And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body.

“(Hom. lxxxii.) And this John shews when he says, After the sop, Satan entered into him John 13:27. For his sin was aggravated in that he came near to these mysteries with such a heart, and that having come to them, he was made better neither by fear, kindness, nor honour. Christ hindered him not, though He knew all things, that you may learn that He omits nothing which serves for correction.”

“(Ep. 54. 7.) And as they were eating, whereby it is clearly seen that at their first partaking of the Lord’s Body and Blood, the disciples did not partake fasting. But are we therefore to except against the practice of the whole Church, of receiving fasting? It has seemed good to the Holy Ghost, that for the better honour of so great a Sacrament, the Lord’s Body should enter the Christian’s mouth before other food. For to commend more mightily the depth of this mystery, the Saviour chose this as the last thing He would imprint on the hearts and memory of His disciples, from whom He was to depart to His Passion. But He did not direct in what order it should thenceforth be taken, that He might reserve that for the Apostles by whom He would regulate His Church.”

“(non occ.) It has given trouble to divers persons, that in the Church some offer unleavened and others leavened bread. The Roman Church offers unleavened, because the Lord took flesh without any pollution1; other2 Churches offer leavened bread, because the Word of the Father took flesh upon Him, and is Very God, and Very Man; and so the leaven is mingled with the flour. But whether we receive leavened or unleavened, we are made one body of the Lord our Saviour.”

“Fittingly also did He offer fruit of the earth, to shew there by that He came to take away the curse wherewith the earth was cursed for the sin of the first man. Also He bade be offered the produce of the earth, and the things for which men chiefly toil, that there might be no difficulty in procuring them, and that men might offer sacrifice to God of the work of their hands.”

“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.”

“Whilst they were at supper , &c. This is My Body. Thus the Syriac, Arabic, and Persian. But the Ethiopic more significantly renders, This is My very Flesh. The Egyptian adds for: For this is My Body. The rest, indeed, understand for. For that the word must here be supplied is sufficiently plain from the account of the consecration of the wine in ver. 28, For this is My Blood. The word for gives the reason why they must eat and drink, namely, because it is the Body and Blood of Christ which are offered to them by Him to be eaten and drunken. For who would not most eagerly receive such Divine and precious meat and drink ? At supper , i.e., after the supper , as Luke and Paul have it, of the paschal lamb, but whilst they were still reclining at the table as it was spread for the feast Therefore Matthew says, whilst they were at supper. Here take notice that this supper of Christ was threefold. First, that of the paschal lamb, which Christ and His Apostles celebrated standing, according to the law in Exod. xiL Secondly, a common supper of other food after the lamb, which they ate reclining upon couches. For all the members of a family, especially if it were a numerous one, would not have sufficient food in the lamb alone. Thirdly, Christ added a most sacred, yea, a Divine Supper, that is to say, the institution of the Eucharist For Christ before the Eucharist partook of the lamb and the ordinary supper, since it was fitting that the type of the lamb should precede the Eucharistic Verity ; and that the Eucharist should be the final memorial of Him whQ was 174 about to die, as it were the highest pledge of love. So Jansen, Maldonatus, and others. Suarez, however, in speaking of this passage, thinks that the Eucharist was instituted between the paschal and the ordinary supper. At present, indeed, for the sake of reverence of so great a Sacrament, it is, says S. Augustine ( Epist . 