Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book IV: On the Sacrament of the Eucharist Itself
Chapter 24: That Communion Under One Species Does Not Fight with the Divine Writings or with Christ's Mandate, Proved by Various Reasons
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).
Now follows the fourth question: Whether by a divine mandate Communion under both species is commanded to all. For we have already shown that from the nature of the thing there is no such obligation; therefore it remains to be asked whether at least by a divine positive precept there is in the Church an obligation of this kind. And although Luther in several places acknowledges rather a divine permission than a compelling law, as we cited above, yet John Calvin, Book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 17, § 47, says: “It is the edict of the eternal God that all drink.” And Kemnitz, at the beginning of his disputation on both species, altogether contends that all are bound by the mandate of the Lord to receive both species.
Now in this question it is for the adversaries to prove, for us to answer: for we deny, they assert; but the burden of proving lies on him who affirms, not on him who denies. Yet, that the disputation may be more accurate and full, we shall first bring forward various reasons by which it becomes altogether credible that no precept was given by Christ concerning the reception of both species. Then we shall answer all the arguments which they bring forward.
As to the first, then. The first reason is taken from the figures. Most of the figures of the Eucharist signify eating under one species. It is therefore in no way probable that Christ was going to command the reception of both species: for the thing figured ought to answer to the figure. Whence the Evangelists everywhere, when they describe the acts of Christ, add (that the Scripture might be fulfilled). In John 19 St. John notes that God did not permit the legs of the crucified Lord to be broken, because that figure of the paschal lamb, whose bones could not be broken, had preceded. And the Apostle, 1 Corinthians 10: All these things happened to them in figure.
The first figure was of the tree of life in the midst of paradise, Genesis 2 and 3, which Paschasius teaches was a figure of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, in his book on the body of the Lord, chapter 7. And it is established that no drink was joined to that tree. The second was of the paschal lamb, Exodus 12, which is most well known.
Nor does the answer of Kemnitz stand in the way, who will have that a figure of both species preceded in the paschal lamb, because both the flesh was eaten and the blood was sprinkled on the doorposts; and that the sprinkling of the blood signified the drink of the chalice he proves from Gregory, homily 22. This answer, I say, is not valid. For Gregory sets down two explanations. One less probable and particular, that by the blood sprinkled on the doorposts is signified the drink of the Lord's blood. Nor yet does he say the drink of the blood under the species of wine, of which we treat, but the drink of the blood absolutely, as it is taken for the Eucharist: for Gregory does not there distinguish the two species. Then he sets down the other, common, that by the blood on the doorposts is signified the sign of the cross on the forehead, as Augustine too expounds, Book 12 against Faustus, chapter 30, Jerome on chapter 66 of Isaiah, Cyprian in his treatise against Demetrian, and Isidore on chapter 12 of Exodus. And this without doubt is the true one: for that blood cannot be referred to drink, since it was neither drunk nor given to men, and the doorposts were smeared with it before the lamb was eaten.
The third figure is the manna, Exodus 16. The fourth, the loaves of proposition, Exodus 25, in which no drink was mixed. The fifth finally was the participation of the sacrifices. For although in the sacrifices there was flesh and blood, and also many libations, as is clear from the same chapter 25 of Exodus, yet only the flesh was eaten, the blood and the libations were poured out to God. Whence 1 Corinthians 10 the Apostle says: They that eat the victims are partakers of the altar; nor did he add anything about drink, because the Hebrews were not wont to have the wine of libations.
You will say, from this figure it is gathered that the priests ought not to drink the chalice of the Lord at the altar, since neither did the priests of the Old Testament drink the libations offered to God, but only ate the victims.
I answer: What the priests now do, when they eat and drink under the species of bread and wine the body and blood of the Lord, does not answer to the eating of the victims, but to the consuming by fire. For the Eucharist is in some way a holocaust, in some way a peace-offering, in some way an offering for sin. And because in the holocaust all things were consumed, both victims and libations, therefore now too by the priest, whose office it is to consume the holocaust, all things are received. But by the people, who only partake of the sacrifice, it is enough that the flesh of the immaculate lamb be eaten.
You will say secondly: Although in those figures Communion under the species of food alone is commended, there are yet others in which it is commended under both. As Genesis 14, where Melchisedech offered bread and wine, and gave both to be received by Abraham and those who followed him; and 1 Corinthians 10, where the Hebrews are said to have eaten spiritual food and drunk spiritual drink: which passage Kemnitz makes much of.
I answer, we do not contend for the necessity of one species, as the adversaries for the necessity of two; and therefore it is not against us if some figures are found for two species, but plainly makes against the adversaries if some are found, as really very many are found, for one species. Then it is not established whether Melchisedech gave the bread and wine to Abraham to eat, or only offered them to God. For Scripture does not openly say it. That he offered them to God is clear from the following words: For he was the priest of the most high God; but that he gave them to be eaten is gathered from no word. And concerning the spiritual drink, that is, the water from the rock, we have already said above that that figure favors one species. For the water, when it was given to the people as a sign of spiritual drink, was given alone, without the joining of any spiritual food: just as also the blood and water which flowed from the side of the Lord signify two Sacraments, Baptism and the Eucharist, as Augustine and Theophylact witness on chapter 19 of John, where by one species alone the Eucharist is designated, that we may understand that one suffices.
The second reason is taken from the doctrine and example of Christ. For the Lord, when in John 6 He speaks of the fruit of the Eucharist, not once but four times teaches that one species suffices for salvation: He that eateth me shall live by me. He that eateth this bread shall live forever. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever. This is the bread that came down from heaven, that if any man eat of it, he may not die. It cannot, then, come about that the same Lord commanded both species to be received, as necessary for salvation. And that this chapter of John is to be understood of the Sacrament we showed above, in the first controversy on the Eucharist.
Again by His own example the Lord approved the same. First, John 6, where He multiplied the loaves, and thence satisfied the multitude, twelve baskets remaining: nor did He multiply any drink, nor give it. Then, Luke chapter 24, when at Emmaus in the supper with the two disciples He took bread, blessed, broke, gave it to them, etc.
Of this passage there are two opinions among the Catholics. The first is of John of Louvain and others, who contend that the Sacrament of the Eucharist was given by Christ to the two disciples, and adduce for this opinion Augustine, Book 3 on the agreement of the Evangelists, chapter 25; the author of the Imperfect Work on Matthew, homily 17; Bede and Theophylact on that passage of Luke; Jerome in the Epitaph of Paula; and Hesychius, Book 2 on Leviticus, chapter 9.
The other opinion is that of Cornelius Jansenius in his exposition of this passage, who teaches that the bread blessed by the Lord at Emmaus was not indeed of the Eucharist, but that the Lord wished by this example to demonstrate the fruit and usefulness of the Eucharist in one species: wherefore from this passage the use of one species is proved no less than from the multiplication of the loaves, John 6. And this he proves both from Augustine, Bede, and Theophylact in the cited places, who can seem to teach only this, namely that in that blessing of bread there was a certain mystery, by which was signified the usefulness of the Eucharist, in the way too that Innocent III speaks, Book 6 on the mysteries of the Mass, chapters 7 and 9; and also from the very text, for that there was here some mystery is clear partly from the blessing, which the Lord is not read to have employed except to work something wonderful; partly from the effect, for by that bread they were enlightened.
But whichever of these two opinions we embrace, this example of Christ shows that so great is the usefulness of the Eucharist in one species that it is by no means to be thought that its use under both species was commanded to all.
But here Philip Melanchthon meets us, in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, in the article on both species, where he confesses that this example pertains to the Eucharist, but says that from it the use of one species is not gathered, since in the breaking of bread, by a figure of understanding, the whole Sacrament with both species is signified. But this can easily be refuted; for the Gospel history so joins the distribution of the blessed bread with the Lord's departure that it leaves no place for blessing or distributing a chalice. For thus it says: And it came to pass, whilst He was at table with them, He took bread, and blessed and broke, and gave to them. And their eyes were opened, and they knew Him; and He vanished out of their sight.
Kemnitz presses, and proves from Augustine, tract 2 on the epistle of John, that Christ gave both species to the two disciples. For thus Augustine speaks: “And truly, he who does not eat and drink judgment to himself acknowledges Christ in the breaking of bread.” But the argument is too far-fetched. For Augustine does not say that Christ gave both species, but says that in the breaking of bread Christ is acknowledged, as befell those disciples at Emmaus; but he adds that this fruit is obtained only by those who do not now receive unworthily, and alleges the words of Paul, or alludes to those, where we read, 1 Corinthians 11, that those who eat and drink unworthily eat and drink judgment to themselves; which is most true, whether one species or both be received unworthily.
Finally Kemnitz adds that Christ did not add, Do this, when He gave the blessed bread at Emmaus: therefore we are not bound to imitate Him in this, if He gave one species only. But neither do we say that we are bound; but we only prove by this example that it is lawful and useful to communicate under one.
