Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book IV: On the Sacrament of the Eucharist Itself
Chapter 26: The Objections from the Fathers Are Refuted
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. IV, De Sacramento Eucharistiae, Book IV: On the Sacrament of the Eucharist Itself. The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
The adversaries cite many passages from the Fathers, which for two causes can profit them little or nothing. First, because to those same Fathers (as John of Louvain rightly warned) they give no credit in graver matters. The greater part of those Fathers most openly teach the transubstantiation of the bread into flesh by force of the consecration, which nevertheless the adversaries with great consent reject, and when the Fathers are cited by us, they appeal to the word of God alone, all the Fathers being despised. Secondly, because really the Fathers, rightly understood, have none of those things which they attribute to them. Nor yet would it be a wonder if some of them spoke more obscurely, since in their time this question was not introduced, whether both species must necessarily be received.
Let us run through the Fathers whom they cite, in the order of times in which they flourished. Ignatius, in his letter to the Philadelphians: “There is one bread broken for all, one cup distributed to all.”
I answer first: In the Latin copies it is not had “one chalice distributed to all,” but “one chalice of the whole Church.” For it is a common chalice, because it is offered to God for all. Nor is much to be trusted to the Greek copies, which Kemnitz makes much of: for there are in them many errors, as anyone would easily notice who should compare those Greek copies which now exist with the testimonies of Ignatius which are cited by Athanasius in his letter to Epictetus, and by Theodoret in his Dialogues against the Eutychians. Add that the Magdeburgers themselves, Century 2, chapter 4, article on the Eucharist, cite this passage of Ignatius as we have it.
I answer secondly: Ignatius in those words, even as they are cited by Kemnitz, lays the stress on the unity of the chalice, not on the universality of those who drink. For he teaches that there is one chalice, but not that it ought, or is even wont, to be received by all; so that this is the sense: When in the Church some receive the Eucharist under the species of bread, they all receive one bread, not many; and when some receive under the species of wine, one chalice is distributed to them all, not many. Whence in the same place he says: “There is one flesh, one blood, one bread, one cup, one Christ, one Baptism, one Church, etc.”
Thirdly, finally, we can add that at most, however much those words be pressed, nothing else can be drawn from them than that it was the custom at that time, when the Christians were few, that the drink of the chalice be given to all. But this is an example, not a precept.
In the second place they bring forward Justin: “Justin,” says Kemnitz, “a most ancient writer, when he had described Communion under both species, presently subjoins that the Apostles in the Gospels delivered that Christ so commanded them.”
I answer: Those words of Justin, where the precept of Christ is commemorated, pertain not to Communion, but to consecration. For although Justin had said something before about Communion, yet immediately before those words which the adversaries cite, Justin declares what the Eucharist is and how it is made, and says that the bread, by the word of God uttered in the consecration, becomes the Eucharist, and is no longer common bread, but the flesh and blood of Jesus Himself: and then, lest he seem to have feigned so wonderful a thing out of his own head, he subjoins: “For the Apostles in their commentaries, which are called Gospels, delivered that Jesus so commanded them.” By which words he signifies that the Apostles delivered that a precept was given them by the Lord, to consecrate the bread by the word of God, and by that consecration to make of the bread His body. The same is clear from the following words: for Justin took care to add those words of the Gospel in which the Lord's precept is contained, and says: “For He, taking bread, when He had given thanks, said: Do this in commemoration of me: this is my body: and in like manner, taking the chalice, said, This is my blood”; where no mention is made of Communion, but only of the institution.
The third is Clement of Alexandria, who, Book 2 of the Paedagogue, chapter 2, says: “To drink the blood of Jesus is to be a partaker of the divine incorruption.” Hence the adversaries gather that he cannot partake of incorruption who does not drink the blood.
I answer first: That negative does not follow from the affirmative. For not because the drink of the blood gives incorruption, does he not have incorruption who does not drink the blood; for it can be had from elsewhere, namely from the body of the Lord, that same incorruption, according to that of John 6: He that eateth this bread shall live forever. For even in bodily things the argument would not be valid: Wine nourishes, therefore those who do not drink wine cannot be nourished. It is not valid, because not only wine, but many other things too nourish.
Secondly: The blood of the Lord gives incorruption not because it is received by drinking, but because it is received. For the power is in the blood itself, not in the mode of drinking; but the blood is truly received by those who communicate under one species, as we said above.
The same solution is valid for the passage of Tertullian, who can be numbered as the fourth. From his book on the resurrection Calvin cites that: “The flesh feeds on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul may be fattened on God.” But besides the common solution, it is not to be passed over that Tertullian said that we feed on the blood, not that we drink the blood; and we feed on the blood when we receive it by way of food under the species of bread.
In the fifth place they bring forward Origen, homily 16 on Numbers: “The Christian people has in use to drink the blood.”
I answer first: It has it in use, not in precept. Secondly: That the Christian people may have that use, it is not necessary that each of the people drink, but it is enough if there be in the Church some who do it: for there are many things in the use of the Christian people which nevertheless are not done by each individual.
The sixth is St. Cyprian, from whom they produce three passages. The first is in letter 2, Book 1, where he says that the blood of the Lord ought to be given to the faithful, that they may be strengthened for martyrdom. But to this passage we answered above, chapter 22.
Moreover they press those words of the same letter: “How do we make them fit for the cup of martyrdom, if we do not first admit them to drink in the Church the cup of the Lord by the right of Communion?” For hence it seems to be gathered that the laity have a right to demand the blood of the Lord, and therefore that it cannot justly be denied them.
I answer: In this passage our opinion is confirmed rather than weakened. For Cyprian in that letter speaks of the lapsed, from whom the right of Communion had been taken by the Bishops: and he exhorts Pope Cornelius that to the lapsed, a new persecution being imminent, the right of communicating be restored, if namely they return to penance, lest they be found unarmed for the battle for the faith. The right of the laity to communicate, then, is given by the priests, and is taken away by the priests: and just as the prelates can for crimes take away the right of communicating, so they can for other just causes dispose and ordain concerning the mode of communicating under one species or the other. Moreover if in the time of Cyprian the laity had the right of demanding the chalice, certainly they had it from the custom of that time; therefore, since at this time a contrary custom has been introduced, and a law besides promulgated in general Councils, the laity have no longer that right, unless perhaps they could prove, which hitherto they have not done, that by an express mandate of God they have that right.
