Quotations On The Eucharist

Drew Johnson
Quotations on the Eucharist 1

The Nature of the Eucharist
“For the priestly office is indeed discharged on earth, but it ranks among heavenly ordinances;
and very naturally so: for neither man, nor angel, nor archangel, nor any other created power, but
the Paraclete Himself, instituted this vocation, and persuaded men while still abiding in the flesh
to represent the ministry of angels. Wherefore the consecrated priest ought to be as pure as if he
were standing in the heavens themselves in the midst of those powers. Fearful, indeed, and of
most awful import, were the things which were used before the dispensation of grace, as the
bells, the pomegranates, the stones on the breastplate and on the ephod, the girdle, the mitre, the
long robe, the plate of gold, the holy of holies, the deep silence within. But if any one should
examine the things which belong to the dispensation of grace, he will find that, small as they are,
yet are they fearful and full of awe, and that what was spoken concerning the law is true in this
case also, that what has been made glorious has no glory in this respect by reason of the glory
which excels (2 Corinthians 3:10). For when you see the Lord sacrificed, and laid upon the altar,
and the priest standing and praying over the victim, and all the worshippers empurpled with that
precious blood, can you then think that you are still among men, and standing upon the earth?
Are you not, on the contrary, straightway translated to Heaven, and casting out every carnal
thought from the soul, do you not with disembodied spirit and pure reason contemplate the things
which are in Heaven? Oh! What a marvel! What love of God to man! He who sits on high with
the Father is at that hour held in the hands of all, and gives Himself to those who are willing to
embrace and grasp Him. And this all do through the eyes of faith! Do these things seem to you fit
to be despised, or such as to make it possible for any one to be uplifted against them? Would you
also learn from another miracle the exceeding sanctity of this office? Picture Elijah and the vast
multitude standing around him, and the sacrifice laid upon the altar of stones, and all the rest of
the people hushed into a deep silence while the prophet alone offers up prayer: then the sudden
rush of fire from Heaven upon the sacrifice:— these are marvelous things, charged with terror.
Now then pass from this scene to the rites which are celebrated in the present day; they are not
only marvelous to behold, but transcendent in terror. There stands the priest, not bringing down
fire from Heaven, but the Holy Spirit: and he makes prolonged supplication, not that some flame
sent down from on high may consume the offerings, but that grace descending on the sacrifice
may thereby enlighten the souls of all, and render them more refulgent than silver purified by
fire. Who can despise this most awful mystery, unless he is stark mad and senseless? Or do you
not know that no human soul could have endured that fire in the sacrifice, but all would have
been utterly consumed, had not the assistance of God's grace been great. For if any one will
consider how great a thing it is for one, being a man, and compassed with flesh and blood, to be
enabled to draw near to that blessed and pure nature, he will then clearly see what great honor
the grace of the Spirit has vouchsafed to priests; since by their agency these rites are celebrated,
and others nowise inferior to these both in respect of our dignity and our salvation. For they who
inhabit the earth and make their abode there are entrusted with the administration of things which
are in Heaven, and have received an authority which God has not given to angels or archangels.
For it has not been said to them, ‘Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven,
and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven’ (Matthew 18:18). They who
rule on earth have indeed authority to bind, but only the body: whereas this binding lays hold of
the soul and penetrates the heavens; and what priests do here below God ratifies above, and the
Master confirms the sentence of his servants. For indeed what is it but all manner of heavenly
authority which He has given them when He says, ‘whose sins ye remit they are remitted, and
Drew Johnson
whose sins ye retain they are retained?’ (John 20:23). What authority could be greater than this?
The Father has committed all judgment to the Son? John 5:22 But I see it all put into the hands of
these men by the Son. For they have been conducted to this dignity as if they were already
translated to Heaven, and had transcended human nature, and were released from the passions to
which we are liable. Moreover, if a king should bestow this honor upon any of his subjects,
authorizing him to cast into prison whom he pleased and to release them again, he becomes an
object of envy and respect to all men; but he who has received from God an authority as much
greater as heaven is more precious than earth, and souls more precious than bodies, seems to
some to have received so small an honor that they are actually able to imagine that one of those
who have been entrusted with these things will despise the gift. Away with such madness! For
transparent madness it is to despise so great a dignity, without which it is not possible to obtain
either our own salvation, or the good things which have been promised to us. For if no one can
enter into the kingdom of Heaven except he be regenerate through water and the Spirit, and he
who does not eat the flesh of the Lord and drink His blood is excluded from eternal life, and if all
these things are accomplished only by means of those holy hands, I mean the hands of the priest,
how will any one, without these, be able to escape the fire of hell, or to win those crowns which
are reserved for the victorious?” – St. John Chrysostom. On the Priesthood, III.4-5. Translated
by W.R.W. Stephens. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 9. Edited by
Philip Schaff. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1889.)
“Wherefore it is needful in all respects to be vigilant, for indeed no small punishment is

appointed to them that partake unworthily. Consider how indignant you are against the traitor,
against them that crucified Him. Look therefore, lest you also yourself become guilty of the body
and blood of Christ. They slaughtered the all-holy body, but you receive it in a filthy soul after
such great benefits. For neither was it enough for Him to be made man, to be smitten and
slaughtered, but He also commingles Himself with us, and not by faith only, but also in very
deed makes us His body. What then ought not he to exceed in purity that has the benefit of this
sacrifice, than what sunbeam should not that hand be more pure which is to sever this flesh, the
mouth that is filled with spiritual fire, the tongue that is reddened by that most awful blood?
Consider with what sort of honor you were honored, of what sort of table you are partaking. That
which when angels behold, they tremble, and dare not so much as look up at it without awe on
account of the brightness that comes thence, with this we are fed, with this we are commingled,
and we are made one body and one flesh with Christ. Who shall declare the mighty works of the
Lord, and cause all His praises to be heard? What shepherd feeds his sheep with his own limbs?
And why do I say, shepherd? There are often mothers that after the travail of birth send out their
children to other women as nurses; but He endures not to do this, but Himself feeds us with His
own blood, and by all means entwines us with Himself.” – St. John Chrysostom. Homily 82 on
Matthew, 5. Translated by George Prevost and revised by M.B. Riddle. From Nicene and Post-
Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 10. Edited by Philip Schaff. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature
Publishing Co., 1888.)
“For no other reason was it formerly the custom, previous to consecration, to call aloud upon the
people to raise their hearts, sursum corda. Scripture itself, also, besides carefully narrating the
ascension of Christ, by which he withdrew his bodily presence from our eye and company, that it
might make us abandon all carnal thoughts of him, whenever it makes mention of him, enjoins us
Drew Johnson
to raise our minds upwards and seek him in heaven, seated at the right hand of the Father (Col.
3:2).” – John Calvin, Inst., IV.17.36
Drew Johnson
That the Humanity of Christ is the “Bridge” to his Divinity
“All the knowledge imparted by faith turns about these two points, the divinity of the Trinity and
the humanity of Christ. This should cause us no surprise: the humanity of Christ is the way by
which we come to the divinity.” – Aquinas, Compendium of Theology, I.2
“We may consider two things in a mediator: first, that he is a mean; secondly, that he unites
others. Now it is of the nature of a mean to be distant from each extreme: while it unites by
communicating to one that which belongs to the other. Now neither of these can be applied to
Christ as God, but only as man. For, as God, He does not differ from the Father and the Holy
Ghost in nature and power of dominion: nor have the Father and the Holy Ghost anything that
the Son has not, so that He be able to communicate to others something belonging to the Father
or the Holy Ghost, as though it were belonging to others than Himself. But both can be applied to
Him as man. Because, as man, He is distant both from God, by nature, and from man by dignity
of both grace and glory. Again, it belongs to Him, as man, to unite men to God, by
communicating to men both precepts and gifts, and by offering satisfaction and prayers to God
for men. And therefore He is most truly called Mediator, as man.” – Aquinas, ST IIIa Q. 26, art.
2, resp.
“As stated above (1, ad 2), adoptive sonship is a certain likeness of the eternal Sonship: just as all
that takes place in time is a certain likeness of what has been from eternity. Now man is likened
to the splendor of the Eternal Son by reason of the light of grace which is attributed to the Holy
Ghost. Therefore adoption, though common to the whole Trinity, is appropriated to the Father as
its author; to the Son, as its exemplar; to the Holy Ghost, as imprinting on us the likeness of this
exemplar.” – Aquinas, ST IIIa Q. 23, art. 2, ad 3
Drew Johnson
On the Nature of a Body
“It seems that God is a body. For a body is that which has the three dimensions. But Holy
Scripture attributes the three dimensions to God, for it is written: "He is higher than Heaven, and
what wilt thou do? He is deeper than Hell, and how wilt thou know? The measure of Him is
longer than the earth and broader than the sea" (Job 11:8-9). Therefore God is a body.” –
Aquinas, ST Ia Q. 3, art. 1, obj. 1
“As we have said above (Question 1, Article 9), Holy Writ puts before us spiritual and divine
things under the comparison of corporeal things. Hence, when it attributes to God the three
dimensions under the comparison of corporeal quantity, it implies His virtual quantity; thus, by
depth, it signifies His power of knowing hidden things; by height, the transcendence of His
excelling power; by length, the duration of His existence; by breadth, His act of love for all. Or,
as says Dionysius (Div. Nom. ix), by the depth of God is meant the incomprehensibility of His
essence; by length, the procession of His all-pervading power; by breadth, His overspreading all
things, inasmuch as all things lie under His protection.” – Aquinas, ST Ia Q. 3, art. 1, ad 1
Drew Johnson
On How the Soul Draws Near to God
“We draw near to God by no corporeal steps, since He is everywhere, but by the affections of our
soul, and by the actions of that same soul do we withdraw from Him; thus, to draw near to or to
withdraw signifies merely spiritual actions based on the metaphor of local motion.” – Aquinas,
ST Ia Q. 3, art. 1, ad 5
“Even when a man is said to be in another's good graces, it is understood that there is something
in him pleasing to the other; even as anyone is said to have God's grace--with this difference, that
what is pleasing to a man in another is presupposed to his love, but whatever is pleasing to God
in a man is caused by the Divine love, as was said above.” – Aquinas, ST IaIIae Q. 110, art. 1,
ad 1
“By grace we are born again sons of God.” – Aquinas, ST IaIIae Q. 110, art. 4, sed contra
“If grace is the same as virtue, it must necessarily be in the powers of the soul as in a subject;
since the soul's powers are the proper subject of virtue, as stated above (Question 56, Article 1).
