Works › The Book on the Sacrament of the Eucharist
Volume 38 · pp. 305–316
Tractate III. Chapter I, opinions and the first opinion
A marker with ≈ is an approximate page boundary, placed by measure of the text; the page photographs remain the authority. In the paired views, clicking a page marker brings that page into view.
Tractatus III. In quo agitur qualiter totus Christus tam sub forma panis, quam sub forma vini contineatur.
Caput I. Opiniones quorumdam recitat qualiter Christus sub speciebus sacramentalibus contineatur.
1. Modo secundum formam superius habitae divisionis dicere debemus qualiter totus Christus tam sub forma panis quam sub forma vini contineatur.
De hoc apud antiquissimos tres fuerunt opiniones, quae etiam tam in libro quarto Sententiarum, quam in Decreto1 sunt descriptae.
Una autem et prima illarum opinionum est, quod Christus tam sub forma panis quam sub forma vini non continetur nisi sub signo sacramentali.
Secunda opinio est, quod Christus secundum veritatem corporis et animae continetur sub forma panis et sub forma vini, ibidem sub eisdem formis remanentibus substantiis panis et vini, quae existentiae Christo ibidem non obstant: quia Christus secundum totam veritatem corporum et animae bene est cum alio corpore in eodem loco, sicut quando ostiis clausis ad discipulos intravit, et quando irrupto, hoc est, non aperto sepulcri signaculo, de sepulcro surrexit: et secundum hanc opinionem color et sapor et quantitas et figura panis et vini sunt sicut in subjecto et in substantia panis et vini, sed ulterius significant refectionem spiritualem quae est in corpore et sanguine Domini. Et hujus dant similitudinem: quia sic est in aliis sacramentis novae legis, sicut in baptismo, ubi substantia aquae salvatur, in qua sicut in subjecto sunt frigiditas aquae et limpiditas et humanitas, quae tamen in spiritu spiritualem significant ablutionem et tinctionem et refrigerationem. Similiter autem est in confirmatione, in qua in chrismate manent substantia olei et substantia balsami, in quibus sicut in subjecto est odor et pinguedo, quae tamen in spiritu significant odorem gratiae Spiritus sancti et unctionem quae per Christum fiunt contra debilitatem quae est ex fomite, et sic est in aliis sacramentis.
Tertia opinio est, quod Christus ut cibus spiritualis secundum veram existentiam corporis et animae et spiritus et deitatis et omnium membrorum suorum totus continetur sub forma panis et sub forma vini totus, et non remanent ibi substantiae panis et vini, quia nihil sub formis panis et vini continetur ibi, nisi veritas corporis Christi, et veritas sanguinis Christi, et formae, scilicet sapor et color panis et vini sunt ibi sine aliquo subjecto, nec sunt ibi nisi ad significandum perfectum nutrimentum quod habetur ex corpore Christi et sanguine.
Tractate III. In which it is treated how the whole Christ is contained both under the form of bread and under the form of wine.
Chapter I. He recounts the opinions of certain people on how Christ is contained under the sacramental species.
1. Now, according to the form of the division held above, we must say how the whole Christ is contained both under the form of bread and under the form of wine.
On this matter among the most ancient there were three opinions, which are also described both in the fourth book of the Sentences and in the Decree.1
The first of those opinions is that Christ is contained both under the form of bread and under the form of wine only under a sacramental sign.
The second opinion is that Christ, according to the truth of body and soul, is contained under the form of bread and under the form of wine, with the substances of bread and wine remaining there under the same forms, which existences do not obstruct Christ there, because Christ according to the whole truth of bodies and of soul is well with another body in the same place, as when, the doors being closed, he entered to the disciples, and when, the seal of the sepulcher having been burst, that is, not opened, he rose from the sepulcher. And according to this opinion, the color and taste and quantity and figure of bread and wine are as in a subject and in the substance of bread and wine, but further they signify the spiritual refreshment which is in the body and blood of the Lord. And they give a likeness of this, because so it is in the other sacraments of the new law, as in baptism, where the substance of water is preserved, in which, as in a subject, are coldness of water and clearness and moistness, which nevertheless in spirit signify spiritual washing and dipping and cooling. Similarly also it is in confirmation, in which in chrism the substance of oil and the substance of balsam remain, in which, as in a subject, there is odor and fatness, which nevertheless in spirit signify the odor of the grace of the Holy Spirit and the anointing which are done through Christ against the weakness which is from the tinder; and so it is in the other sacraments.
The third opinion is that Christ as spiritual food, according to the true existence of body and soul and spirit and deity and all his members, is wholly contained under the form of bread and wholly under the form of wine, and the substances of bread and wine do not remain there, because nothing is contained there under the forms of bread and wine except the truth of the body of Christ and the truth of the blood of Christ, and the forms, namely the taste and color of bread and wine, are there without any subject, nor are they there except to signify the perfect nourishment which is had from Christ's body and blood.
Istae sunt omnes antiquorum opiniones, quae circumstant hanc quaestionem, qua quaeritur, qualiter Christus sub forma panis et vini continetur? Secundum primam harum opinionum Christus secundum veritatem non continetur sub forma panis vel vini, sed signatur tantum reficere spiritualiter sicut panis et vinum reficiunt corporaliter. Secundum autem secundam opinionem continetur Christus sub illis formis, sed cum substantiis panis et vini. Secundum tertiam nulla ibi substantia continetur, nisi substantia corporis et sanguinis Christi et naturarum quae sunt in Christo, etc.
2. Corpus Christi vere est in Eucharistia. Opponitur autem contra primam opinionem2 quod dicit Christus3 porrigens panem discipulis: Accipite, hoc est corpus meum. Et similiter porrigendo calicem, dicit: Hic est sanguis meus. Haec enim oratio non est vera, si id quod demonstrationi supponebatur, non fuit verum corpus et verus sanguis Christi: et sic in sacramento veritatis super quod tota fundatur Ecclesia, non videtur esse verum: quod est valde abominabile.
Adhuc objicitur contra istos de verbo Apostoli, I ad Corinth. X, 16: Calix benedictionis, cui benedicimus, nonne communicatio sanguinis Christi est? et panis, quem frangimus, nonne participatio corporis Domini est? Hoc enim non est verum, si non sumitur sub forma panis corpus Christi, et si non sumitur sub forma vini sanguis Christi. Et sic non verum diceret Apostolus, quod est valde inconveniens in sacramento veritatis. Adhuc, quid esset necesse tantum apparatum facere pani et vino, quae non nisi signarent corpus et sanguinem Christi? Quia etiam sine tali apparatu panis per solam institutionem posset significare corpus, et vinum posset significare sanguinem. Adhuc, ad quid ad hoc ordinarentur sacerdotes, et ad quid ad hoc consecrarentur altaria et templa et caetera quae ad ritum et cultum altaris pertinent, si nihil in his fieret nisi quod benediceretur ibi panis, qui corpus Christi non nisi significaret, et vinum quod non nisi significaret sanguinem Christi? Adhuc autem, adoratio et veneratio quae fit a populo, purae exhiberetur creaturae. Et sic in omni Missa fieret idololatria: quia cultus debitus creatori, purae exhiberetur creaturae: quod valde nefarium est dicere.
These are all the opinions of the ancients which surround this question, in which it is asked how Christ is contained under the form of bread and wine. According to the first of these opinions, Christ according to truth is not contained under the form of bread or wine, but is only signified to refresh spiritually, as bread and wine refresh corporally. But according to the second opinion, Christ is contained under those forms, but with the substances of bread and wine. According to the third, no substance is contained there except the substance of the body and blood of Christ and of the natures which are in Christ, etc.
2. The body of Christ is truly in the Eucharist. Against the first opinion2 is opposed what Christ says3 when offering bread to the disciples: "Take; this is my body." And similarly, offering the chalice, he says: "This is my blood." For this statement is not true if that which was placed under demonstration was not the true body and true blood of Christ; and thus in the sacrament of truth, on which the whole Church is founded, truth does not seem to be present, which is very abominable.
Further, against them there is objected from the word of the Apostle, 1 Corinthians 10:16: "The chalice of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? and the bread which we break, is it not the participation of the body of the Lord?" For this is not true if the body of Christ is not received under the form of bread, and if the blood of Christ is not received under the form of wine. And thus the Apostle would say what is not true, which is very unfitting in the sacrament of truth. Further, what necessity would there be to make so much preparation for bread and wine which would only signify the body and blood of Christ? For even without such preparation, bread by institution alone could signify the body, and wine could signify the blood. Further, for what purpose would priests be ordained for this, and why would altars and temples and the other things which pertain to the rite and worship of the altar be consecrated for this, if nothing happened in these except that bread was blessed there which only signified Christ's body, and wine which only signified Christ's blood? Furthermore, the adoration and veneration which is done by the people would be exhibited to a mere creature. And thus in every Mass idolatry would happen, because worship owed to the Creator would be exhibited to a mere creature; which is very wicked to say.
