Thomas Aquinas

Above, the Evangelist set down the celebration of the old Passover; here is set down the institution of the sacrament of the altar. And first the sacrament is instituted; second, the future scandal of the disciples is foretold, where "then Jesus said to them: You will all suffer scandal." First he does two things. First the paschal sacrament is instituted; second, the hymn of thanksgiving, where "and the hymn having been said, they went out to the Mount of Olives." And concerning the first he does two things. First is set down the institution of the sacrament under the species of bread; second under the species of wine, where "and taking the chalice he gave thanks," and so on. Concerning the first, he first touches on the deeds of Christ; second the words, where "take and eat; this is my body." In the deeds five things are to be noted. First the time is set down; second the matter is designated; third the blessing; fourth the breaking; fifth the communication, or distribution.

The time is touched upon when he says "and while they were eating," that is, while they were at supper, that is, while they were dining. And why did he establish this in the very supper, and not before? There is a twofold reason. Because the Lord willed that this should succeed the old sacrament, as the truth succeeds the figure; therefore after the establishment of the old sacrament he established the new one; Leviticus 26:10: "with the new things coming in, you will cast away the old." Also for another reason, because he willed that it be fixed in memory: for the things that are heard last are fixed more deeply in memory. Lamentations 3:19: "Remember my poverty and transgression, the wormwood and the gall." Why then did the Church establish that men should receive this sacrament fasting? It must be said that this is for the reverence of the sacrament: for it is fitting that it be taken before food. And this is to be understood of the same day. For since the day begins from midnight, one ought not to receive anything from midnight until the reception of this sacrament. But some have asked whether whatever enters the mouth breaks the reception of the sacrament, as if someone drinks water. It must be understood that there is a twofold fasting, namely the fasting of the Church, and the fasting of nature. The fasting of the Church is not broken by the drinking of water, but the fasting of nature is broken by it; because even though water does not of itself nourish, it nourishes together with other things. And you should understand that one receives water and drink if someone washes his mouth, and swallows a single drop by accident. Nevertheless he ought not on this account to omit reception; rather it is reckoned along with saliva. I say the same about food, that if someone eats aniseed in the evening, and something remains in the teeth, if by chance he swallows it, he ought not on this account to omit reception. Likewise some make it a matter of conscience, that if they have not slept, they should not receive. This has no place, because it was not part of the Church's establishment. Hence it makes no difference to the matter whether one has slept or not.

"Jesus took bread," and so on. Here the matter is touched upon. It must be noted that this sacrament, as regards something, pertains to the old sacrament, as the truth to the figure. That sacrament was taken as food, because it was commanded that they should eat the lamb; and this, which is taken in its place, ought to be taken as food. And just as that was truly food, so too is this lamb; John 6:56: "My flesh is truly food." Hence that opinion is false which held that Christ was there only under a sign, because if it were so, what more would this sign have than that one? But that was a sign only; this, however, is both figure and truth. But is it not irreverence, that someone should eat the body of the Lord? It must be said that this food differs from other foods, because other foods are converted into our body: hence if Christ were converted in this way, it would be irreverence. But it is not so; rather the reverse, as Augustine says: "Not you shall change me into yourself, but you shall be changed into me." Hence that sacrament is the end and perfection of all the sacraments. And the reason is, because the being which exists through essence is the end and perfection of those things which exist through participation: for the other sacraments contain Christ through participation, but in this one Christ is present according to substance. Therefore Dionysius says that there is no sacrament which is not perfected in the Eucharist. Hence if an adult is baptized, the Eucharist ought to be given to him. It ought therefore to be taken as food, so that the truth may answer to the figure. And why not under its own proper species? One reason is by reason of the merit of faith, because faith has no merit where human reason furnishes proof by experience. Also, that those who receive it might be spared, because it is not customary that human flesh be eaten. Also, that it might be defended from the mockery of unbelievers. And why under such a species? Because he willed that it be celebrated by all everywhere in the world: therefore he willed to give them matter which is common to all. Now the common food is bread, and the common drink of men is wine: hence bread and wine are the principal food, the others being rather like side-dishes, as it were. Likewise in the other sacraments, in anointing, not just any oil is taken, but common oil, which is called oil from many olives; thus the unity of the Church arises from the multitude of the faithful. And thus it is clear that our sacraments are more ancient than the sacraments of the old law; because the sacraments of the old law had their beginning from Moses and Aaron, but the sacraments of the new law from Melchizedek, who offered Abraham bread and wine. Therefore it is said that Christ was made priest according to the order of Melchizedek, Psalm 109:4.

Next the blessing is treated; and this blessing is referred to three things. To the matter, because he blessed the fruit of the earth, in which it is signified that the curse of Adam was revoked through Christ, when he said to him, Genesis 3:17: "Cursed is the earth in your labor, ... it shall bring forth to you thorns and thistles." Likewise it is referred to that which was contained in it, namely Christ; above, 21:9: "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord." Likewise to the fruit of the sacrament, because through this the faithful are blessed, and it passes from the head to the members; Proverbs 10:6: "The blessing of the Lord is upon the head of the just."