The second passage is in Book 2, letter 3, where Cyprian speaks thus: “Some, whether from ignorance or from simplicity, in sanctifying the chalice of the Lord and administering it to the people, do not this which Christ did and taught.” Hence they gather that Christ taught that the chalice should be administered to the people. And Kemnitz increases the difficulty; for if those are reprehended who administered water in place of wine, whereas they retained both the chalice and the words, how much more are those to be reprehended who took away the whole chalice?
I answer: Cyprian does not treat in that place whether the chalice ought to be given to the people or not: but only that if it be administered, it consist of mixed wine, not of water alone; and this he says the Lord taught, that the chalice of the Eucharist consist of mixed wine, not of water alone.
And what Kemnitz adds is altogether most absurd, namely that it is graver and more reprehensible not to give the chalice to the people than to give it consecrated in water alone. For those who give it consecrated in water alone corrupt the Sacrament of Christ, because they change the matter; and deceive the people, to whom in place of the Lord's blood they give mere water, which that these are most grave sacrileges there is no doubt: and finally they fight with the Lord's precept, which Cyprian always presses, because the Lord bade be done what He Himself did, when He said, Do this: but He consecrated a chalice of mixed wine, not a chalice of water. But to give the Eucharist to the people under one species contains no sacrilege, no fraud, no transgression of any precept.
And indeed it is a wonder that the adversaries so press the testimony of this letter, whereas in the disputation on the sacrifice, and on mixing water with the wine in the chalice, they despise this letter: and do not fear to refute the arguments which are had in it for the mixture of water.
The third passage is in the sermon on the Lord's Supper, where the author speaks thus: “The Law forbids the eating of blood, the Gospel commands that it be drunk.”
I answer first: The author of the sermon (for it is not Cyprian, but some later one) does not say that the Gospel commands the blood to be drunk by all, but only that it be drunk. For by this very fact, that the Lord instituted this Sacrament under the species of food and drink, He bade it be eaten and drunk, but for this it is enough if it be drunk by some, that it be in the Church.
Then Cyprian lays the stress not on drinking, but on receiving the blood; for he speaks indifferently of eating or drinking the blood. For in the cited passage: “The Law,” he says, “forbids the eating of blood, the Gospel commands that it be drunk.” Where, since he opposes as contraries to drink the blood and not to eat the blood, he openly signifies that he takes eating and drinking for the same. And in the same sermon the same author a little after says: “Drink and eating pertain to the same nature.” But the Catholic laity truly receive the blood of the Lord with the body under the species of bread: which that author not only confesses, but even says that for this cause under the species of bread alone there is food and drink. For thus he says at the beginning of the sermon: “They had eaten and drunk of the same bread according to the visible form, etc.”
In the seventh place they bring forward Ambrose from his book on those to be initiated in the mysteries, chapter 9: “For them water flowed from the rock, for thee blood from Christ.” Likewise Calvin cites the words of Ambrose to Theodosius, as Theodoret witnesses, Book 5 of his history, chapter 18: “With what audacity wilt thou partake with thy mouth of the cup of precious blood?” But these make nothing to the point. For we confess that both species were sometimes given to the laity, but deny that this was commanded by divine right.
In the eighth place Calvin brings forward Jerome on chapter 2 of Malachi: “The priests, who confect the Eucharist and distribute the blood of the Lord to the people.” I answer: We hear nothing new.
In the ninth place they bring forward Chrysostom, homily 18 on 2 Corinthians: “There is a place,” he says, “where the priest differs nothing from the subject, as when the tremendous mysteries are to be enjoyed: for we are held worthy to receive them alike. Not as in the old Law, where the priest ate one part, the people another: but to all one body is set forth, and one cup.” I answer: He lays the stress on the thing which is received, not on the species or the mode of receiving; otherwise the distinction which he sets down between the new and the old Law would be false. For if it be a matter of the species, even now the priest receives one part, the people another: for no one receives an entire bread. This, then, is the difference between the sacrifice of the Old and of the New Testament, that the former was divided into parts, nor could the whole be received by one; and hence it came about that some had a greater part, others a lesser; and of the priests ordinarily the chief part was. But this ours is given whole and entire to each: nor has the priest more than the layman; although the symbols be greater or more numerous in the Communion of the priests. And that in the age of Chrysostom, and in the very Church of Chrysostom, it was free to communicate under one species, is manifestly clear from that example which we cited above from Sozomen and Nicephorus.
In the tenth place they bring forward Augustine. And first they cite that of the book of Questions on Leviticus, question 57: “To drink the blood, all are exhorted who wish to have life.” I answer: Augustine speaks of the drink of the blood in the same way in which we said above that Cyprian, or whoever was the author of the sermon on the Lord's Supper, spoke: for he lays the stress not on the mode of drinking, but on the very reception of the blood, which effects the same whether it be received by way of food or by way of drink. For the same Augustine in the same place, as before Cyprian, opposes as contraries not to eat the blood and to drink the blood: “From whose sacrifice,” he says, “from taking the blood as nourishment, not only is no one forbidden, but all are exhorted to drink, etc.”
Secondly they bring forward from the same Augustine those words in the sermon on the Sacraments, in Bede on chapter 10 of the first to the Corinthians: “At once we receive this, at once we drink, because at once we live.” I answer: Hence is concluded no necessity of receiving the blood of the Lord by way of drink. For although the blood of the Lord under the species of wine be a sign and cause of spiritual life, and therefore it be rightly said, “At once we drink, because at once we live,” yet the negative does not follow, We do not at once drink, therefore we do not at once live. For we can live at once by eating: for the food of the Eucharist is a sign and cause of life in the same way as the chalice.
Thirdly they bring forward that: “Neither is the flesh communicated without the blood, nor the blood rightly without the flesh.” Which opinion Alger cites from Augustine, Book 2, chapter 8. I answer: That opinion is not Augustine's, but Paschasius', in his book on the body of the Lord, chapter 19, nor is it in any way opposed to us. For Paschasius does not speak of the species of the Sacrament, but of the thing contained, and teaches that bloodless flesh cannot be received, nor blood, except with its body: and that he does not rightly communicate who thinks that one is received without the other. In the same sense the same Paschasius said, chapter 17: “The flesh of Christ is not rightly received without the divinity, nor is the divinity bestowed without the flesh.”
In the eleventh place they bring forward Gelasius, whose words are recited by Gratian, canon Comperimus, on consecration, distinction 2: “We have found that some, having received only a portion of the sacred body, abstain from the chalice of the sacred blood. Who without doubt (since they are taught to be bound by I know not what superstition) let them either receive the whole Sacraments, or be excluded from the whole: because the division of one and the same mystery cannot come about without grave sacrilege.”