Propter haec et hujusmodi constanter dico, quod illa opinio non est opinio, sed haeresis manifesta et condemnata, et deberet comburi liber in quo continetur. Et quamvis ipsi respondeant ad omnia praedicta aliqualiter modis responsionis de quibus nullus penitus debet curare Christianus, tamen constantissime dicendum est, quod haeretici sunt, qui tenent illam opinionem: quia pro certo nulla Catholica responsio ad ea quae jam objecta sunt, potest adhiberi. Si enim dicatur quando dicitur: Hoc est corpus meum, quod sensus sit: Hoc quod est significatum per hoc quod est corpus meum: tamen pro certo quod dicitur, nihil est: quia pronominis demonstratio non potest denotare demonstrationem ad oculum, nec demonstrationem simplicem, nec aliquis modus locutionis ibi potest denotari. Quod enim non notet demonstrationem ad oculum, patet: quia illi qui hoc dicunt, Christum sub forma illa dicunt non contineri. Quod etiam non notet demonstrationem simplicem, patet: quia demonstratio simplex ad minus requirit idem specie, sicut quando demonstratur ruta, vel alia herba, dico, haec herba crescit in horto meo, eo quod similis in specie in horto meo crescit. Hic autem nihil simile est: quia nec corpus Christi secundum istos est ibi, nec aliquid sibi simile in specie: et sic pronomen oportet cadere a demonstratione, quod penitus est ridiculum. Unde illam primam opinionem haereticam esse pronuntiamus.
Et si dicatur, quod in Decreto et Sententiis continetur, dico quod in his libris non continetur ut determinata veritas, vel sicut opinabilis probabilitas, sed sicut per disputationem condemnanda haeretica falsitas: tamen in scientia sacramentorum non multum attendenda est sententia Decretistarum: quia pro certo multa falsa de cordibus vel talibus scribunt, et dicunt, eo quod sunt homines ignari in sacra Scriptura, nescientes originalia sanctorum, nec possunt non peccare docentes in fide Catholica quae ignorant, etc.
On account of these and things of this sort I say constantly that that opinion is not an opinion, but a manifest and condemned heresy, and the book in which it is contained ought to be burned. And although they answer to all the aforesaid things somehow by modes of response about which no Christian ought to care at all, nevertheless it must be said most constantly that those who hold that opinion are heretics, because certainly no Catholic response can be applied to the things already objected. For if when it is said, "This is my body," it is said that the sense is: This which is signified through this which is my body, nevertheless certainly what is said is nothing, because the demonstration of the pronoun cannot denote demonstration to the eye, nor simple demonstration, nor can any mode of speech be denoted there. For that it does not note demonstration to the eye is clear, because those who say this say that Christ is not contained under that form. That it also does not note simple demonstration is clear, because simple demonstration at least requires the same thing in species, as when rue or another herb is demonstrated and I say, This herb grows in my garden, because a similar one in species grows in my garden. But here there is nothing similar, because neither Christ's body according to them is there, nor anything similar to it in species; and thus the pronoun must fall away from demonstration, which is utterly ridiculous. Hence we pronounce that first opinion to be heretical.
And if it is said that it is contained in the Decree and the Sentences, I say that it is not contained in those books as determined truth or as probable opinion, but as heretical falsity to be condemned through disputation. Nevertheless, in the science of the sacraments the opinion of the Decretists must not be much attended to, because certainly they write and say many false things about hearts or such things, since they are men ignorant in Sacred Scripture, not knowing the originals of the saints; nor can they avoid sinning when they teach in the Catholic faith the things which they do not know, etc.
3. Hac ergo opinione rejecta tamquam haeretica et immunda, videamus de secunda, quae dicit substantias panis et vini ibi manere, et cum illis substantiis in forma panis et vini esse corpus Christi et sanguinem secundum substantiae suae veritatem. Isti enim pro se duas fortes rationes inducunt, et tria signa, quibus id persuadere nituntur quod dicunt.
Una autem illarum rationum est: quia dicunt, quod ibi sunt accidentia, scilicet figura, quantitas, color, odor, et sapor, et ea quae tanguntur, scilicet frigidum, siccum, et humidum, quae sine subjecto esse non possunt. Cum igitur talia non afficiant corpus Christi, quod est quantitatis et figurae humanae, et non est rotundum parvum, nec habet colorem albi panis vel colorem vini, nec odorem vel saporem, nec tale humidum, vel siccum, vel frigidum, quale est in pane et vino, oportet quod illae formae et qualitates aliam substantiam aliquam afficiant. Nulla autem est ibi quam afficere possint, nisi substantia panis et vini. Ergo manent ibi substantiae panis et vini cum veritate substantiae Christi tam secundum deitatem quam secundum humanitatem.
Secunda ratio est: quia dicunt, quod Christus non est destructor substantiarum quarum ipse est creator et conservator, adducentes pro se illud Apostoli, ad Galat. II, 18: Si enim quae destruxi, iterum haec aedifico, praevaricatorem me constituo. Et illud Ecclesiastici, XXXIV, 28: Unus aedificans, et unus destruens: quid prodest illis, nisi labor? Cum igitur nulla sit utilitas destructionis substantiarum panis et vini, eo quod Christus secundum veritatem suae substantiae secundum humanitatem et divinitatem cum eis sub eisdem formis esse possit, Christus sua praesentia non destruit illas substantias: nec est aliquid aliud in sacramento quod destruat eas: igitur manent illae substantiae panis et vini.
Signorum autem primum quod inducunt, est quod quando confectum est corpus Christi in altari, hoc satiat corporaliter esurientem et sustentat, si in magna quantitate ab homine sumatur: quod non faceret, si substantiam corporalem panis et vini non haberet. Secundum autem signum esse dicunt: quia frequenter invenitur, quod mus vel aliud animal de pyxide post consecrationem sumens, illo sustentatur: constat autem, quod mus et brutum corpore vel sanguine Christi non reficiuntur: refici autem illa necesse est aliqua substantia: oportet ergo, quod reficiantur substantia panis, et substantia vini: sed non reficiuntur eis nisi maneant sub formis illis: igitur manent substantiae panis et vini sub formis illis. Tertium autem signum, cui maxime innituntur, est quod post consecrationem panis saepe putrescit in pyxide, ita quod decidit per partes, et saporem putrefacti contrahit: nihil autem putrescit, nisi substantia mixta: igitur ibi est substantia panis mixta, et similiter substantia vini. Corpus enim Christi et sanguis non putrescunt: accidens autem per se numquam putrescit: quia per se sumptum est forma simplex simplici et invariabili essentia consistens.
Hae sunt potentes rationes quae isti pro suae inducunt opinionis assertione.
3. Therefore, with this opinion rejected as heretical and unclean, let us look at the second, which says that the substances of bread and wine remain there, and that with those substances, in the form of bread and wine, there are the body of Christ and his blood according to the truth of his substance. For they introduce for themselves two strong reasons and three signs, by which they try to persuade what they say.
One of those reasons is that they say there are accidents there, namely figure, quantity, color, odor, and taste, and the things which are touched, namely cold, dry, and moist, which cannot exist without a subject. Therefore, since such things do not affect the body of Christ, which is of human quantity and figure, and is not small and round, nor has the color of white bread or the color of wine, nor odor or taste, nor such moistness or dryness or coldness as is in bread and wine, it is necessary that those forms and qualities affect some other substance. But there is nothing there which they can affect except the substance of bread and wine. Therefore the substances of bread and wine remain there with the truth of the substance of Christ both according to deity and according to humanity.
The second reason is that they say Christ is not a destroyer of substances of which he himself is creator and conserver, adducing for themselves that word of the Apostle, Galatians 2:18: "For if I build up again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor." And that of Ecclesiasticus 34:28: "One building, and one destroying: what profit is there for them except labor?" Therefore, since there is no usefulness in the destruction of the substances of bread and wine, because Christ according to the truth of his substance, according to humanity and deity, can be with them under the same forms, Christ by his presence does not destroy those substances; nor is there anything else in the sacrament which destroys them. Therefore those substances of bread and wine remain.
But the first of the signs which they introduce is that when the body of Christ has been consecrated on the altar, this corporally satisfies and sustains one who is hungry if it is taken by a man in great quantity; it would not do this if it did not have the bodily substance of bread and wine. But they say that the second sign is that it is frequently found that a mouse or another animal, taking from the pyx after consecration, is sustained by it. But it is established that a mouse and a brute are not refreshed by the body or blood of Christ; yet those things must be refreshed by some substance. Therefore they must be refreshed by the substance of bread and the substance of wine; but they are not refreshed by them unless they remain under those forms; therefore the substances of bread and wine remain under those forms. But the third sign, on which they most rely, is that after consecration bread often rots in the pyx, so that it falls away in parts and contracts the taste of something putrefied. But nothing rots except a mixed substance; therefore there is there a mixed substance of bread, and similarly the substance of wine. For the body of Christ and his blood do not rot; but an accident by itself never rots, because taken by itself it is a simple form consisting in a simple and invariable essence.
These are the powerful reasons which they introduce for the assertion of their opinion.