But if grace differs from virtue, it cannot be said that a power of the soul is the subject of grace,
since every perfection of the soul's powers has the nature of virtue, as stated above (55, 1; 56, 1).
Hence it remains that grace, as it is prior to virtue, has a subject prior to the powers of the soul,
so that it is in the essence of the soul. For as man in his intellective powers participates in the
Divine knowledge through the virtue of faith, and in his power of will participates in the Divine
love through the virtue of charity, so also in the nature of the soul does he participate in the
Divine Nature, after the manner of a likeness, through a certain regeneration or re-creation.” –
Aquinas, ST IaIIae Q. 110, art. 4, resp.
Drew Johnson
On the Spiritual Nature of the Presence of Christ’s Body in the Sacrament
“The manner of being of every thing is determined by what belongs to it of itself, and not
according to what is coupled accidentally with it: thus an object is present to the sight, according
as it is white, and not according as it is sweet, although the same object may be both white and
sweet; hence sweetness is in the sight after the manner of whiteness, and not after that of
sweetness. Since, then, the substance of Christ's body is present on the altar by the power of this
sacrament, while its dimensive quantity is there concomitantly and as it were accidentally,
therefore the dimensive quantity of Christ's body is in this sacrament, not according to its proper
manner (namely, that the whole is in the whole, and the individual parts in individual parts), but
after the manner of substance, whose nature is for the whole to be in the whole, and the whole in
every part.” – Aquinas, ST IIIa Q. 76, art. 4, ad 1
“Because the change of the bread and wine is not terminated at the Godhead or the soul of
Christ, it follows as a consequence that the Godhead or the soul of Christ is in this sacrament not
by the power of the sacrament, but from real concomitance. For since the Godhead never set
aside the assumed body, wherever the body of Christ is, there, of necessity, must the Godhead
be; and therefore it is necessary for the Godhead to be in this sacrament concomitantly with His
body. Hence we read in the profession of faith at Ephesus (P. I., chap. xxvi): "We are made
partakers of the body and blood of Christ, not as taking common flesh, nor as of a holy man
united to the Word in dignity, but the truly life-giving flesh of the Word Himself." On the other
hand, His soul was truly separated from His body, as stated above (Question 50, Article 5). And
therefore had this sacrament been celebrated during those three days when He was dead, the soul
of Christ would not have been there, neither by the power of the sacrament, nor from real
concomitance. But since "Christ rising from the dead dieth now no more" (Romans 6:9), His soul
is always really united with His body. And therefore in this sacrament the body indeed of Christ
is present by the power of the sacrament, but His soul from real concomitance.” – Aquinas, ST
IIIa Q. 76, art. 1, ad 1
“After what we have said above (Article 1), it must be held most certainly that the whole Christ
is under each sacramental species yet not alike in each. For the body of Christ is indeed present
under the species of bread by the power of the sacrament, while the blood is there from real
concomitance, as stated above (1, ad 1) in regard to the soul and Godhead of Christ; and under
the species of wine the blood is present by the power of the sacrament, and His body by real
concomitance, as is also His soul and Godhead: because now Christ's blood is not separated from
His body, as it was at the time of His Passion and death. Hence if this sacrament had been
celebrated then, the body of Christ would have been under the species of the bread, but without
the blood; and, under the species of the wine, the blood would have been present without the
body, as it was then, in fact.” – Aquinas, ST IIIa Q. 76, art. 2, resp.
“Christ's body is not in this sacrament in the same way as a body is in a place, which by its
dimensions is commensurate with the place; but in a special manner which is proper to this
sacrament. Hence we say that Christ's body is upon many altars, not as in different places, but
"sacramentally": and thereby we do not understand that Christ is there only as in a sign, although
Drew Johnson
a sacrament is a kind of sign; but that Christ's body is here after a fashion proper to this
sacrament, as stated above.” – Aquinas, ST IIIa Q. 75, art. 1, ad 3
“As stated above (1, ad 3; 3), Christ's body is in this sacrament not after the proper manner of
dimensive quantity, but rather after the manner of substance. But every body occupying a place
is in the place according to the manner of dimensive quantity, namely, inasmuch as it is
commensurate with the place according to its dimensive quantity. Hence it remains that Christ's
body is not in this sacrament as in a place, but after the manner of substance, that is to say, in that
way in which substance is contained by dimensions; because the substance of Christ's body
succeeds the substance of bread in this sacrament: hence as the substance of bread was not
locally under its dimensions, but after the manner of substance, so neither is the substance of
Christ's body. Nevertheless the substance of Christ's body is not the subject of those dimensions,
as was the substance of the bread: and therefore the substance of the bread was there locally by
reason of its dimensions, because it was compared with that place through the medium of its own
dimensions; but the substance of Christ's body is compared with that place through the medium
of foreign dimensions, so that, on the contrary, the proper dimensions of Christ's body are
compared with that place through the medium of substance; which is contrary to the notion of a
located body. Hence in no way is Christ's body locally in this sacrament.” – Aquinas, ST IIIa Q.
76, art. 5, resp.
“Christ's body is not in this sacrament definitively, because then it would be only on the
particular altar where this sacrament is performed: whereas it is in heaven under its own species,
and on many other altars under the sacramental species. Likewise it is evident that it is not in this
sacrament circumscriptively, because it is not there according to the commensuration of its own
quantity, as stated above. But that it is not outside the superficies of the sacrament, nor on any
other part of the altar, is due not to its being there definitively or circumscriptively, but to its
being there by consecration and conversion of the bread and wine, as stated above (1; 15, 2,
sqq.).” – Aquinas, ST IIIa Q. 76, art. 5, ad 1
Drew Johnson
On the Meaning of Definitive and Circumscriptive Location
“It seems that Christ's body is in this sacrament as in a place. Because, to be in a place
definitively or circumscriptively belongs to being in a place. But Christ's body seems to be
definitively in this sacrament, because it is so present where the species of the bread and wine
are, that it is nowhere else upon the altar: likewise it seems to be there circumscriptively, because
it is so contained under the species of the consecrated host, that it neither exceeds it nor is
exceeded by it. Therefore Christ's body is in this sacrament as in a place.” – Aquinas ST IIIa Q.
76, art. 5, obj. 1
“The second problem arises from the Totality of Presence, which means that Christ in His
entirety is present in the whole of the Host and in each smallest part thereof, as the spiritual soul
is present in the human body [see above, (2)]. The difficulty reaches its climax when we consider
that there is no question here of the Soul or the Divinity of Christ, but of His Body, which, with
its head, trunk, and members, has assumed a mode of existence spiritual and independent of
space, a mode of existence, indeed, concerning which neither experience nor any system of
philosophy can have the least inkling. That the idea of conversion of corporeal matter into a
spirit can in no way be entertained, is clear from the material substance of the Eucharistic Body
itself. Even the above-mentioned separability of quantity from substance gives us no clue to the
solution, since according to the best founded opinions not only the substance of Christ's Body,
but by His own wise arrangement, its corporeal quantity, i.e. its full size, with its complete
organization of integral members and limbs, is present within the diminutive limits of the Host
and in each portion thereof. Later theologians (as Rossignol, Legrand) resorted to the unseemly
explanation, according to which Christ is present in diminished form and stature, a sort of
miniature body; while others (as Oswald, Fernandez, Casajoana) assumed with no better sense of
fitness the mutual compenetration of the members of Christ's Body to within the narrow compass
of the point of a pin. The vagaries of the Cartesians, however, went beyond all bounds. Descartes
had already, in a letter to P. Mesland (ed. Emery, Paris, 1811), expressed the opinion, that the
identity of Christ's Eucharistic with His Heavenly Body was preserved by the identity of His
Soul, which animated all the Eucharistic Bodies. On this basis, the geometrician Varignon
suggested a true multiplication of the Eucharistic Bodies upon earth, which were supposed to be
most faithful, though greatly reduced, miniature copies of the prototype, the Heavenly Body of
Christ. Nor does the modern theory of n-dimensions throw any light upon the subject; for the
Body of Christ is not invisible or impalpable to us because it occupies the fourth dimension, but
because it transcends and is wholly independent of space. Such a mode of existence, it is clear,
does not come within the scope of physics and mechanics, but belongs to a higher, supernatural
order, even as does the Resurrection from the sealed tomb, the passing in and out through closed
doors, the Transfiguration of the future glorified risen Body. What explanation may, then, be
given of the fact?
The simplest treatment of the subject was that offered by the Schoolmen, especially St. Thomas
(III:76:4), They reduced the mode of being to the mode of becoming, i.e. they traced back the
mode of existence peculiar to the Eucharistic Body to the Transubstantiation; for a thing has to
so "be" as it was in "becoming", Since ex vi verborum the immediate result is the presence of the
Body of Christ, its quantity, present merely per concomitantiam, must follow the mode of
Drew Johnson
existence peculiar to its substance, and, like the latter, must exist without division and extension,
i.e. entirely in the whole Host and entirely in each part thereof. In other words, the Body of
Christ is present in the sacrament, not after the manner of "quantity" (per modum quantitatis),
but of "substance" (per modum substantiæ), Later Scholasticism (Bellarmine, Francisco Suárez,
Billuart, and others) tried to improve upon this explanation along other lines by distinguishing
between internal and external quantity. By internal quantity (quantitas interna seu in actu primo)
is understood that entity, by virtue of which a corporeal substance merely possesses "aptitudinal
extension", i.e. the "capability" of being extended in tri-dimensional space. External quantity, on
the other hand (quantitas externa seu in actu secundo), is the same entity, but in so far as it
follows its natural tendency to occupy space and actually extends itself in the three dimensions.