Then the breaking is touched upon, "and he broke": and it signifies three things. First it signifies the mystery of the future passion, because in the passion his members were pierced, according to that word of Psalm 21:17: "They have dug my hands and my feet, they have numbered all my bones." And this was done because he himself willed it; Isaiah 53:7: "He was offered because he himself willed it." Likewise it is signified that it is broken from unity into multitude, whence it signifies the incarnation: because, since the Word of God itself was simple, it came into this multitude, without abandoning simplicity. Likewise the effect which he brought upon diverse persons is signified; because, according to the Apostle, 1 Corinthians 12:4, "there are divisions of graces, but the same Spirit." Likewise the distribution is set down, "he gave to his disciples"; Ecclesiasticus 29:33: "Of the things that you have in hand, feed each one." And he says "disciples," because this sacrament ought to be given to no one who is not baptized. Just as a priest would not confect it unless consecrated, so it ought not to be administered to anyone unless baptized. Likewise it is not to be given except to the faithful; indeed unbelievers ought not to be admitted to see this sacrament: hence in the primitive Church, when there were many catechumens, they were received in the Church up to the Gospel, and then they were expelled. Likewise, since he says "his disciples," it is asked whether Judas was there. All say that he gave it to all at once, and even to Judas, and this in order that he might call him back from sin by his own kindness. Also that he might give the Church an example, that while a sinner is hidden, he should not be barred from the reception of this sacrament: for men do not have the right to judge of hidden things. Hilary here says that Judas was not there, because he had already gone out. And he wishes to prove it by that which is said in John 13:25, when the disciples asked: "Who is it that will betray you?" To whom he said: "He to whom I shall give the dipped morsel." Thus he shows that he had already gone out. But it is rather to be held what the others say.

"And he said: Take and eat; this is my body." Here the words are set down: and in these words he does three things. First he exhorts to receiving; second to eating; third he declares the truth. He says "take and eat." And what he says, "take," ought to be referred to spiritual reception, because it ought not to be taken except in faith and charity; John 6:55: "He who eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, abides in me, and I in him." Likewise he induces to eating, "eat," not only spiritually, but also sacramentally; Song of Songs 5:1: "Eat, friends, and drink." Likewise he designates the truth, "this is my body." The form of the sacrament is contained in these words, which are the words of the Lord, because in the words of the Lord the sacrament is confected. Hence if the word of Elijah had such power that it made fire descend from heaven, much more will the word of God be able to transmute one body into another. Then it is asked whether power is in the words. And there is no doubt that it is. Hence it is said, Psalm 67:34: "He gave to his voice the voice of power"; Ecclesiastes 8:4: "Because his word is full of power." Hence the priest performs it in the person of Christ, and does not use the words in his own person, but in the person of Christ. But what is this power? How is the power so great? Therefore some say that there is no power there, but only the power of Christ, which assists there. And this does not seem right, because the sacraments of the new law effect what they signify. But what power did it have? It must be said that there is a principal agent cause, and this has power abiding in itself; likewise an instrumental cause, and this does not operate through a power abiding in itself, but through a power passing over from another: hence the sacraments are causes, not as principal causes, but as instrumental causes passing over from another.

But then it is asked what is in fact the case: whether that "take and eat," etc., belongs to the form of the sacrament. And it must be said that only that, "this is my body," belongs to the form of the sacrament. Hence it must be understood that it is otherwise with this sacrament than with the other sacraments, because the consecration of the matter is sometimes of the necessity of the sacrament, sometimes not; as in Baptism the consecration of the matter is not of the necessity of Baptism, but in anointings no anointing is done unless the oil is blessed. In the other sacraments too, the sacrament is not perceived in the blessing, but in the infusion; because oil and water, since they are inanimate, do not contain grace: hence since grace is the end of the sacrament, it cannot be brought about except through the reception of the sacrament. But in this sacrament is contained he who is the fullness of grace; therefore it is not perfected in us, but in the consecration of the matter. Hence, granted that no one should receive it, it would nonetheless be no less a sacrament: hence the use is a consequence and is not of its necessity. Hence in the other sacraments that belongs to the form which pertains to use: this does not pertain to use, but to the holiness of the matter. Hence that which is said, "take and eat," which pertains to use, does not belong to the form.

Likewise it is usually a question, whether the Lord confected under these words. And it seems that he did not: because it is said there, "he took bread, and blessed." Therefore it seems that he consecrated in the blessing. Therefore some have said that he did not consecrate first by words, but by spiritual power. And this he could do on account of the power of excellence, because he could hand on the truth of the sacrament without the sacrament, since he had not bound his power to the sacraments: hence he could do this through the power of excellence. Others say that first he said it in secret, and afterward in public. It is better said that he said it once, and not twice, and in these words he consecrated. Hence it ought to be read in such a way that that which is said, "he said: take and eat," refers to what precedes, so that, in saying this, he said, "this is my body."