128), an Apostolic tradition that the Eucharist should only be taken by those who are fasting. Wherefore the heretics falsely and deceitfully call the Eucharist “the Supper,” although it be true the first Christians for some time celebrated the Eucharist at supper, after the example of Christ, as we gather from 1 Cor. xi. 25. Moreover, in the place of the second and ordinary supper, which Paul calls the Lord's Supper , there succeeded in ancient times, among Christians, the Agape, that is, a feast common to all, as a sign and incentive of charity, but taken after the reception of the Eucharist. Lastly, Christ, after the supper upon the lamb and the ordinary supper, but before the institution of the Eucharist, washed the disciples* feet He did this to signify with what purity we ought to approach so great Mysteries. This is plain from John xiil 4. After the washing, He took and consecrated bread and wine, which were still upon the table, and converted them into the Eucharist, that is, into His own Body and Blood. From all this it is gathered that Christ instituted the Eucharist about the first or second hour of the night For after taking the Eucharist, Judas went out to summon the servants of the rulers, that they might seize Christ Christ in the meanwhile delivered His prolonged discourse, of which John gives an account, chaps, xiv.-xvii. When this was ended, He went out to the Mount of Olives, and there continued a long time in prayer. Then He was taken by the Jews and dragged back from Gethsemane to Jerusalem. Then He was taken to Annas, and after that to Caiaphas. Still there was a great part of the night left, during which He was beaten by the hands of the servants of the priests, was spat upon and mocked by them, whilst they were waiting for the day, that they might take Him to Pilate CONSECRATION OF BREAD. 175 to be condemned. From all this it appears that Christ instituted the Eucharist about the beginning of Thursday night. Lastly, listen to the Council of Trent (Sess. 22, c 1): “After Christ had celebrated the ancient Passover, which the multitude of the sons of Israel sacrificed in memory of their going out of Egypt, He instituted a new Passover, that He Himself should be immolated by the Church (ab ecclesid ), by means of (per ) the priests, under (sub) visible signs, in memory of His passage from this world to the Father, when He redeemed us by the shedding of His Blood, and delivered us from the power of darkness, and translated us to His Kingdom.” Jesus took bread. Observe here five actions of Christ 1st He took bread. 2d. He gave thanks to the Father. 3d. He blessed bread. 4th. He brake bread. 5th. He extended it, and as He was extending it to them He said, Take and eat; this is My Body. For these are the words by which He offered it to them as well as by which He consecrated it This annihilates Calvin’s argument, who says, all these words, namely, took, blessed, brake , gave, have respect only unto bread. Therefore the Apostles received and ate bread, not the Body of Christ. I reply to the major premiss: These words refer to bread, not as it remained bread, but as it was in the act of being bestowed (inter dandum), changed by virtue of the words and consecration of Christ into the Body of Christ For thus might Christ have said at Cana of Galilee, “Take and drink, for this is wine,” if He had wished by these words to turn water into wine. For so we say in ordinary speech, “Herod shut up S. John in prison, killed and buried him, or permitted him to be buried.” And yet it was not the same that he shut up in prison whom he buried. For he imprisoned a man, he buried a corpse. After a similar and common way of speaking is what the Evangelists and S. Paul say of the Eucharist. Observe, secondly, from what Christ said, Take ye, for this is, &c., it would seem that Christ took one loaf, and during the act of consecration broke it into twelve parts, and gave one of 176 these parts to each of the Apostles, which they appear to have received in their hands. Wherefore also, for a long time in the Church, the Eucharist was given to the faithful in their hands, as is plain from Tertullian {lib. de Spectac .), and from S. Cryil of Jerusalem {Catechesi Mystagog. 5), and from S. Austin (Serin. 244). Afterwards, however, from fear of desecration, and through reverence, it was given in the mouth. Lastly, the Apostles were not troubled at this unaccustomed action of Christ, and this new and wonderful Sacrament, for two reasons. First, because they had been already instructed and premonished (John vi.), as S. Chrysostom teaches (Horn. 83, in Maitk.). The other, because the same Christ who delivered the Mysteries, illuminated their minds by faith, that they might simply believe. For they had heard and believed many other more marvellous things without being troubled; as, chiefly that that Man, whom they saw eat, drink, sleep, be weary, was true God. Yea, that He was in Heaven at the very same time that He was speaking with them on earth, when He said (John iii. 13), “And no man hath ascended up to Heaven, but He that came down from Heaven, even the Son of Man, which is in Heaven. Blessed. Observe, Christ before consecration, 1st gave thanks to God the Father, as Luke and Paul say ; and that, after His manner, with His eyes lifted up to Heaven, as it is in the Canon of the Mass and the Liturgy of S. James. Whence this Sacrament is called the Eucharist, ie, 9 Giving of Thanks, because it is itself the greatest and chief Thanksgiving. 