While aptitudinal extension or internal quantity is so bound up with the essences of bodies that
its separability from them involves a metaphysical contradiction, external quantity is, on the
other hand, only a natural consequence and effect, which can be so suspended and withheld by
the First Cause, that the corporeal substance, retaining its internal quantity, does not extend itself
into space. At all events, however plausibly reason may seem to explain the matter, it is
nevertheless face to face with a great mystery.
The third and last question has to do with the multilocation of Christ in heaven and upon
thousands of altars throughout the world. Since in the natural order of events each body is
restricted to one position in space (unilocatio), so that before the law proof of an alibi
immediately frees a person from the suspicion of crime, multilocation without further question
belongs to the supernatural order. First of all, no intrinsic repugnance can be shown in the
concept of multilocation. For if the objection be raised, that no being can exist separated from
itself or show forth local distances between its various selves, the sophism is readily detected; for
multilocation does not multiply the individual object, but only its external relation to and
presence in space. Philosophy distinguishes two modes of presence in creatures:
• the circumscriptive, and

• the definitive.
The first, the only mode of presence proper to bodies, is that by virtue of which an object is
confined to a determinate portion of space in such wise that its various parts (atoms, molecules,
electrons) also occupy their corresponding positions in that space. The second mode of presence,
that properly belonging to a spiritual being, requires the substance of a thing to exist in its
entirety in the whole of the space, as well as whole and entire in each part of that space. The
latter is the soul's mode of presence in the human body. The distinction made between these two
modes of presence is important, inasmuch as in the Eucharist both kinds are found in
combination. For, in the first place, there is verified a continuous definitive multilocation, called
also replication, which consists in this, that the Body of Christ is totally present in each part of
the continuous and as yet unbroken Host and also totally present throughout the whole Host, just
as the human soul is present in the body. And precisely this latter analogy from nature gives us
an insight into the possibility of the Eucharistic miracle. For if, as has been seen above, Divine
omnipotence can in a supernatural manner impart to a body such a spiritual, unextended,
spatially uncircumscribed mode of presence, which is natural to the soul as regards the human
body, one may well surmise the possibility of Christ's Eucharistic Body being present in its
entirety in the whole Host, and whole and entire in each part thereof.
Drew Johnson
There is, moreover, the discontinuous multilocation, whereby Christ is present not only in one
Host, but in numberless separate Hosts, whether in the ciborium or upon all the altars throughout
the world. The intrinsic possibility of discontinuous multilocation seems to be based upon the
non-repugnance of continuous multilocation. For the chief difficulty of the latter appears to be
that the same Christ is present in two different parts, A and B, of the continuous Host, it being
immaterial whether we consider the distant parts A and B joined by the continuous line AB or
not. The marvel does not substantially increase, if by reason of the breaking of the Host, the two
parts A and B are now completely separated from each other. Nor does it matter how great the
distance between the parts may be. Whether or not the fragments of a Host are distant one inch
or a thousand miles from one another is altogether immaterial in this consideration; we need not
wonder, then, if Catholics adore their Eucharistic Lord at one and the same time in New York,
London, and Paris. Finally, mention must be made of mixed multilocation, since Christ with His
natural dimensions reigns in heaven, whence he does not depart, and at the same time dwells
with His Sacramental Presence in numberless places throughout the world. This third case would
be in perfect accordance with the two foregoing, were we per impossible permitted to imagine
that Christ were present under the appearances of bread exactly as He is in heaven and that He
had relinquished His natural mode of existence. This, however, would be but one more marvel of
God's omnipotence. Hence no contradiction is noticeable in the fact, that Christ retains His
natural dimensional relations in heaven and at the same time takes up His abode upon the altars
of earth.
There is, furthermore, a fourth kind of multilocation, which, however, has not been realized in
the Eucharist, but would be, if Christ's Body were present in its natural mode of existence both in
heaven and on earth. Such a miracle might be assumed to have occurred in the conversion of St.
Paul before the gates of Damascus, when Christ in person said to him: "Saul, Saul, why
persecutest thou me?" So too the bilocation of saints, sometimes read of in the pages of
hagiography, as, e.g., in the case of St. Alphonsus Liguori, cannot be arbitrarily cast aside as
untrustworthy. The Thomists and some later theologians, it is true, reject this kind of
multilocation as intrinsically impossible and declare bilocation to be nothing more than an
"apparition" without corporeal presence. But Cardinal De Lugo is of opinion, and justly so, that
to deny its possibility might reflect unfavorably upon the Eucharistic multilocation itself. If there
were question of the vagaries of many Nominalists, as, e.g., that a bilocated person could be
living in Paris and at the same time dying in London, hating in Paris and at the same time loving
in London, the impossibility would be as plain as day, since an individual, remaining such as he
is, cannot be the subject of contrary propositions, since they exclude one another. The case
assumes a different aspect, when wholly external contrary propositions, relating to position in
space, are used in reference to the bilocated individual. In such a bilocation, which leaves the
principle of contradiction intact, it would be hard to discover an intrinsic impossibility.” - Pohle,
Joseph. "The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 5. New
York: Robert Appleton Company, 1909. Retrieved 7 Jul. 2009.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm.
“That bilocation (multilocation) is physically impossible, that is, contrary to all the conditions of
matter at present known to us, is the practically unanimous teaching of Catholic philosophers in
accordance with universal experience and natural science. As to the absolute or metaphysical
impossibility, that is, whether bilocation involves an intrinsic contradiction, so that by no
Drew Johnson
exertion even of Omnipotence could the same body be at once in wholly different places — to
this question the foregoing distinctions are pertinent.
• Catholic philosophers maintain that there is no absolute impossibility in the same body
being at once circumscriptively in one place and definitively elsewhere (mixed mode of
location). The basis of this opinion is that local extension is not essential to material
substance. The latter is and remains what it is wheresoever located. Local extension is
consequent on a naturally universal, but still not essentially necessary, property of
material substance. It is the immediate resultant of the "quantity" inherent in a body's
material composition and consists in a contactual relation of the body with the
circumambient surfaces. Being a resultant or quasi effect of quantity it may be suspended
in its actualization; at least such suspension involves no absolute impossibility and may
therefore be effected by Omnipotent agency. Should, therefore, God choose to deprive a
body of its extensional relation to its place and thus, so to speak, delocalize the material
substance, the latter would be quasi spiritualized and would thus, besides its natural
circumscriptive location, be capable of receiving definitive and consequently multiple
location; for in this case the obstacle to bilocation, viz., actual local extension, would
have been removed. Replication does not involve multiplication of the body's substance
but only the multiplication of its local relations to other bodies. The existence of its
substance in one place is contradicted only by non-existence in that same place, but says
nothing per se about existence or non-existence elsewhere.
• If mixed replication involves no absolute contradiction, definitive replication a fortiori
does not.
• Regarding the absolute possibility of a body being present circumscriptively in more than
one place, St. Thomas, Vasquez, Silv. Maurus, and many others deny such possibility.
The instances of bilocation narrated in lives of the saints can be explained, they hold, by
phantasmal replications or by aerial materializations. Scotus, Bellarmine, Francisco
Suárez, DeLugo, Franzelin, and many others defend the possibility of circumscriptive
replication. Their arguments as well as the various subtle questions and difficulties
pertinent to the whole subject will be found in works cited below.” - Siegfried, Francis.
"Bilocation." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 2. New York: Robert Appleton Company,
1907. Retrieved 7 Jul. 2009 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02568a.htm
Drew Johnson
The Necessity of Faith
“It is written (Hebrews 11:6): "Without faith it is impossible to please God.” – Aquinas, ST
IIaIIae Q. 3, art. 3, sed contra
“As stated above (Article 3), a movement of free-will is required for the justification of the
ungodly, inasmuch as man's mind is moved by God. Now God moves man's soul by turning it to
Himself according to Psalm 84:7 (Septuagint): "Thou wilt turn us, O God, and bring us to life."
Hence for the justification of the ungodly a movement of the mind is required, by which it is
turned to God. Now the first turning to God is by faith, according to Hebrews 11:6: "He that
cometh to God must believe that He is." Hence a movement of faith is required for the
justification of the ungodly.” – Aquinas, ST IaIIae Q. 113, art. 4, resp.
Drew Johnson
On Holy Scripture as the Source of Faith, and its Relation to the Church
“Some things are proposed to our belief are in themselves of faith, while others are of faith, not
in themselves but only in relation to others: even as in sciences certain propositions are put
forward on their own account, while others are put forward in order to manifest others. Now,
since the chief object of faith consists in those things which we hope to see, according to
Hebrews 11:2: "Faith is the substance of things to be hoped for," it follows that those things are
in themselves of faith, which order us directly to eternal life. Such are the Trinity of Persons in
Almighty God [The Leonine Edition reads: The Three Persons, the omnipotence of God, etc.],
the mystery of Christ's Incarnation, and the like: and these are distinct articles of faith. On the
other hand certain things in Holy Writ are proposed to our belief, not chiefly on their own
account, but for the manifestation of those mentioned above: for instance, that Abraham had two
sons, that a dead man rose again at the touch of Eliseus' bones, and the like, which are related in
Holy Writ for the purpose of manifesting the Divine mystery or the Incarnation of Christ: and
such things should not form distinct articles.” – Aquinas, ST IIaIIae Q. 1, art. 6, ad 1
“The truth of faith is contained in Holy Writ, diffusely, under various modes of expression, and
sometimes obscurely, so that, in order to gather the truth of faith from Holy Writ, one needs long
study and practice, which are unattainable by all those who require to know the truth of faith,
many of whom have no time for study, being busy with other affairs. And so it was necessary to
gather together a clear summary from the sayings of Holy Writ, to be proposed to the belief of
all. This indeed was no addition to Holy Writ, but something taken from it.” – Aquinas, ST
IIaIIae Q. 1, art. 9, ad 1
“Faith and unbelief have the same object since they are opposed to one another. Now unbelief
can be about all things contained in Holy Writ, for whichever one of them a man denies, he is
considered an unbeliever. Therefore faith also is about all things contained in Holy Writ.” –
Aquinas, ST IIaIIae Q. 1, art. 1, obj. 2
“The truth of faith is sufficiently explicit in the teaching of Christ and the apostles. But since,
according to 2 Peter 3:16, some men are so evil-minded as to pervert the apostolic teaching and
other doctrines and Scriptures to their own destruction, it was necessary as time went on to
express the faith more explicitly against the errors which arose.” – Aquinas, ST IIaIIae Q. 1, art.