I answer: A twofold solution is wont to be given to this passage. One is that Gelasius speaks of the sacrificing priests alone, who in no way ought to receive one species without the other, since it is theirs to consume the holocaust. This solution is rendered probable from this, that Gratian, who took that chapter from a letter of Gelasius which now perhaps does not exist, prefixed to it this title: “The priest ought not to receive the body of Christ without His blood.”
The other solution is that Gelasius reprehends only those who from the error of the Manichees abstained from the chalice, such as were both the Manichees themselves and the Priscillianists. For these abstained from the chalice, both because they shrank from wine, and because they thought that Christ had not true blood. Wherefore Gelasius does not condemn those who for a just cause abstain from the chalice, but those who from superstition, as his own words indicate: “since,” he says, “they are taught to be bound by I know not what superstition.” For these divided the Sacrament with grave sacrilege, because they dissolved Jesus by their opinion, and therefore they were rightly bidden either to receive the whole Sacraments, and that under both species, as a sign of the corrected error, or simply to be excluded from the Sacrament. Whence (as we said above) St. Leo, sermon 4 on Lent, to detect the Manichees, bade be watched not those who communicated now under one, now under both species, but only those who never communicated under both. For that at that time was a sign of Manicheism: but that error being taken away, ordinarily all communicated under one, as we showed above from the Roman Order.
In the twelfth place they bring forward Pope Gregory, who, Book 4 of the Dialogues, chapter 58, says that the blood of Christ is now poured not into the hands of the unfaithful, but into the mouth of the faithful: and homily 22 on the Gospels says that the blood of Christ is to be drawn by the mouth of the body and the mouth of the heart.
In the thirteenth place they bring forward Bede, who has like words in his homily on the feast of the Epiphany. I answer: These holy Fathers say that the blood of Christ is received by the mouth of the body, which we do not deny ought to be done; but that it ought to be drunk by the mouth of the body, or received under the species of wine, they do not say.
In the fourteenth place they bring forward Haymo, who on chapter 10 of the first to the Corinthians, expounding that, The chalice of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of the Lord?, says that the chalice is called a participation or communion, because all partake of that one. I answer: This author speaks, as we said above that Ignatius and Chrysostom spoke, of the unity of the chalice: for he signifies that those who receive the blood of the Lord receive from one chalice.
In the fifteenth place they bring forward Theophylact, who says thus on chapter 11 of the first to the Corinthians: “This tremendous chalice is delivered to all on equal condition.” I answer: Theophylact speaks of that time in which the epistle to the Corinthians was written; for he expounds the opinion of Paul, and says that which Paul had said in sum and most briefly. Paul was accusing the rich, who in those suppers which then were held in the church did not deign to share their more sumptuous feasts with the poor. These, then, Theophylact accuses, as it were in the name of Paul, and among other things brings forward this argument, that they ought not to shrink from the poor, since Christ gave His chalice equally to all, that is, to the poor as well as the rich. But this opinion, although it then especially had place, when Communion under both species was free to all, yet has place even now. For even now this chalice belongs on equal condition to all, that is, to the rich as well as the poor: for all the priests receive from the chalice, whether they be rich or poor; the laity do not receive, whether they be rich or poor.
In the sixteenth place they bring forward Paschasius, who in his book on the body of Christ, chapter 15, thus expounds that, Drink of this all of you: “That is,” he says, “both the ministers and the rest of the believers.” I answer: three things are here briefly to be observed. The first is that this passage seems altogether corrupt, and for that word Drink there ought to be Eat; as John of Louvain, not without cause, suspects. For these words precede: “He alone it is who breaks this bread, and distributes it by the hands of the ministers to the believers, saying: Take and drink of this all of you, etc.”
Secondly it must be observed that Paschasius does not expound the words of the Lord as they are in Matthew, Drink of this all of you, but as they seem to be said by Christ while the Sacrament is distributed in the Church. For he says that Christ says this when by the hands of the ministers He distributes the Sacrament to the believers: but those words of the Lord in Matthew 26 were said when the Lord distributed the Sacrament by Himself, not by ministers. And moreover those words, as they were said in the first institution of the Sacrament, in no way admit that explanation, Drink all, both the ministers and the rest of the believers; for there were then no ministers distinct from the believers at the table of the Lord.
Thirdly it must be observed that the words of Paschasius, as they now stand, favor our opinion very much: for they signify that the blood of the Lord ought to be drunk, but under the species of bread, not under the species of wine; in the way too that Cyprian, in his sermon on the Lord's Supper, said that the bread is eaten and drunk. Whence Thomas Waldensis, tome 2 on the Sacraments, chapter 93, from this passage of Paschasius gathers that the blood can be drunk under the species of bread.
In the seventeenth place they bring forward Bernard, who in his sermon 3 on Palm Sunday says that the nourishment of the body and blood of the Lord was exhibited in the first Lord's Supper, and commanded to be frequented thenceforth.
I answer: Under the species of bread there is the entire nourishment of the body and blood of the Lord, as we showed above: wherefore the Lord bade this nourishment be frequented, but did not command whether it ought to be done under one or under both species.
In the eighteenth place they bring forward the Council of Tours, which, as Burchard reports, Book 5, chapter 9, decreed that to the sick the Eucharist be given dipped in the blood of the Lord, that the presbyter might truly say: “The body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
I answer: This passage helps the adversaries nothing: for to eat dipped bread, especially dried and long kept in the pyx, as is had in that Council, is not to drink, but they require drink. Then that decree was corrected: for that dipping of the bread is condemned in the Third Council of Braga, canon 2, and rightly. For the dipping is done either that the blood of the Lord may be had, or that it may be had by way of drink. If that it may be had, the bread is dipped in vain, because under the species of bread the blood is not lacking with the body. If that it may be had under the species of drink, it is also dipped in vain, because (as I said) that bread so dipped is not drunk, but only eaten.
In the nineteenth place they bring forward the Third Council of Braga, cited, canon 2, but generally under the name of Pope Julius, in which way that decree is cited also by Burchard, Book 5, chapter 1, by Gratian, distinction 2 on consecration, canon Cum omne, and by the Micrologus on ecclesiastical observances, chapter 19. They bring forward, then, the testimony of this decree, where it is had that dipped bread ought not to be given to the people in the blood, because the Lord is read to have given both species separately, that is, first the species of bread, afterward the species of wine.
