speciem sumerent ». Probatur. Nam ex duobus malis semper est eligendum minus malum : est au¬ tem minus malum ut homines ahqui careant aliquo bono non necessario quam ut Sacra¬ mentum Dei evidenti periculo irreverentiae exponatur. Exponeretur autem evidenti pe¬ riculo si communiter populo daretur Eucha¬ ristia sub specie vini ; moraliter enim fieri non posset, quin saepius effunderetur sanguis Domini. Et confirmatur haec ratio ab exem¬ plis similibus. Certe Sa' er lotium gratiam confert, nec tamen expedit omnibus fieri Sacerdotes. Parvulis Eucharistia gratiam conferret, et tamen quia ea non indigent necessario, nec sine irreverentia eis dare posset, non eis datur, neque a Catholicis, ne¬ que ab haereticis. Prmterea plus gratiae recipi potest ex fre¬ quenti Communione sub una specie, quam ex rura sub utraque : non igitur est neces¬ saria Communio sub utraque, cum facili ne¬ gotio compensari possit damnum, si quod sit. Nam si communicant jam singulis men¬ sibus sub utraque ; communicent decimo- quinto, aut octavo quoque die sub una, et sine dubio multo amplius lucrabuntur. Denique, posita veritate secundae conclu¬ sionis, quae certissima est, magis lucratur qui (ut Ecclesiae obediat) communicat sub una, quam qui sub duabus, sine illo ingenti obedientiae fructu. Sit ultima propositio : « Nihil spiritualis fructus capitur ex duabus speciebus, quod non capiatur ex una ». Haec propositio non est adeo certa, ut superior : de hac enim varie sentiunt Theologi, neque Concilium eam aperte definire videtur. Est tamen no¬ stra sententia, atque assertio communis, et probabilissima, adeo ut simpliciter asseri, et ex pulpito in concione ad populum proponi possit. Nam in primis Concilium Triclenti- num licet non apertissime hoc definierit, ta¬ men satis indicat sess. 21. canon. 3. cum dicit, sub una specie sumi integrum Chri¬ stum omnium gratiarum fontem : sign ficat enim his verbis sub una specie sumi omnem gratiam, quae ex Eucharistia sumi potest. In Concilio etiam Basileensi ea conditione concessus fuit calix Bohemis, ut Ruardus testatur, ut crederent non plus fructus sumi ex duabus speciebus, quam ex una. Praeterea, est haec sententia communis Theologorum, tum veterum, ut S. Thoma? opusc. 58. cap. 29. in fine, et 3. par. quaest. lxxx. art. ult. S. Bonaventurae, et Ricardi in iv.dist. 11. tum et am recentiorum, utGa- briclis lect. 84. in eanonem Missae, Joan, (Q Joan. VI, 59. CAPUT XXIII. 267 Roffensis, Cajetam, Domin. a Soto, Ruardi, Joan. a Lovanio, et aliorum. Unus est ex veteribus, qui contrarium sen¬ sit, Alexander Alensis in iv. par. summae qusest. 53. memb. i, Ex rccentioribus autem Gaspar Cassalius in ii. lib. de Cama et Ca¬ lice capite 25. rem in dubium revocat. Et quamvis Ruardus videatur interdum in con¬ trariam sententiam propendere, id facit, ut aliquo modo concidet Alexandrum cum sen¬ tentia communi : alioqui enim plurimis in locis apertissime docet, nihil omnino plus utilitatis recipi ex duabus speciebus, quam ex una, qua) loca diligenter notavit Joannes a Lovanio. Probatur igitur propositio nostra. Si sum¬ ptio utriusque speciei plus gratia), aut fru¬ ctus spiritualis confert, quam sumptio unius, id necessario oriretur vel ex svmbolo conti- € / nente vel ex re contenta. Ex symbo o id na¬ sci non potest, quia symbolum non operatur, nisi per virtutem sibi impressam ; in Eucha¬ ristia autem loco virtutis impressae est ipse Christus, sive corpus ejus et sanguis : non igitur ex symbolo oritur major gratia. Dices : Licet symbolum operetur per vir¬ tutem impressam, tameu id operatur, quod significat : ergo quando symbolum cumula¬ tius, et plenius signiticat, effectum etiam pleniorem, et majorem operatur. At duae spe¬ cies cumulatius, et plenius significant, quam una. Respondeo : Symbolum efficit quod signi¬ ficat, sed id non efficit per significationem, sed per vim operativam : significatio enim non operatur nisi in