4. Opponitur autem et istis de verbis Domini. Cum enim dicimus: Hoc est corpus meum, quaeritur ab eis, quid demonstrat pronomen? Si enim dicatur, quod demonstrat substantiam panis, quam afficiunt formae sensibiles quae ad sensum demonstrantur, tunc locutio omnino est falsa: quia tunc demonstratum per pronomen est substantia panis: et constat, quod substantia panis non est corpus Christi: quia substantia panis inanimata est, et non viva, et non gloriosa. Corpus Christi et animatum est et vivum et gloriosum. Si autem dicatur, quod pronomine illo demonstratur substantia corporis Christi, hoc nullo modo stare potest: quia in nulla demonstratione demonstratur substantia, quando non afficiunt accidentia quae sensibus subjiciuntur. Jam autem ante ostensum est et ab ipsa opinione concessum, quod accidentia sensibilia quae ibi sentiuntur, ut quantitas, figura, odor, color, siccitas, et humiditas, nullo modo corpus Christi afficiunt: ergo substantia corporis Christi per pronomen non demonstratur: et sic aut nihil est quod dicit Christus: Hoc est corpus meum, aut simpliciter est falsum. Si enim demonstratur corpus Christi, tunc nihil dicit. Si autem demonstratur substantia panis, tunc simpliciter falsum est quod dicitur in locutione. Et similiter objicitur de hoc quod dicit: Hic est sanguis meus. Et haec est objectio theologica et fortis contra istam opinionem.
Adhuc contra istos etiam objicitur ex ratione: quia si manent ibi substantiae panis et vini, tunc accidentia quae ibi sunt sensibilia, non ducunt per significationem nisi in refectionem talem qualem praestare possunt illae substantiae in quas ducunt: haec autem est refectio corporalis: igitur non ducunt significando in refectionem spiritualem: et sic inutilia insunt sacramento: quia omnes formae sacramentales ducunt in aliquam gratiam invisibilem, quae confertur in sacramento.
Adhuc autem objicitur: Secundum haec in celebratione sacramenti non deberet dici, ut nobis fiat corpus et sanguis Jesu Christi: sed potius sic deberet dici, ut hic cum istis substantiis sub eisdem formis accidentium veniat corpus et sanguis Domini nostri Jesu Christi. Et secundum hoc Ecclesia male instituit hoc sacramentum celebrandum.
Propter ista et his similia multa quae objici possunt, dico sine praejudicio, quod numquam mihi placuit ista opinio, quae quamvis non judicetur esse haeretica, tamen est valde incauta, et haeresi valde vicina. Non enim video, quin sequatur ex ea ad minus falsitas verborum Christi, sicut patet in objectione jam inducta: nulla enim locutio admittit, quod haec sit vera: Hoc est corpus meum, quae nullam causam habet veritatis nisi eam quam dicunt, quod corpus Christi est sub eadem forma cum substantia panis: quia secundum locutionis proprietatem sequitur, quod substantia corporis Christi est cum substantia panis sub eisdem formis: ergo hoc quod demonstratur, non est corpus Christi: quia quando unum est cum altero in eodem, unum est diversum ab altero: quia propter hoc quod duo dispartita sunt sub eodem, non propter hoc efficiuntur idem, sed manent dispartita. Et ideo subtiliter inspiciendo hanc opinionem, dico quod est valde incauta, et valde vicina haereticae pravitati: et ideo videtur mihi abjicienda.
4. But against these also an objection is made from the words of the Lord. For when we say, "This is my body," it is asked of them: what does the pronoun demonstrate? For if it is said that it demonstrates the substance of bread, which the sensible forms that are demonstrated to sense affect, then the speech is wholly false, because then what is demonstrated by the pronoun is the substance of bread; and it is established that the substance of bread is not the body of Christ, because the substance of bread is inanimate and not living and not glorious. But the body of Christ is animate and living and glorious. But if it is said that by that pronoun the substance of the body of Christ is demonstrated, this can stand in no way, because in no demonstration is substance demonstrated when the accidents which are subjected to the senses do not affect it. But it has already been shown and conceded by the opinion itself that the sensible accidents which are sensed there, such as quantity, figure, odor, color, dryness, and moistness, in no way affect the body of Christ. Therefore the substance of the body of Christ is not demonstrated by the pronoun. And thus either what Christ says, "This is my body," is nothing, or it is simply false. For if the body of Christ is demonstrated, then he says nothing. But if the substance of bread is demonstrated, then what is said in the speech is simply false. And similarly objection is made from this that he says: "This is my blood." And this is a theological and strong objection against that opinion.
Further, against them it is also objected from reason, because if the substances of bread and wine remain there, then the accidents which are sensible there lead through signification only into such refreshment as those substances into which they lead can provide; but this is bodily refreshment. Therefore they do not lead by signifying into spiritual refreshment; and thus useless things are in the sacrament, because all sacramental forms lead into some invisible grace which is conferred in the sacrament.
Further it is objected: according to these things, in the celebration of the sacrament it should not be said, "that it may become for us the body and blood of Jesus Christ," but rather it ought to be said thus: that here with those substances under the same forms of accidents the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ may come. And according to this the Church has badly instituted that this sacrament be celebrated.
On account of those things and many similar things which can be objected, I say without prejudice that this opinion has never pleased me; although it is not judged to be heretical, nevertheless it is very incautious and very near to heresy. For I do not see but that from it there follows at least the falsity of Christ's words, as is clear in the objection already introduced. For no speech admits that this is true: "This is my body," which has no cause of truth except that which they say, that the body of Christ is under the same form with the substance of bread. For according to the property of speech it follows that the substance of Christ's body is with the substance of bread under the same forms; therefore what is demonstrated is not the body of Christ, because when one thing is with another in the same thing, one is diverse from the other; for because two things are divided under the same thing, they are not on that account made the same, but remain divided. And therefore, looking at this opinion subtly, I say that it is very incautious and very near to heretical depravity; and therefore it seems to me that it must be rejected.
5. Ad rationem autem primam quam pro se inducunt, videtur esse dicendum, quod substantiae panis et vini ibi non manent.
Quod autem objicitur, quod multum sumpta nutriunt ea quae sunt in altari. Dico, quod nutriri contingit dupliciter, scilicet ad satisfactionem desiderii famis et sitis, et ad restaurationem substantiae deperditae. Dico igitur, quod ex solis accidentibus odoris et gustus et tactus bene fit nutrimentum ad satisfactionem desiderii famis et sitis: sed non fit ibi restauratio deperditi: quia non est ibi substantia corporalis nutrimenti quae deperditum restauret: cum jam probatum sit in libro primo de Generatione et corruptione, quod non restaurat deperditum nisi quod est potentia caro et fit actu caro, hoc autem est substantia et non forma accidentalis.
Si autem objicitur, quod aliquis per longum tempus sustentatur comestis hostiis consecratis. Dico, quod ille nutritur hoc modo, quia accidentia tenent calorem naturalem, ne corpus consumatur, et non restaurant deperditum. Tamen quosdam vidi non parvae litteraturae viros, qui ad istam objectionem respondebant dicentes, quod in veritate in ipsa sumptione non est ibi substantia panis et vini, sed tantum substantia corporis et sanguinis Christi: sed post sumptionem corporis Christi in ipso stomacho, in ipso subjecto sub accidentibus saporis panis et vini redit iterum substantia panis et vini: et tunc corpora sic sumentium corpus Domini et sanguinem, substantiis panis et vini redeuntibus nutriuntur ad corporis nutrimentum et deperditi restaurationem. Sed quia haec opinio nec auctoritate probatur, nec ratione fulcitur, ideo istam reputamus confictam opinionem: quia dicit Philosophia id III primae philosophiae, quod fictum est coactum ad positionem. Et ideo dicendum videtur, sicut prius dictum est: hoc enim nec naturae valde est contrarium, nec repugnat rationi. Si enim natura in primo statu ante peccatum consideretur in primis parentibus in quibus ab ipso conditore corpus humanum debitam accepit quantitatem, tunc oportet dicere, quod si in tali statu primi parentes comedissent, cibus ille in veritatem corporum ipsorum secundum veritatem substantiae cibi non transivisset, et tamen per saporem et odorem et hujusmodi qualitates sensibiles naturam et substantiam corporis aluissent: et quia hoc omni homini constat, dicendum videtur, quod in cibo quem spiritualiter signat lignum vitae, non est substantia nisi corporis Domini, sed formis cibi illius exterioribus corpora sustentantur comedentium.
Et sic respondendum est ad illud quod inducunt pro signo primo: non enim magnum est si Christus facit in gratiae sacramento, quod fecisset omni cibo in natura hominis, si peccatum non intervenisset: tunc enim nulla deperditio facta fuisset in corpore: et ideo nullam restaurationem accepisset corpus ex cibo, sed ex qualitatibus sensibilibus ciborum fuisset tenta substantia, ne posset dissolvi.
5. But to the first reason which they introduce for themselves, it seems one must say that the substances of bread and wine do not remain there.