I answer: The Council rightly forbids that dipping, from this, that the Lord did not give dipped bread, nor could that dipping be proved by any testimony or example of the Scriptures; yet the Council does not add that both species ought to be given. Moreover if this Council said even that, we should answer that the Council speaks of that time in which Communion under both species was free: for then to those who desired both species the Council bids both species be given, not dipped bread.
In the twentieth place they bring forward three most impudent lies under the name of three general Councils. Luther, in his disputation against the Council of Constance, says that the Council spoke in these words in its decree: “Although Christ instituted that all should communicate under both species, yet notwithstanding this we will that all communicate under one.” From which words we have that the Council acknowledged and taught the truth, that Communion under both is of divine right, although the same Council ordained the contrary. Whence Luther in the same place says that the Council condemned the doctrine of Christ, and held Christ Himself for a heresiarch. But it is an intolerable lie; for the Council has nothing of the kind, nay on the contrary defines that it is not of divine right to receive both species. And the words from which Luther fabricated the lie are these, in session 13: “Although Christ instituted and gave the Sacrament after supper under both species to the disciples; this notwithstanding, the custom of the Church is to be observed, that it be received only by those who are fasting.” Where the Council does not speak of both species, when it says, “this notwithstanding”; but only of the time of communicating. Nor does it say that the custom of the Church is to be observed notwithstanding a precept of Christ, but notwithstanding the example of Christ: for He gave it after supper for a peculiar cause, which now has no place.
And although this lie of Luther was long ago detected and confuted by the Catholics: yet his disciples always press it, that they may most openly indicate that they wish to lie from reading and from pure malice. For the same lie not many years ago Illyricus repeated, in his Apology for the Confession of Antwerp, chapter 11, where he expressly says that the Council acknowledged that Christ instituted that the Sacrament be given under both. Kemnitz, in Part 2 of the Examination, page 570, tempers this lie somewhat, yet he too lies, in referring that “this notwithstanding,” which he calls a wicked clause, to Communion under both species.
Secondly, the same Luther, in his book on the Babylonian Captivity, chapter on the Eucharist, says that the Council of Basel declared that it is lawful for the Bohemians to receive both species, against that which the Council of Constance had before ordained. But this is a mere imposture. For the Council of Basel teaches the same, session 30, which Constance teaches, session 13. Nor did it anywhere declare that it is lawful for the Bohemians to communicate under both without the dispensation of the Church; but it granted that faculty (as Aeneas Sylvius witnesses in his Bohemian history, chapter 35) with this condition, that they should believe that Communion under one is lawful, and therefore not against divine right.
Thirdly, with incredible impudence Illyricus, in his Apology for the Confession of Antwerp, chapter 11, says that the Council of Trent, convinced by the splendor of the word of God, at length acknowledged its error and permitted Communion under both. But let sessions 21 and 22 of the Council be read, and the lie will vanish.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XXVI. Refelluntur objectiones ex Patribus. Multa loca ex Patribus adversarii citant; quae duabus de causis parum, aut nihil eis prodesse possunt. Primo, quia iisdem Patri¬ bus (ut Joannes a Lovanio recte monuit) in 283 rebus gravioribus nihil credunt. Major pars eorum Patrum apertissime docet transub- stantiationem panis in carnem vi consecra¬ tionis, quam tamen adversarii magno con¬ sensu rejiciunt, et cum citantur a nobis Pa¬ tres, ipsi ad solum verbum Dei provocant, Patribus omnibus contemptis. Secundo, quia revera Patres bene intellecti nihil eorum ha¬ bent, quae ipsi illis tribuunt. Nec tamen mi¬ randum esset, si aliquis eorum obscurius lo¬ queretur, cum tempore ipsorum non fuerit ista quaestio introducta, sitne utraquo spe¬ cies necessario sumenda. Percurramus Patres, quos illi citant, or¬ dine temporum, quo floruerunt. Ignatius in epist. ad Philadelphienses : « Unus est, in¬ quit, panis omnibus confractus, unum pocu¬ lum omnibus distributum. » Bespondeo primum : In Latinis codicibus, non habetur unus calix omnibus distributus, sed unus calix totius Ecclesiae. Est enim com¬ munis calix, quia pro omnibus offertur Deo. Neque multum fidendum est Grsccis codici¬ bus, quos Kemnitius magni facit : multi sunt enim in eis errores, ut quivis facile animad¬ verteret, qui conferret eos codices Graecos, qui nunc exstant, cum testimoniis Ignatii, quae citantur ab Athanasio in epistol. ad Epictetum, et a Theodoreto in Dialogis con¬ tra Eutychianos. Adde, quod ipsi Magde- burgenses, Cent. 2. cap. 4. art. de Eucha¬ ristia, citant hunc locum Ignatii, ut nos ha¬ bemus. Secundo respondeo : Ignatium in illis ver¬ bis, etiam ut a Kemnitio citantur, facere vim in unitate calicis, non in universalitate biben¬ tium. Docet enim unum esse calicem, non autem debere, vel etiam solere ab omnibus sumi ; ut hic sit sensus : Cum in Ecclesia ali¬ qui sumunt Eucharistiam sub specie panis, omnes illi unumpanem sumunt, non multos; et cum aliqui sumunt sub specie vini, unus calix omnibus illis distribuitur, non multi. Unde ibidem ait : « Una est caro, unus est sanguis, unus panis, unum poculum, unus Christus, unum Baptisma, una Ecclesia, etc. » Tertio denique addere possumus, ad sum¬ mum quantumvis exprimantur ista verba, nihil aliud ex eis elici posse, nisi fuisse usum illo tempore, cum pauci erant, Christiani ut omnibus daretur potus calicis. Sed hoc exem¬ plum est, non praeceptum. Secundo loco Justinum proferunt: « Ju- (1) I Cor. XI, 26. 