10, ad 1
“For all things contained in Holy Writ are matters of faith.” – Aquinas, ST IIaIIae Q. 1, art. 6,
obj. 1
“It is befitting Holy Writ to put forward divine and spiritual truths by means of comparisons with
material things. For God provides for everything according to the capacity of its nature. Now it is
natural to man to attain to intellectual truths through sensible objects, because all our knowledge
originates from sense. Hence in Holy Writ, spiritual truths are fittingly taught under the likeness
of material things. This is what Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. i): "We cannot be enlightened by the
divine rays except they be hidden within the covering of many sacred veils." It is also befitting
Holy Writ, which is proposed to all without distinction of persons — "To the wise and to the
Drew Johnson
unwise I am a debtor" (Romans 1:14) — that spiritual truths be expounded by means of figures
taken from corporeal things, in order that thereby even the simple who are unable by themselves
to grasp intellectual things may be able to understand it.” – Aquinas, ST Ia Q. 1, art. 9, resp.
“The author of Holy Writ is God, in whose power it is to signify His meaning, not by words only
(as man also can do), but also by things themselves. So, whereas in every other science things are
signified by words, this science has the property, that the things signified by the words have
themselves also a signification. Therefore that first signification whereby words signify things
belongs to the first sense, the historical or literal. That signification whereby things signified by
words have themselves also a signification is called the spiritual sense, which is based on the
literal, and presupposes it. Now this spiritual sense has a threefold division. For as the Apostle
says (Hebrews 10:1) the Old Law is a figure of the New Law, and Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. i)
"the New Law itself is a figure of future glory." Again, in the New Law, whatever our Head has
done is a type of what we ought to do. Therefore, so far as the things of the Old Law signify the
things of the New Law, there is the allegorical sense; so far as the things done in Christ, or so far
as the things which signify Christ, are types of what we ought to do, there is the moral sense. But
so far as they signify what relates to eternal glory, there is the anagogical sense. Since the literal
sense is that which the author intends, and since the author of Holy Writ is God, Who by one act
comprehends all things by His intellect, it is not unfitting, as Augustine says (Confess. xii), if,
even according to the literal sense, one word in Holy Writ should have several senses.” –
Aquinas, ST Ia Q. 1, art. 10, resp.
“The multiplicity of these senses does not produce equivocation or any other kind of multiplicity,
seeing that these senses are not multiplied because one word signifies several things, but because
the things signified by the words can be themselves types of other things. Thus in Holy Writ no
confusion results, for all the senses are founded on one — the literal — from which alone can
any argument be drawn, and not from those intended in allegory, as Augustine says (Ep. 48).
Nevertheless, nothing of Holy Scripture perishes on account of this, since nothing necessary to
faith is contained under the spiritual sense which is not elsewhere put forward by the Scripture in
its literal sense.” – Aquinas, ST Ia Q. 1, art. 10, ad 1
“The parabolical sense is contained in the literal, for by words things are signified properly and
figuratively. Nor is the figure itself, but that which is figured, the literal sense. When Scripture
speaks of God's arm, the literal sense is not that God has such a member, but only what is
signified by this member, namely operative power. Hence it is plain that nothing false can ever
underlie the literal sense of Holy Writ.” – Aquinas, ST Ia Q. 1, art. 10, ad 3
“Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read
therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as
an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.” – The Thirty Nine
Articles of Religion, Art. 6
“The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of Faith:
and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God's Word written,
neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore,
although the Church be a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree any
Drew Johnson
thing against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed for
necessity of Salvation.” – The Thirty Nine Articles, Art. 20
“We ought not to say about God anything which is not found in Holy Scripture either explicitly
or implicitly. But although we do not find it verbally expressed in Holy Scripture that the Holy
Ghost proceeds from the Son, still we do find it in the sense of Scripture, especially where the
Son says, speaking of the Holy Ghost, "He will glorify Me, because He shall receive of Mine"
(John 16:14).” – Aquinas, ST Ia Q. 36, art. 2, ad 1
“It would seem that it does not belong to the Sovereign Pontiff to draw up a symbol of faith. For
a new edition of the symbol becomes necessary in order to explain the articles of faith, as stated
above (Article 9). Now, in the Old Testament, the articles of faith were more and more explained
as time went on, by reason of the truth of faith becoming clearer through greater nearness to
Christ, as stated above (Article 7). Since then this reason ceased with the advent of the New Law,
there is no need for the articles of faith to be more and more explicit. Therefore it does not seem
to belong to the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff to draw up a new edition of the symbol.” –
Aquinas, ST IIaIIae Q. 1, art. 10, obj. 1
“A new edition of the symbol becomes necessary in order to set aside the errors that may arise.”
– Aquinas, ST IIaIIae Q. 1, art. 10, resp.
“The truth of faith is sufficiently explicit in the teaching of Christ and the apostles. But since,
according to 2 Peter 3:16, some men are so evil-minded as to pervert the apostolic teaching and
other doctrines and Scriptures to their own destruction, it was necessary as time went on to
express the faith more explicitly against the errors which arose.” – Aquinas, ST IIaIIae Q. 1, art.
10, ad 1
“This prohibition and sentence of the council [of Ephesus, ‘that it was unlawful to utter, write or
draw up any other creed, than that which was defined by the Fathers assembled at Nicea’ – ST
IIaIIae Q. 1, art. 10, obj. 2] was intended for private individuals, who have no business to decide
matters of faith: for this decision of the general council did not take away from a subsequent
council the power of drawing up a new edition of the symbol, containing not indeed a new faith,
but the same faith with greater explicitness. For every council has taken into account that a
subsequent council would expound matters more fully than the preceding council, if this became
necessary through some heresy arising. Consequently this belongs to the Sovereign Pontiff, by
whose authority the council is convoked, and its decision confirmed.” – Aquinas, ST IIaIIae Q. 1,
art. 10, ad 2 (emphasis mine)
“The modesty of these holy men [viz., the Church Fathers] should be an admonition to us not
instantly to dip our pen in gall, and sternly denounce those who may be unwilling to swear to the
terms which we have devised, provided they do not in this betray pride, or petulance, or
unbecoming heat, but are willing to ponder the necessity which compels us so to speak, and may
thus become gradually accustomed to a useful form of expression. Let men also studiously
beware, that in opposing the Asians on the one hand, and the Sabellians on the other, and eagerly
endeavouring to deprive both of any handle for cavil, they do not bring themselves under some
suspicion of being the disciples of either Arius or Sabellius. Arius says that Christ is God, and
Drew Johnson
then mutters that he was made and had a beginning. He says, that he is one with the Father; but
secretly whispers in the ears of his party, made one, like other believers, though with special
privilege. Say, he is consubstantial, and you immediately pluck the mask from this chameleon,
though you add nothing to Scripture. Sabellius says that the Father, Son, and Spirit, indicate
some distinction in God. Say, they are three, and he will bawl out that you are making three
Gods. Say, that there is a Trinity of Persons in one Divine essence, you will only express in one
word what the Scriptures say, and stop his empty prattle. Should any be so superstitiously precise
as not to tolerate these terms, still do their worst, they will not be able to deny that when one is
spoken of, a unity of substance must be understood, and when three in one essence, the persons
in this Trinity are denoted. When this is confessed without equivocations we dwell not on words.
But I was long ago made aware, and, indeed, on more than one occasion, that those who contend
pertinaciously about words are tainted with some hidden poison; and, therefore, that it is more
expedient to provoke them purposely, than to court their favour by speaking obscurely.” – John
Calvin, Inst., I.13.5
“[Regarding the above passage quoted from the Institutes] how often since Calvin has the
Church had bitter cause to repeat them! When we read, for example, William Chillingworth's
subtle pleas for the use of Scriptural language only in matters of faith; his eloquent asseverations
- "The Bible, I say, the Bible only is the religion of Protestants"; his loud railing at "the vain
conceit, that we can speak of the things of God better than in the words of God," "thus deifying
our own interpretations and tyrannously enforcing them upon others" - we know what it all
means: that under this cloak of charity are to lie hidden a multitude of sins. When we hear Calvin
refusing to swear in the words of another, we must not confuse his defense of personal right with
a latitudinarianism like Chillingworth's. If he said, It is the Word of God, not the word of
Athanasius, to which I submit my judgment, he said equally, The sense of Scripture, not its
words, is Scripture. No ambiguous meanings should be permitted to hide behind a mere
repetition of the simple words of Scripture, but all that the Scripture teaches shall be clearly and
without equivocation brought out and given expression in the least indeterminate language.” –
B.B. Warfield, Calvin’s Doctrine of the Trinity
Drew Johnson
What Faith Requires Us to Believe
“Three truths must be known about the divinity: first the unity of the divine essence, secondly
the Trinity of persons, and thirdly the effects wrought by the divinity.” – Aquinas, Compendium
of Theology, I.2
“It was necessary for man's salvation that there should be a knowledge revealed by God besides
philosophical science built up by human reason. Firstly, indeed, because man is directed to God,
as to an end that surpasses the grasp of his reason: "The eye hath not seen, O God, besides Thee,
what things Thou hast prepared for them that wait for Thee" (Isaiah 64:4). But the end must first
be known by men who are to direct their thoughts and actions to the end. Hence it was necessary
for the salvation of man that certain truths which exceed human reason should be made known to
him by divine revelation. Even as regards those truths about God which human reason could
have discovered, it was necessary that man should be taught by a divine revelation; because the
truth about God such as reason could discover, would only be known by a few, and that after a
long time, and with the admixture of many errors. Whereas man's whole salvation, which is in
God, depends upon the knowledge of this truth. Therefore, in order that the salvation of men
might be brought about more fitly and more surely, it was necessary that they should be taught
divine truths by divine revelation. It was therefore necessary that besides philosophical science
built up by reason, there should be a sacred science learned through revelation.” – Aquinas, ST Ia