2d. Christ blessed, not the Father, as the heretics choose to say, but the bread and wine, as S. Paul says expressly, the cup of blessing which we bless, Sic. (1 Cor. x.). Now Christ blessed the bread and the chalice, that is to say, He invoked the blessing and almighty power of God upon the bread and wine, that it might be then at that time, and in all future consecrations, converted, the bread into the Body, and the wine of the chalice into the Blood of Christ, whensoever the words of consecration feFFECT OF CONSECRATION. w Are rightly and duly (legitime) pronounced. Similar was the blessing of the loaves (Luke ix. 16). Not, therefore, was this benediction the same as consecration, though S. Thomas thinks otherwise (see Council of Trent, Sess. 13, cap. 1). Whence in the Liturgies of S. James and S. Basil, and in our Canon, we pray, after Christ’s example, that God would bless these gifts, that the Divine power may descend upon the bread and the chalice, to perfect the consecration. Hence it is called the chalice of benediction , i.e., blessed by Christ. Whence also S. Paul says (1 Cor. x. 16), “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communication of the Blood of Christ ? ” Lastly, it seems that Christ blessed the bread by making over it the sign of the cross, and in blessing, invoked the power of God, that it might become consecrated and transubstantiated. For, according to the practice of the Church, priests in consecration bless the bread and the wine with the sign of the cross. This they do after the example of Christ This is My Body. From hence it is plain that the Eucharist is not the figure of the Body of Christ, as the Innovators perversely say, but the true and proper Body of Christ, which was born of the Virgin Mary, and crucified on Calvary, as the Church has believed in all ages, and defined in many Councils. This I have shown on 1 Cor. xi. 24. There Paul, in the same words, repeats and relates the institution of the Eucharist. We must add, that some have been tom away from this faith, because they # are not able to comprehend how the Body of Christ, so lofty and so great, can be contained whole in (sub) a very little host. But these persons ought to remember that God is Almighty; and that as He constituted nature, so also He often works, as He wills, contrary to nature, in a supernatural manner, that He may show Himself to be the Lord and God of nature and of all things. Wherefore, whatsoever there is peculiar in nature may be inverted and altogether changed (everii). Consequently, God is able to effect that a great quantity may be contained in a little space, yea, in a point This is the theological reason. But in VOL. IIL M * 7 * order to give full satisfaction to some weak minds, I will subjoin two evidential arguments for this mystery to show that it is possible — arguments which derive their force from analogy. Take, therefore, the following demonstration, drawn from a physical analogy — from the eye and a mirror. For both a looking-glass and a small eye receive into themselves the whole quantity of the very greatest things, not only men, but houses, temples, trees, mountains, &c., and clearly reproduce and represent them whole. Why then should not a small host, by God’s power, set forth ( exhibeat ) whole Christ? You will say that in the eye and in the mirror what takes place is done in a spiritual manner, by means of optical or visual appearances. I reply, in like manner the Body of Christ in the Eucharist assumes a spiritual mode of existence, so that, as a spirit, it should be spiritually in the very small portion of the host.* Let us add this, that the objective appearances themselves are not spiritual in such a sense as that they are not really natural and physical, yes, corporeal, entities. For they are inseparable from corporeal entities, such as the atmosphere. And of these things we see that very many, and as it were an infinite number, are received and comprehended in a mirror and in the eye. If all this constantly takes place in a natural manner, with respect to the appearances received by the eye, much mere can the omnipotence of God do the same thing supematurally in respect to the Body of Christ, miraculously in the Eucharist (Here follows in the original what the Author calls an analogical mathematical demonstration. This is omitted, both because it would involve the printing of two intricate mathematical diagrams, as also because such a species of argument seems less likely to convince now than it did when d Lapide wrote.) You may add here a third proof drawn from condensation and rarefaction, which I have brought forward on i Cor. xi. 25. Water in a vessel, made dense by means of cold, occupies only • Lot, ut quasi spiritus spiritualitcr sit in puncto hostiae. TRAN SU BSTANTI ATION. 