284 UBER IV. s tinus, inquit Kemnitius, vetustissimus scri¬ ptor, cum descripsisset Communionem sub utraque specie, mox subjungit, Apostoli in Evangeliis, ita sibi Christum praecepisse tra¬ diderunt. » Respondeo : illa verba Justini, ubi comme¬ moratur Christi praeceptum, non pertinent ad Communionem, sed ad consecrationem. Nam etiamsi de Communione aliquid dixerat Justinus antea, tamen immediate ante illa verba, quae adversarii citant, Justinus decla¬ rat, quid sit, et quomodo fiat Eucharistia, ac dicit, panem per verbum Dei prolatum in consecratione, fieri Eucharistiam, et non esse amplius communem panem, sed ipsius Jesu carnem, et sanguinem : tum ne videa¬ tur rem tam miram ex capite suo finxisse, subjungit: « Apostoli enim in commentariis suis, qua2 Evangelia dicuntur, ita praecepisse sibi Jesum tradiderunt. » Quibus verbis si¬ gnificat Apostolos tradidisse, sibi a Domino praeceptum, ut verbo Dei consecrarent pa¬ nem, et ea consecratione ex pane facerent corpus ipsius. Idem patet ex sequentibus verbis: Justinus enim addere curavit verba illa Evangelii, quibus Domini praeceptum continetur, atque ait : « Eum enim pane ac¬ cepto. cum gratias egisset, dixisse : Hoc fa¬ cite in meam recordationem: hoc est corpus meum : et similiter accepto calice dixisse, Hic est sanguis meus », ubi nulla fit mentio Communionis, sed solius institutionis. Tertius est Clemens Alexandrinus, qui lib. ii. Paedagogi, cap. 2, ait : « Bibere san¬ guinem Jesu est participem esse incorru- ptionnis divinae. » Hinc vero colligunt adver¬ sarii, non posse participare incorruptionem, qui non bibit sanguinem. Respondeo primum : Non sequitur illa ne¬ gativa ex affirmativa. Non enim quia potus sanguinis dat incorruptionem, ideo non ha¬ bet incorruptionem, qui non bibit sangui¬ nem ; potest enim aliunde, nimirum ex cor¬ pore Domini, haberi eadem illa incorruptio, juxta illud Joan. vi : Qui manducat hunc panem, vivet in xternum (1). Nam etiam in rebus corporalibus argumentum non vale¬ ret ; Vinum nutrit, ergo qui vinum non bi¬ bunt, nutriri non possunt. Non valet, quia non solum vinum, sed multa etiam alia nutriunt. Secundo: Sanguis Domini non dat incor¬ ruptionem, quia bibendo sumitur, sed quia sumitur. Vis enim in ipso sanguine est, non in modo bibendi ; sanguinem autem vere sumunt, qui sub una specie communicant, ut supra diximus. Eadem solutio valet ad locum Tertulliani, qui quartus numerari potest. Ex libro de re¬ surrectione citat Calvinus illud : <c Caro cor¬ pore, et sanguine Christi vescitur, ut anima de Deo saginetur. » Sed praeter communem solutionem, non est praetereundum Tertullia¬ num dixisse, nos sanguine vesci, non bibere sanguinem; vescimur autem sanguine, cum eum sumimus per modum cibi sub specie panis. Quinto proferunt Origenem homil. 16. in Numer : « Populus Christianus in usu habet sanguinem bibere. » Respondeo primo : Habet in usu, non in prtccepto. Secundo : Ut eum usum habeat populus Christianus, non necesse est, ut sin¬ guli de populo bibant, sed satis est, si in Ec¬ clesia aliqui sint, qui id faciant: multa enim sunt in usu populi Christiani, qua3 tamen non a singulis fiunt. Sextus est S. Cyprianus, ex quo tria loca producunt. Primus est in epist. 2. lib. i. ubi dicit sanguinem Domini dandum esse fideli¬ bus, ut roborentur ad martyrium. Sed ad hunc locum respondimus supra cap. 22. Urgent porro illa verba ejusdem epistolae: « Quomodo ad martyrii poculum idoneos fa¬ cimus, si non eos prius ad bibendum in Ec¬ clesia poculum Domini jure Communicatio¬ nis admittimus? » Hinc enim colligi videtur, jus habere laicos ad sanguinem Domini pe¬ tendum, ac proinde juste non posse eis de¬ negari. Respondeo : Hoc loco confirmatur potius quam infirmatur sententia nostra. Cyprianus enim loquitur in ea epistola delapsis, quibus ab Episcopis ablatum erat jus Communionis : ac hortatur Cornelium Papam, ut lapsis im¬ minente nova persecutione restituatur jus communicandi, si nimirum ad poenitentiam redierint, ne inermes ad praelium pro fide inveniantur. Jus ergo laicorum ad commu¬ nicandum a sacerdotibus datur, et a sacer¬ dotibus tollitur : et sicut possunt praelati ob crimina tollere jus communicandi, ita possunt ob alias justas causas disponere, et ordinare de modo communicandi sub una specie, vel altera. Praeterea si tem¬ pore Cypriani habuissent laici jus pe- (0 Joan,. VI, 59. CAPUT XXVI. tendi calicem, certe habuissent ex consuetu- ludinc illius temporis ; ergo cum sit hoc tem¬ pore contraria consuetudo introducta, et lex p ree ter ea in generalibus Conciliis promulga¬ ta, non habent amplius jus illud laici, nisi forte probare possint, quod hactenus non fe¬ cerant, expresso Dei mandato se jus illud habere. Secundus locus est in lib. ir. epist. 