Q. 1, art. 1, resp.
“Accordingly if we consider, in faith, the formal aspect of the object, it is nothing else than the
First Truth. For the faith of which we are speaking, does not assent to anything, except because it
is revealed by God. Hence the mean on which faith is based is the Divine Truth. If, however, we
consider materially the things to which faith assents, they include not only God, but also many
other things, which, nevertheless, do not come under the assent of faith, except as bearing some
relation to God, in as much as, to wit, through certain effects of the Divine operation, man is
helped on his journey towards the enjoyment of God. Consequently from this point of view also
the object of faith is, in a way, the First Truth, in as much as nothing comes under faith except in
relation to God, even as the object of the medical art is health, for it considers nothing save in
relation to health.” – Aquinas, ST IIaIIae Q. 1, art. 1, resp.
“Things concerning Christ's human nature, and the sacraments of the Church, or any creatures
whatever, come under faith, in so far as by them we are directed to God, and in as much as we
assent to them on account of the Divine Truth.” – Aquinas, ST IIaIIae Q. 1, art. 1, ad 1
“The articles of faith stand in the same relation to the doctrine of faith, as self-evident principles
to a teaching based on natural reason. Among these principles there is a certain order, so that
some are contained implicitly in others; thus all principles are reduced, as to their first principle,
to this one: "The same thing cannot be affirmed and denied at the same time," as the Philosopher
states (Metaph. iv, text. 9). On like manner all the articles are contained implicitly in certain
primary matters of faith, such as God's existence, and His providence over the salvation of man,
according to Hebrews 11: "He that cometh to God, must believe that He is, and is a rewarder to
them that seek Him." For the existence of God includes all that we believe to exist in God
Drew Johnson
eternally, and in these our happiness consists; while belief in His providence includes all those
things which God dispenses in time, for man's salvation, and which are the way to that
happiness: and in this way, again, some of those articles which follow from these are contained
in others: thus faith in the Redemption of mankind includes belief in the Incarnation of Christ,
His Passion and so forth.” – Aquinas, ST IIaIIae Q. 1, art. 7, resp.
“As stated above (4,6), to faith those things in themselves belong, the sight of which we shall
enjoy in eternal life, and by which we are brought to eternal life. Now two things are proposed to
us to be seen in eternal life: viz. the secret of the Godhead, to see which is to possess happiness;
and the mystery of Christ's Incarnation, "by Whom we have access" to the glory of the sons of
God, according to Romans 5:2. Hence it is written (John 17:3): "This is eternal life: that they
may know Thee, the . . . true God, and Jesus Christ Whom Thou hast sent." Wherefore the first
distinction in matters of faith is that some concern the majesty of the Godhead, while others
pertain to the mystery of Christ's human nature, which is the "mystery of godliness" (1 Timothy
3:16). Now with regard to the majesty of the Godhead, three things are proposed to our belief:
first, the unity of the Godhead, to which the first article refers; secondly, the trinity of the
Persons, to which three articles refer, corresponding to the three Persons; and thirdly, the works
proper to the Godhead, the first of which refers to the order of nature, in relation to which the
article about the creation is proposed to us; the second refers to the order of grace, in relation to
which all matters concerning the sanctification of man are included in one article; while the third
refers to the order of glory, and in relation to this another article is proposed to us concerning the
resurrection of the dead and life everlasting. Thus there are seven articles referring to the
Godhead. In like manner, with regard to Christ's human nature, there are seven articles, the first
of which refers to Christ's incarnation or conception; the second, to His virginal birth; the third,
to His Passion, death and burial; the fourth, to His descent into hell; the fifth, to His resurrection;
the sixth, to His ascension; the seventh, to His coming for the judgment, so that in all there are
fourteen articles. Some, however, distinguish twelve articles, six pertaining to the Godhead, and
six to the humanity. For they include in one article the three about the three Persons; because we
have one knowledge of the three Persons: while they divide the article referring to the work of
glorification into two, viz. the resurrection of the body, and the glory of the soul. Likewise they
unite the conception and nativity into one article.” – Aquinas, ST IIaIIae Q. 1, art. 8, resp.
“Two things may be considered in the sacrament of the Eucharist. One is the fact that it is a
sacrament, and in this respect it is like the other effects of sanctifying grace. The other is that
Christ's body is miraculously contained therein and thus it is included under God's omnipotence,
like all other miracles which are ascribed to God's almighty power.” – Aquinas, ST IIaIIae Q. 1,
art. 8, ad 6
Drew Johnson
The Necessity of Grace
“Augustine says (De Haeres. lxxxviii) that it is part of the Pelagian heresy that ‘they believe that
without grace man can fulfil all the Divine commandments.’" – Aquinas, ST IaIIae Q. 109, art. 4,
sed contra
“Acts conducing to an end must be proportioned to the end. But no act exceeds the proportion of
its active principle; and hence we see in natural things, that nothing can by its operation bring
about an effect which exceeds its active force, but only such as is proportionate to its power.
Now everlasting life is an end exceeding the proportion of human nature, as is clear from what
we have said above (Question 5, Article 5). Hence man, by his natural endowments, cannot
produce meritorious works proportionate to everlasting life; and for this a higher force is needed,
viz. the force of grace. And thus without grace man cannot merit everlasting life; yet he can
perform works conducing to a good which is natural to man, as "to toil in the fields, to drink, to
eat, or to have friends," and the like, as Augustine says in his third Reply to the Pelagians
[Hypognosticon iii, among the spurious works of St. Augustine].” – Aquinas, ST IaIIae Q. 109,
art. 5, resp.
“In the state of corrupted nature man cannot fulfill all the Divine commandments without healing
grace.” – Aquinas, ST IaIIae Q. 109, art. 4, resp.
“It is clear that man cannot prepare himself to receive the light of grace except by the gratuitous
help of God moving him inwardly.” – Aquinas, ST IaIIae Q. 109, art. 6, resp.
“Man's turning to God is by free-will; and thus man is bidden to turn himself to God. But free-
will can only be turned to God, when God turns it, according to Jeremiah 31:18: "Convert me
and I shall be converted, for Thou art the Lord, my God"; and Lamentations 5:21: "Convert us, O
Lord, to Thee, and we shall be converted."” – Aquinas, ST IaIIae Q. 109, art. 6, ad 1
“Man by himself can no wise rise from sin without the help of grace.” – Aquinas, ST IaIIae Q.
109, art. 7, resp.
“The gift of habitual grace is not therefore given to us that we may no longer need the Divine
help; for every creature needs to be preserved in the good received from Him. Hence if after
having received grace man still needs the Divine help, it cannot be concluded that grace is given
to no purpose, or that it is imperfect, since man will need the Divine help even in the state of
glory, when grace shall be fully perfected. But here grace is to some extent imperfect, inasmuch
as it does not completely heal man, as stated above.” – Aquinas, ST IaIIae Q. 109, art. 9, ad 1
“As was said above (I, 60, 5), where the various opinions concerning the natural love of the
angels were set forth, man in a state of perfect nature, could by his natural power, do the good
natural to him without the addition of any gratuitous gift, though not without the help of God
moving him. Now to love God above all things is natural to man and to every nature, not only
rational but irrational, and even to inanimate nature according to the manner of love which can
belong to each creature. And the reason of this is that it is natural to all to seek and love things
Drew Johnson
according as they are naturally fit (to be sought and loved) since "all things act according as they
are naturally fit" as stated in Phys. ii, 8. Now it is manifest that the good of the part is for the
good of the whole; hence everything, by its natural appetite and love, loves its own proper good
on account of the common good of the whole universe, which is God. Hence Dionysius says
(Div. Nom. iv) that "God leads everything to love of Himself." Hence in the state of perfect
nature man referred the love of himself and of all other things to the love of God as to its end;
and thus he loved God more than himself and above all things. But in the state of corrupt nature
man falls short of this in the appetite of his rational will, which, unless it is cured by God's grace,
follows its private good, on account of the corruption of nature. And hence we must say that in
the state of perfect nature man did not need the gift of grace added to his natural endowments, in
order to love God above all things naturally, although he needed God's help to move him to it;
but in the state of corrupt nature man needs, even for this, the help of grace to heal his nature.” –
Aquinas, ST IaIIae Q. 109, art. 3, resp.
“Charity loves God above all things in a higher way than nature does. For nature loves God
above all things inasmuch as He is the beginning and the end of natural good; whereas charity
loves Him, as He is the object of beatitude, and inasmuch as man has a spiritual fellowship with
God. Moreover charity adds to natural love of God a certain quickness and joy, in the same way
that every habit of virtue adds to the good act which is done merely by the natural reason of a
man who has not the habit of virtue.” – Aquinas, ST IaIIae Q. 109, art. 3, ad 1
“Because movement is named after its term "whereto" rather than from its term "whence," the
transmutation whereby anyone is changed by the remission of sins from the state of ungodliness
to the state of justice, borrows its name from its term "whereto," and is called "justification of the
ungodly."” – Aquinas, ST IaIIae Q. 113, art. 1, resp.