The third reason is taken from the doctrine and use of the Apostles. For in Acts 2 the communication of the Eucharist is thus described: And they were persevering in the doctrine of the Apostles, and in the communication of the breaking of bread, and in prayers. In which place it cannot be denied that the Eucharist is treated of, both because the breaking of bread is joined with the doctrine and prayer, and also because it would have been a censure rather than a praise of the faithful to record that they were persevering in bodily dinners and suppers. Finally Luther confesses this in his sermon on the Eucharist, and Calvin, Book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 17, § 35.
Nor does Kemnitz deny that this passage was so explained by the ancients; but he answers that by the breaking of bread is understood also the chalice, namely by a figure of understanding by which by a part we signify the whole. And this he proves, because otherwise the Apostles would have consecrated under one species, which not even the Catholics would admit. But this reasoning of his concludes nothing. For Luke does not describe what the Apostles, but what the people did, when he says that they were persevering in the doctrine of the Apostles and in the communication of the breaking of bread and in prayer. The Apostles, then, consecrated the Eucharist under both species, but administered it to the peoples under one species.
Which is also confirmed from this, that there were very many Christians at Jerusalem who in those beginnings kept the legal observances of Moses, the Apostles permitting it, as is clear from chapter 21 of Acts; and of these some for a certain time were Nazarites, not drinking wine nor shaving their heads, until the end of the days of their vow. But it is not credible that these drank of the chalice of the Lord against their vow; nor is it probable that they abstained altogether from Communion, since Luke says that all were persevering in the doctrine and in the communication of the breaking of bread. Wherefore it is a most probable conjecture that Luke therefore mentioned only the breaking of bread because from that species alone none abstained. Whence also blessed Paul, 1 Corinthians 10, not without cause says of the chalice: The chalice of blessing which we bless; but of the bread: The bread which we break. For the chalice was always blessed, but not always distributed. Whence also a little below he says: We being many are one bread and one body, who partake of one bread.
And the wisdom of Kemnitz is indeed to be wondered at, who, though everywhere he despises the Vulgate edition, in this place diligently defends it. For he writes in his disputation, page 600, that in the Vulgate edition, which the Council of Trent decreed cannot be rejected under any pretext, it is had, 1 Corinthians 10: We being many are one bread and one body, who partake of one bread and of one chalice. But the Council of Trent did not ordain that any reading whatever of the Vulgate edition is to be received, but that which it is established is the reading of the Vulgate edition; otherwise the same Council would not have bidden the Vulgate edition to be printed as correctly as possible. Moreover that (and of one chalice) is not had in the more correct Bibles of the Vulgate edition, but only in a few less corrected ones; and in the Greek copies it is had in none.
The fourth reason is taken from the testimony of the ancient Church, which, since it was the true Church, would without doubt have done nothing against the express mandate of Christ. And in three ways the ancient Church testifies that Communion under one species is lawful. First, because it never reprehended or condemned it, whereas it was not ignorant that it was in use at least among some. For (to omit other things for the moment) the Manichees never communicated except under the species of bread, as Leo I testifies, sermon 4 on Lent: for they thought that wine was the gall of a dragon. And moreover they denied the true death of Christ: and therefore they never received the blood of the Lord under the species of wine. And yet neither Epiphanius, nor Augustine, nor others who wrote of the errors of the Manichees, noted that error, that against the mandate of the Lord they received the Eucharist under one species only.
Then, the testimony of the ancient Church can be had from two illustrious examples of heretical frauds. Sozomen writes, Book 8 of his history, chapter 5, and Nicephorus, Book 13, chapter 7, that a certain Macedonian heretic woman, when she wished to cover her heresy and feign herself a Catholic, received in her hands, Chrysostom celebrating the sacred rites, the bread of the Eucharist, as if she would eat it a little after; but secretly gave it to her maidservant, and from her took profane bread, which she had bidden be brought from home, that she might openly eat it in place of the Eucharist: but that bread was immediately turned into stone. From this deed we understand that it was the custom for those who wished to receive the Eucharist under one species only. For if all had been compelled to drink of the chalice of the Lord, that woman could in no way have feigned: for she could not have received something else in place of the chalice of the Lord; since the chalice was not given into the hands, but was applied by the hand of the deacon to the mouth of the communicants.
The other example is in Leo, sermon 4 on Lent, where St. Leo says that the Manichees, to cover their heresy, were wont to receive the bread of the Eucharist with the Catholics, but not to drink the chalice. But if at Rome Communion under both species had not been free, but all had always had to receive under both, the Manichees could in no way have lain hidden, who never received the blood of the Lord. Whence St. Leo does not bid those to be watched who sometimes received, sometimes did not, but those who never at all received the blood: for that at that time could be held for a sign of Manicheism. Thirdly, from the various rites, from which the use of one species is openly gathered: for the ancient Church, which by the testimony of the adversaries was the true Church, would not so openly have fought against the mandate of God. And these rites are: the reservation of the Sacrament, domestic communication, the communication of infants, the communication of the sick, lay communion, communion from the presanctified.
And first, that the Sacrament of the Eucharist was wont to be reserved we proved above by many testimonies of the Fathers and Councils. And that they reserved it only under one species, and therefore received under one species, is clear, because sometimes they reserved it for a very long time. For Sophronius mentions in the Spiritual Meadow, chapter 79, that it was sometimes reserved for a whole year; nay the Greeks even now reserve it for a whole year. But wine in a small quantity could not be preserved so long without turning sour and being corrupted. Moreover those who mention the reservation, as Cyprian in his sermon on the lapsed, and Ambrose in his oration on the death of Satyrus, and Sophronius already cited, mention only the species of bread, which they say was wrapped in a cloth or linen.
Kemnitz objects against this rite that Gregory Nazianzen says that Gorgonia reserved the symbols of the body and blood; and that Ambrose, when he speaks of Satyrus, mentions a drinking and a pouring into the bowels, which pertain rather to drink than to food.
But it is easy to refute these. For Gregory speaks disjunctively, and says that Gorgonia laid up something of the signs of the body or blood of the Lord; and that he speaks of the species of bread, not of wine, is sufficiently gathered from the common use of that time. And what Kemnitz says of Ambrose is altogether ridiculous. For Ambrose speaks of the drinking and transfusion into the bowels of that species which Satyrus had wrapped in a cloth. But who would doubt what that was? Nor does the word of drinking or transfusing pertain so to drink that it cannot also be referred to food, when something entire is received. And Ambrose uses that mode of speaking because he was speaking of the thing signified rather than of the sign: for the thing signified is received entire.
The second rite of the ancient Church was to carry the Eucharist home and there receive it at a fitting time, which is most certain from Tertullian, Book 2 to his Wife; Clement of Alexandria, Book 1 of the Stromata not far from the beginning; Cyprian in his sermon on the lapsed; Basil in his letter to Caesaria the Patrician; Jerome in his Apology for the books against Jovinian; and others. And that at home the Christians were wont to communicate under one species only is clear, both from this, that only the species of bread was given into the hands of the faithful, but the blood was given from the chalice to be drunk, as Cyril demonstrates, Catechesis 3 of the Mystagogics; and also because in the houses of the laity there were no sacred chalices or vessels in which the blood of the Lord could be contained, as most clearly appears from the second Apology of Athanasius against the Arians.
Here Kemnitz confesses that in private houses one species only was used: but he says that those same who received at home under the species of bread had first received in church under the species of wine; and therefore under both species by intervals of time. Then he adds that he does not dispute of what was done in private houses, but of what was done in the public administration of the Supper.
But this solution fights with its own author. For if in church, in the public administration of the Supper, they received the species of bread, but reserved it to be carried home and eaten at another time, but drank in church only the species of wine, which they could not carry: then in church they communicated only under one species, namely of wine. For to communicate is not to take the Eucharist in the hands, but to eat and drink.
It is moreover to be observed that the drink of the blood in church, and the eating of the body of the Lord in private houses, could not be held for one Communion, but it must necessarily be confessed that there were diverse Communions, and each under one species only, neither under both. For those species were received on different days, not on the same day: for they carried it home that they might be able to communicate on the following days, even if they did not go to the church. Whence Jerome, in his Apology for the books against Jovinian, writes that on those days some were wont to receive the body of the Lord at home, on which, because of the conjugal act performed, they did not dare to enter the church.
Nor does it stand in the way that that custom of carrying the Eucharist into private houses was afterward abrogated: for it was abrogated on account of the irreverence with which so great a Sacrament was affected, not because Communion under one species is not lawful.
The third rite was the communication of infants. For the ancients sometimes communicated infants, but under one species only, namely by instilling into their mouths a little of the Lord's blood, as is clear both from Cyprian in his sermon on the lapsed, and from manifest reason, because infants cannot take any solid food.
The fourth was the communication of the sick, which for the most part was done under one species only. Eusebius writes, Book 6 of his history, chapter 36, from a letter of Dionysius of Alexandria, that a presbyter gave to a boy a particle of the Eucharist to be carried to Serapion, an old sick man, and bade him first moisten it before he held it out to the old man. For since they preserved the Eucharist a long time for the sick, it necessarily came about that that species of bread hardened, so that it could not easily be swallowed, especially by the greatly weakened. Paulinus, in the life of St. Ambrose, writes that he, a little before his death, received the Eucharist under one species from Honoratus, Bishop of Vercelli: for he says that, the body of the Lord being received, as soon as he had swallowed it, he immediately rendered his soul to God. Amphilochius, in the life of St. Basil, writes that he in death received the Eucharist under the species of bread alone, which he had reserved a long time. Finally Amalarius, on the ecclesiastical offices, Book 3, chapter 35, and the Micrologus on ecclesiastical matters, chapter 17, testify that by an ancient custom in the Mass three parts of the consecrated host were wont to be made, that one might be mixed with the blood, another received by the priest before the reception of the blood, the third reserved for the sick, which was called the viaticum of the dying.