179 half of the vessel, but when it is made hot and rarefied by means of fire, it bubbles up and fills the whole vessel. And yet the water continues the same as regards matter, volume (molem) 9 and, as many celebrated philosophers are of opinion, as regards intrinsic bulk; for nothing is added to the water by rarefaction except extension in space. If, then, this takes place according to natural laws, why should God be unable to do the same thing supematurally, as respects the body of Christ ? Luke adds (xxil 19), This is My Body which is given for you, Le., which is about to be given. S. Paul (1 Cor. xl) has, which shall be delivered (Vulg.) ; Gr. xk&ati o», broken . Luke also adds, This do ye for a commemoration of Me. By these words Christ gave to the Apostles, and to the Priests who were to be ordained by them, power, as well as commandments, to consecrate and transubstantiate bread into His Body, and wine into His Blood. Wherefore by these words Christ constituted and ordained His Apostles Priests and Bishops, as the Council of Trent teaches (Sess. 22, cap. 1). For by these words He commanded His Apostles, as Bishops, to ordain Priests to celebrate as well the Sacrament as the Sacrifice of the Eucharist, continuously and perpetually throughout all ages. And this He did both for the perpetual praise and worship of God, and also for the spiritual nourishment of the faithful, that they might, by this means, ask and obtain of God every grace for the Church. And this is the doctrine and faith of the whole Church. This do 9 therefore, is as though He said, “Do what I do, i.e., consecrate, sacrifice, transubstantiate bread and wine, and eat them, as I have consecrated, sacrificed, transubstantiated, eaten the same. Moreover, also, ordain Priests and Bishops, who, by a perpetual succession, may do the same, even unto the end of the world.” For a commemoration of Me. “That, namely, by the consecration and receiving of the Eucharist, ye may commemorate, and, as S. Paul says (1 Cor. xi. 26), may announce (Vulg.), My death.” For consecrating Priests are here bidden not only to remember the Death of Christ, but to recall the same to memory i8o with Christian people, that they may be always mindful of so great a benefit, and of Christ’s great condescension and redemption, and thankful for it, and so by it ask and obtain all grace from God”

“And he took the cup and gave thanks,.... For the Jews blessed, or gave thanks for their wine, as well as for their food, and generally did it in this form (w): "Blessed art thou, O Lord, our God, the king of the world, who hast created the "fruit of the vine". Hence the phrase, "the fruit of the vine", in Mat 26:29, not that we are to suppose, that Christ used or confined himself to this form of words: and it is to be observed, that they not only gave thanks for their wine before food, and whilst they were eating (x), but also after meat; and as this relates to the blessing of the cup after eating, or as the Apostle Paul says, "when he had supped", Co1 11:25. I shall only transcribe what the Jews say (y) concerning that: "When wine is brought to them after food, if there is but that cup there, the house of Shammai say, , "he blesses", or gives thanks "for the wine", and after that gives thanks for the food: the house of Hillell say, he gives thanks for the food, and after that gives thanks for the wine. And as this was usual at ordinary meals, to bless or give thanks for the wine, so at the passover; and which our Lord continued in his supper, and is to be practised by us. It should be further known, that the wine at the passover, and so what Christ used at his supper, was red, "Says R. Jeremiah (z) it is commanded to perform this duty, "with red wine". And elsewhere it is said (a), "that it is necessary, that there should be in it (the wine) taste and look. The gloss on it is, , "that it should be red": and which, as it most fitly represented the blood sprinkled on the door posts of the Israelites, when the Lord passed over their houses; so the blood of Christ, shed for the remission