“By sinning a man offends God as stated above (Question 71, Article 5). Now an offense is
remitted to anyone, only when the soul of the offender is at peace with the offended. Hence sin is
remitted to us, when God is at peace with us, and this peace consists in the love whereby God
loves us. Now God's love, considered on the part of the Divine act, is eternal and unchangeable;
whereas, as regards the effect it imprints on us, it is sometimes interrupted, inasmuch as we
sometimes fall short of it and once more require it. Now the effect of the Divine love in us,
which is taken away by sin, is grace, whereby a man is made worthy of eternal life, from which
sin shuts him out. Hence we could not conceive the remission of guilt, without the infusion of
grace.” – Aquinas, ST IaIIae Q. 113, art. 2, resp.
“The justification of the ungodly is caused by the justifying grace of the Holy Spirit. Now the
Holy Spirit comes to men's minds suddenly, according to Acts 2:2: "And suddenly there came a
sound from heaven as of a mighty wind coming," upon which the gloss says that "the grace of
the Holy Ghost knows no tardy efforts." Hence the justification of the ungodly is not successive,
but instantaneous.” – Aquinas, ST IaIIae Q. 113, art. 7, sed contra
“The authority of Augustine suffices (Contra Faust. xxii, 27) [viz., that sin is fittingly defined as
a word, deed, or desire contrary to the eternal law].” – Aquinas, ST IaIIae Q. 71, art. 6, sed
contra
Drew Johnson
“All sins agree on the part of aversion and privation of grace.” – Aquinas, ST IaIIae Q. 86, art. 1,
obj. 3
“Now man's soul has a twofold comeliness; one from the refulgence of the natural light of
reason, whereby he is directed in his actions; the other, from the refulgence of the Divine light,
viz. of wisdom and grace, whereby man is also perfected for the purpose of doing good and
fitting actions. Now, when the soul cleaves to things by love, there is a kind of contact in the
soul: and when man sins, he cleaves to certain things, against the light of reason and of the
Divine law, as shown above (Question 71, Article 6). Wherefore the loss of comeliness
occasioned by this contact, is metaphorically called a stain on the soul.” – Aquinas, ST IaIIae Q.
86, art. 1, resp.
“Nothing positive remains in the soul after the act of sin, except the disposition or habit; but
there does remain something private, viz. the privation of union with the Divine light.” –
Aquinas, ST IaIIae Q. 86, art. 2, ad 1
“Every mortal sin is contrary to charity, which is the root of all the infused virtues, as virtues;
and consequently, charity being banished by one act of mortal sin, it follows that all the infused
virtues are expelled "as virtues." And I say on account of faith and hope, whose habits remain
unquickened after mortal sin, so that they are no longer virtues. On the other hand, since venial
sin is neither contrary to charity, nor banishes it, as a consequence, neither does it expel the other
virtues. As to the acquired virtues, they are not destroyed by one act of any kind of sin.
Accordingly, mortal sin is incompatible with the infused virtues, but is consistent with acquired
virtue: while venial sin is compatible with virtues, whether infused or acquired.” – Aquinas, ST
IaIIae Q. 71, art. 4, resp.
“In mortal sin the soul comes into contact with a temporal thing as its end, so that the shedding
of the light of grace, which accrues to those who, by charity, cleave to God as their last end, is
entirely cut off. On the contrary, in venial sin, man does not cleave to a creature as his last end:
hence there is no comparison.” – Aquinas, ST IaIIae Q. 89, art. 1, ad 3
“Properly speaking, venial sin does not cause a stain in the soul.” – Aquinas, ST IaIIae Q. 89, art.
1, resp.
Drew Johnson
The Necessity of the Sacraments as Means of Grace
“Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix): "It is impossible to keep men together in one religious
denomination, whether true or false, except they be united by means of visible signs or
sacraments." But it is necessary for salvation that men be united together in the name of the one
true religion. Therefore sacraments are necessary for man's salvation.” – Aquinas, ST IIIa Q. 61,
art. 1, sed contra
“Sacraments are necessary unto man's salvation for three reasons. The first is taken from the
condition of human nature which is such that it has to be led by things corporeal and sensible to
things spiritual and intelligible. Now it belongs to Divine providence to provide for each one
according as its condition requires. Divine wisdom, therefore, fittingly provides man with means
of salvation, in the shape of corporeal and sensible signs that are called sacraments. The second
reason is taken from the state of man who in sinning subjected himself by his affections to
corporeal things. Now the healing remedy should be given to a man so as to reach the part
affected by disease. Consequently it was fitting that God should provide man with a spiritual
medicine by means of certain corporeal signs; for if man were offered spiritual things without a
veil, his mind being taken up with the material world would be unable to apply itself to them.
The third reason is taken from the fact that man is prone to direct his activity chiefly towards
material things. Lest, therefore, it should be too hard for man to be drawn away entirely from
bodily actions, bodily exercise was offered to him in the sacraments, by which he might be
trained to avoid superstitious practices, consisting in the worship of demons, and all manner of
harmful action, consisting in sinful deeds. It follows, therefore, that through the institution of the
sacraments man, consistently with his nature, is instructed through sensible things; he is
humbled, through confessing that he is subject to corporeal things, seeing that he receives
assistance through them: and he is even preserved from bodily hurt, by the healthy exercise of
the sacraments.” – Aquinas, ST IIIa Q. 61, art. 1, resp.
“As Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. v), the state of the New Law. is between the state of the Old
Law, whose figures are fulfilled in the New, and the state of glory, in which all truth will be
openly and perfectly revealed. Wherefore then there will be no sacraments. But now, so long as
we know "through a glass in a dark manner," (1 Corinthians 13:12) we need sensible signs in
order to reach spiritual things: and this is the province of the sacraments.” – Aquinas, ST IIIa Q.
61, art. 4, ad 1
“Signs are given to men, to whom it is proper to discover the unknown by means of the known.
Consequently a sacrament properly so called is that which is the sign of some sacred thing
pertaining to man; so that properly speaking a sacrament, as considered by us now, is defined as
being the "sign of a holy thing so far as it makes men holy."” – Aquinas, ST IIIa Q. 60, art. 2,
resp.
“As stated above (Article 2) a sacrament properly speaking is that which is ordained to signify
our sanctification. In which three things may be considered; viz. the very cause of our
sanctification, which is Christ's passion; the form of our sanctification, which is grace and the
virtues; and the ultimate end of our sanctification, which is eternal life. And all these are
Drew Johnson
signified by the sacraments. Consequently a sacrament is a sign that is both a reminder of the
past, i.e. the passion of Christ; and an indication of that which is effected in us by Christ's
passion, i.e. grace; and a prognostic, that is, a foretelling of future glory.” – Aquinas, ST IIIa Q.
60, art. 3, resp.
“We must needs say that in some way the sacraments of the New Law cause grace. For it is
evident that through the sacraments of the New Law man is incorporated with Christ: thus the
Apostle says of Baptism (Galatians 3:27): "As many of you as have been baptized in Christ have
put on Christ." And man is made a member of Christ through grace alone. Some, however, say
that they are the cause of grace not by their own operation, but in so far as God causes grace in
the soul when the sacraments are employed. And they give as an example a man who on
presenting a leaden coin, receives, by the king's command, a hundred pounds: not as though the
leaden coin, by any operation of its own, caused him to be given that sum of money; this being
the effect of the mere will of the king. Hence Bernard says in a sermon on the Lord's Supper:
"Just as a canon is invested by means of a book, an abbot by means of a crozier, a bishop by
means of a ring, so by the various sacraments various kinds of grace are conferred." But if we
examine the question properly, we shall see that according to the above mode the sacraments are
mere signs. For the leaden coin is nothing but a sign of the king's command that this man should
receive money. In like manner the book is a sign of the conferring of a canonry. Hence,
according to this opinion the sacraments of the New Law would be mere signs of grace; whereas
we have it on the authority of many saints that the sacraments of the New Law not only signify,
but also cause grace. We must therefore say otherwise, that an efficient cause is twofold,
principal and instrumental. The principal cause works by the power of its form, to which form
the effect is likened; just as fire by its own heat makes something hot. In this way none but God
can cause grace: since grace is nothing else than a participated likeness of the Divine Nature,
according to 2 Peter 1:4: "He hath given us most great and precious promises; that we may be
[Vulgate: 'you may be made'] partakers of the Divine Nature." But the instrumental cause works
not by the power of its form, but only by the motion whereby it is moved by the principal agent:
so that the effect is not likened to the instrument but to the principal agent: for instance, the
couch is not like the axe, but like the art which is in the craftsman'smind. And it is thus that the
sacraments of the New Law cause grace: for they are instituted by God to be employed for the
purpose of conferring grace. Hence Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix): "All these things," viz.
pertaining to the sacraments, "are done and pass away, but the power," viz. of God, "which
works by them, remains ever." Now that is, properly speaking, an instrument by which someone
works: wherefore it is written (Titus 3:5): "He saved us by the laver of regeneration."” –
Aquinas, ST IIIa Q. 62, art. 1, resp.
“The institutor of anything is he who gives it strength and power: as in the case of those who
institute laws. But the power of a sacrament is from God alone, as we have shown above (1; 62,
1). Therefore God alone can institute a sacrament.” – Aquinas, ST IIIa Q. 64, art. 2, sed contra
“As the Apostle says (Romans 6:3), "all we, who are baptized in Christ Jesus, are baptized in His
death." And further on he concludes (Romans 6:11): "So do you also reckon that you are dead to
sin, but alive unto God in Christ Jesus our Lord." Hence it is clear that by Baptism man dies unto
the oldness of sin, and begins to live unto the newness of grace. But every sin belongs to the
Drew Johnson
primitive oldness. Consequently every sin is taken away by Baptism.” – Aquinas, ST IIIa Q. 69,
art. 1, resp.