The fifth rite was the use of lay Communion, which was of old given as a penalty for some grave offense to clerics, the clerical communion being taken from them. And of this lay Communion there is frequent mention in the decrees of the most ancient Pontiffs and Councils. See Felix III, who sat eleven hundred years ago, letter 1, chapter 2; and Pope Siricius, more ancient than Felix III by about a hundred years, in letter 1, chapter 11. Moreover the Council of Elvira, celebrated before the times of Siricius, canon 76; and of Sardica, chapter 2; and of Agde, chapters 2, 5, and 50.
But Philip and Kemnitz laugh at this argument, and wonder at the ignorance or impudence of the Papists. Philip in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession says that lay Communion was called the Communion of the laity, not because it was under one species only, but because it was of those who did not consecrate: and that this was a penalty formerly wont to be inflicted on priests, that, deprived of the ministry of consecrating the Eucharist, they should be content with eating alone.
But if the matter were as Philip says, this penalty would not have been inflicted on deacons and other inferior clerics, to whose ministry it never belonged to consecrate the Eucharist, but only on presbyters and bishops. But the decrees above cited almost all speak of deacons and other inferior clerics. False, therefore, is the interpretation of Philip.
Kemnitz, in the place above noted, page 667, says that lay Communion was that which the clerics received among the laity, that is, in the lower place of the temple, and after the clerics; so that lay Communion is distinguished from clerical only by time and place, namely that the clerics first, the laity afterward; the clerics within the sanctuary, the laity outside that place, communicated.
But neither is this the true exposition. For Pope Felix III, in the cited place, bids that for certain offenses lay Communion be not given to clerics except in death. And the Council of Sardica, chapter 2, does not permit lay Communion to be given even in death for certain graver crimes. But in death, when Communion is given to the sick person alone, and that in a private chamber, no distinction of place or time can be noted between clerics and laity. Lay Communion, therefore, is called that which was permitted to the laity to touch, and even to carry if they wished. But only the species of bread was given into the hands: from the chalice they drank, who wished, in the church, but it was not lawful for laymen to touch the chalice, much less to carry it with them. See Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechesis 5 of the Mystagogics, at the end, where he describes the manner of communicating. The same Communion is called also “stranger’s Communion” in the Council of Agde, chapters 2 and 5, perhaps from this, that of old it was sent to arriving strangers as a sign of communion and peace. The penalty, therefore, inflicted on the clerics was that, the other clerics communicating under both species, they themselves were forbidden the chalice of the Lord, and were compelled to receive one species only.
The sixth rite was the Communion of the presanctified, whose use among the Greeks was in the whole of Lent, except on Sunday and Saturday; in the Latin Church this use was, and still remains, on the Friday of Holy Week. For on that day no consecration is made, and the priest himself in the public action communicates under one species. Of this custom, as regards the Greeks, the Council of Laodicea makes mention, canon 49, and the Council in Trullo, canon 52. As regards the Latins, Innocent I makes mention, in letter 1, chapter 4; the Book of Sacraments of St. Gregory in the office of Good Friday; the ancient Roman Order in the office of the same day; Rabanus, Book 2 on the Instruction of Clerics, chapter 37; and the Micrologus in his book on ecclesiastical observances, chapter 19.
That on Good Friday Communion is made only under the species of bread is clear from the Roman Order cited; for there it is not only had that on Good Friday the Sacraments are not confected, but also that the priest and people communicate under the species of bread only, without the blood of the Lord: it also bids all the blood be consumed on Thursday, and only the body of the Lord be reserved for the Communion of the following day, on which the Sacraments are not confected. From which we understand that in the public assembly of the Church too one species was used, and that more than a thousand years ago.
The fifth reason can be taken from the consent and testimony of the later Church. For it is established that for more than eight hundred years there was in certain Churches the use of Communion under one species, even in the public assembly of the faithful, and outside the day of Good Friday. And at the same time it is established that the Greeks never objected this to the Latins as an error, whereas they objected many other things in which they differed from us. From which we understand that the whole Church, both Latin and Greek, approved this use as lawful.
And that this use was for a long time in certain Churches, the Councils of Constance, session 13, and of Basel, session 30, testify.
Then St. Thomas, who flourished 300 years ago, Part 3, question 80, article 12, says that those Churches do rightly which communicate the people only under one species.
St. Bernard, who lived 400 years ago, in his Monastery gave Communion under one species, as is openly gathered from Book 1, chapter 11 of his life. For William, Abbot, a contemporary of St. Bernard, writes that at a certain celebrated solemnity, St. Bernard administering the Eucharist, among others there came a certain monk, whom for a certain fault the same holy man had forbidden to approach: but because the matter was secret, the Eucharist was given him too, but by a divine miracle that monk could not swallow the Eucharist. And the solemnities finished, the monk came to the Abbot, and with open mouth showed what he suffered: and then at length, having confessed and been absolved, he passed the Sacraments of the Lord most freely into his bowels. From this example it manifestly appears that only the species of bread was wont to be given by St. Bernard; for he could not have kept the species of wine so long in his mouth.
Cardinal Hosius, in his Dialogue on both species, writes from the histories and monuments of the Polish Church that it cannot be gathered that there was ever in Poland the use of both species in popular communion: and thence he suspects, not without cause, that that Church from its very first foundation, that is, from more or less five hundred years, received the use of one species.
Bede, who flourished 800 years ago, not obscurely indicates that in England, from the beginning of the preaching of the disciples of St. Gregory the Pope, the public use of one species began. For thus he writes, Book 2 of his history, chapter 5, of the pagan sons of a certain deceased Christian king: “When they saw the Pontiff, the solemnities of the Masses being celebrated, give the Eucharist to the people, they said: Why dost thou not hold out to us too the bright bread, which thou gavest to our father, and dost not cease still to give to the people in the church?” So they, who, when they often repeated this, never then made any mention of wine.
The Roman Order, which was published at least 800 years ago, since it is cited by Alcuin, the teacher of Charlemagne, who flourished in the year 800, most openly indicates that in the Roman Church there was a public use of one species only. For in the chapter on the order of celebrating the Mass, it signifies that in a small chalice the blood of the Lord was wont to be consecrated; then that for the Communion of the people a little of the Lord's blood was poured from that small chalice into a large chalice full of wine and water, and that from that large chalice the people were wont to drink after the body of the Lord was received. And because one chalice, however large, could not suffice for so great a multitude, it is likely (although it is not read there) that that same chalice was often refilled with wine. Moreover that large chalice was called the chalice of blood, because it was consecrated by contact with the Lord's blood, not because it was really the Lord's blood: for by that contact the wine could not be changed into blood.
And there is a very great conjecture that in the other Churches too, where the people are said to drink of the chalice, there was no other custom than at Rome. For it plainly cannot be understood how in very numerous Churches Communion could be given to the whole people from a chalice of the true blood of the Lord. For there was never a custom of consecrating many chalices at once, as is clear from the letter of Gregory III to Boniface, Bishop of Mainz, where he reprehends some who, against the custom of the Church, had several chalices on the altar at once. Nor was there ever a custom of consecrating the wine at the altar in some very vast chalice, which should hold as much wine as would suffice for the whole people. For the chalice had to be not so large but that it could be lifted by the priest and carried here and there by the deacon. Nor are any chalices found so large, whereas many most ancient ones are found in many Churches; therefore it was necessary that the same chalice be often refilled during the very action of the Supper, as we now do in distributing the wine of the ablution. But it is certain that in the same action the consecration could not be repeated often: therefore wine, not the blood of the Lord, was given to the peoples. The adversaries indeed do not labor in this matter. For since they think that no consecration is required, but that by this very fact the bread and wine which are set on the table and distributed are the symbols of the body and blood of the Lord: they can easily refill the cups often, and by this very fact confect the Sacraments according to their error; but the Catholic truth is far otherwise, as we have shown.
The sixth reason can be taken from the disadvantages which would follow from the necessity of both species: from which it is gathered that Christ, the wisest of all lawgivers, would never have laid down a precept of this kind.
The first disadvantage is the impossibility of fulfilling that law in those places where there is a very numerous people and only one priest, as often happens in most populous villages: of which we spoke a little before.