But as to what is objected, that the things which are on the altar nourish when taken in quantity, I say that being nourished happens in two ways, namely for the satisfaction of the desire of hunger and thirst, and for the restoration of lost substance. Therefore I say that from the accidents alone of odor and taste and touch, nourishment does well happen for the satisfaction of the desire of hunger and thirst; but restoration of the lost does not happen there, because there is not there a bodily substance of nourishment which restores what has been lost, since it has already been proved in the first book On Generation and Corruption that nothing restores what has been lost except what is potentially flesh and becomes actually flesh; but this is substance and not an accidental form.
But if it is objected that someone is sustained for a long time by eating consecrated hosts, I say that he is nourished in this way because the accidents hold the natural heat lest the body be consumed, and they do not restore what has been lost. Nevertheless I have seen certain men of no small learning who answered that objection, saying that in truth in the reception itself the substance of bread and wine is not there, but only the substance of the body and blood of Christ; but after the reception of Christ's body in the stomach itself, in the subject itself under the accidents of taste of bread and wine, the substance of bread and wine returns again; and then the bodies of those thus receiving the Lord's body and blood are nourished, when the substances of bread and wine return, for bodily nourishment and restoration of what has been lost. But because this opinion is neither proved by authority nor supported by reason, therefore we consider that opinion fabricated, because Philosophy says in book III of the first philosophy that what is fictitious is forced for a position. And therefore it seems one must say as was said before; for this is neither very contrary to nature nor repugnant to reason. For if nature in the first state before sin is considered in the first parents, in whom the human body received due quantity from the Creator himself, then it is necessary to say that if in such a state the first parents had eaten, that food would not have passed into the truth of their bodies according to the truth of the substance of food, and nevertheless through taste and odor and sensible qualities of this sort it would have nourished the nature and substance of the body. And because this is established for every man, it seems one must say that in the food which the tree of life spiritually signifies, there is no substance except that of the Lord's body, but the bodies of those eating are sustained by the exterior forms of that food.
And thus one must answer to what they introduce for the first sign. For it is no great thing if Christ does in the sacrament of grace what he would have done with every food in the nature of man if sin had not intervened. For then no loss would have been made in the body, and therefore the body would have received no restoration from food, but substance would have been held by the sensible qualities of foods so that it could not be dissolved.
De secundo autem signo dicimus, quod mus non accipit corpus Christi, sicut nec aliud animal, sed potius statim dissolutis formis accidentalibus sensibilibus sacramenti, non est ibi amplius Christus. Dissolutio autem formarum fit vel in ore muris, vel collo, vel stomacho, vel in aliis visceribus muris: et tunc nullo modo est ibi Christus. Quamdiu autem sunt ibi formae sensibiles quae discerni possunt sensu, tamdiu est ibi Christus, et non amplius.
Ad hoc autem quod dicit de nutrimento muris et sustentatione per cibum talem, dico quod hoc non est expertum, nec est experiendum: quia maximum esset peccatum. Si autem instent quaerentes, quid fieret si hoc aliquis experiretur? Dico, quod tunc mus vel aliud animal nutriretur ad substantiae conservationem, et non ad deperditi restaurationem, sicut diximus etiam de hominibus.
Quod autem in tertio signo inducunt, non est difficile solvere: quia putredo et corruptio bene accidunt formae quae ponitur ens sensibile. Forma enim dupliciter consideratur, scilicet in se prout est essentia simplex, et sic est verum, quod invariabilis est. Consideratur etiam in esse sensibili: et hoc fit tripliciter, scilicet in materia corporis sensibilis, et in medio sensus, et in ipso sensu vel sensus organo. Et in materia quidem corporis sensibilis alterat et secundum esse alteratur, et generatur et corrumpitur secundum esse. In medio autem sensus existens secundum hoc esse quod habet in medio ut in medio, non semper alterat actione physica: quia color glaciei ex hoc quod est glacies, non infrigidat vel medium, vel sensum, et similiter color ignis non est combustivus, sicut nec figura ignis: non tamen est simpliciter inalterabilis, quia venti aliquando sicut materiæ: et tamen in illo esse accepta forma sensibilis non est invariabilis, sed multas sustinet variationes secundum variationem organi et spiritus sensibilis qui est in organo. Dico igitur, quod esse quod habet in sacramento, est simile isti esse quod habet in medio, et ei quod habet in sensu: quia in illis est sine materia subjecti: et sicut variatur motu et corruptione in medio et sensu, ita etiam non est inconveniens, quod varietur in sacramento.
Ad rationes autem quas haec opinio pro se inducit, opportunum erit inferius respondere.
6. In Eucharistia cum corpore Christi non remanet substantia panis et vini. Tertiam igitur prosequentes et amplectentes opinionem, quia illa fidelis est et vera, dicimus quod illa fulcitur tribus rationibus fortissimis.4 Quarum una sumitur ex veritate verborum veritatis, quibus dicit: Hoc est corpus meum. Et, Hic est sanguis meus. Sicut enim dicunt Ambrosius, Hieronymus, et Augustinus, et Joannes Damascenus, verbum Christi non est imperfectum sicut verbum nostrum. Nostrum enim verbum non est nisi angelus intelligentiae contemplativae, quod nihil facit in rebus, sed potius
But concerning the second sign we say that a mouse does not receive the body of Christ, just as no other animal does, but rather, as soon as the sensible accidental forms of the sacrament have been dissolved, Christ is no longer there. But the dissolution of the forms happens either in the mouth of the mouse, or the throat, or the stomach, or in the other entrails of the mouse; and then in no way is Christ there. But as long as the sensible forms which can be discerned by sense are there, so long Christ is there, and no longer.
But as to what he says about the nourishment of the mouse and its sustaining through such food, I say that this has not been tested, nor must it be tested, because it would be the greatest sin. But if they press, asking what would happen if someone tested this, I say that then the mouse or other animal would be nourished for the conservation of substance and not for the restoration of what has been lost, as we also said concerning men.
But what they introduce in the third sign is not difficult to solve, because rottenness and corruption do rightly happen to a form which is posited as a sensible being. For form is considered in two ways, namely in itself insofar as it is a simple essence, and thus it is true that it is invariable. It is also considered in sensible being, and this happens in three ways, namely in the matter of a sensible body, and in the medium of sense, and in the sense itself or the organ of sense. And in the matter of a sensible body it alters and according to being is altered, and is generated and corrupted according to being. But existing in the medium of sense according to this being which it has in the medium as in a medium, it does not always alter by physical action, because the color of ice, from the fact that it is ice, does not cool either the medium or the sense, and similarly the color of fire is not burning, just as neither is the figure of fire; nevertheless it is not simply unalterable, because winds sometimes are as matter; and yet in that being in which the sensible form is received, it is not invariable, but sustains many variations according to the variation of the organ and of the sensible spirit which is in the organ. Therefore I say that the being which it has in the sacrament is like that being which it has in the medium and that which it has in sense, because in those it is without the matter of a subject; and just as it is varied by motion and corruption in the medium and sense, so also it is not unfitting that it be varied in the sacrament.
But it will be opportune to answer below the reasons which this opinion introduces for itself.
6. In the Eucharist the substance of bread and wine does not remain with the body of Christ. Therefore, following and embracing the third opinion, because it is faithful and true, we say that it is supported by three strongest reasons.4 One of these is taken from the truth of the words of truth, by which he says: "This is my body." And, "This is my blood." For as Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, and John Damascene say, the word of Christ is not imperfect as our word is. For our word is only the messenger of contemplative intelligence, which does nothing in things, but rather
creaturas corruptas etiam ad esse reduxit. Et hoc est Verbum quod est nuntius vel angelus intelligentiae divinae universaliter agentis, in quo intelligitur Deus loquens, et non aliqua creatura: et ideo talibus verbis in quibus increatum Verbum vehitur, et lumen intelligentiae agentis, redarguit caecitatem Judaeorum. Joan. VIII, 43 et 42, dicitur: Quare loquelam meam non cognoscitis?... Ego enim ex Deo processi, et veni, ut res mutans verbo et constituens creaturas novas: et quia tali verbo locutus est Christus, cum dixit: Hoc est corpus meum, oportet de necessitate, quod hoc verbum substantiam panis in esse corporis Christi transsubstantiaverit. Et haec est ratio firmissa et Catholica, et non est contraria philosophiae, dummodo aliquis bene sciat primae causae virtutem et rationem.
Secunda autem ratio super quam fundatur haec opinio, est: quia si maneret substantia panis et vini, cum omnia accidentia quae afficiunt aliquam substantiam, familiarius et naturalius ducant in substantiam quam afficiunt, quam in aliam, accidentia quae ibi remanent, non ducerent nisi in nutrimentum corporale: et sic Christus non bene diceret, Joan. VI, 56: Caro mea vere est cibus, et sanguis meus vere est potus. Sed potius deberet dicere: Panis substantia quae subest accidentibus, vere est cibus, et signat cibum spiritualem ex corpore meo, quam quod dicit: Caro mea vere est cibus, et sanguis meus vere est potus.