3, ubi sic loquitur Cyprianus : « Quidam vel igno¬ ranter, vel simpliciter in calice Domini san¬ ctificando, et plebi ministrando non hoc fa¬ ciunt, quod Christus fecit et docuit. » Hinc colligunt Christum docuisse, ut calix plebi ministraretur. Et auget difficultatem Kemni- tius ; nam si illi reprehenduntur, qui loco vini aquam ministrabant, cum tamen et ca¬ licem, et verba retinerent, quanto magis re¬ prehendendi sunt, qui totum calicem sustu¬ lerunt ? ltespondeo : Non agit eo loco Cyprianus, oporteat ne calicem populo praebere, an non : sed tantum, ut si ministretur, ex vino mixto, non ex aqua sola constet, et hoc dicit Domi¬ num docuisse, ut calix Eucharistiae ex vino mixto, non ex aqua sola constet. Quod autem Kemnitius addit, omnino ab¬ surdissimum est, nimirum gravius, et repre¬ hensibilius esse non date plebi calicem, quam dare in sola aqua consecratum. Nam qui dant in sola aqua consecratum, corrumpunt Sacramentum 'Christi, quia mutant mate¬ riam ; et populum decipiunt, cui pro sangui¬ ne. Domini meram aquam tribuunt, quae gra¬ vissima sacrilegia esse, non dubium est : et denique pugnant cum Domini praecepto, quod semper urget Cyprianus, quia Domi¬ nus jussit fleri, quod ipse fecit, dum ait: Hoc facite : ipse autem calicem vini mixti consecravit, non calicem aqum. At p nubere populo Eucharistiam sub una specie, nullum sacrilegium, nullam fraudem, nullius prae¬ cepti praevaricationem continet. Et sane mirum est, adversarios tantopere urgere testimonium hujus epistolae, cum in disputatione de sacrificio, et de miscenda aqua vino in caiiice, hanc epistolam contem¬ nant : et argumenta, quae in ea habentur pro mixtione aquae, refutare non vereantur. Tertius locus est in serm. de cceua Domi¬ ni, ubi sic loquitur auctor: « Lex esum san¬ guinis prohibet, Evatngelium praecipit, ut bibatur. » Despondeo primum : non dicit auctor ser¬ monis (nec enim Cyprianus est, sed aliquis m posterior) Evangelium praecipere, ut bibatur sanguis ab omnibus, sed tantum ut bibatur. Hoc enim ipso, quod Dominus instituit Sa- cramcntum hoc sub specie cibi et potus, jussit manducari et bibi, sed ad hoc satis est, si ab aliquibus bibatur, ut in Ecclesia sit. Deinde Cyprianus non facit vim in biben¬ do, sed in sumendo sanguinem ; promiscue enim loquitur de esu, vel potu sanguinis. Nam in loco citato : « Lex, inquit, prohibet esum sanguinis, Evangelium praecipit, adbi¬ batur. » Ubi cum opponat tanquam contra¬ ria, bibere sanguinem, et non edere sangui¬ nem, aperte significat se pro eodem acci¬ pere esum et potum. Et in eodem sermone idem auctor paulo post dicit : « Potus et esus ad eamdem pertinent rationem. » Accipiunt autem Catholici laici vere sanguinem Do¬ mini cura corpore sub specie panis : id quod iste auctor non solum fatetur, sed etiam dicit propter eam causam in sola specie panis esse cibum et potum. Sic enim ait initio sermo¬ nis : <t Manducaverant, et biberant de eodem pane secundum formam visibilem ete. » Septimo proferunt Ambrosium ex lib. de initiandis mysteriis, cap. 0 : « Illis aqua fluxit e petra, tibi sanguis e Christo. » Item ■citat Calvinus verba Ambrosii ad Theodo¬ sium teste Theodoreto lib. v. histor cap. IS. « Qua audacia poculum sanguinis pretiosi, ore tuo participabis? » Sed Inec nihil ad rem faciunt. Fatemur enim datam aliquando utramque speciem laicis, sed negamus id jure divino mandatum. Octavo profert Calvinus Hieronymum in cap. 2. Malach. : « Sacerdotes, qui Euchari¬ stiam conficiunt, et sanguinem Domini po¬ pulo distribuunt. » Despondeo : Nihil novi audimus. Nono proferunt Ghrysostomum liomil. 18. in 2. ad Corinth. « Est autem, inquit, ubi nihil differt sacerdos a subdito, ut quando fruendum est horrendis mysteriis : similiter enim ut illa percipiamus, digni habemur. Non sicut in veteri lege partem quidem sa¬ cerdos comedebat, partem vero populus : verum omnibus unum corpus proponitur, et poculum unum. » Despondeo : Yiin facit in re, qua1, sumitur, non in speciebus, vel iu modo sumendi ; alioqui falsum esset discri¬ men, quod ipse ponit inter novam et vete¬ rem legem. Nam si agatur de speciebus. etiam nunc partem sumit sacerdos, partem populus : nemo enim sumit integrum panem, lloc igitur est discrimen inter veteris et novi 286 LIBER 4V. * Testamenti sacrificium, quod illud divide¬ batur per partes, nec poterat ab uno sumi totum ; et inde fiebat, ut alii majorem par¬ tem, alii minorem haberent ; et sacerdotum ordinarie erat pars potissima. At hoc no¬ strum totum, et integrum daturs ingulis : nec plus habet sacerdos, quamlaicus; licet sym¬ bola sint majora vel plura in Communione sacerdotum. Fuisse autem Chrysostomi sota- te, et in ipsa Ghrysostomi Ecclesia liberum communicare sub una specie, manifeste pa~ tet ex eo exemplo, quod supra citavimus ex Sozomeno et Nicephoro. Decimo loco proferunt Augustinum. Ac primum citant illud lib. quaestionum in Le- viticum, quaest. 57 : « Ad bibendum sangui¬ nem, omnes exhortantur qui volunt habere vitam. » Respondeo : Augustinus eodem mo¬ do loquitur de potu sanguinis, quo supra di¬ ximus locutum esse Cyprianum, seu quisquis fuit auctor in serm. de coena Domini : non enim vim facit in modo bibendi, sed in ipsa sumptione sanguinis, qui idem efficit, sive sumatur per modum cibi, sive per modum potus. Nam idem Augustinus ibidem, sicut antea Cyprianus, opponit ut contraria, non comedere sanguinem, et bibere sanguinem : « A cujus, inquit, sacrificii sanguine in ali¬ mentum sumendo non solum nemo prohibe¬ tur, sed ad bibendum exhortantur omnes etc. » Secundo proferunt ex eodem Augustino illa verba in serm. de Sacramentis apud Bedam in 10 cap. prioris ad Corinth : « Simul hoc sumimus, simul bibimus, quia simul vi¬ vimus ». Respondeo: Nulla concluditur hinc necessitas sumendi sanguinis Domini per modum potus. Nam etiamsi sanguis Domini sub specie vini sit sigrfum, et causa vitae spiritualis, et ideo recte dicatur: «Simul bibimus, quia simul vivimus», tamen non sequitur negativa, Non simul bibimus; ergo non simul vivimus. Nam possumus simul vivere comedendo : est enim cibus Euchari¬ stiae eodem modo signum, et causa vitae, quo est calix. Tertio proferunt illud : «Nec caro sine sanguine, nec sanguis sine jure carne com¬ municatur ». Quam sententiam ex Augustino citat Algerus lib. ii. cap. 8. Respondeo : Ea sententia non Augustini, sed Paschasii est, libro de corpore Domini, cap. 19. neque nobis ulla ratione adversatur. Non enim Paschasius loquitur de speciebus Sacramenti, sed de re contenta, ac docet non posse sumi carnem exsanguem, neque sanguinem, nisi cum suo corpore : et illum non jure commu¬ nicare, qui sentit unum accipi sine altero. Eodem sensu dixit idem Paschasius cap. 17. « Non recte caro Christi sine divinitate sumi¬ tur, nec divinitas sine carne praestatur. » Undecimo proferunt Gelasium, cujus ea verba recitantur a Gratiano, can. Comperi- mus, de consecrat, dist. 2. « Comperimus quod quidam sumpta tantummodo corporis sacri portione, a calice sacri cruoris absti¬ neant. Qui procul dubio (quoniam nescio qua superstitione docentur obstringi) aut Sacramenta integra percipiant, aut ab in¬ tegris arceantur : quia divisio unius, et ejus¬ dem mysterii sine grandi sacrilegio non pot¬ est provenire ». Respondeo : Duplex ad hunc locum dari solet solutio. Una est, quod loquatur Gela- sius de solis sacerdotibus sacrificantibus, qui nullo modo debent unam speciem sine altera sumere, cum ipsorum sit, holocaustum consumere. Ha3c solutio ex eo probabilis redditur, quod Gratianus, qui ex epist. Ge- lasii, qua} modo fortasse non exstat, capitu¬ lum illud desumpsit, hunc ei prsefixit titulum: « Corpus Christi sine ejus sanguine sacerdos non debet accipere ». Altera solutio est, Gelasium reprehendere illos dumtaxat, qui ex errore Manichaeorum a calice abstinebant, quales erant tum ipsi Manichaei, tum Priscilianistee. Isti enim ideo a calice abstinebant, tum quia abhorrebant a vino, tum quia existimabant Christum non habuisse verum sanguinem. Quare Gelasius non damnat eos, qui justa de causa a calice se abstinent, sed qui ex superstitione, ut verba ipsius irtdicant : « Quoniam, inquit, nescio qua superstitione docendur obstringi» . Isti enim magno sacrilegio Sacramentum di¬ videbant, quia solvebant Jesum opinione sua, et ideo recte jubebantur aut integra Sa¬ cramenta, et quidem sub utraque specie su¬ mere in signum correcti erroris, aut simpli¬ citer a Sacramento arceri. Unde (ut supra diximus) S. Leo serm. 4. de Quadragesima, ad Manichaeos detegendos jubebat observari, non eos, qui modo sub una, modo sub utra¬ que specie communicabant; sed eos tantum, qui nunquam sub utraque communicabant. Illud enim eo tempore signum erat Mani- cheoismi : errore autem illo sublato, ordinarie omnes sub una communicabant, ut ex ordine Romano supra ostendimus. Duodecimo proferunt Gregorium Papam. CAPUT XXVI. 287 qui lib. iv. Dialog. cap. 08. dicit Christi san¬ guinem jam non in manus infidelium, sed in in ore fidelium fundi : et homil. 22. inEvan- gel. dicit, ore corporis, et ore cordis Christi sanguinem hauriendum esse. Decimo tertio proferunt Bedam, qui similia verba habet in homilia festi Epiphania). Re¬ spondeo : Sancti isti Patres sumi dicunt Chri¬ sti sanguinem ore corporis, quod nos non negamus esse faciendum ; bibi autem debere ore corporis, aut sub specie vini sumi, ipsi non dicunt. Decimo quarto proferunt Haymonem, qui in c. x. I ad Corinth. exponens illud: Calix benedictionis, cui benedicimus, nonne com¬ municatio sanguinis Domini est (1) ? dicit enim calicem vocari participationem, seu commu¬ nionem, quia omnes ex illo uno participant. Respondeo : Loquitur iste auctor, ut supra lo¬ qui diximus Ignatium, et Chrysostomum de unitate calicis : significat enim eos, qui san¬ guinem Domini sumunt, ex uno calice su¬ mere. Decimo quinto proferunt Theophylactum, qui sic ait in cap. xi prioris ad Corinth. : « Tremendus hic calix cunctis, pari condi¬ tione est traditus. » Respondeo : Loquitur, Theophylactus de eo tempore, quo scripta est epist. ad Corinth. edisserit enim Pauli sententiam, atque id loquitur, quod Paulus in summa, et brevissime dixerat. Paulus ar¬ guebat divites, qui in coenis illis, quae tunc fiebant in Ecclesia, non dignabantur com¬ municare epulas suas lautiores cum paupe¬ ribus. Hos ergo arguit, quasi Pauli nomine Theophylactus, et inter alia hoc argumen¬ tum adducit, non debere eos abhorrere a pauperibus, quando calicem suum Christus ex sequo omnibus dederit, id est, tam pauperibus, quam divitibus. Haec autem sen¬ tentia etiamsi tunc maxime locum habuit, cum Communio sub utraque specie erat omnibus libera; tamen etiam nunc locum habet. Nam et nunc pari conditione calix iste cunctis, id est, tam divitibus, quam pauperibus con¬ venit : sumunt enim ex calice cuncti sacer¬ dotes, sive divites sint, sive pauperes ; laici non sumunt, sive divites, sive pauperes sint. Decimo sexto proferunt Paschasium, qui in lib. de corpore Christi, cap. XV. sic exponit illud : <c Bibite ex hoc omnes ; Id est, inquit, tam ministri, quam reliqui credentes. » Re¬ spondeo : tria sunt hic breviter observanda. Primum est, locum istum videri omnino cor¬ ruptum, et pro illa voce, Bibite, debere esse, Edite; ut Joannes a Lovanio non sine causa suspicatur. Nam haec verba praecedunt : « Hic solus est, qui frangit hunc panem, et per manus ministrorum distribuit credenti¬ bus, dicens : Accipite, et bibite ex hoc om¬ nes, etc. » Secundo observandum est, non exponere Paschasium verba Domini, ut sunt apud Mat¬ thaeum : Bibite ex hoc omnes , sed ut videntur dici a Christo, dum in Ecclesia distribuitur Sacramentum. Nam ipse ait Christum hoc dicere, cum per manus ministrorum Sacra¬ mentum distribuit credentibus : verba autem illa Domini Matth. 