The second disadvantage is the irreverence of the most holy Sacrament. For the Church always most diligently took care that no crumb of the consecrated bread should fall to the ground, as we proved above from Tertullian, Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Augustine, and others: but the irreverence is greater in the spilling of the blood, which cannot again be collected, than in the fall of the bread, which can again be collected. Wherefore John Chrysostom, in his letter to Innocent, numbers among the greatest evils that, from a certain military tumult made within the church, the blood of the Lord was spilled on the soldiers' garments. But it cannot come about that the blood of the Lord be administered to such great throngs of peoples as at Easter approach Communion, without its being often spilled; especially since many are old, weak, rustic, who scarcely know how to accommodate themselves to drinking from another's hand. In carrying it too to the sick, it would be very easy for it either to be spilled, or from that agitation to become turbid and unfit for drinking: which that it has not rarely happened, examples testify which are reported by Aeneas Sylvius in his Dialogue on Communion under both species, and in the Acts between the legates of Basel and the legates of the Bohemians in the town of Eger in Germany, where by common consent they had met.
Nor do the adversaries satisfy this disadvantage when they say that Christ foresaw all these things, and yet was not therefore deterred from the institution of the Eucharist under a double species; and that the ancient Church experienced these same things, and yet, notwithstanding, administered Communion under both species. For Christ instituted indeed under a double species, but did not bid it be given to all under a double species. And the ancient Church administered under a double species when the Christians were few, and moreover not all received both species, as we showed above. But the multitude increasing more and more, the disadvantage appeared, and so gradually the use under both ceased, as we shall say a little after.
The third disadvantage is that many shrink from wine, and are either by nature abstemious or by education, as in hot regions. For boys and girls, even noble ones, are accustomed to the drinking of water, whence many afterward, even in mature age, cannot taste wine without nausea. What then will these do? Will they abstain perpetually from Communion? To that it is not lawful by the divine laws.
John Brenz, moved by this disadvantage, in his Apology for the Wurttemberg Confession, in the second part of the second pericope, admits that the abstemious can communicate under one species, notwithstanding the divine right commanding both species. But where does he read that from the divine mandate generally laid down the abstemious ought to be excepted? Or if the Church of Brenz has the right of interpreting the divine right, and declaring that in that mandate the abstemious are not comprised, why will the Catholic Church not have the right of interpreting the same divine right, and declaring that in it none are comprised but the sacrificing priests?
The fourth disadvantage is the scarcity of wine. Since in many regions wine does not grow, and what is brought from elsewhere is partly bought at the highest price, partly not long preserved: from which very many would have either never or most rarely to communicate, if Communion could not be made under one species. Certainly in Japan there is so no plenty of wine that it can scarcely be conveniently had for performing the sacred rites. And Volaterranus writes, Book 7 of Geography, that by Innocent VIII it was granted to the Norwegians that they should sacrifice without wine, because wine does not grow in Norway, and, imported from elsewhere, immediately turns sour. Which indeed that Pontiff granted, if he did grant it, either because he was of the opinion that it is not of divine right that the sacrifice must necessarily be confected under both species — which opinion has its patrons, as Gabriel, lecture 84 on the Canon of the Mass, and John Major on Book 4, distinction 13, question 3, and certain others; or because he judged that the divine right is so to be interpreted that the case of necessity be excepted. For although the sacrifice is imperfect without both species, yet it is better to have an imperfect one than none; especially since those two species are integral rather than essential parts of the sacrifice.
Finally this disadvantage seemed so great even to the adversaries themselves that Philip Melanchthon, in his book on the use of the entire Sacrament, wrote that the Ruthenians, on account of the scarcity of wine, would do rightly if instead of wine they used hydromeli, that is, honeyed water, or mead. But who gave Philip authority to change the matter of the Sacraments?
How much more wisely the Catholic Church does not change the matters of the Sacraments, but remedies that disadvantage by administering only one species to the peoples; which indeed that it pleases God has sometimes been shown by signs and prodigies. Alexander of Hales writes, in part 4 of his Theological Summa, question 11, member 2, article 4, § in the new edition, that certain monks, among whom the use of one species was, once began to demand both species: but meanwhile it happened that when the priest, amid the solemnities of the sacred rites, broke the host, the whole open hollow was filled with blood flowing from the host itself. By which God wished to signify that they were tumultuating in vain for the chalice of blood, since they had all things in that species of bread which they were wont to receive after the custom.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XXIV. Non pugnare cum divinis litteris, seu cum Christi mandato Communionem sub una specie , probatur variis rationibus. Quarta jam sequitur quaestio : Utrum di¬ vino mandato praecipiatur omnibus Com¬ munio sub utraque specie. Jam enim osten¬ dimus ex natura rei nullam esse talem obli¬ gationem , idcirco quaerendum superest , 270 LIBEIi IV. / utrum saltem praecepto divino positivo ejus¬ modi obligatio in Ecclesia sit. Quamvis au¬ tem Lutherus permissionem potius divinam, quam legem cogentem in pluribus locis agnoscat, ut supra citavimus : tamen Joan. Calvinus lib. iv. Institut. cap. 17. § 47 : « Edictum, inquit, aeterni Dei est, ut omnes bibant». Et Kemnitius initio disputationis de utraque specie, omnino contendit mandato Domini teneri omnes ad utramque speciem sumendam. Porro in hac quaestione adversariorum est probare, nostrum respondere : nos enim ne¬ gamus, illi asserunt ; probare autem illi in¬ cumbit, qui affirmat, non ei, qui negat. Ut tamen accuratior, ac plenior disputatio sit, primum affer- emus varias rationes, quibus omnino credibile fiat, nullum praeceptum a Christo datum de utraque sumenda specie. Deinde respondebimus ad omnia argumenta, quae illi proferunt. Quod igitur ad primum attinet. Prima ra¬ tio sumitur ex figuris. Plereeque figurae Eu- ch arist ae manducationem sub una specie significant. Non est igitur ullo modo proba¬ bile, Christum imperaturum fuisse sumptio¬ nem utriusque speciei : figuratum enim figu¬ rae respondere debet. Unde Evangelistae pas- sim, cum describunt acta Christi , addunt [ut Scriptura impleretur) . Joan. xix, notat S. Joannes ideo Deum non permisisse ut frangerentur crura Domino crucifixo, quia praecesserat illa figura agni paschalis, cujus ossa confringi non poterant. Et Apostolus I Corinth. x : Omnia , inquit, contingebant illis in figura (1). Prima figura fuit ligni vitae in medio pa¬ radisi Genes, ii. et m. quod Sacramenti Eu¬ charistiae figuram fuisse docet Paschasius lib. de corpore Domini, cap. 7. Constat au¬ tem nullum fuisse potum illi arbori adjun¬ ctum. Secunda fuit agni paschalis, Exod. xii. quae notisssima est. Neque obstat Kemnitii responsio, qui vult utriusque speciei figuram prmeessisse in agno paschali, quia et caro manducabatur, et sanguis in postibus aspergebatur ; asper¬ sionem autem sanguinis potum calicis signi¬ ficasse probat ex Gregorio homil. 