of the sins of his people. It is scarcely worth observing the measure of one of the cups, that was used at such a time: they say (b), that the four cups which were drank at this feast, held an, Italian quart of wine, so that one cup contained half a pint. More particularly, they ask how much is the measure of a cup? the answer is, two fingers square, and a finger and a half and the third part of a finger deep; or as it is elsewhere (c), the fifth part of a finger: and gave it to them, saying, drink ye all of it; for this is not to be restrained from one sort of communicants, and only partook of by another; but all are to drink of the cup, as well as eat of the bread: whether here is not an allusion to the custom of the Jews at the passover, when they obliged all to drink four cups of wine, men, women, and children, and even the poorest man in Israel, who was maintained out of the alms dish (d), may be considered, (w) Haggadah Shel Pesach. fol. 241. 1. (x) Vid. Misn. Beracot, c. 6. sect. 1. 6. (y) Ib. c. 8. sect. 8. (z) T. Hieros. Pesach. fol. 37. 3. & Sabbat, fol. 11. 1. (a) T. Bab. Pesach. fol. 108. 2. & R. Samuel ben Meir in ib. (b) T. Hieros. Sabbat, fol. 11. 1. (c) T. Bab. Pesach. fol. 109. 1. (d) Misn. Pesach. c. 10. sect. 1. T. Bab. Pesach. fol. 108. 1. Mitzvot Torah, pr. affirm. 41.”

“And whilst they were at supper. Jesus Christ proceeds to the institution of the blessed Eucharist, that the truth or reality may succeed to the figure in one and the same banquet; and to impress more deeply upon our minds the remembrance of so singular a favour, his last and best gift to man. He would not institute it at the beginning of his ministry; he first prepares his disciples for the belief of it, by changing water into wine, and by the miraculous multiplication of the loaves. — Whilst they were, &c. before they parted: for by St. Luke (xxii. 20.) and 1 Corinthians (xi. 25.) the blessed sacrament was not instituted till after supper. — Jesus took bread, and blessed it. St. Luke and St. Paul say, he gave thanks. This blessing and giving thanks, was not the consecration itself, but went before it. See the Council of Trent, session xiii. chap. i. (Witham) — This is my body. He does not say, this is the figure of my body —but, this is my body. (2d Council of Nice. Act. vi.) Neither does he say in this, or with this is my body, but absolutely this is my body; which plainly implies transubstantiation. (Challoner) — Catholics maintain, after the express words of Scripture, and the universal tradition of the Church, that Christ in the blessed sacrament is corporally and substantially present; but not carnally; not in that gross, natural, and sensible manner, in which our separated brethren misrepresent the Catholic doctrine, as the Capharnaites did of old; (John vi. 61, 62.) who were scandalized with it. … If Protestants, in opposition to the primitive Fathers, deny the connection of the sixth chapter of John with the institution, it is from the fear of giving advantage to the doctrine of transubstantiation, says Dr. Clever, Protestant bishop of Bangor. — This is my body. By these words, and his divine power, Christ changed that which before was bread into his own body; not in that visible and bloody manner as the Capharnaites imagined. (John vi.) Yet so, that the elements of bread and wine were truly, really, and substantially changed into the substance of Christ’s body and blood. Christ, whose divine power cannot be questioned, could not make use of plainer words than these set down by St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke, and St. Paul to the Corinthians: this is my body; this is my blood: and that the bread and wine, at the words of consecration are changed into the body and blood of Christ, has been the constant doctrine and belief of the Catholic Church, in all ages, both in the east and west, both in the Greek and Latin churches; as may be seen in our controvertists, and particularly in the author of the books of the Perpetuity of the Faith. The first and fundamental truths of the Christian faith, by which we profess to believe the mystery of the holy Trinity, i.e. one God and three divine Persons, and of the incarnation, i.e. that the true Son of God was made man, was born, suffered and died upon the cross for our salvation, are no less obscure and mysterious, no less above the reach of human capacity, than this of the real presence: nor are they more clearly expressed in the sacred text. This change the Church hath thought proper to express by the word, transubstantiation: and it is as frivolous to reject this word, and