“It seems that sanctifying grace is not bestowed in this sacrament. For sanctifying grace is
ordained against sin. But this sacrament, as stated above (Article 6) is given only to the baptized,
who are cleansed from sin. Therefore sanctifying grace is not bestowed in this sacrament.” –
Aquinas, ST IIIa Q. 72, art. 7, obj. 1
“Sanctifying grace does indeed take away sin; but it has other effects also, because it suffices to
carry man through every step as far as eternal life. Hence to Paul was it said (2 Corinthians
12:9): "My grace is sufficient for thee": and he says of himself (1 Corinthians 15:10): "By the
grace of God I am what I am." Therefore sanctifying grace is given not only for the remission of
sin, but also for growth and stability in righteousness. And thus is it bestowed in this sacrament
[i.e., Confirmation].” – Aquinas, ST IIIa Q. 72, art. 7, ad 1
“Our Lord says (John 6:52): "The bread which I will give, is My flesh for the life of the world."
But the spiritual life is the effect of grace. Therefore grace is bestowed through this sacrament.”
– Aquinas, ST IIIa Q. 79, art. 1, sed contra
“This sacrament confers grace spiritually together with the virtue of charity. Hence Damascene
(De Fide Orth. iv) compares this sacrament to the burning coal which Isaias saw (Isaiah 6:6):
"For a live ember is not simply wood, but wood united to fire; so also the bread of communion is
not simple bread but bread united with the Godhead." But as Gregory observes in a Homily for
Pentecost, "God's love is never idle; for, wherever it is it does great works." And consequently
through this sacrament, as far as its power is concerned, not only is the habit of grace and of
virtue bestowed, but it is furthermore aroused to act, according to 2 Corinthians 5:14: "The
charity of Christ presseth us." Hence it is that the soul is spiritually nourished through the power
of this sacrament, by being spiritually gladdened, and as it were inebriated with the sweetness of
the Divine goodness, according to Canticles 5:1: "Eat, O friends, and drink, and be inebriated,
my dearly beloved."” – Aquinas, ST IIIa Q. 79, art. 1, ad 2
“The Church's sacraments are ordained for helping man in the spiritual life. But the spiritual life
is analogous to the corporeal, since corporeal things bear a resemblance to spiritual. Now it is
clear that just as generation is required for corporeal life, since thereby man receives life; and
growth, whereby man is brought to maturity: so likewise food is required for the preservation of
life. Consequently, just as for the spiritual life there had to be Baptism, which is spiritual
generation; and Confirmation, which is spiritual growth: so there needed to be the sacrament of
the Eucharist, which is spiritual food.” – Aquinas, ST IIIa Q. 73, art. 1, resp.
Drew Johnson
The Difference between the Old Law and the New Law
“The Apostle calls the sacraments of the Old Law "weak and needy elements" (Galatians 4:9)
because they neither contained nor caused grace. Hence the Apostle says that those who used
these sacraments served God "under the elements of this world": for the very reason that these
sacraments were nothing else than the elements of this world. But our sacraments both contain
and cause grace: consequently the comparison does not hold.” – Aquinas, ST IIIa Q. 61, art. 4,
ad 2
“Although the grace of the New Testament helps man to avoid sin, yet it does not so confirm
man in good that he cannot sin: for this belongs to the state of glory. Hence if a man sin after
receiving the grace of the New Testament, he deserves greater punishment, as being ungrateful
for greater benefits, and as not using the help given to him. And this is why the New Law is not
said to "work wrath": because as far as it is concerned it gives man sufficient help to avoid sin.”
– Aquinas, ST IaIIae Q. 106, art. 2, ad 2
“As stated above (Article 1), there is a twofold element in the Law of the Gospel. There is the
chief element, viz. the grace of the Holy Ghost bestowed inwardly. And as to this, the New Law
justifies. Hence Augustine says (De Spir. et Lit. xvii): "There," i.e. in the Old Testament, "the
Law was set forth in an outward fashion, that the ungodly might be afraid"; "here," i.e. in the
New Testament, "it is given in an inward manner, that they may be justified." The other element
of the Evangelical Law is secondary: namely, the teachings of faith, and those commandments
which direct human affections and human actions. And as to this, the New Law does not justify.
Hence the Apostle says (2 Corinthians 3:6) "The letter killeth, but the spirit quickeneth": and
Augustine explains this (De Spir. et Lit. xiv, xvii) by saying that the letter denotes any writing
external to man, even that of the moral precepts such as are contained in the Gospel. Wherefore
the letter, even of the Gospel would kill, unless there were the inward presence of the healing
grace of faith.” – Aquinas, ST IaIIae Q. 106, art. 2, resp.
“The same God gave both the New and the Old Law, but in different ways. For He gave the Old
Law written on tables of stone: whereas He gave the New Law written "in the fleshly tables of
the heart," as the Apostle expresses it (2 Corinthians 3:3). Wherefore, as Augustine says (De
Spir. et Lit. xviii), "the Apostle calls this letter which is written outside man, a ministration of
death and a ministration of condemnation: whereas he calls the other letter, i.e. the Law of the
New Testament, the ministration of the spirit and the ministration of justice: because through the
gift of the Spirit we work justice, and are delivered from the condemnation due to
transgression."” – Aquinas, ST IaIIae Q. 106, art. 2, ad 3
“As stated above (Article 1), the New Law is compared to the Old as the perfect to the imperfect.
Now everything perfect fulfils that which is lacking in the imperfect. And accordingly the New
Law fulfils the Old by supplying that which was lacking in the Old Law. Now two things of
every law is to make men righteous and virtuous, as was stated above (Question 92, Article 1):
and consequently the end of the Old Law was the justification of men. The Law, however, could
not accomplish this: but foreshadowed it by certain ceremonial actions, and promised it in words.
And in this respect, the New Law fulfils the Old by justifying men through the power of Christ's
Drew Johnson
Passion. This is what the Apostle says (Romans 8:3-4): "What the Law could not do . . . God
sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh . . . hath condemned sin in the flesh, that the
justification of the Law might be fulfilled in us." And in this respect, the New Law gives what
the Old Law promised, according to 2 Corinthians 1:20: "Whatever are the promises of God, in
Him," i.e. in Christ, "they are 'Yea'." [The Douay version reads thus: "All the promises of God
are in Him, 'It is'."] Again, in this respect, it also fulfils what the Old Law foreshadowed. Hence
it is written (Colossians 2:17) concerning the ceremonial precepts that they were "a shadow of
things to come, but the body is of Christ"; in other words, the reality is found in Christ.
Wherefore the New Law is called the law of reality; whereas the Old Law is called the law of
shadow or of figure. Now Christ fulfilled the precepts of the Old Law both in His works and in
His doctrine. In His works, because He was willing to be circumcised and to fulfil the other legal
observances, which were binding for the time being; according to Galatians 4:4: "Made under the
Law." In His doctrine He fulfilled the precepts of the Law in three ways. First, by explaining the
true sense of the Law. This is clear in the case of murder and adultery, the prohibition of which
the Scribes and Pharisees thought to refer only to the exterior act: wherefore Our Lord fulfilled
the Law by showing that the prohibition extended also to the interior acts of sins. Secondly, Our
Lord fulfilled the precepts of the Law by prescribing the safest way of complying with the
statutes of the Old Law. Thus the Old Law forbade perjury: and this is more safely avoided, by
abstaining altogether from swearing, save in cases of urgency. Thirdly, Our Lord fulfilled the
precepts of the Law, by adding some counsels of perfection: this is clearly seen in Matthew
19:21, where Our Lord said to the man who affirmed that he had kept all the precepts of the Old
Law: "One thing is wanting to thee: If thou wilt be perfect, go, sell whatsoever thou hast," etc.
[St. Thomas combines Matthew 19:21 with Mark 10:21.” – Aquinas, ST IaIIae Q. 107, art. 2,
resp.
“The New Law does not void observance of the Old Law except in the point of ceremonial
precepts, as stated above (13, 3,4). Now the latter were figurative of something to come.
Wherefore from the very fact that the ceremonial precepts were fulfilled when those things were
accomplished which they foreshadowed, it follows that they are no longer to be observed: for it
they were to be observed, this would mean that something is still to be accomplished and is not
yet fulfilled. Thus the promise of a future gift holds no longer when it has been fulfilled by the
presentation of the gift. In this way the legal ceremonies are abolished by being fulfilled.” –
Aquinas, ST IaIIae Q. 107, art. 2, ad 1
“It is written (Matthew 16:19): ‘To thee will I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ Further,
every dispenser should have the keys of the things that he dispenses. But the ministers of the
Church are the ‘dispensers of the divine mysteries’ (1 Corinthians 4:1). Therefore they ought to
have the keys." – Aquinas, ST Suppl. Q. 17, art. 1, sed contra
“In material things a key is an instrument for opening a door. Now the door of the kingdom is
closed to us through sin, both as to the stain and as to the debt of punishment. Wherefore the
power of removing this obstacle is called a key. Now this power is in the Divine Trinity by
authority; hence some say that God has the key of ‘authority.’ But Christ Man had the power to
remove the above obstacle, through the merit of His Passion, which also is said to open the door;
hence some say that He has the keys of "excellence." And since ‘the sacraments of which the
Church is built, flowed from the side of Christ while He lay asleep on the cross’ [Augustine,
Drew Johnson
Enarr. in Ps. 138], the efficacy of the Passion abides in the sacraments of the Church. Wherefore
a certain power for the removal of the aforesaid obstacle is bestowed on the ministers of the
Church, who are the dispensers of the sacraments, not by their own, but by a Divine power and
by the Passion of Christ. This power is called metaphorically the Church's key, and is the key of
‘ministry.’” – Aquinas, ST Suppl. Q. 17, art. 1, resp.