22. Ihcc, inquam, responsio non valet. Nam Grego - rius ponit duas explicationes. Unam minus probabilem et particularem, quod per san¬ guinem in postibus aspersum significetur po¬ tus sanguinis Domini. Nec tamen dicit po¬ tum sanguinis sub specie vini ; de quo nos agimus, sed potum sanguinis absolute, ut pro Eucharistia accipitur : non enim distin¬ guit eo loco Gregorius duas species. Deinde ponit alteram communem, quod per sangui¬ nem in postibus significetur signum crucis in fronte, ut exponit etiam Augustinus lib. xii. contra Faustum, cap. 30. Hieronymus in cap. lxvi. Isaise, Cyprianus in tractatu contra Demetrianum, et Isidorus in cap. xii. Exod. Et lime sine dubio est vera : sanguis enim ille non potest referri ad potum, cum nec biberetur, nec daretur hominibus, et prius linirentur ex eo postes, quam agnus manducaretur. Tertia figura est manna, Exod. xvi. Quarta, panes propositionis, Exod. xxv. in quibus nullus admiscebatur potus. Quinta denique erat participatio sacrificiorum. Nam etiamsi in sacrificiis esset caro, et sanguis, tt etiam libamina multa, ut patet ex-eodem cap. xxv. Exod. tamen sola caro manducabatur, san¬ guis et libamina effundebantur Deo. Unde I Corinth. x. inquit Apostolus : Qui manducant hostias , participes sunt altaris ; neque addidit quidquam de potu, quia non consueverant Hebraei habere vinum libaminum. Dices, ex ista figura colligitur non debere Sacerdotes bibere calicem Domini in altari, quandoquidem nec Sacerdotes Testamenti veteris bibebant libamina Deo oblata, sed solum victimas comedebant. Respondeo : Quod Sacerdotes nunc faciunt, dum manducant, et bibunt sub specie panis et vini, corpus et sanguinem Domini, non respondet manducationi victimarum , sed consumptioni per ignem. Est enim Eucha¬ ristia aliquo modo holocaustum ; aliquo mo¬ do hostia pacifica, aliquo modo hostia pro peccato. Et quia inholocausto omnia consu¬ mebantur, et victimas, etlibamina, ideo etiam nunc a Sacerdote, cujus est consumere ho¬ locaustum, omnia sumuntur. A populo autem, qui solum participat de sacrificio, satis est manducari carnes agni immaculati. Dices secundo : Etiamsi in istis figuris commendetur Communio sub specie cibi tan¬ tum, sunt tamen aliaj, in quibus commen¬ datur sub utraque. Ut Genes, xiv. ubi Mel- chisedech , obtulit panem , et vinum , et utrumque dedit sumendum Abrahae, et iis, qui eum sequebantur, et I Corinth. x. ubi (1)1 Cor. X, 11. CAPUT XXII. 21 1 dicuntur Hebraei manducasse cibum spiritu¬ alem, et bibisse potum spiritualem : quem locum Kemnitius magni facit. Respondeo, non contendimus nos pro ne¬ cessitate unius speciei, sicut adversarii pro necessitate duarum, et ideo contra nos non est, si aliquae figurae pro duabus speciebus inveniantur , sed plane contra adversarios facit, si inveniantur aliquae, ut revera inve¬ niuntur plurimae, pro una specie. Deinde non constat, an Melchisedech dederit panem, et vinum comedendum Abrahee, an solum Deo obtulerit. Scriptura enim id aperte non dicit. Quod enim Deo obtulerit, patet ex sequen¬ tibus verbis : Erat enim Sacerdos Dei altis- simi , quod autem dederit manducandum, ex nullo verbo colligitur. De potu autem spi¬ rituali, id est, de aqua qx petra jam supra diximus, figuram illam favere uni speciei. Aqua enim cum data est populo in signum spiritualis potus, sola data est sine ullius cibi spiritualis adjunctione : quomodo etiam san¬ guis, et aqua, quae ex latere Domini Puxe- runt, duo Sacramenta significant, Bapfi- smum, et Eucharistiam, teste Augustino, et Theophyiacto in cap. xix. Joan. ubi sub una tantum specie Eucharistia designatur, ut in- telligamus unam sufficere. Secunda ratio sumitur ex doctrina, et ex¬ emplo Christi. Dominus enim cum Joan. vi, de fructu Eucharistiae loquitur, non semel, sed quater unam speciem sufficere docet ad salutem : Qui manducat me , vivet propter me. Qui manducat hunc panem , vivet in aeternum. Si quis manducaverit ex hoc pane , vivet m aeternum. Hic est panis de coelo descendens , ut si quis ex eo manducet , non moriatur (1). Non ergo fieri potest , ut idem Dominus man¬ daverit utramque speciem sumendam, tam¬ quam necessariam ad salutem. Esse autem hoc caput Joan. de Sacramento inteliigen- dum , supra ostendimus in prima contro¬ versia de Eucharistia. Rursus exemplo suo Dominus idem com¬ probavit. Primum Joan. vi. ubi multipli¬ cavit panes, et inde saturavit turbam, re¬ manentibus duodecim cophinis : nec ullum potum multiplicavit, neque dedit. Deinde Lucae cap. xxiv. cum in Emmaus in ccena cum duobus discipulis accepit panem, bene¬ dixit, fregit, dedit eis, etc. De hoc loco duai sunt Catholicorum senten¬ tiae. Prima est Joan. a Lovanio, et aliorum, qui contendunt Sacramentum Eucharistiae datum fuisse a Christo duobus discipulis, et adducunt in hanc sententiam Augustinum lib. in. de consensu Evangel. cap. 2o. Au- ctoiem operis imperfecti in Matth. homil. 17. Redam, et Theopbylactum in eum locum Lucae. Hieronymum in Epitaphio Paulae, et Isichium lib. ii. in Leviticum, cap. 9. Alia sententia est Cornelii Jansenii in ex¬ positione hujus loci, qui docet, panem a Domino benedictum in Emmaus, non fuisse quidem Eucharistiae, voluisse Dominum hoc exemplo demonstrare fructum, et utilitatem Eucharistiae in una specie : quare ex hoc loco non minus probari usum unius speciei, quam ex multiplicatione panum, Joan. vi. Id autem probat, tum ex Augustino, Beda, et Theophyiacto locis citatis, qui hoc tantam docere videri possunt, nempe fuisse in illa panis benedictione mysterium quoddam, qho significaretur utilitas Eucharistia), quo¬ modo etiam loquitur Innocentius III. lib. vi. de myst. Missae, cap. 7. et 9. tum etiam ex ipso textu , nam fuisse hic aliquod myste¬ rium, patet partim ex benedictione , quam non legitur Dominus adhibuisse, nisi ad ali¬ quid mirabile operandum; partim ex effectu, nam per illum panem illuminati sunt. Quamcumque autem sententiam ex his duabus amplectamur , ostendit hoc exem¬ plum Christi, eam esse utilitatem Eucha¬ ristiae in una specie, ut minime sit existi¬ mandum , fuisse imperatum omnibus illius usum in specie utraque. Sed occurrit hoc loco Philippus Melanch- thon in A po logia Confessionis Augustanae, in articulo de utraque specie, ubi fatetur hoc exemplum ad Eucharistiam pertinere, sed dicit, non colligi ex eo usum unius speciei, quoniam in fractione panis per figuram in¬ tellectionis significatur totum Sacramentum cum utraque specie. At facile id refelli pot¬ est; historia enim Evangeiica ita conjungit distributionem panis benedicti cum Domini recessu, ut nullum re inquat locum bene¬ dicendo , vel distribuendo calici. Sic enim loquitur : Et factum est, dum recumberet cum eis, accepit panem , et benedixit, ac fregit , et porrigi bat illis. Et aperti sunt oculi eorum , et cognoverunt eum, et ipse evanuit ex oculis eorum (2). instat Kemnitius. et probat ex Augustino tract. 2. in epist. Joannis, Christum dedisse (1) Joan. VI. 58, 59, 52, 50. — (2) Luc. XXIV, 30 et 31. 272 LIBER IV. duobus discipulis utramque speciem. Sic enim Augustinus loquitur : « Et vere , qui non sibi judicium manducat, et bibit, in fractione panis Christum agnoscit». At ar¬ gumentum est nimis longe petitum. Non enim Augustinus dicit , Christum dedisse utramque speciem, sed dicit in fractionq panis Christum agnosci , ut illis discipulis contigit in Emmaus ; sed addit hunc fructum eos tantum consequi, qui nunc indigne su¬ munt, et allegat verba Pauli, seu alludit ad illa, ubi legimus, I. Cor. xi. eos, qui indigne manducant, et bibunt, judicium sibi man¬ ducare, et bibere ; quod verissimum est, sive una species, sive utraque sumatur indigne. Denique addit Kemnitius, Christum non addidisse : Hoc facite , cum panem bene¬ dictum in Emmaus dedit : ergo non tenemur eum in hoc imitari, si unam tantum speciem dedit. Sed neque nos dicimus teneri ; sed tantum probamus hoc exemplo licere , et utile esse communicare sub una. Tertia ratio sumitur ex doctrina, et usu Apostolorum. Nam Actor, ii. ita describitur communicatio Eucharistiae : Erant autem perseverantes in doctrina Apostolorum , et communicatione fractionis panis , et oratio¬ nibus (1). Quo loco negari non potest, quin agatur de Eucharistia, tum quod conjungatur fractio panis cum doctrina, et oratione, tum etiam quod vituperatio potius quam laus fuisset de fidelibus commemorare , perse¬ verantes eos fuisse in prandiis, et ccenis cor¬ poralibus. Denique id fatetur Lutherus in sermone de Eucharistia, et Calvinus lib. iv. lustit. cap. 17 § 35. Neque Kemnitius negat ita hunc locum a veteribus explicatum ; sed respondet per fractionem panis intelligi etiam calicem, per figuram videlicet intellectionis, qua ex parte significamus totum. Id vero probat , quia Apostoli alioqui sub una specie consecras- sent, quod