Tertia autem ratio est etiam sumpta ex verbis Domini: quia secundum hoc sacramentaliter non sumeretur corpus Domini, sed potius sub significatione sumptionis panis significaretur sumi corpus Domini. Haec autem est sumptio spiritualis: et ideo periret tota manducatio sacramentalis: quia licet Christus secundum hoc esset in sacramento, non tamen esset consequens, quod sumeretur in sacramento: quia saepe in talibus contingit, quando duo simul sunt, quod sumpto uno non propter hoc sumitur reliquum: quia non sunt ita simul, quod unum sint et idem: et quod accidit uni, accidat et reliquo.
7. Signa etiam duo ponit per se haec opinio. Unum quidem est quod ab omnibus sanctis communiter determinatur, quod est fractio corporis Christi, sicut a nobis in praecedentibus est determinatum: et quia haec fractio non est nisi in formis et accidentibus circumstantibus corpus Christi. Si autem ibi maneret substantia panis et vini, tunc procul dubio fractura non esset in solis formis et accidentibus, sed esset in substantia panis: et hoc est contra communem Ecclesiae et sanctorum traditionem.
he also brought corrupted creatures back to being. And this is the Word which is the messenger or angel of the divine intelligence acting universally, in which God speaking is understood, and not any creature; and therefore by such words, in which the uncreated Word is borne, and the light of acting intelligence, he rebukes the blindness of the Jews. John 8:43 and 42 says: "Why do you not know my speech?... For I proceeded from God and came," as changing things by the word and establishing new creatures; and because Christ spoke with such a word when he said, "This is my body," it is necessary of necessity that this word transubstantiated the substance of bread into the being of Christ's body. And this is the very firm and Catholic reason, and it is not contrary to philosophy, provided that someone knows well the power and reason of the first cause.
But the second reason upon which this opinion is founded is this: because if the substance of bread and wine remained, since all accidents which affect some substance lead more familiarly and more naturally into the substance which they affect than into another, the accidents which remain there would lead only into bodily nourishment; and thus Christ would not well say, John 6:56, "My flesh truly is food, and my blood truly is drink." Rather he ought to say, "The substance of bread which underlies the accidents truly is food, and signifies spiritual food from my body," than what he says: "My flesh truly is food, and my blood truly is drink."
But the third reason is also taken from the words of the Lord: because according to this the body of the Lord would not be sacramentally received, but rather under the signification of the reception of bread the body of the Lord would be signified to be received. But this is spiritual reception; and therefore the whole sacramental eating would perish, because although according to this Christ would be in the sacrament, nevertheless it would not follow that he was received in the sacrament, because often in such things it happens, when two things are together, that when one has been received, for this reason the other is not received, because they are not so together that they are one and the same, and that what happens to one happens also to the other.
7. This opinion also posits two signs on its own behalf. One indeed is what is commonly determined by all the saints, namely the breaking of Christ's body, as has been determined by us in the preceding things; and because this breaking is only in the forms and accidents surrounding the body of Christ. But if the substance of bread and wine remained there, then without doubt the breaking would not be in forms and accidents alone, but would be in the substance of bread; and this is against the common tradition of the Church and of the saints.
Secundum signum est fortissimum et efficax: quia cum in omni sacramento quoddam sit quod sit signum tantum, et quoddam quod sit res tantum, quoddam autem quod sit signum et res, si ita esset ut prima et secunda opinio dicunt, in hoc sacramento essent vel duo tantum, vel quatuor. Quia si concedatur corpus Christi sub forma panis non contineri, sicut dicit prima opinio, tunc pro certo non nisi duo sunt in sacramento, scilicet id quod est signum tantum in forma panis et substantia, et quoddam quod est res tantum in gratia significata, et corpus Christi non esset ibi: et ideo non esset res et signum. Si autem secundum opinionem secundam concedatur ibi esse corpus Christi cum substantia panis, tunc pro certo formae sacramentales erunt ibi signa tantum, et substantia panis erit ibi res et signum, et corpus Christi res et signum, et gratia sacramentalis significatum tantum: et quodlibet istorum est inconveniens. Si autem dicatur, quod forma panis cum substantia sit ibi signum tantum, sicut in baptismo signum est aqua cum omnibus aquae proprietatibus, tunc corpus Christi nihil est ibi: quia virtus verborum secundum hoc nihil facit ibi: quia non transsubstantiat panem in corpus Christi: et ideo tunc corpus Christi nihil est de sacramento, quod plane est haeresis. Et si dicere velit aliquis, quod virtute verborum ibi efficitur corpus Christi sicut in loco cum substantia panis, hoc penitus nihil dictum est: quia sacramentum novae legis omnino nihil causat nisi quod signat et figurat. Cum autem dixit Christus: Accipite, hoc est corpus meum, non significatur in forma sacramenti, quod ibi sit corpus Christi cum alio corpore in eodem loco, sed potius hoc demonstratur, quod sub forma panis sit corpus Christi veraciter et substantialiter: ergo et ita causatur: quia in sacramento novae legis semper modus significationis refertur ad modum causationis. Et sic patet, quod tertia opinio est vera: quia hoc secundum signum optime et naturaliter declarat naturam et virtutem sacramentorum novae legis: quia, sicut dicit Augustinus, in hoc differunt a sacramentis veteris legis, quod efficiunt et figurant.
Haec igitur sunt quae pro ista inducuntur opinione.
8. Ea autem quae contra istam sunt opinionem, sunt ea quae pro se induxit secunda opinio. Et ad rationem quidem primo inductam contra istam opinionem, et pro illa, dicimus quod hoc dictum, quod accidentia sint sine subjecto,5 dicimus quod hoc secundum aliquod est possibile, et secundum aliquod impossibile. Si enim dicatur, quod accidentia habeant esse quoddam sine subjecto, in quo accidentalis forma est, sicut forma materialis, prout habet contrarium ad agendum et patiendum, dicimus quod hoc est valde possibile: quia sunt in medio secundum esse medii, et sunt in organis sensuum secundum esse intentionale. Neutro enim istorum modorum habent contrarium, nec agunt, nec patiuntur ab invicem: et tamen in esse tali stant ad sensibilem cognitionem faciendam. Et dico, quod hoc modo sunt in sacramento circa corpus Christi, velantes ipsum, et significantes quoniam ipsum est vere cibus.
The second sign is very strong and efficacious, because, since in every sacrament there is something which is sign only, and something which is reality only, and something which is sign and reality, if it were as the first and second opinion say, in this sacrament there would be either two only, or four. For if it is conceded that the body of Christ is not contained under the form of bread, as the first opinion says, then certainly there are only two in the sacrament, namely that which is sign only in the form and substance of bread, and something which is reality only in the grace signified, and the body of Christ would not be there; and therefore it would not be reality and sign. But if, according to the second opinion, it is conceded that the body of Christ is there with the substance of bread, then certainly the sacramental forms will be signs only there, and the substance of bread will be there reality and sign, and the body of Christ reality and sign, and sacramental grace only the thing signified; and each of these is unfitting. But if it is said that the form of bread with the substance is there sign only, as in baptism the sign is water with all the properties of water, then the body of Christ is nothing there, because according to this the power of the words does nothing there, since it does not transubstantiate bread into the body of Christ; and therefore then the body of Christ is nothing of the sacrament, which plainly is heresy. And if someone wishes to say that by the power of the words the body of Christ is effected there as in a place with the substance of bread, this has been said as nothing at all, because a sacrament of the new law causes absolutely nothing except what it signifies and figures. But when Christ said, "Take; this is my body," it is not signified in the form of the sacrament that the body of Christ is there with another body in the same place, but rather this is shown, that under the form of bread the body of Christ is truly and substantially; therefore it is also caused in that way, because in a sacrament of the new law the mode of signification is always referred to the mode of causation. And thus it is clear that the third opinion is true, because this second sign very well and naturally declares the nature and power of the sacraments of the new law, since, as Augustine says, in this they differ from the sacraments of the old law, that they effect and figure.
These, therefore, are the things which are introduced on behalf of that opinion.
8. But the things which are against that opinion are those which the second opinion introduced on its own behalf. And to the reason first introduced against this opinion and on behalf of that one, we say that this statement, that accidents are without a subject,5 we say that this according to one respect is possible, and according to another respect impossible. For if it is said that accidents have a certain being without a subject in which the accidental form is, as a material form, insofar as it has a contrary for acting and being acted upon, we say that this is very possible, because they are in the medium according to the being of the medium, and they are in the organs of the senses according to intentional being. In neither of these modes do they have a contrary, nor do they act, nor are they acted upon by each other; and nevertheless in such being they stand for making sensible cognition. And I say that in this way they are in the sacrament around the body of Christ, veiling him and signifying that he is truly food.
Si autem dicatur, quod accidentales formae sint ibi sine omni eo in quo habeant aliquod esse sensibile, concedo quod hoc est impossibile: quia dicit Philosophus, quod accidens est, quod cum sit in aliquo, non est in eo sicut quaedam pars, et impossibile est esse sine eo in quo est.