to ask where it is found in the holy Scriptures, as to demand where we read in the Scriptures, the words, trinity, incarnation, consubstantial to the Father, &c. — Luther fairly owned that he wanted not an inclination to deny Christ’s real presence in the sacrament, by which he should vex and contradict the Pope; but this, said he, is a truth that cannot be denied:[3] The words of the gospel are too clear. He and his followers hold, what is called impanation, or consubstantiation; i.e. that there is really present, both the substance of the bread and wine, and also the substance of Christ’s body and blood. — Zuinglius, the Sacramentarians, and Calvinists deny the real presence; and hold that the word is, ( est ) importeth no more, than it signifieth, or is a figure of Christ’s body; as it hath been lately translated, this represents my body, in a late translation, or rather paraphrase, 1729. I shall only produce here the words and reasoning of Luther: which may deserve the attention of the later reformers. [4]”Who,” saith Luther, (tom. vii. Edit. Wittemb. p. 391) “but the devil, hath granted such a license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposeth upon us by these fanatical men. … Not one of the Fathers, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present. Surely it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous.” Thus far Luther; who, in another place, in his usual manner of writing, hesitates not to call the Sacramentarians, men possessed, prepossessed, and transpossessed by the devil. [5] — My body. In St. Luke is added, which is given for you. Granted these words, which is given, may bear this sense, which shall be given, or offered on the cross; yet as it was the true body of Christ, that was to be crucified,so it was the same true body which Christ gave to his apostles, at his last supper, though in a different manner. — The holy Eucharist is not only a sacrament, but also a sacrifice, succeeding to all the sacrifices of the ancient law, which Christ commanded all the priests of the new law to offer up. Luther was forced to own, that divers Fathers, taught this doctrine; as Irenĉus, Cyprian, Augustine: and in his answer to Henry VIII. of England: The king, says he, brings the testimonies of the Fathers, to prove the sacrifice of the mass, for my part, I care not, if a thousand Augustines, a thousand Cyprians, a thousand Churches, like that of Henry, stand against me. The Centurists of Magdeburg own the same to have been the doctrine of Cyprian, Tertullian, and also of Irenĉus, in the end of the second age; and that St. Gregory of Nazianzen, in the fourth age, calls it an unbloody sacrifice; incruenti sacrificii. (Witham) This is my body. To shew how these words have been interpreted by the primitive Church, we shall here subjoin some few extracts from the works of some of the most eminent writers of the first five centuries. First Century. St. Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, who was a disciple and contemporary with some of the apostles, and died a martyr, at Rome, in a very advanced age, An. 107, speaking of certain heretics of those times, says: “They abstain from the Eucharist and from oblations, because they do not confess the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who suffered for our sins.” See epis. genuin. ad Smyrnĉos. — He calls the Eucharist the medicine of immortality, the antidote against death, by which we always live in Christ. — In another part he writes: “I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, and for drink, his blood.” Again: “use one Eucharist; for the flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ is one, and the cup is one in the unity of his blood. There is one altar, as there is one bishop with the college of the priesthood,” &c. Second Century. St. Justin, the philosopher, in an apology for the Christians, which he addressed to the emperor and senate of Rome, about the year 150, says of the blessed Eucharist: “No one is allowed to partake of this food, but he that believes our doctrines are true, and who has been baptized in the laver of regeneration for remission of sins, and lives up to what Christ has taught. For we take not these as common bread, and common drink, but in the same manner as Jesus Christ, our Saviour, being incarnate by the word of God, hath both flesh and blood for our salvation; so we are taught that this food, by which our flesh and blood are nourished, over which thanks have been given by the prayers in his own words, is the flesh and blood of the incarnate Jesus.” Apology ii. in fin. he calls it, Panem eucharistisatum ton arton eucharistethenta , the bread blessed by giving thanks, as he blessed and miraculously multiplied the loaves, eulogesen autous . Third Century. St. Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, who suffered martyrdom in 258, says: “the bread which our Lord delivered to his disciples, was changed not in appearance, but in nature, being made flesh by the Almighty power of the divine word.” Fourth Century. St. Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem, who was born in the commencement of the 4th century, and died in 386, explaining the mystery of the blessed Eucharist to the newly baptized, says: “Do not look upon the bread and wine as bare and common elements, for they are the body and blood of Christ; as our Lord assures us. Although thy senses suggest this to thee, let faith make thee firm and sure. Judge not of the thing by the taste, but be certain from faith that thou has been honoured with the gift of Christ’s body and blood. When he has pronounced and said of the bread, this is my body, who will after this dare to doubt? And when he has assured, and said, this is my blood, who can ever hesitate, saying it in not his blood? He changed water into wine at Cana; and shall we not him worthy of our belief, when he changed wine into blood? Wherefore, let us receive them with an entire belief, as Christ’s body and blood; for under the figure of bread, is given to thee his body, and under the figure of wine, his blood; that when thou hast received Christ’s body and blood, thou be made one body and blood with him; for so we carry him about in us, his body and blood being distributed through our bodies.” (St. Cyril, catech.) — St. Ambrose, one of the greatest doctors of the Latin Church, and bishop of Milan, who died in 396, proving that the change of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, is really possible to God, and really takes place in the blessed Eucharist, uses these words: “Will not the words of Christ have power enough to change the species of the elements? Shall not the words of Christ, which could make out of nothing things which did not exist, be able to change that, which already exists, into what it was not? It is not a less exertion of power to give a new nature to things, than to change their natures. Let us propose examples from himself and assert the truth of this mystery from the incarnation. Was it according to the course of nature, that our Lord Jesus Christ should be born of the Virgin Mary? It is evident that it was contrary to the course of nature for a virgin to bring forth. Now this body, which we produce, was born of the virgin. Who dost thou seek for the order of nature in the body of Christ, when our Lord Jesus Christ was born of a virgin. (St. Ambrose, lib. de initiandis, chap. ix.) Fifth Century. St. Chrysostom, bishop of Constantinople, who died in 407, does not speak less clearly on this subject. “He,” (i.e. Jesus Christ,) says the holy doctor, hom. l. in Matt. “has given us himself to eat, and has set himself in the place of a victim sacrificed for us.” And in hom. lxxxiii.: “How many now say they could wish to see his form, his garments, &c.; you wish to see his garments, but he gives you himself not only to be seen, but to be touched, to be eaten, to be received within you. Than what beam of the sun ought not that hand to be purer, which divides this flesh! That mouth, which is filled with this spiritual fire! That tongue, which is purpled with this adorable blood! The angels beholding it tremble, and dare not look thereon through awe and fear, on account of the rays, which dart from that, wherewith we are nourished, with which we are mingled, being made one body, one flesh with Christ. What shepherd ever fed his sheep with his own limbs? Nay, many mothers turn over their children to mercenary nurses; whereas he feeds us with his own blood!” — On another occasion, to inspire us with a dread of profaning the sacred body of Christ, he says: “When you see Him exposed before you, say to yourself: this body was pierced with nails; this body which was scourged, death did not destroy; this body was nailed to a cross, at which spectacle the sun withdrew his rays; this body the Magi venerated.” — “There is as much difference between the loaves of proposition and the body of Christ, as between a shadow and a body, between a picture and the reality.” Thus St. Jerome upon the epistle to Titus, chap. i. See more authorities in the notes on St. Mark’s Gospel, chap. xiv, ver. 22, on the real presence, and also in the following verses and alibi passim.”