ne Catholici quidem admitterent. At haec ejus ratio nihil concludit. Non enim Lucus describit, quid Apostoli, sed quid po¬ puli facerent, dum dicit, eos perseverantes fuisse in doctrima Apostolorum, et commu¬ nicatione fractionis panis, et oratione. Apo¬ stoli igitur in utraque specie Eucharistiam consecrabant, sed populis in una specie mi¬ nistrabant. Quod etiam ex eo confirmatur , quia plu¬ rimi in Hierusalem Christiani erant, qui in ( 0) Act. II, 42. — (2) I Cor. X, 10 et 17. illis initiis servabant legalia Moysis, Apostolis permittentibus , ut patet ex cap. xxi. Ac¬ torum; et ex iis nonnulli usque ad certum tempus Nazaree i erant, non bibentes vinum, nec radentes capita, usque ad finem dierum voti sui. Hos autem neque credibile est contra votum suum bibisse de calice Domini; neque probabile est abstinuisse omnino a Communione, cum Lucas dicat, omnes per¬ severantes fuisse, in doctrima, et commu¬ nicatione fractionis panis. Quare probabilis¬ sima conjectura est, ideo Lucam solum me¬ minisse fractionis panis, quod ab ea sola specie nulli abstinerent. Unde etiam beatus Paulus I. Corinth. x. non sine causa de calice dicit: Calix benedictionis , cui benedicimus; de pane autem : Panis quem frangimus. Calix enim semper benedicebatur, sed non semper distribuebatur. Unde etiam paulo infra dicit : Unus panis , et unum corpus su¬ mus ', qui de uno pane participamus (2). Et miranda est sane Kemnitii sapientia, qui cum ubique vulgatam editionem com- temriat, hoc loco eam diligenter defendit. Scribit enim in sua disputatione pag. 600. in vulgata editione , quam Tridentinum Concilium nullo praetextu rejici posse decre¬ vit, haberi I Cor. x. : Unus panis, et unum coipus sumus, qui de uno pane , et de uno calice participamus. Sed Concilium Tridentinum non statuit recipiendam esse quamlidet le¬ ctionem vulgatae editionis, sed eam, quam constet esse lectionem vulgatae editionis , alioqui non j ussisset idem Concilium vulga¬ tam editionem quam emendatissime im¬ primi. Porro illud [et ex uno calice ) non ha¬ betur in Bibliis correcti oribus vulgatae edi¬ tionis, sed solum in paucis quibusdam minus emendatis ; in Graecis autem nullis habetur. Quarta ratio sumitur ex testimonio veteris Ecclesiae, quae cum vera Ecclesia fuerit, sine dubio contra expressum Christi mandatum nihil egisset. Tribus autem modis vetus Ec¬ clesia testatur Communionem sub una specie esse licitam. Primo, quia nunquam eam re¬ prehendit, aut damnavit, cum tamen non ignoraret eam saltem apud aliquos in usu fuisse. Nam (ut alia interim omittam) Mani¬ chaei nunquam communicabant, nisi sub spe¬ cie panis, ut Leo I. testatur serm. 4. de Qua¬ dragesima : arbitrabantur enim illi vinum esse fel draconis. Et praeterea negabant Christi veram mortem : et ideo nec vinum; CAPIT XXIV. 273 neo sub specie vini sanguinem Domini unquam sumebant. Et tamen nec Epiphanias, nec Augustinus, nec alii, qui de erroribus Mani- ehajorum scripserunt, notarunt errorem il¬ lum, quod contra Domini mandatum sub una tantum specie Eucharistiam sumerent. Deinde, testimonium Ecclesia; veteris ha¬ beri potest ex duobus illustribus exemplis iuereticarum fraudum. Scribit Sozomenus lib. vm. Histor. cap. v et Nicephorus lib. xiii. cap. vii. Feminam quamdam ha' re ticam Macedonianam , cum vellet tegere suam haeresim, et se Catholicam simulare ; accepisse in manibus Ghrysostomo sacris operante , panem Eucharistia; , tanquam paulo post illum manducaturam ; sed clam dedisse illum ancillae, 'et ab ea sumpsisse panem profanum , quem ex domo afferri j usserat, ut illum palam comederet loco Eucharistiae : sed eum panem continuo in lapidem esse conversum. Ex hoc facto in- telligimus, morem fuisse, ut acciperent, qui vellent, Eucharistiam sub una tantum specie. Nam si omnes coacti fuissent bibere de ca¬ lice Domini, mulier illa nullo modo simulare potuisset : non enim pro calice Domini ali¬ quid aliud sumere potuisset ; siquidem calix non dabatur in manus, sed manu Diaconi admovebatur ori communicantium. Alterum exemplum est apud Leonem serm. 4. de Quadragesima, ubi S. Leo dicit, Ma- nichseos, ut lueresim suam tegerent, panem Eucharistiae sumere solitos esse cum Catho¬ licis, non tamen calicem bibere. Si autem Roma; non fuisset, libera Communio sub utraque specie , sed omnes semper sumere debuissent sub utraque, non potuissent ullo modo Manichaei latere, qui sanguinem Do¬ mini nunquam sumebant. Unde sanctus Leo non jubet observari eos, qui aliquando su¬ mebant, aliquando non sumebant, sed qui nunquam omnino sumebant sanguinem : illud enim eo tempore pro signo Maniehae- ismi haberi potuit. Tertio, ex variis ritibus, ex quibus aperte colligitur usus unius spe¬ ciei : non enim vetus Ecclesia, quae adversa¬ riorum testimonio vera Ecclesia erat, contra Dei mandatum tam aperte pugnassct. Sunt autem hi ritus, asservatio Sacramenti, com¬ municatio domestica, communicatio infan¬ tium, communicatio aegrotorum, communio laica, communio ex praesanctificatis. Ac primum asservari solitum Sacramen¬ tum Eucharistia; fuisse , supra probavimus multis Patrum et Conciliorum testimoniis. Tom. IV. Quod autem solum sub una specie asser¬ varent, et proinde sub una specie sumerent, patet, quia aliquando ad longissimum tempus asservabant. Meminit enim Sophronius in Prato spirituali, c. 70. aliquando per annum in tegrum servatum fuisse ; imo Grreei adit une diem servant per integrum annum. Non au¬ tem posset vinum in parva quantitate tamdiu conservari, quin acesceret, et corrumperetur. Prmterea qui meminerunt asservationis, ut Cyprianus in serm. de lapsis, et Ambrosius in orat, de obitu Satyri , et Sophronius jam citatus, solius speciei panis meminerunt, quam involutam orario, vel linteo dicunt. Kemnitius contra hunc ritum objicit, quoti Gregorius Nazianzenus dicat, Gorgoniam re¬ servasse symbola corporis, et sanguinis; et quod Ambrosius dum de Satyro loquitur, me¬ minerit haustioniSjCt fusionis in viscera, qua: ad potum potius, quam ad cibum pertinent. Sed facile est illa refellere. Nam Gregorius sub disjunctione loquitur, ac dicit, Gorgoniam recondidisse quidpiam signorum corporis, aut sanguinis Domini; et loqui cum de specie panis, non vini, satis colligitur ex communi usu illius temporis. Quod autem de Ambrosio Kemnitius dicit, pst omnino ridiculum. Nam Ambrosius loquitur de haustu, et transfu¬ sione ad viscera illius speciei, quam invo¬ lutam in orario Satyrus habebat. Quis autem ambigat, quid illud fuerit? Neque vox hau¬ riendi, vel transfundendi, ita ad potum per¬ tinet, ut non etiam ad cibum referri possit, quando aliquid integrum sumitur. Ambro¬ sius autem eo modo loquendi utitur, quia loquebatur de re signata, potius quam de signo : res autem signata integra hauritur. Secundus ritus erat Ecclesia; antiqua;, ut Eucharistiam domum deferrent, et ibi tem¬ pore opportuno sumerent, t uod certissimum est ex Tertulliano lib. ii. ad uxorem, Clemente Alexandrino lib. i. Stromatum non procul ab initio, Cypriano serm. de lapsis, Basilio in epist. ad Caesariani. Datritiam, Hieronymo iu Apologia pro libris in Jovinianum, et ex aliis. Domi autem sub una tantum specie Christia¬ nos communicaro solitos perspicuum est, tum ex eo, quod sola species panis dabatur in manus fidelium, sanguis autem dabatur ex calice bibendus, ut Cyrillus demonstrat Cathcch. 3. mystagog. tum etiam quia non erant in domibus laicorum ulli calices sacri, seu vasa , quibus contineri posset sanguis Domini, ut clarissime patet ex Apologia se¬ cunda Athanasii contra Arianos. 