mente, excitando affe¬ ctum aliquem dum apprehenditur. Id ergo symbolum, quod significat cumulatius, et plenius, si significet plenius, id est, aliquid plenius, et melius; tunc sine dubio operatur etiam effectum pleniorem, quia virtus opera- tiva proportionatur significationi. Si autem significet plenius, id est, distinctius, et cla¬ rius, rem eamdem non efficit meliorem, vel majorem effectum : alioqui moneta melius impressa plus valeret, quam alia ; et littera), quibus diplomata continentur, quo accura¬ tius scripta) essent, eo majori essent au¬ ctoritatis. Et ut exemplis propriis utamur, Baptismus trina mersione collatus magis justificaret : et hostia sacra cum imagine crucifixi impressa in exteriore superficie magis reficeret. Talis autem significatio est duarum specierum, quia nimirum exactius, et clarius significat Christum esse alimen¬ tum animorum, non tamen aliquid significat, quod ab altera specie, licet paulo obscurius, non significetur. Omisso igitur symbolo ad rem contentam veniamus. Si ex re contenta major illa gratia oritur, id fit, vel quia res contentio in utra¬ que specie sunt revera dua), et diversa), et quadibet operatur aliquid in animam susci¬ pientis; et hoc dici non potest, cum unus et idem Christus in utraque specie sit : vel quia una res quidem et eadem in utraque specie continetur, sed cabis sumitur, cum sumitur utraque species, semel autem tan¬ tum sumitur, cum una species sumitur. At neque hoc dici potest. Nam non augetur gratia vel fructus, quando bis sumitur eodem tempore, quia sumitur per modum unius re¬ fectionis ; alioqui qui duas tresve particulas sumeret unam post alteram, in eadem parti¬ cipatione mysterii majorem gratiam accipe¬ ret, quam qui unam tantum : nam in singu¬ lis particul s Christus est. Et pari ratione cum Sacerdos non uno haustu, sed duobus, aut tribus sumit sanguinem Domini, plus gra¬ tia) acciperet, quam qui uno haustu totum ebibit ; quae sane absurdissima sunt omnium consensu. Sed argumenta quaedam, quae contra ob¬ jiciuntur, dissolvenda sunt. Primo , Calvi¬ nus objicit lib. iv. lnstitut. cap. 17. § 47. fraudari populum magna fidei confirma¬ tione : nam multo clarius nobis .significant dum species, quam una, Christum esse ci¬ bum, et potum animarum nostrarum. Respondeo, jam supra docui fructum ex utraque specie a populo capi posse, etiamsi utraque species non manducetur ; nam vi¬ dendo symbola melius percipit homo eorum significationem, quam comedendo. Prseterea sententia ista Calvini, et Lutheranorum, quod Sacramentorum fructus consistat in confirmanda fide, absurdissima est, et proin¬ de argumentum, quo probare volunt utrius¬ que speciei necessitatem, falso nititur fun¬ damento. Nam si fructus Sacramentorum in eo consisteret, ut apprehensa significatione moveretur animus, homines rudes nihil fere utilitatis ex Sacramentis perciperent; infan¬ tes autem ex Baptismo nihil omnino lucra¬ rentur ; et denique quo quis esset ingenio¬ sior, eo majorem fructum perciperet ; atque ita Sacramentorum effectus magis penderet ex natura, quam ex gratia. Sed de hac re satis multa diximus in lib. de Sacramentis in genere. 2G8 LIBEIi IV. Secundo, objicit Georgius Cassander apud Joannem a Lovanio (nam librum ipsum Georgii non vidi) sancti Patres tribuunt pe¬ culiarem effectum sanguini Domini, qui ex calice sumitur. Sic enim Ambrosius loqui¬ tur lib. v. de Sacramentis, cap. 3. : « Quo¬ tiescumque bibis, remissionem accipis pec¬ catorum, et inebriaris spiritu ». Et Cypria¬ nus lib. i. epist. 