Here it is asked what this pronoun "this" points to. Some have said that it points not to the sense, but to the intellect, because it refers only to the substance of the bread, and only to signifying. Hence the sense is, "this is my body," that is, what is signified by this, is my body. And this cannot stand, because the sacraments of the new law effect what they signify, therefore it does nothing else but what it signifies: and it signifies the body of Christ, and thus it would only be the body of Christ under a sign. Others say that the "this" points to the very substance of the body. But how is this? Is it at once the body of Christ when he says, "this"? It is evident that it is not, because if the priest were to die, it would not be consecrated unless he completed it. Therefore others say that the "this" delays its signification, and points to that which will be after the utterance of that word "my." This too does not fit, because thus it would seem to say the same thing, as if it said: my body is my body; and this does not befit God. Others say that the words are uttered materially, not significatively. And this cannot stand, because Augustine says: "The word comes to the element, and it becomes a sacrament." What then? It must be said that they are spoken recitatively, and at the same time recitatively and significatively. Why? Because he himself speaks in the person of Christ, and performs the act as if Christ were present: otherwise the words would not reach to their proper matter. What then? It must be said that it is otherwise in sacramental words, and in other human words: because a human word is only significative, but a divine word is significative and effective. Hence sacramental words have their power from the divine power. Hence at the same time he speaks, and by divine power he brings about. Therefore that word is not only significative, but also effective. And first it brings about, second it signifies.

For in material making it is thus, that something common preexists in any transmutation, and that common thing is under one term of the transmutation at the start, and at the end under the other. For example, suppose that from black something white is made; in this transmutation there was a body, but at the beginning it was under blackness, and afterward under whiteness. Hence in one respect it is similar, in this respect namely that there is something common; but dissimilar, because not in the same way; because in other material transmutations the subject is common, and the form differs; here, however, it is the contrary, because the accident is common, the substance differs. Hence the substance is transmuted, the common accident remains. What then does the "this" point to? It must be said that the sense is: "this is my body," that is, what is contained under the accident is my body. Or this comes about, that what is contained under the accidents may be my body. Hence at the end he set down a noun, but at the beginning a pronoun, which signifies an undetermined substance; but through the noun a determinate form. Hence at the beginning there is not yet the form, but at the end there is.

But how is the body of Christ there? One opinion was, that together with the body of Christ the substance of the bread remained. Hence what he says, "this is my body," is referred to the body alone. Others say that the substance of the bread passes over into the preexisting matter, and the body of Christ comes there, apart from this, that the substance of the bread should pass over into the body of Christ. But this is disproved as follows. Because thus it seems that something begins to be where it was not before, which cannot be unless either it is changed according to place, or something is converted into it. Just as if it be said: here there is no fire, that afterward there is fire there cannot be, unless it is brought there from elsewhere, or something that is there is changed into fire. But according to this opinion the manner of conversion is taken away; therefore it would be nothing but a local change. But it is impossible for the same body to be in different places; therefore, and so on. Hence it must be said otherwise, that the body begins to be there, not through local motion, but through the conversion of the other thing into it; and in this the form remains, and the subject passes over. Hence the subject is changed into the subject, which is the principle of individuation, not because the body of Christ is there together with the substance of bread, or the substance of bread is annihilated, but through the fact that it is transmuted through conversion into it.

But how will it be able to be in so small a place? It must be said that something is there by the power of the sacrament, and that is there principally; but something is there by concomitance. That is there by the power of the sacrament, into which the conversion is terminated. And because the bread is converted into the body of Christ, that which is signified is the body of Christ, and it is not without the soul, nor without the divinity: yet the bread is not converted into the soul, or into the divinity, but they are there by concomitance. Hence if someone had celebrated during the three days, when the soul was separated from the body, the soul would not have been there. For in bread there are two things, substance and accidents: the accidents remain, the substance passes over. That, therefore, is there principally, into which the transmutation is terminated; but it is terminated in the substance; therefore the substance is there principally, but the accidents by concomitance: and dimensions are accidents. Nor is the body of Christ in the sacrament related to place through its own proper dimensions, but through the preexisting dimensions of the bread.

Likewise, "he broke." But is the whole body in every part? I say that it is. And you should understand that it is one thing to be in a place, and another for the thing placed to be in a place; because the thing placed is related to the place under its own dimensions, but not so here. Hence it must be noted that wherever there is some difference of quantity, it does not make a difference in substance; but if there is something that follows quantity, it is divided according to quantity. But the soul does not have its totality from quantity, but has its totality in every part: hence the body of Christ is not related to that body according to quantity, but only according to substance. Therefore just as the soul is in every part of the body, so Christ is in every part of the host.

What then will become of these accidents? It must be said that they remain without a subject by divine power. And how can this be, since accidents depend upon substance? It must be said that God is the principle of being; hence he can produce an effect separated from a subject and without its principles; therefore, since it belongs to the principle of substance to conserve accidents in being, God can conserve them without their principles. If you ask whether this is true of all accidents, it must be said that all accidents are referred to substance by means of dimensions, whence in a certain way they are individuated; therefore the dimensions are without a subject, but quality is in the dimensions as in a subject. Hence the sense is "this," that is, what is contained under these accidents, which accidents remain in the dimensions, is my body — because the substance, which first underlay these accidents, is changed into the body of Christ.