18 LIBER IV. IIoc loco fatetur Kemoitius in domibus pri¬ vatis usum fuisse unius tantum speciei : sed dicit, illos eosdem qui domi sumebant sub specie panis, in Ecclesia prius sumpsisse sub specie vini ; et proinde sub utraque spe¬ cie per intervalla temporum. Deinde addit se non disputare de eo, quod fiebat in pri¬ vatis domibus , sed de eo , quod fiebat in publica Coena} administratione. Sed hsec solutio cum ipso suo auctore pug¬ nat. Nam si in Ecclesia in publica Crenffi administratione sumebant panis speciem, sed eam servabant deferendam in domum, et alio tempore manducandam, solam autem spe¬ ciem’ vini, quam deferre non poterant, in Ecclesia bibebant : ergo in Ecclesia non com¬ municabant, nisi sub una specie, nimirum vini. Non enim communicare est sumere in manibus Eucharistiam, sed manducare, et bibere. Est preeterea advertendum, haustum san¬ guinis in Ecclesia, et manducationem cor¬ poris Domini in privatis eedibus,non potuisse haberi pro una Communione, sed necessario fatendum esse fuisse diversas Communiones, et utramque sub altera tantum specie, neu¬ tram sub utraque. Nam diversis diebus su¬ mebantur ilice species, non autem eodem die: ideo enim domum deferebant, ut possent sequentibus diebus communicare, etiamsi templum non adirent. Unde Hieronymus in Apologia pro libris contra Jovinianum seri- bit, illis diebus consuevisse quosdam domi corpus Domini sumere, quibus ob actum conjugalem patratum non audebant ingredi Ecclesiam. Neque obstat, quod illa consuetudo defe¬ renda) Eucharistia; in privatas redes, fuerit postea abrogata : abrogata enim fuit ob irre¬ verentiam, qua tantum Sacramentum affi- citebatur, non autem quod Communio sub una specie non sit licita. Tertius ritus erat, communicatio infan¬ tium. Communicabant enim veteres aliquan¬ do infantes, sed sub una tantum specie, ni¬ mirum instillando in os eorum aliquid san¬ guinis Domini, ut patet tum ex Cypriano in serm. de lapsis, tum ex manifesta ratione, quia non possunt infantes cibum aliquem so¬ lidum sumere. Quartus erat, communicatio aegrotorum, qua; ut plurimum fiebat sub una tantum spe¬ cie. Scribit Eusebius lib. vi. hist. cap. 36 ex epist. Dionysii Alexandrini, presbyterum de¬ disse puero particulam Eucharistia} deferen¬ dam Serapioni seni regroto, ac jussisse, ut eam prius madefaceret, quam seni porrige¬ ret, Cum enim servarent longo tempore Eu¬ charistiam pro regrotis, necessario fiebat, ut duresceret species illa panis, ita ut non facile deglutiri posset, praesertim a valde debilita¬ tis. Paulinus in vita S. Ambrosii scribit, eum paulo ante mortem ab Honorato Episcopo Vercellensi, sub una specie Eucharistiam ac¬ cepisse : dicit enim, corpore Domini sumpto, ubi illud deglutiverat, continuo animam Deo reddidisse. Amphilochius in vita S. Basilii scribit, eum in morte Eucharistiam accepisse in sola specie panis, quam longo tempore asservaverat. Denique Amalarius de offic . Eccles. lib. m. cap. 35. et Micrologus de rebus Ecclesiast. caput 17. testantur, ex anti¬ qua consuetudine in Missa tres partes hostiae consecratae fieri solere, ut una cum sanguine misceretur, altera sumeretur a Sacerdote ante sanguinis sumptionem, tertia servare¬ tur pro aegrotis, quae viaticum morientium dicebatur. Quintus ritus erat, usus Communionis lai- cae, quae in poenam gravis alicujus delicti olim dabatur clericis, ablata eis communio¬ ne clericali. Est autem hujus Communionis laicae crebra mentio in decretis antiquissi¬ morum Pontificum et Conciliorum. Vide Fe¬ licem III, qui sedit ante annos mille, et cen¬ tum, epist. 1. cap. 2. et Siricium Papam Felice III antiquiorem annis circiter centum, in epist. 1. cap. 11. Concilium praeterea Eli- bertinum ante Siricii tempora celebratum, canon. 76. et Sardicense, cap. 2. et Aga- thense, cap. 2. 5. et 50. Sed hoc argumentum rident Philippus, et Kemnitius, ac mirantur inscitiam, vel impu¬ dentiam Papistarum. Philippus in Apologia Confess. August. dicit Communionem laicam dictam esse Communionem laicorum, non quod esset sub una specie tantum, sed quod esset eorum, qui non consecrabant : et hanc fuisse poenam olim Sacerdotibus infligi soli¬ tam, ut privati ministerio consecrandi Eucha¬ ristiam, contenti essent sola manducatione. At si res ita se haberet, ut Philippus dicit, haec poena non fuisset inflicta Diaconis, aliis¬ que inferioribus Clericis, ad quorum ministe¬ rium nunquam spectavit Eucharistiam con¬ secrare, sed solum Presbyteris, et Episcopis. Decreta autem supra citata fere omnia de Diaconis loquuntur, et aliis Clericis inferio¬ ribus. Falsa est igitur Philippi interpretatio. Kemnitius loco supra notato pag. 667. et CAPUT XXIV. GG8 dicit, Communionem laicam fuisse, quam sumebant Clerici inter laicos, id est, in loco templi inferiore, et post clericos; ita ut Com¬ munio laica distinguatur a clericali solum tempore, et loco, quod videlicet Clerici prius, laici posterius : Clerici intra sacrarium, laici extra eum locum communicarent. Sed neque haec est vera expositio. Nam Felix Papa III loco citato, jubet ob delicta quaedam, Clericis, non dari, nisi in morte Communionem laicam. Et Concilium Sardi- cense, cap. 2. ne in morte quidem laicam Communionem dari permittit ob crimina quaedam graviora. In morte autem cum de¬ tur Communio soli aegroto, idque in privato cubiculo, nulla distinctio notari potest loci, aut temporis inter Clericos, et laicos. Laica igitur Communio dicitur ea, quae laieis per¬ mittebatur tangenda, et etiam deferenda si vellent. Sola autem species panis dabatur in manus : ex calice autem bibebant, qui vole¬ bant, in Ecclesia, sed non licebat laicis cali¬ cem tangere, nedum secum deferre. Vide Gyrillum Hierosolymitanum Catechesi 5. mystagog. extrema, ubi describit modum communicandi. Eadem Communicatio dici¬ tur etiam peregrina in Concilio Agathensi, cap. 2. et 5. ex eo fortasse , quod olim mit¬ teretur peregrinis adventantibus, in signum communionis, et pacis. Poena igitur inflicta Clericis, erat, quod communicantibus aliis Clericis sub utraque specie, ipsi prohibentur a calice Domini, et cogerentur unam tantum speciem sumere. Sextus ritus erat, Communio praesanctifia catdrum, cujus usus apud Graecos erat in tota Quadragesima, excepto die Dominico, et Sab¬ bato ; in Latina Ecclesia iste usus fuit, et adhuc manet feria 6. hebdomadae .sanctae. Nam eo die non fit consecratio, et ipse etiam Sacerdos in publica actione communicat sub una specie. Hujus consuetudinis, quod ad Graecos attinet, meminit Laodicenum Conci¬ lium can. 40. et Concilium Trullanum can. 52. Quod attinet ad Latinos, meminit Inno¬ centius I, in epist. 1. cap. 4. liber Sacra¬ mentorum S. Gregorii in officio Parasceves, Ordo Romanus antiquus in officio ejusdem diei, Rabanus lib. ii. de Institut. Clericorum, cap. 37. et Micrologus in lib. de Ecclesia¬ sticis observationibus, cap. 10. Quod in Parasceve Communio fiat solum sub specie panis, patet ex ordine Romano citato ; ibi enim non solum habetur, in Pa¬ rasceve non confici Sacramenta, sed etiam communicari Sacerdotem, et populum sub specie panis tantum absque sanguine Domi¬ ni : sanguinem etiam totum consumi jubet feria 5. et solum corpus Domini conservari pro Communione sequentis diei, quo Sacra¬ menta non conficiuntur. Ex quo intelligimus in publico etiam coetu Ecclesia) usum fuisse unius speciei, idque ab annis plus mille. Quinta ratio sumi potest ex consensu, et testimonio Ecclesia) posterioris. Nam constat ab annis plus octingentis fuisse usum in qui¬ busdam Ecclesiis Communionis sub una spe¬ cie, etiam in publico coetu fidelium, et extra diem Parasceves. Et simul constat GreecoS nunquam hoc Latinis objecisse tamquam errorem, cum tamen alia multa objecerint, in quibus a nobis dissidebant. Ex quo intelli¬ gimus totam Ecclesiam tum Latinam, tum Grcecam hunc usum qt licitum approbasse. Fuisse autem hunc usum longo tempore in Ecclesiis quibusdam, testantur Concilia, Gon- stantiense, sess. xm. et Basileense, sess. xxx. Deinde S. Thom. qui floruit ante annos 300, 3. par. qusest. lxxx. art. 12. dicit eas Ecclesias recte facere, quee non communicant populum nisi sub una specie. S. Bernardus qui ante annos 400 vixit, in Monasterio suo sub una specie Communio¬ nem praebebat, ut aperte colligitur ex lib. i. cap. 11. vitae ipsius. Scribit enim Gulielmus Abbas S. Bernardi aequalis, in celebri qua¬ dam solemuitate S. Bernardo Eucharistiam ministrante, accessisse inter alios Monachum quemdam, quem ob certam culpam, idem sanctus vir accedere prohibuerat : verum, quia res occulta erat, datam illi etiam Eucha¬ ristiam, sed divino miraculo non potuisse Monachum illum Eucharistiam deglutire. Fi¬ nitis autem solemniis accessisse Monachum ad Abbatem, et aperto ore ostendisse, quid pateretur : et tum demum confessum, et ab¬ solutum, Sacramenta Domini liberrime ad viscera trajecisse. Ex hoc exemplo manifeste apparet, solam speciem panis a sancto Ber¬ nardo dari solitam ; nam speciem vini tam- diu in ore servare ille non potuisset. Cardinalis Hosius in Dialogo de utraque specie ex historiis, et monumentis Polonica) Ecclesia) scribit, non posse colligi, fuisse unquam in Polonia usum utriusque speciei in communione populari : et inde suspicatur non sine causa Ecclesiam illam ab ipsa pri¬ ma sua fundatione, id est, ab annis plus mi¬ nus quingentis, recepisse usum unius speciei. Beda qui ante annos 800 floruit, non ob- 27 0 LIBER IV. scurc indicat in Anglia ah initio praedicationis discipulorum S. Gregorii