Question One. Whether the Eucharist is a Sacrament of the New Law

15. Proceeding thus to the first question, argument is made that the Eucharist is not a sacrament of the New Law.

First because a sacrament of the New Law is a sign of the grace conferred in it [Ord. IV d.1 nn.194-195]; but the Eucharist is not a sign of this sort, because it remains on the altar after consecration and no grace is given by it to anyone.

16. Again, “the sacraments of the New Law effect what they signify” [ibid. d.1 n.276]. The Eucharist is not of this sort, because it figures or signifies that the true body and blood of Christ are contained under the very species [of bread and wine]; but those species do not effect this, for no finite virtue can have causality with respect to it.

17. Again, the sacraments of the New Law contain some definite words that are the form of the sacrament [ibid. d.3 nn.41-47]. The Eucharist does not, because the words that are the form of the sacrament must be simultaneous with the sacrament; but they are not simultaneous with the sacrament, first because the Eucharist remains when the words do not, and second because, while the words are being pronounced, the Eucharist does not exist but only at the end of the pronouncing.

18. Again in the Metaphysics 4.4.1006b7 it is said, “What does not signify one thing does not signify.” The Eucharist is not one sacrament or sign, nor does it signify one signified thing. The proof of the minor is that the species of bread is one sign and the species of wine is another sign, and they signify their own different thing, because the body of Christ is what one of them signifies and the blood of Christ what the other signifies.

19. On the contrary:

In Gratian, Decretum p.3 d.2 ch.1, the words “Nothing else must be offered in the sacrament besides wine and water...” are speaking of the Eucharist. And in the same place is said, “In the sacrament of the body and blood nothing else is offered save what the Lord himself handed down.”

I. To the Question

20. Here three things must be looked at. First, following the procedure in the other sacraments [Ord. IV ‘Epilogue of the distinctions about baptism’ n.1; d.7 n.7], some notion of the name ‘eucharist’ must be set down, and it must be taken from the usage of speakers; second, inquiry must be made whether anything real subsists under that notion; third, whether that which so subsists is a sacrament of the New Law, which is the principal question.

A. About the Idea or Definition of the Eucharist

21. The idea of the name ‘Eucharist’, according to those who commonly use or speak about the Eucharist, can be as follows: ‘The Eucharist is, by divine institution, a perceptible sign truly containing, after the proper matter has been rightly consecrated, the body and blood of Christ’.a

a.a [Text canceled by Scotus] The Eucharist is the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, which are truly contained under the species of bread and wine after consecration by a priest in definite words pronounced with the proper intention, truly signifying, by divine institution, that the body and blood of Christ are really contained under those species.

B. Whether Anything Real subsists under Such an Idea

22. About the second point [n.20], I say that this idea is not false in itself, because no part is repugnant to another.

23. For it is possible, without contradiction, for the body of Christ to be contained under the species of bread and his blood under the species of wine (which is something presumed here, because it will be made clear in d.10 nn.24-70). And it is possible that these signs were instituted by God to signify in truth that the things signified are contained under the species, for what God can do he can signify through some perceptible sign imposed to signify it. Therefore, some being, that is, something to which existence is not repugnant, does subsist under this idea.

24. Further, I say that there subsists under it some being effectively, for the fact can be proved by authority and fitting reason.

25. The authority is Matthew 26.26-29 where, after the Cena Christ instituted this sacrament, so that under the species his true body and true blood were truly contained. And not only then when he himself confected it, but also when the sacrament was confected by priests in the Church, since he adds for the Apostles there, “This do in commemoration of me.”

26. The same is contained in Luke 22.19-20 and I Corinthians 11.23-29; 10.16-17, where the Apostle gives full determination about the manner of receiving and consecrating this sacrament. “This bread,” he says, “which we (we priests) break, is it not a participation in the body of the Lord?” And that this sacrament was to continue perpetually in the Church he there says, “As often as you eat this bread and drink this cup you proclaim the death of the Lord until he come (understand: for judgement).” Hence the Church militant is going to last until then and the Eucharist in it, as all the saints maintain.

27. But the proof that the sacrament is fitting is that it is fitting for Christ to be with us in such a perceptible sign, so that each may be the more stirred to devotion and reverence for Christ. And this is plain in fact, because almost every devotion in the Church is ordered to this sacrament, for a cleric performs his divine office for this reason with greater care in its ordering to the mass. Also, for this reason do the people more devoutly attend to mass than any other ecclesiastical duty. Again, for this reason individuals confess with greater care when they intend (according to the ordering of the Church) to receive communion, which should at least be done once in a year, according to the ordering of the Church.

28. It was also fitting that after spiritual generation spiritual nourishment is conferred on us, and this is more fittingly given to us under the likeness of bodily nourishment; now the chief bodily and spiritual nourishment consists in bread and wine;   therefore etc     

29. It was fitting too that the perceptible sign, under which God wished to give himself to us and to be with us, should have an order to certain words spoken by some minister, because otherwise we would not know when Christ was in such sign and when not, and thus due reverence and devotion would perish.

30. It was also fitting that in the pronouncing of the words the minister should stand out in the Church, that is, be a priest, through whose ministerial act Christ would thus begin to be with us.

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.

II. To the Initial Arguments

43. From the above the answers to the arguments are plain.

As to the first [n.15], because the Eucharist is not a sign of accidental grace but of subsistent grace.

44. As to the second [n.16], it seems the difficulty is good against someone who posits that the sacrament has an action with respect to the thing signified [IV d.1 nn.279-283], but it is not valid against me. For I say that the proposition “a sacrament effects what it signifies” is understood in this way, namely that if it signifies the coming to be of something then that something comes to be through the sacrament through an efficacious sign; but if it signifies the being of something, then that something exists through the sacrament through a true sign [ibid. nn.192-193, 308, 315, 323]. How the ‘through’ is to be understood was stated in d.1 n.280.

45. And when it is said there [n.16] that no finite power can act to make the body of Christ present, I concede when speaking properly of action. Yet some finite virtue or some part of finite virtue can be an immediate disposition for the being of Christ’s body there, not by itself but by God co-assisting there. And in this way did God institute the species, so that, after the consecration, he assists them for the containing of the real presence of Christ’s body.

46. As to the third [n.17] it is plain that the sacrament does not have words for form, because then it would not be a sacrament that remains, since words cannot exist except in succession. But the consecration of the sacrament consists in coming to be, and it requires some form of words in it; but they are not the form of the sacrament but the form of the consecration of the sacrament. And to this extent they can be called sacramental words, because they belong to the sacrament as the form of its consecration, and this consecration is the sacramental beginning. But these words are not said thus to be sacramental as the words of baptism are; for the latter sacramental words are the form of the sacrament.

47. But if you are altogether asking what the form of this sacrament is, I say that the perceptible species are the form, that is, the proximate and formal foundation of the signification, and the signification is what is formal there, as it is in other sacraments.

48. And if you ask what in this foundation is as the matter and what else as the form, I reply that there is not one thing as matter and another as form in it as in the other sacraments. The reason is that this sacrament is permanent and so no words can pertain to its essence. But in any sacrament matter and form are distinguished - the visible sign is said to be the matter, and the words the form.

49. To the fourth [n.18] the reply is that they are both a single sign of one thing (as the body of Christ).

50. On the contrary: synonymous names are different names despite signifying the same thing - and this for the reason that there are several spoken words imposed there for doing the signifying; therefore, by similarity, just as here there are different species doing the signifying, there will be a different sacrament.

51. Therefore I say in another way that, as was said at the end of the question [n.36], the sacrament is one by oneness of integrity, not indivisibility. Therefore, the argument [n.50] does not work.