2. : «Quomodo docemus, aut provocamus eos in confessione nominis san¬ guinem suum fundere , si eis militaturi, Christi sanguinem denegamus ? » Respondeo : Sancti Patres non tribuunt peculiarem effectum sanguini Domini , ut distinguitur contra corpus ejusdem Domini, sed simpliciter tribuunt effectum quemdam sanguini Domini, quia vere illi convenit, sed non negant eumdem convenire etiam corpori Domini, quemadmodum sa?pe multa tri¬ buuntur Deo Patri, vel Filio, et tamen non ne¬ gantur ea de Spiritu sancto, licet non ex¬ primatur tunc Spiritus sanctus. Hoc autem esse verum patet, quia iidem auctores in aliis locis eosdem effectus tribuunt corpori Domini. Ambrosius enim qui lib. v. cap. 3. tribuit sanguini remissionem peccatorum, idem lib. iv. cap. 3. sic ait : « Qui mandu¬ caverit hoc corpus, fiet ei remissio peccato¬ rum ». Et Cyprianus in illa ipsa epistola, ubi dicit, Martyres futuros confirmari, at¬ que armari debere potu sanguinis Domini ; ibidem dicit muniri debere protectione cor¬ poris Domini. Ipse quoque Apostolus cum de fructu passionis Domini loquitur, nunc tribuit omnia corpori, nunc sanguini, ut pa¬ tet Coloss. 1. : Pacificans , inquit, per sangui¬ nem crucis ejus. Et infra : Reconciliavit in corpore carnis ejus per mortem (1). Adde quod Patres non tribuunt illum effectum speciebus vini, sed ipsi Dominico sanguini : sanguinem autem accipiunt, qui sub una specie communicant, licet vini speciem non accipiant. Tertio, objicit idem argumenta qua?dam Ruardi, qui ea proposuit, non ut probaret sententiam adversariorum, sed ut rei diffi¬ cultatem ostenderet. Sit igitur hoc argu¬ mentum tertium. Alius est effectus cibi, alius potus ; cibus enim famem sedat, potus sitim extinguit. Sed Eucharistia sub specie panis est cibus, sub specie vini est potus : igitur Eucharistia sub utraque specie plures effectus producit quam sub una. Respondeo, alius est effectus cibi, qui so¬ lum est cibus ; et alius potus, qui solum est potus. At non alius effectus est cibi, et po¬ tus , quando uterque continet utrumque, qualis est in rebus corporalibus lac, quo in¬ fantes nutriuntur : est enim ille potus ciba¬ lis, qui et sitim, et famem sedat : et panis vino, vel aqua maceratus, qui est cibus qui¬ dem, sed potum continens. Talis igitur est cibus, et potus animarum, ut supra demon¬ stravimus : una enim, et eadem res, sive detur sub specie panis, sive sub specie vini, sive utriusque, et famem, et sitim anima? sedat. Nec ulla differentia cerni potest, nisi in symbolis externis, quibus per quamdam si¬ militudinem effectus et proprietates alimenti spiritualis explicantur. Quartum argumentum . Eucharistia sub specie panis, Sacramentum est ; ergo gra¬ tiam confert. Vel igitur superaddita sumptio calicis gratiam auget, vel non auget. Si pri¬ mum, ergo major fructus capitur ex duplici spi cie, quam ex una. Si secundum, ergo verum Sacramentum non confert gratiam ; ergo frustra sumitur a Sacerdotibus. Respondeo : Idem argumentum fieri posset de duabus particulis consecrati panis, et de duobus haustibus vini consecrati, ut supra diximus : ex quo perspicuum est, hoc argu¬ mentum de duplici specie non concludere. Dico igitur sumptionem Eucharistia? sub specie panis gratiam conferre, sed eam gra¬ tiam in sumptionem utriusque speciei, ut in unam causam esse referendam, quandoqui¬ dem ad unam refectionem utraque species confert. Quocirca Eucharistia sub specie vini, quse paulo post sumitur, non novam aliquam gratiam tribuit, nisi forte majori aliquo ardore spiritus percipiatur. Posset etiam dici, Eucharistiam sub specie panis non conferre gratiam, nisi tota sum¬ ptione Eucharistice absoluta. Et quia cum se¬ quitur utraque species, non censetur abso¬ luta sumptio, nisi cum sumpta est utraque species ; ideo Eucharistiam sub specie panis conferre quidem gratiam, sed non ante sum¬ ptionem alterius speciei. Tunc autem utram¬ que simul gratiam conferre, sed eamdem quam sola contulisset una species, si sola sumpta fuisset ; sicut etiam in Baptismo, cum adhibetur trina mersio, non datur gratia , nisi ubi omnes tres absolvuntur, cum tamen post primam detur cum adhibetur una sola. (t) Coloss. I, 20 et 22. CAPUT XXIV. 269 Neque ideo frustra, aut inutiliter sumitur a Sacerdotibus utraque species : non enim est inutile id quod aliquid facit, licet etiam sine eo id