Quod autem secundo pro se et contra istam objiciunt opinionem, non est difficile respondere: quia Christus non est destructor substantiarum quas condidit: non enim destruitur substantia panis et vini in sacramento, sed potius transsubstantiatur in multo melius: quia in corpus Christi transsubstantiatur substantia panis, et in sanguinem substantia vini: et hoc non est destruere substantias, sed potius exaltare et nobilitare. Hoc autem qualiter fiat, in ultimo tractatu, ubi loquemur de hoc cibo in quantum est in genere sacramenti, plenius patebit: sed hoc modo sufficit, quod nullo modo dicimus, quod substantiae aliquae destruantur per sacramentum, quas condidit Christus auctor et instaurator et propugnator naturae: magnae enim esset imperfectionis et infirmitatis, si non nos posset pascere Christus spiritualiter, nisi destrueret substantias nos corporaliter pascentes.
Omnia igitur quae secundum antiquorum tres opiniones dicenda esse videbantur, fideliter annotavimus, in quibus vis aliqua esse videbatur, et tertiam elegimus opinionem, et dicimus illam esse tenendam, etc.
9. Secundum hanc igitur dicimus, quod nihil reficiens corporaliter est in sacramento, quamvis sit in eo signum corporale refectionis.
But if it is said that accidental forms are there without everything in which they have some sensible being, I concede that this is impossible, because the Philosopher says that an accident is what, although it is in something, is not in it as a certain part, and it is impossible for it to be without that in which it is.
But what they object secondly on their own behalf and against that opinion is not difficult to answer, because Christ is not a destroyer of the substances which he founded; for the substance of bread and wine is not destroyed in the sacrament, but rather is transubstantiated into something much better, because the substance of bread is transubstantiated into the body of Christ, and the substance of wine into the blood; and this is not to destroy substances, but rather to exalt and ennoble them. But how this happens will appear more fully in the last tractate, where we will speak about this food insofar as it is in the genus of sacrament; but in this way it suffices that we in no way say that any substances are destroyed through the sacrament which Christ, the author and restorer and champion of nature, founded; for it would be of great imperfection and weakness if Christ could not feed us spiritually unless he destroyed the substances feeding us bodily.
Therefore we have faithfully noted all the things which seemed to have to be said according to the three opinions of the ancients, in which some force seemed to be, and we have chosen the third opinion, and we say that it must be held, etc.
9. Therefore according to this we say that nothing bodily refreshing is in the sacrament, although there is in it the bodily sign of refreshment.
In hoc autem tria sunt consideranda, scilicet qualiter Christus ut refectio spiritus, totus sub formis sacramentalibus contineatur. Et propter quid talem modum sibi assumpsit, ut sic sub talibus formis contineatur. Et quis sit modus continentiae sub talibus formis. Haec enim omnia valde sunt difficilia: et tamen oportet, quod enucleentur: quia in his veritas fidei continetur.
Dicunt enim quidam circa primum horum trium, quod Christus sic sub formis sacramentalibus continetur, quod ubi est pars, ibi est totum. Et hoc quidem beatus Hilarius dicit. Si autem hoc est verum, quod ubi est pars, ibi est totum, tunc ubi est oculus, ibi est totus Christus: ergo totus Christus est in oculo Christi. Adhuc autem si ubi est pars, ibi est totum, tunc verius est, quod ubi est totum, ibi est pars quaelibet Christi. Conjungamus ergo has duas, scilicet quod ubi est pars, ibi est totum: et ubi est totum, ibi est quaelibet pars Christi. Ex his autem duabus sequitur, quod ubi est oculus, ibi est quaelibet pars Christi: et ubi est quaelibet pars, ibi est pes: ergo a primo ubi est oculus Christi, ibi est pes: ergo Christus vel pedem habet in oculo, vel oculum in pede: et hae abusiones videntur sequi de ista suppositione.
De secundo autem fere ab omnibus dicitur, quod talem modum essendi sub formis sacramentalibus assumpsit, ut se cibum verum et potum verum esse significaret. In omnibus autem cibi generibus in parte non significatur cibi refectio perfecta, sed in toto, et forte non in toto, nisi sufficiens sit totum ad cibi refectionem. Cum ergo Christus sit omnibus et singulis perfecta refectio, videtur quod Christus ut perfectio refectionis non in toto et in parte contineatur.
De tertio autem valde fortiter objicitur, quod Christus secundum veritatem et quantitatem suae staturae non potest esse in loco breviori et strictiori quam ipse est: et cum forma panis sit valde parva, et ipse in triginta annorum proceritate, videtur quod in tam parvo loco contineri non potest. Adhuc autem nihil est in aliquo ut in loco nisi cui principium, medium, et finis in loco assignantur. Si ergo Christus sub tali specie est sicut in loco, tunc in aliqua parte illius speciei est caput, et in alia pedes, et in alia manus: quae omnia sunt abusiva.
Et ideo ad haec et his similia dicimus, quod pro certo sola tertia quam induximus, opinio est vera et Catholica.
10. Et quod quaeritur, qualiter sive secundum quem modum totus Christus sub formis sacramentalibus contineatur?6 Dico cum Innocentio Papa III, quod Christus secundum tria quae sunt in ipso, tribus modis refertur ad ea in quibus est. Est enim deitas in Christo, secundum quam ipse est verus Deus, et sic est ubique in omni loco non localiter, sed est in omni loco essentialiter, praesentiliter, potentialiter. Essentialiter quidem sicut omnis essentiae quae locus est et omnis essentiae quae in loco est, principium et fons continue manans, a quo si continue non manaret, ex tunc omnia in nihilum reciderent, sicut de nihilo facta sunt. Praesentialiter autem: quia notitiae suae cuncta sunt praesentia. Potentialiter autem: quia potentia sua contenta et mota et moventia sunt, sicut dicit Gregorius, quod intra omnia est, non inclusus, sed includens: et extra omnia, non exclusus, sed nulli per esse et essendi modum immixtus: et super omnia, non extra latus, sed per eminentiam excedens omnia: et infra omnia non est depressus, sed continentia omnia penetrans in infinitum. Habet etiam Christus humanam in se naturam, per quam verus est homo secundum animam et corpus, et sic est in loco localiter circumscriptus, cui principium, medium, et finis in loco assignantur, et sic aliquando fuit in terra, et ante resurrectionem, et post resurrectionem, et nunc est in coelo taliter secundum figuram humani corporis in loco circumscriptus, ita quod omnia membra ejus ordinem positionis habent in loco tali, et quod unum membrorum suorum non est in eodem loco cum alio, sed potius sicut membra sua ordinem positionis habent in loco totius corporis. Assumpsit etiam Christus propter nos formam cibi et panis, sicut in ante habitis diximus: et sic Christus in veritate praesentiae suae deitatis, et in veritate praesentiae suae humanitatis totus est in sacramentalibus formis, et vere cibus et vere potus, et est in formis illis sicut in signo tantum significante eum ut cibum et continente, non sicut in signo tantum significante, sicut dicit prima opinio, sed potius sicut in signo, quod utrumque facit, quod scilicet signat eum et continet.
But in this matter three things must be considered, namely how Christ, as refreshment of the spirit, is contained whole under the sacramental forms; and why he assumed such a mode to himself, so that thus he is contained under such forms; and what is the mode of containment under such forms. For all these things are very difficult, and nevertheless they must be unfolded, because in these things the truth of faith is contained.
For some say concerning the first of these three that Christ is so contained under the sacramental forms that where the part is, there is the whole. And blessed Hilary indeed says this. But if this is true, that where the part is, there is the whole, then where the eye is, there is the whole Christ; therefore the whole Christ is in Christ's eye. Further, if where the part is, there is the whole, then it is truer that where the whole is, there is every part of Christ. Therefore let us join these two, namely that where the part is, there is the whole, and where the whole is, there is every part of Christ. But from these two it follows that where the eye is, there is every part of Christ, and where every part is, there is the foot; therefore from the first, where the eye of Christ is, there is the foot; therefore Christ either has a foot in the eye, or an eye in the foot; and these abuses seem to follow from that supposition.
But concerning the second, it is said by almost all that he assumed such a mode of being under the sacramental forms so that he might signify himself to be true food and true drink. But in all kinds of food, perfect refreshment of food is not signified in the part, but in the whole, and perhaps not in the whole unless the whole is sufficient for the refreshment of food. Therefore since Christ is perfect refreshment for all and for each, it seems that Christ, as perfection of refreshment, is not contained in the whole and in the part.
But concerning the third, it is objected very strongly that Christ according to the truth and quantity of his stature cannot be in a place shorter and narrower than he himself is; and since the form of bread is very small, and he in the height of thirty years, it seems that he cannot be contained in so small a place. Further, nothing is in anything as in a place except that to which beginning, middle, and end are assigned in place. Therefore, if Christ is under such a species as in a place, then in some part of that species is the head, and in another the feet, and in another the hands; all of which are abusive.
And therefore to these and things similar to these we say that certainly the third opinion alone, which we introduced, is true and Catholic.