Papie coepisse usum publicum unius speciei. Sic enim scribit lib. n. bistor. cap. 5. de Regis cujusdam Chri¬ stiani defuncti paganis filiis : « Cum, inquit, viderent Pontificem celebratis Missarum so- lemniis Eucharistiam populo dare, dicebant ; quare non et nobis porrigis panem nitidum, quem et patri nostro dabas, et populo adhuc in Ecclesia dare non desistis? » Haec illi, qui cum saepius id repeterent, nunquam tumeri ullam vini mentionem fecerunt. Ordo Romanus, qui ut minimum ante an¬ nos octingentos editus fuit, cum ab Alcuino Caroli Magni praeceptore, qui anno 800 flo¬ rebat, citetur, apertissime indicat in Romana Ecclesia publicum usum fuisse unius tantum speciei. Nam in capite de ordine celebrandi Missam, significat in parvo calice sanguinem Domini consecrari solitum : deinde pro Com¬ munione populi ex eo parvo calice effundi modicum sanguinis Domini in magnum cali¬ cem vino, et aqua plenum, atque ex eo ma¬ gno calice consuevisse populum bibere post corpus Domini sumptum. Et quia calix unus, quantumvis magnus, non sufficere poterat tanta; multitudini, verisimile est (quamvis ibi id non legatur) siepius eum dem calicem vino fuisse repletum. Porro calix ille magnus di¬ cebatur calix sanguinis, quia consecratus erat contactu sanguinis Domini, non quod revera esset sanguis Domini : non enim ex contactu illo mutari potuit vinum in san¬ guinem. Est autem conjectura valde magna etiam in aliis Ecclesiis, ubi dicebatur populus de calice bibere, non alium morem fuisse, quam Roma;. Nam intelligi plane non potest, quo pacto in Ecclesiis valde numerosis potuerit dari Communio toti populo ex calice veri san¬ guinis Domini. Neque enim unquam fuit usus consecrandi simul multos calices, ut patet ex epistola Grcgorii 111 ad Bonifacium Epi¬ scopum Moguntinum, ubi reprehendit quos¬ dam, qui contra morem Ecclesia; plures cali¬ ces in altari simul habebant. Neque fuit usus unquam consecrandi vinum in altari in calice aliquo vastissimo, qui tantum vini caperet, quantum populo universo sufficiat. Debuit enim calix non adeo magnus esse, ut posset a Sacerdote elevari, et a Diacono huc, et illuc deferri. Neque inveniuntur ulli calices tam magni, cum tamen multi in multis Ecclesiis antiquissimi inveniantur; ergo necessc fuit ut idem calix sccpius repleretur inter ipsam Coe¬ me actionem, ut modo facimus in distribuendo vino ad ablutionem. Certum autem est non potuisse in eadem actione repeti siepius con¬ secrationem : vinum igitur, non sanguis Do¬ mini populis dabatur. Adversarii quidem non laborant in hac re. Cum enim existiment nullam requiri consecrationem, sed hoc ipso corporis, et sanguinis Domini symbola esse panem, et vinum, quod in mensa ponuntur, et distribuuntur : facile possunt siepius po¬ cula replere, et hoc ipso Sacramenta juxta suum errorem conficere, sed veritas Catho¬ lica longe aliter se habet, ut ostendimus. Sexta ratio sumi potest, ab incommodis, quie sequerentur ex necessitate utriusque speciei : ex quo colligitur Christum sapien- tissimum omnium legislatorum nunquam fuisse ejusmodi praeceptum positurum. Primum incommodum est, impossibilitas implendi legem istam in iis locis, ubi sit po¬ pulus valde numerosus, et unus tantum sa¬ cerdos, ut siepe accidit in frequentissimis pagis : de qua re paulo ante diximus. Secundum incommodum est, irreverentia sanctissimi Sacramenti. Semper enim Eccle¬ sia diligentissime cavit, ne mica aliqua con¬ secrati panis in terram caderet, ut supra probavimus ex Tertulliano, Origene, Cyrillo Hierosolymitano, Augustino, et aliis : major est autem irreverentia in effusione sangui¬ nis, qui rursus colligi nequit, quam in casu panis, qui iterum colligi potest. Quare Joan- nes Chrysostornus in epist. ad Innocentium, inter maxima mala numerat, quod ex quo¬ dam militari tumultu intra Ecclesiam facto, sanguis Domini in militum vestimenta effun¬ deretur. Fieri autem non potest, ut sanguis Domini ministretur tantis populorum turbis, quanteejn Paschale ad Communionem acce¬ dunt, quin siepius effundatur; pricsertim cum multi sint senes, debiles, rustici, qui vix ad bibendum de manu alterius accommodare se norunt. In deportatione etiam ad icgrotos, facillimum esset, ut vel effunderetur, vel ex illa agitatione turbidum, ct ineptum ad bi¬ bendum fieret : quod non raro accidisse te¬ stantur exempla, qua; referuntur ab fEnea Sylvio in Dialogo de Communione sub utra¬ que specie, et in Actis inter legatos Basilc- . enses, et legatos Bohemorum in Egra op¬ pido Germania;, ubi communi consensu con¬ venerant. Neque ad hoc incommodum satisfaciunt adversarii, cum dicunt, Christum ista omnia praevidisse, et tamen non propterea deter- CAPUT XXV. ritum ab institutione Eucharistiae sub duplici specie ; et Ecclesiam veterem ista eadem expertam esse, et tamen, iis non obstantibus, ministrasse Communionem sub utraque spe¬ cie. Nam Christus instituit quidem sub dupli¬ ci specie, sed non juissit dari omnibus sub duplici. Ecclesia autem vetus ministrabat sui) duplici specie, quando Christiani erant pauci, et pra)terea non omnes accipiebant utramque speciem, ut supra ostendimus. Crescente autem multitudine magis, et magis, apparuit incommodum, et sic paulatim de¬ siit usus sub utraque, ut paulo post dice¬ mus. Tertium incommodum est , quod multi ab¬ horrent a vino, et vel natura abstemii sunt, vul educatione, ut in calidis regionibus. As¬ suefiunt enim pueri, et pueli te etiam nobiles aqua) potui, unde multi postea etiam in ma¬ tura aetate non possunt absque nausea vinum gustare. Quid ergo isti facturi sunt ? absti¬ nebunt a Communione perpetuo? ad id non licet per divinas leges. Joannes Brentius hoc incommodo adductus in Apologia pro Confessione Wirtembcrgensi in 2. par. secundae pericopes, admittit ab¬ stemios posse sub una specie communicare, non obstante jure divino utramque speciem praecipiente. At ubi legit ipse a divino man- ' dato generaliter posito excipi debere abste¬ mios vel si Ecclesia Brentii jus habet interpre¬ tandi jus divinum, ac declarandi in eo man¬ dato non comprehendi abstemios, cur Eccle¬ sia Catholica jus non habebit interpretandi idem jus divinum, ac declarandi in eo non comprehendi nisi sacerdotes sacrificantes ? Quartum incommodum est, penuria vini. Siquidem in multis regionibus vinum non crescit, et quod aliunde affertur, partim summo pretio emitur, partim non diu con¬ servatur : ex quo oporteret plurimos, aut nunquam, aut rarissime communicare, si non posset fieri Communio sub una specie. Certe in Japonia, adeo nulla est copia vini, ut vix ad sacra facienda commode haberi possit. Et scribit Volaterranus lib. vii Geo¬ graphiae, ab Innoccntio VIII, concessum Norwegiis, ut sine vino sacrificarent, quod vinum in Norvegia non crescat, et aliunde i mportatum continuo acescat. Quod quidem Pontifex ille concessit, si tamen concessit, vel quod ejus sententiae esset, non esso de jure divino, ut sacrificium in utraque specie necessario confici debeat ; quae sententia suos habet patronos, ut Gabrielem lect. 84. in Ganonem Missa, et Joannem Majorem in iv. distinet. 13. quaest. 3. et alios quos¬ dam ; vel quod judicaverit, jus divinum ita interpretandum esse ut excipiatur casus necessitatis. Etsi enim sacrificium est imper¬ fectum sine utraque specie, tamen praestat imperfectum habere, quam nullum ; praeser¬ tim cum duae illae species, partes sacrificii sint integrantes potius, quam essentiales. Denique hi c incommodum ipsis etiam ad¬ versariis adeo visum est magnum, ut Phi¬ lippus Melanchthon in lib. de usu integri Sacramenti, scripserit Ruthenos ob vini ino¬ piam recte facturos, si pro vino uterentur tou uopogsXivo;, id est, aqua mellita, seu mc- done. Sed quis dedit Philippo auctoritatem mutandi Sacramentorum materiam ? Quanto sapientius Ecclesia Catholica non mutat Sacramentorum materias, sed incom¬ modo illi medetur, unam speciem tantum populis ministrando ; quod quidem Deo pla¬ cere signis, et prodigiis aliquando demon¬ stratum est. Scribit Alexander Alesius in iv. parte summa) Theologicae, quaest. 11. memb. 2. art. h. g. in nova editione, quosdam Mona¬ chos aliquando, apud quos usus erat unius speciei, coepisse utramque speciem postu¬ lare : sed interim accidisse, ut cum sacerdos inter sacrorum solemnia hostiam frange¬ ret, totum patente concavum sanguine ex ipsa hostia profluente repleretur. Quo si¬ gnificare voluit Deus frustra illos tumul¬ tuari pro calice sanguinis, cumjomnia habe¬ rent in specie illa panis, quam de more sole¬ bant ccipcre. I