fieri potuisset. Id quod manifeste patet in miraculis Domini. Dominus enim aliquando sola voluntate operabatur mira¬ cula, ut cum aquam in vinum convertit: ali¬ quando voluntate et verbo, ut cum Laxa¬ rum excitavit ; aliquando voluntate, verbo, et contactu, ut cum excitavit puellam mor¬ tuam ; aliquando voluntate , verbo, con¬ tactu, et alio instrumento, ut sputo, ut cum caecum illuminavit, et alibi surdum, et mu¬ tum curavit. In his omnibus nihil erat inu¬ tile, et superfluum, quia omnia operaban¬ tur, et tamen non erant omnia necessaria, neque majorem effectum producebant om¬ nia simul, quam unum, aut duo, tantum. Non enim melius revixit puella, quam La- zarus, etiamsi illam, et voce appellavit, et manu apprehendit, Lazarum autem solum vocavit. Praeterea sacerdotes, non solum non inutiliter sumunt utramque speciem, quia utraque species, ut dici, operatur, sed etiam quia ea sumptio, licet non sit necessaria ex parte sumentis , est tamen necessaria ex parte Sacramenti. Nam quia Sacramentum sub diplici specie institutum est, utraque species necessario ab aliquibus sumenda est; sed non necessario ab omnibus. Sed maxime omnium , ut supra diximus, necessaria est utriusque speciei sumptio ob sacrificii per¬ fectionem. Quintum argumentum est. Eucharistia sub specie vini instrumentum est conferenda? gratia?, distinctum ab Eucharistia sub specie panis ; ergo diversam , ac distinctam gra¬ tiam operatur. Consequentia notissima est. Nam idem Deus per diversa Sacramenta di¬ versam gratiam confert ; quia utitur instru¬ mentis diversis. Antecedens probatur ; nam in Eucharistia sub specie panis instrumen¬ tum conferenda? gratia? est solum corpus Domini, non autem sanguis, aut anima; in Eucharistia autem sub specie vini instru¬ mentum est solum sanguis Domini, non au¬ tem corpus, aut anima. Id quod si forte ne¬ getur, ita probabitur : in specie panis solum corpus Domini est vi consecrationis, reliqua per concomitantiam, et plane per accidens, quod ad Sacramentum pertinet ; ergo solum corpus Domini est instrumentum conferenda? gratiae in Eucharistia sub specie panis. Illud enim solum est instrumentum, quod per se ad Sacramentum pertinet ; anima autem ct sanguis, licet non per accidens, sed per se conveniant humano corpori viventi , tamen corpori, ut est in specie panis, non nisi per accidens. Nam si triduo mortis Domini Eu¬ charistiam Apostolus aliquis consecrassct, ea certe solum corpus sine anima, et sanguine habuisset, et tamen ejusdem virtutis fuisset, atque modo est. Respondeo, corpus et sanguinem Domini etiam praecise sumpta non esse duo instru¬ menta formaliter, sed unum. Instrumenta enim formaliter differunt per diversam virtu¬ tem operativam : eadem enim virtus opera i- va est tam in corpore, quam in sanguine, sicut eadem erat in verbis, et in tactu, vel etiam in luto, et sputo, cum Dominus illuminabat ca?cos. Et ideo, idem effectus sequebatur ex verbis, et tactu, et ex verbis, tactu, et luto. Esse autem eamdem virtutem in corpore, et sanguine ex eo patet, quod Scriptura tri¬ buit utrique eosdem effectus, Goloss. 1. ct alibi ; et utrumque omnem suam vim habet ex conjunctione ad divinitatem. Corpus enim ideo operatur, quia est corpus Filii Dei. Fal¬ sum enim est, quod in argumento assumi¬ tur, divinitatem per accidens esse in Sacra¬ mento. Nam etiamsi panis non convertitur in divinitatem, sed in solum corpus, et ideo divinitas est ibi per concomitantium, tamen convertitur in corpus non quodeumque, sed Filii Dei : dixit enim Dominus : Hoc est cor¬ pus meum. Quare vi verborum est iu specie panis corpus non quodlibet, sed Filii Dei, ct proinde corpus subsistens divina Verbi sub¬ sistentia, et consequenter unitum divinitati. Unde Cyrillus lib. iv. in Joannem. cap. 23. dicit , corpus Christi (de Eucharistia lo- quens) vivificare, quia non est corpus cu- jusvis hominis, sed vitee auctoris, et in quo habitat divinitatis plpnitudo.