26. dicta sunt, cum Do¬ minus per se, non per ministros, Sacramen¬ tum distribueret. Et praeterea verba illa, ut dicta sunt in prima institutione Sacramenti, nullo modo admittunt illam explicationem, Bibite omnes tam ministri, quam reliqui cre¬ dentes ; nulli enim tunc erant ministri a cre¬ dentibus distincti in mensa Domini. Tertio observandum est, verba Paschasii, ut jam se habent, nostra) sententiae plurimum favere : significant enim bibendum esse Do¬ mini sanguinem, sed in specie panis, non in specie vini; quomodo etiam Cyprianus serm. de coena Domini dixit panem manducari et bibi. Unde Thomas Waldensis, tomo 2. de Sctcrament. cap. 93. ex hoc loco Paschasii colligit sanguinem bibi posse sub specie pa¬ nis. Decimo septimo proferunt Bernardum, qui serm. 3. in ramis palmarum, dicit alimo¬ niam corporis, et sanguinis Domini in prima coena Domini exhibitam, ac deinceps fre¬ quentari mandatam. Respondeo : Sub specie panis integra ali¬ monia est corporis et sanguinis Domini, ut supra ostendimus : quare Dominus jussit fre¬ quentari istam alimoniam, sed non praecepit, an sub una, vel sub utraque specie id fieri deberet. Decimo octavo proferunt Concilium Turo- nicum, quod Burchardo referente lib. v. cap. 9. decrevit, dandam esse aegrotis Eu¬ charistiam intinctam sanguine Domini, ut presbyter vere possit dicere : « Corpus, et sanguis Domini nostri Jesu Christi. » Bespondeo : Locus hic nihil juvat adver¬ sarios : nam panem intinctum comedere, \ (1)1 Cor X, 10 28S LIBER IT. priesertim exsiccatum, et in pyxide diu reten¬ tum, ut in eo Concilio habetur, non est bi¬ bere, ipsi autem potum requirunt. Deinde decretum illud emendatum fuit : damnatur enim illa intinctio panis in Concilio Braca- rensi III, can. i. et recte. Nam intinctio vel fit ut habeatur sanguis Domini, vel ut habea¬ tur per modum potus. Si ut habeatur, frustra intingitur panis, quia in specie panis non deest sanguis cum corpore. Si ut habeatur in specie potus, frustra etiam intingitur, quia (ut dixi) non bibitur ille panis sic intinctus, sed solum editur. Decimo nono proferunt Concilium III, Bra- carense, citatum can. i. sed ut plurimum no¬ mine Julii Papa), quomodo citatur isttid de¬ cretum etiam a Burchardo lib. v. cap. i. a Gratiano dist. 2. de consecrat, can. Cum omne, et a Micrologo de observationibus Ecclesiasticis, cap. 19. Proferunt igitur te¬ stimonium hujus decreti, ubi habetur non esse dandum populo panem intinctum in sanguine, quia Dominus legitur dedisse utramque speciem seorsim, id est, primo spe¬ ciem, panis, postea speciem vini. Respondeo : Concilium prohibet quidem recte illam intinctionem ex eo, quod Domi¬ nus non intinctum panem dedit, nec poterat probari illa intinctio ullo testimonio, vel exemplo Scripturarum, non tamen Concilium addit, debere dari utramque speciem. Prre- terea si hoc etiam Concilium diceret, respon¬ deremus Concilium loqui de eo tempore, quo libera erat Communio sub utraque spe¬ cie : tunc enim iis, qui utramque speciem cupiebant, Concilium jubet dari utramque speciem, non autem panem intinctum. Vigesimo proferunt impudentissima tria mendacia sub nomine trium generalium Conciliorum. Lutherus in disputatione con¬ tra Concilium Constantiense dicit, Concilium in heee verba locutum in suo decreto : «Licet Christus instituerit, ut omnes communicent sub utraque, tamen hoc non obstante, nos volumus, ut omnes communicent sub una. » Ex quibus verbis habemus Concilium agno¬ visse, et docuisse veritatem, quod sit de jure divino Communio sub utraque, licet idem Concilium contrarium statuerit. Unde Lutherus ibidem dicit, Concilium damnasse Christi doctrinam, et ipsum Christum pro Haeresiarcha habuisse. Sed est. mendacium intolerabile; nam nihil ejusmodi habet Concilium, imo contrario definit, non esse de jure divino sumere utramque spe¬ ciem. Verba autem unde Lutherusmendacium fabricavit, sunt ista, in sess. 13. ((Licet Chris¬ tus instituerit, et dederit Sacramentum post comam sub utraque specie discipulis; hoc non obstante observanda est Eccleshe consue¬ tudo, ut non sumatur nisi a jejunis.» Ubi Con¬ cilium non loquitur de utraque specio, cum ait: « Hoc non obstante ; » sed tantum de tempore communicandi. Neque dicit servan¬ dum Ecclesia) morem, non obstante Christi prsecepto, sed non obstante Christi exemplo : ille enim dedit post ccenam ex peculiari causa, qua) modo non habet locum. Quamvis autem hoc mendacium jamdu- duin in Luthero a Catholicis dedectum, et confutatum fuerit : tamen discipuli ejus semper illud urgent, ut apertissime indicent, se ex lectione, et ex pura ma¬ litia mentiri velle. Idem enim mendacium non ante multos annos repetivit Illyricus in Apologia pro Confessione Autuerpiensi cap. 11. ubi expresse dicit, Concilium agnovisse Christum instituisse, ut daretur Sacramen¬ tum sub utraque. Kcmnitiusin 2. par. Exam. pag. 570. temperat non nihil hoc mendacium, tamen ipse quoque mentitur, illud non ob¬ stante quam vocat sceleratam clausulam, referri ad Communionem sub utraque spe¬ cie. Secundo idem Lutherus in lib. de Captivit. Babyl. cap. de Eucharistia, dicit, Conciliufn Basilleense declarasse, licere Bohemis utram¬ que speciem sumere contra id, quod ante statuerat Concilium Constantiense. Sed ha)c est mera impostura. Concilium enim Basi- leense idem docet sess. xxx. quod Constan¬ tiense sess. xiii. Neque usquam declaravit li¬ cere Bohemis Communionem sub utraque sine Ecclesia) dispensatione ; sed concessit eam facultatem (teste /Enca Sylvio in histo¬ ria Bohemica, cap. 32.) cum ea conditione, ut crederent Communionem sub una esse licitam, et proinde non esse contra jus divi¬ num. Tertio incredibili impudentia Illyricus in Apologia confessionis Antuerpiensis,cap. 11. dicit, Concilium Tridentinum convictum ful¬ gore verbi Dei, tandem agnovisse suum er¬ rorem, et permisisse Communionen sub utraque. Sed legantur sesse 21. et 22. Con¬ cilii. et mendacium e\ unescet. CAPUT XXVII. 289