C. That what Subsists under the Idea of this Name is a Sacrament

31. About the third point [n.20] I say that in the idea of the name set down above [n.21] a sacrament is included, because it is, by divine institution, a truly representative sign. And although it does not represent accidental grace, yet it does represent some gratuitous gift of God, namely the being of the body of Christ in the species. Now the grace in the definition of the sacrament is not taken just for an accidental grace but for a gratuitous effect of God [n.39, Ord. IV d.1 n.207].

32. About the unity of this sacrament I say that it would be very possible for several perceptible things to come together in the foundation of a single sacrament (as was said above about the cleansing and the words in the foundation of the relation of baptism [d.3 nn.41-47]), though one of them would not then be part of the sacrament without another. But here the species of bread contains what it signifies under the species of wine, and conversely.

33. Therefore I say that the body of Christ can be taken strictly, as it contains only the parts animated by the soul of Christ, and blood is not of this sort (though it is in proximate potency for conversion into animated flesh). And thus the body is essentially different in itself and from the blood, and it can also be a different signified thing; and consequently it can be the proper sign as also the proper definition of it.

34. In another way the body can be taken for all the things it includes that belong to the whole organic body, whether they be parts formally animated or some of them not formally animated (as fluids and spirits); and in this way blood is a part of the body.

35. Taking the body in the first way, although it and blood are primarily different signified things, yet they constitute one whole signified thing, which is the body taken in the second way. And so the proper sign of the body taken in the first way and the proper sign of the blood can be a single sign with singleness of integrity but not of indivisibility.

36. Now it is fitting that this sacrament has such unity of integrity and not of indivisibility, because it is for the complete nourishment of the soul. But complete nourishment of the body comes from nourishment that is one with oneness of integrity, not unity of indivisibility; for food does not nourish sufficiently without drink nor drink without food.

37. From what has been said there is plain a fourfold difference and excellence of this sacrament in respect of others, wherein there is a triple difference and excellence in signifying.

A first is that this sacrament is most true in signifying. For the other sacraments are true as far as concerns themselves, but they sometimes do not have their signified effect because of the indisposition of the receiver; but this sacrament never lacks what it signifies.

38. The second excellence of this sacrament is that what it signifies it really contains, but not the other sacraments.

39. The third excellence is of what is signified by it. For the other sacraments signify an accidental grace inhering in the recipient, while this sacrament signifies subsistent grace, namely the true body of Christ existing in it.

40. The final and fourth difference is in the manner of being of this sacrament, because all the other sacraments consist in use and in becoming, so that the sacrament there and the reception of it are the same (as baptism and its reception); nor does anything that is the sacrament remain when the use and reception cease. But this sacrament is something that persists even before use.

41. And this was fitting, because Christ wished permanently to be with us, and so to be in some permanent sign, which sort of sign this sacrament is. Hence here the use is not the sacrament; for the using of the sacramental words is a sort of way to the sacrament, because the sacrament begins to be at the end of the speaking of the words; while the use or reception of this sacrament is a sort of ceasing to be of the sacrament, or the way in which this sacrament is applied to a member of the Church. And it is very possible that in both uses, if done worthily, grace is conferred on the user.

42. But these are not the formal and first thing signified by the Eucharist but they are sorts of sacramental act, in which grace can well be received if they are done worthily - though more in reception than in consecration, because the act of reception signifies spiritual nourishment, which is by the conferring of grace.