10. And as to what is asked, how or according to what mode the whole Christ is contained under the sacramental forms,6 I say with Pope Innocent III that Christ, according to three things which are in him, is related in three modes to those things in which he is. For deity is in Christ, according to which he himself is true God, and thus he is everywhere in every place not locally, but he is in every place essentially, presentially, potentially. Essentially indeed as the principle and continually flowing fountain of every essence which is place and of every essence which is in place, from which, if it did not continually flow, then all things would fall back into nothing, just as they were made from nothing. Presentially, because all things are present to his knowledge. Potentially, because by his power things contained and things moved and things moving exist, as Gregory says, that he is within all things, not included but including; and outside all things, not excluded but mingled with none through being and the mode of being; and above all things, not outside at the side, but exceeding all things through eminence; and beneath all things he is not depressed, but penetrating all things by containing them unto infinity. Christ also has human nature in himself, through which he is true man according to soul and body, and thus he is in place locally circumscribed, to which beginning, middle, and end are assigned in place; and thus he was at one time on earth, both before the resurrection and after the resurrection, and now he is in heaven in such a way according to the figure of the human body circumscribed in place, so that all his members have the order of position in such a place, and one of his members is not in the same place with another, but rather his members have the order of position in the place of the whole body. Christ also assumed for our sake the form of food and bread, as we said in what was held before; and thus Christ, in the truth of the presence of his deity and in the truth of the presence of his humanity, is whole in the sacramental forms, and truly food and truly drink, and he is in those forms as in a sign only signifying him as food and containing him, not as in a sign only signifying, as the first opinion says, but rather as in a sign which does both, namely which signifies him and contains him.
Si autem quaeratur, unde habet haec tria Christus? Dicendum, quod habet ea secundum quod est Deus, corpus, et fidelium vere cibus. Sicut igitur attributa corporeae humanitati Christi, non conveniunt divinitati Christi: ita attributa loco corporeo humanitatis Christi, non conveniunt loco divinitatis Christi. Et sicut attributa Christo ut est cibus, non conveniunt figurae humanitatis Christi, quia non conveniunt figurae corporis dividi, frangi, dentibus atteri, quae etiam non conveniunt divinitati Christi: ita quae assignantur secundum locum formarum sacramentalium, non conveniunt ei secundum locum figurae corporalis, nec omnino conveniunt ei secundum locum divinae naturae: sed tamen illa cum loco figurae corporalis conveniunt in hoc quod formae quantitatis corporalis locum corporalem exigunt. Cum loco autem qui divinitati convenit, in hoc assimilatur, quod est in toto loco totus, et in qualibet parte hostiae fractae totus: sed differt a loco corporeae figurae in hoc quod descriptive non est in loco sacramentali, ita quod medium et principium et finis assignantur ei secundum locum figurae corporali debitum: et hoc non convenit ei secundum locum formarum sacramentalium. Differt autem a modo secundum quem ut Deus est in loco: quia est intra formam sacramentalem inclusus et contentus, et non extra ubique: secundum formam autem Dei non est ita intra aliquid, quod non sit etiam extra in omnibus aliis. Haec autem est vera et certa fidei determinatio. Non enim est admirabile si Christus secundum plures formas naturaliter habitas vel assumptas diversimode refertur ad locum.
11. Si autem quaeratur, qualiter Christus sine contractione suae corporeae quantitatis potest in tam parvo loco contineri, sicut est hostia, vel hostiae fractura? Dicimus, quod habet hoc ut cibi formam assumens. Cibi enim veritas in pane, et in vino potus veritas in toto et in parte aequaliter, et secundum unam rationem significatur et continetur: eo quod panis et vinum homogenia sunt, hoc est, similia et unius rationis in toto et qualibet parte ipsorum: et ideo si Christus esset in toto totus, et non in qualibet parte totus, non veram formam cibi, et non veram formam potus assumpsisset: quod est absurdum, cum ipse dicat, Joan. VI, 56: Caro mea vere est cibus, et sanguis meus vere est potus.
But if it is asked whence Christ has these three things, it must be said that he has them according as he is God, body, and truly the food of the faithful. Therefore, just as the things attributed to Christ's bodily humanity do not belong to Christ's divinity, so the things attributed to the bodily place of Christ's humanity do not belong to the place of Christ's divinity. And just as the things attributed to Christ as he is food do not belong to the figure of Christ's humanity, because being divided, broken, and ground by teeth do not belong to the figure of the body, which also do not belong to Christ's divinity, so the things which are assigned according to the place of the sacramental forms do not belong to him according to the place of the bodily figure, nor do they belong to him at all according to the place of the divine nature. Nevertheless those things agree with the place of the bodily figure in this, that the forms of bodily quantity require a bodily place. But with the place which belongs to divinity it is assimilated in this, that he is whole in the whole place, and whole in every part of the broken host; but it differs from the place of the bodily figure in this, that he is not descriptively in the sacramental place, so that middle and beginning and end are assigned to him according to the place due to the bodily figure; and this does not belong to him according to the place of the sacramental forms. But it differs from the mode according to which, as God, he is in place, because he is included and contained within the sacramental form, and not outside everywhere; but according to the form of God he is not so within anything that he is not also outside in all other things. And this is the true and certain determination of faith. For it is not marvelous if Christ according to several forms naturally had or assumed is related to place in diverse ways.
11. But if it is asked how Christ, without contraction of his bodily quantity, can be contained in so small a place, such as the host or the breaking of the host, we say that he has this as assuming the form of food. For the truth of food in bread, and the truth of drink in wine, is signified and contained equally in the whole and in the part, and according to one account, because bread and wine are homogeneous, that is, alike and of one account in the whole and in any part of them. And therefore if Christ were whole in the whole and not whole in any part, he would not have assumed the true form of food and the true form of drink; which is absurd, since he himself says, John 6:56: "My flesh truly is food, and my blood truly is drink."
Hoc igitur de hoc est dicendum et firmiter credendum et nullatenus dubitandum.
12. Quod ergo objicitur ex verbis beati Hilarii, quod ubi est pars, quod ibi est totum,7 dicendum quod hoc non bene inductum est in objectione. Hilarius enim intendit, quod ubi est pars formae sacramentalis fractae, ibi est totum quod est Christi in omni totalitate suae divinitatis et humanitatis: et non intelligit sicut proponitur, quod ubi est pars corporis Christi secundum locum partis quae est pes, vel manus, vel oculus, quod ibi in positione loci et situs membrorum Christi sit tota figura corporis Christi. Et est in argumentatione apparente fallacia accidentis: quia quod attribuitur Christo secundum locum circumscriptionis figurae humanae corporeae, eidem attribuit secundum hoc quod ut cibus continetur in sacramento.
Per idem patet solutio ad sequens in quod inducit argumentum: quia illa duo argumenta fundantur super idem.
13. Ad illud autem idem quod secundo quaeritur, dicimus quod in veritate Christus formas sacramentales cibi et potus non propter aliud assumpsit, nisi ut se perfectionem refectionis fidelium esse significaret. Regulariter autem verum est in omnibus sacramentis novae legis, quod formae sacramentales tantum continent de eo quod est res et sacramentum, quantum significant, sicut in baptismo et confirmatione, quantum significationis est in formis sacramentalibus aquae et chrismatis, tantum ipsa signa continent de charactere: sed non est regulariter verum, quod semper tantum contineant de eo quod est res tantum, quantum signant: quia rem quam deberet continere sacramentum de sui virtute et sanctificatione, aliquando excludit fictio in eo qui suscipit sacramentum. Aliquando etiam est talis res significata, quae non sola sacramenti susceptione potest acquiri, sicut baptismus per nitorem tinctionis aeternam signat beatitudinem animae et corporis, quae non sola susceptione sacramenti habetur, sed etiam per merita bonorum operum et exercitia virtutum. Et in his duabus rebus significatio formarum sacramentalium aliquando excedit sacramenti causalitatem et continentiam, sed numquam excedit continentiam respectu rei quae est res et sacramentum: et ideo cum in sacramento altaris Christus Deus et homo sit res et sacramentum, oportet quod formae sacramentales de Christo tantum contineant, quantum signant. Significant autem refectionem aequaliter in toto, et in qualibet parte, si totum in partes frangatur. Continetur igitur Christus totus in toto, et in qualibet parte.
Ad objectum autem quod in contrarium adductum est, dicendum, quod illa objectio non procedit, quod spirituali cibo attribuatur id quod est corporalis cibi in quantum est corporalis. Ille enim sub mensura cujusdam quantitatis perfectae reficit: et si diminuatur illa quantitas, dat refectionem imperfectam. Spiritualis autem cibus secundum perfectam reficiendi virtutem et potentiam et totalitatem in toto continetur aequaliter et in qualibet parte.
Therefore this must be said about this and firmly believed and in no way doubted.
12. Therefore as to what is objected from the words of blessed Hilary, that where the part is, there the whole is,7 it must be said that this has not been well brought into the objection. For Hilary intends that where the part of the broken sacramental form is, there is the whole that belongs to Christ in every totality of his divinity and humanity; and he does not understand it as is proposed, that where there is a part of Christ's body according to the place of the part which is a foot, or hand, or eye, there in the position of place and site of Christ's members is the whole figure of Christ's body. And in the apparent argument there is a fallacy of accident, because what is attributed to Christ according to the place of circumscription of the corporeal human figure, it attributes to the same according to this, that as food he is contained in the sacrament.
Through the same thing the solution is clear to the following matter into which the argument leads, because those two arguments are founded upon the same thing.
13. But to that same thing which is asked secondly, we say that in truth Christ assumed the sacramental forms of food and drink for nothing other than that he might signify himself to be the perfection of the refreshment of the faithful. But regularly in all the sacraments of the new law it is true that sacramental forms contain just so much of that which is reality and sacrament as they signify, as in baptism and confirmation, as much signification as there is in the sacramental forms of water and chrism, so much do the signs themselves contain of the character. But it is not regularly true that they always contain just so much of that which is reality only as they signify, because fiction in him who receives the sacrament sometimes excludes the reality which the sacrament ought to contain from its own power and sanctification. Sometimes also the thing signified is such a thing which cannot be acquired by reception of the sacrament alone, as baptism through the brightness of dipping signifies the eternal blessedness of soul and body, which is not had by reception of the sacrament alone, but also through the merits of good works and exercises of virtues. And in these two realities the signification of sacramental forms sometimes exceeds the causality and containment of the sacrament, but it never exceeds containment with respect to the reality which is reality and sacrament. And therefore, since in the sacrament of the altar Christ God and man is reality and sacrament, it is necessary that the sacramental forms contain as much of Christ as they signify. But they signify refreshment equally in the whole and in any part, if the whole is broken into parts. Therefore the whole Christ is contained in the whole and in any part.
But to the objection which was brought to the contrary, it must be said that that objection does not proceed, because what belongs to bodily food insofar as it is bodily is attributed to spiritual food. For that bodily food refreshes under the measure of a certain perfect quantity; and if that quantity is diminished, it gives imperfect refreshment. But spiritual food, according to the perfect power and potency and totality of refreshing, is contained equally in the whole and in any part.
Et si objiciatur, ut jam dictum est, quod formae sacramentales sunt sicut signa: et sic quod est in signis, debet esse in re contenta. Dicendum quod in proprietate reficiendi sunt signa, sed multas alias habent proprietates, secundum quas nihil signant in sacramento, sicut quod corporales, quod corruptibiles, quod siccae, quod frigidae, quod albae, vel rubeae, vel hujusmodi: et his proprietatibus ad rem sacramenti non referuntur.
14. De hoc autem quod tertio quaeritur, quis sit modus continentiae Christi sub formis illis? Dicendum quod ille modus est jam determinatus, et est mixtus partim ex continentia signi, et partim ex continentia loci, et ipsa continentia loci partim convenit loco deitatis, et partim differt ab ea, et partim convenit cum loco figurae corporis sui, et partim differt ab ea. Cum continentia enim signi habet convenientiam, quia ut refectio continetur in eo: cum continentia autem loci habet convenientiam, quia secundum veritatem continetur in forma illa Christus, et non extra eam continetur sacramentali continentia: cum deitate autem relata ad locum habet convenientiam, quia est in toto totus, et in qualibet parte totus: cum loco autem descriptivo corporali habet, quia est capacitatis quantitativae, sicut in ante habitis diximus: et cum hoc gratia, id est, propter diversa diversorum quae sunt in Christo, conveniant, non licet attribuere alicui eorum quod convenit sibi ratione alterius: et si fiat, incidit fallacia accidentis, vel figurae dictionis ex commutatione modi praedicandi.
Ad objectum autem in contrarium, dicendum quod sine contractione sui est in tam parvo toto et etiam in minima ejus parte si ad minima frangatur. Et si quaeratur, quomodo hoc potest esse? Dicimus, quod hoc est de exigentia sacramenti, quod aliter perfectum non esset, sicut ante dictum est. Isti enim sacramento attribuitur continentia corporis divini et cibi: et ideo quaecumque faciunt ad hoc, debent sibi attribui et non alia. Corporis autem divini est esse in pluribus locis simul: quia est in caelo et in quolibet altari. Et hoc non convenit corpori simpliciter accepto non divino. Corporis etiam divini est intrare clausis signaculis, exire sine fractura, et compressione sui, et sine fractura corporis per quod transit, et sine compressione. Et sic istius corporis Dominici ut cibi est esse sine sui contractione in toto et in qualibet parte. Has enim potestates exercet deitas in humanitate ad suae gloriae et majestatis demonstrationem: quia, sicut dicit Damascenus, quamvis natura divina et humana in Christo suis characteristicis idiomatibus, hoc est, distinctivis proprietatibus sint distinctae, ita quod una est aeterna, impassibilis, immortalis, et hujusmodi habens: alia autem temporalis, passibilis, et mortalis: tamen in operationibus, sicut idem dicit Damascenus, se invicem circumcidunt, sicut ad tactum humanitatis mundatur leprosus operatione deitatis incedentis in operationem humanitatis: et sic vere in omnibus signis videtur: ita etiam in continentia formarum in sacramento quae Christum continent, incedit divinitas praeservans a contractione et diminutione et figurae humanae aliqua immutatione.
Ad aliud autem quod inducitur, responsio patet per praedicta.
And if it is objected, as has already been said, that the sacramental forms are like signs, and thus what is in the signs ought to be in the reality contained, it must be said that they are signs in the property of refreshing, but they have many other properties according to which they signify nothing in the sacrament, such as that they are bodily, that they are corruptible, that they are dry, that they are cold, that they are white or red or things of this sort; and according to these properties they are not referred to the reality of the sacrament.
14. But concerning this which is asked third, what is the mode of Christ's containment under those forms, it must be said that that mode has now been determined, and it is mixed partly from the containment of a sign and partly from the containment of a place, and the containment of place itself partly agrees with the place of deity and partly differs from it, and partly agrees with the place of the figure of his body and partly differs from it. For with the containment of a sign it has agreement, because as refreshment he is contained in it; but with the containment of a place it has agreement, because according to truth Christ is contained in that form and is not contained outside it by sacramental containment; but with deity related to place it has agreement, because he is whole in the whole and whole in any part; but with descriptive bodily place it has agreement because it is of quantitative capacity, as we said in the things held before. And since along with this by grace, that is, on account of the diverse things of diverse things which are in Christ, they agree, it is not lawful to attribute to any one of them what belongs to him by reason of another; and if it is done, there occurs a fallacy of accident, or a figure of speech from a change in the mode of predicating.
But to the objection on the contrary, it must be said that without contraction of himself he is in so small a whole and even in its smallest part if it is broken into the smallest parts. And if it is asked how this can be, we say that this belongs to the requirement of the sacrament, because otherwise it would not be perfect, as was said before. For to this sacrament is attributed the containment of the divine body and of food; and therefore whatever makes toward this ought to be attributed to it and not other things. But it belongs to the divine body to be in several places at once, because it is in heaven and on any altar. And this does not belong to body simply taken, not divine. It also belongs to the divine body to enter while seals are closed, to go out without fracture and compression of itself, and without fracture and compression of the body through which it passes. And thus it belongs to that body of the Lord as food to be without contraction of itself in the whole and in any part. For deity exercises these powers in humanity for the demonstration of its glory and majesty, because, as Damascene says, although the divine and human nature in Christ are distinguished by their characteristic idioms, that is, by distinctive properties, so that one is eternal, impassible, immortal, and having things of this sort, while the other is temporal, passible, and mortal, nevertheless in operations, as the same Damascene says, they cut around one another, as at the touch of humanity the leper is cleansed by the operation of deity walking into the operation of humanity; and thus it is truly seen in all signs. So also in the containment of the forms in the sacrament which contain Christ, divinity walks in, preserving from contraction and diminution and any change of the human figure.
But to the other thing which is introduced, the response is clear through what has been said before.
Notes
- See De consecratione, distinction 2. (Vide de consec., dist. 2.) ↩
- On this first opinion, see IV Sentences, Distinction X, Article 1, in volume XXIX of this new edition of ours. (De hac prima opinione vide IV Sententiarum, Dist. X, Art. 1. Tomo XXIX hujusce novae editionis nostrae.) ↩
- Matthew 26:26 and 28; Mark 14:22 and 24; Luke 22:19. (Matth. XXVI, 26 et 28; Marc. XIV, 22 et 24; Luc. XXII, 19.) ↩
- On this question, see IV Sentences, Distinction XI, Article 3, in volume XXIX of this new edition of ours. (Super hanc quaestionem, vide IV Sententiarum, Dist. XI, Art. 3. Tomo XXIX hujusce novae editionis nostrae.) ↩
- Compare IV Sentences, Distinction XI, Article 16, and Distinction XIII, Article 9, in volume XXIX of this new edition of ours. (Cf. IV Sententiarum, Dist. XI, Art. 16 et Dist. XIII, Art. 9. Tomo XXIX hujusce novae editionis nostrae.) ↩
- Compare IV Sentences, Distinction XIII, Article 10, in volume XXIX of this new edition of ours. (Cf. IV Sententiarum, Dist. XIII, Art. 10. Tomo XXIX hujusce novae editionis nostrae.) ↩
- Compare IV Sentences, Distinction XIII, Article 13, in volume XXIX of this new edition. (Cf. IV Sententiarum, Dist. XIII, Art. 13. Tomo XXIX hujusce novae editionis.) ↩
If a page does not appear, its photograph has not been uploaded yet.