“God has not bestowed on the minister the power to co-operate with Him in the inward
cleansing. Now if he remitted sins as to the guilt, he would co-operate with God in the inward
cleansing. Therefore the power of the keys does not extend to the remission of guilt. Further, sin
is not remitted save by the Holy Ghost. But no man has the power to give the Holy Ghost, as the
Master said above (Sent. i, D, 14). Neither therefore can he remit sins as to their guilt.” –
Aquinas, ST Suppl. Q. 18, art. 1, sed contra
“According to Hugh (De Sacram. ii), "the sacraments, by virtue of their sanctification, contain an
invisible grace." Now this sanctification is sometimes essential to the sacrament both as regards
the matter and as regards the minister, as may be seen in Confirmation, and then the sacramental
virtue is in both together. Sometimes, however, the essence of the sacrament requires only
sanctification of the matter, as in Baptism, which has no fixed minister on whom it depends
necessarily, and then the whole virtue of the sacrament is in the matter. Again, sometimes the
essence of the sacrament requires the consecration or sanctification of the minister without any
sanctification of the matter, and then the entire sacramental virtue is in the minister, as in
Penance. Hence the power of the keys which is in the priest, stands in the same relation to the
effect of Penance, as the virtue in the baptismal water does to the effect of Baptism. Now
Baptism and the sacrament of Penance agree somewhat in their effect, since each is directly
ordained against guilt, which is not the case in the other sacraments: yet they differ in this, that
the sacrament of Penance, since the acts of the recipient are as its matter, cannot be given save to
adults, who need to be disposed for the reception of the sacramental effect; whereas Baptism is
given, sometimes to adults, sometimes to children and others who lack the use of reason, so that
by Baptism children receive grace and remission of sin without any previous disposition, while
adults do not, for they require to be disposed by the removal of insincerity. This disposition
sometimes precedes their Baptism by priority of time, being sufficient for the reception of grace,
before they are actually baptized, but not before they have come to the knowledge of the truth
and have conceived the desire for Baptism. At other times this disposition does not precede the
reception of Baptism by a priority of time, but is simultaneous with it, and then the grace of the
remission of guilt is bestowed through the reception of Baptism. On the other hand, grace is
never given through the sacrament of Penance unless the recipient be disposed either
simultaneously or before. Hence the power of the keys operates unto the remission of guilt,
either through being desired or through being actually exercised, even as the waters of Baptism.
But just as Baptism acts, not as a principal agent but as an instrument, and does not go so far as
to cause the reception itself of grace, even instrumentally [See note at beginning of this article],
but merely disposes the recipient to the grace whereby his guilt is remitted, so is it with the
power of the keys. Wherefore God alone directly remits guilt, and Baptism acts through His
power instrumentally, as an inanimate instrument, and the priest as an animate instrument, such
as a servant is, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. viii, 11): and consequently the priest acts as
a minister. Hence it is clear that the power of the keys is ordained, in a manner, to the remission
of guilt, not as causing that remission, but as disposing thereto. Consequently if a man, before
Drew Johnson
receiving absolution, were not perfectly disposed for the reception of grace, he would receive
grace at the very time of sacramental confession and absolution, provided he offered no obstacle.
For if the key were in no way ordained to the remission of guilt, but only to the remission of
punishment, as some hold, it would not be necessary to have a desire of receiving the effect of
the keys in order to have one's sins forgiven, just as it is not necessary to have a desire of
receiving the other sacraments which are ordained, not to the remission of guilt, but against
punishment. But this enables us to see that it is not ordained unto the remission of guilt, because
the use of the keys, in order to be effective, always requires a disposition on the part of the
recipient of the sacrament. And the same would apply to Baptism, were it never given save to
adults.” – Aquinas, ST Suppl. Q. 18, art. 1, resp.
“The power of forgiving sins was entrusted to priests, not that they may forgive them, by their
own power, for this belongs to God, but that, as ministers, they may declare the operation of God
Who forgives.” – Aquinas, ST Suppl. Q. 18, art. 1, ad 1
“The act of the keys…does not altogether depend on the priest's judgment.” – Aquinas, ST
Suppl. Q. 18, art. 4, sed contra
“In using the keys, the priest acts as the instrument and minister of God. Now no instrument can
have an efficacious act, except in so far as it is moved by the principal agent.” – Aquinas, ST
Suppl. Q. 18, art. 4, resp.
“Moreover, we say that Christ hath given to His ministers power to bind, to loose, to open, to
shut. And that the office of loosing consisteth in this point: that the minister should either offer
by the preaching of the Gospel the merits of Christ and full pardon, to such as have lowly and
contrite hearts, and do unfeignedly repent themselves, pronouncing unto the same a sure and
undoubted forgiveness of their sins, and hope of everlasting salvation: or else that the same
minister, when any have offended their brothers' minds with a great offence, with a notable and
open fault, whereby they have, as it were, banished and made themselves strangers from the
common fellowship, and from the body of Christ; then after perfect amendment of such persons,
doth reconcile them, and bring them home again, and restore them to the company and unity of
the faithful. We say also, that the minister doth execute the authority of binding and shutting, as
often as he shutteth up the gate of the kingdom of heaven against the unbelieving and stubborn
persons, denouncing unto them God's vengeance, and everlasting punishment: or else, when he
doth quite shut them out from the bosom of the Church by open excommunication. Out of doubt,
what sentence soever the minister of God shall give in this sort, God Himself doth so well allow
of it, that whatsoever here in earth by their means is loosed and bound, God Himself will loose
and bind, and confirm the same in heaven.” – John Jewel, Apology of the Church of England,
Part 2
Drew Johnson
Theories of the Actual Presence (I): Transubstantiation (Total Substantial Presence)
“Hilary says (De Trin. viii): "There is no room for doubt regarding the truth of Christ's body and
blood; for now by our Lord's own declaring and by our faith His flesh is truly food, and His
blood is truly drink." And Ambrose says (De Sacram. vi): "As the Lord Jesus Christ is God's true
Son so is it Christ's true flesh which we take, and His true blood which we drink."” – Aquinas,
ST IIIa Q. 75, art. 1, sed contra
“The presence of Christ's true body and blood in this sacrament cannot be detected by sense, nor
understanding, but by faith alone, which rests upon Divine authority. Hence, on Luke 22:19:
"This is My body which shall be delivered up for you," Cyril says: "Doubt not whether this be
true; but take rather the Saviour's words with faith; for since He is the Truth, He lieth not." Now
this is suitable, first for the perfection of the New Law. For, the sacrifices of the Old Law
contained only in figure that true sacrifice of Christ's Passion, according to Hebrews 10:1: "For
the law having a shadow of the good things to come, not the very image of the things." And
therefore it was necessary that the sacrifice of the New Law instituted by Christ should have
something more, namely, that it should contain Christ Himself crucified, not merely in
signification or figure, but also in very truth. And therefore this sacrament which contains Christ
Himself, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii), is perfective of all the other sacraments, in which
Christ's virtue is participated. Secondly, this belongs to Christ's love, out of which for our
salvation He assumed a true body of our nature. And because it is the special feature of
friendship to live together with friends, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. ix), He promises us His
bodily presence as a reward, saying (Matthew 24:28): "Where the body is, there shall the eagles
be gathered together." Yet meanwhile in our pilgrimage He does not deprive us of His bodily
presence; but unites us with Himself in this sacrament through the truth of His body and blood.
Hence (John 6:57) he says: "He that eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood, abideth in Me, and
I in him." Hence this sacrament is the sign of supreme charity, and the uplifter of our hope, from
such familiar union of Christ with us. Thirdly, it belongs to the perfection of faith, which
concerns His humanity just as it does His Godhead, according to John 14:1: "You believe in
God, believe also in Me." And since faith is of things unseen, as Christ shows us His Godhead
invisibly, so also in this sacrament He shows us His flesh in an invisible manner. Some men
accordingly, not paying heed to these things, have contended that Christ's body and blood are not
in this sacrament except as in a sign, a thing to be rejected as heretical, since it is contrary to
Christ's words. Hence Berengarius, who had been the first deviser of this heresy, was afterwards
forced to withdraw his error, and to acknowledge the truth of the faith.” – Aquinas, ST IIIa Q. 75,
art. 1, resp.
“Some have held that the substance of the bread and wine remains in this sacrament after the
consecration. But this opinion cannot stand: first of all, because by such an opinion the truth of
this sacrament is destroyed, to which it belongs that Christ's true body exists in this sacrament;
which indeed was not there before the consecration. Now a thing cannot be in any place, where it
was not previously, except by change of place, or by the conversion of another thing into itself;
just as fire begins anew to be in some house, either because it is carried thither, or because it is
generated there. Now it is evident that Christ's body does not begin to be present in this
sacrament by local motion. First of all, because it would follow that it would cease to be in
Drew Johnson
heaven: for what is moved locally does not come anew to some place unless it quit the former
one. Secondly, because every body moved locally passes through all intermediary spaces, which
cannot be said here. Thirdly, because it is not possible for one movement of the same body
moved locally to be terminated in different places at the onetime, whereas the body of Christ
under this sacrament begins at the one time to be in several places. And consequently it remains
that Christ's body cannot begin to be anew in this sacrament except by change of the substance of
bread into itself. But what is changed into another thing, no longer remains after such change.
Hence the conclusion is that, saving the truth of this sacrament, the substance of the bread cannot
remain after the consecration. Secondly, because this position is contrary to the form of this
sacrament, in which it is said: "This is My body," which would not be true if the substance of the
bread were to remain there; for the substance of bread never is the body of Christ. Rather should
one say in that case: "Here is My body." Thirdly, because it would be opposed to the veneration
of this sacrament, if any substance were there, which could not be adored with adoration of
latria. Fourthly, because it is contrary to the rite of the Church, according to which it is not
lawful to take the body of Christ after bodily food, while it is nevertheless lawful to take one
consecrated host after another. Hence this opinion is to be avoided as heretical.” – Aquinas, ST
IIIa Q. 75, art. 2, resp.
“Augustine says (83): "God is not the cause of tending to nothing." But this sacrament is
wrought by Divine power. Therefore, in this sacrament the substance of the bread or wine is not
annihilated.” – Aquinas, ST IIIa Q. 75, art. 3 sed contra
“As stated above (Article 2), since Christ's true body is in this sacrament, and since it does not
begin to be there by local motion, nor is it contained therein as in a place, as is evident from what
was stated above (1, ad 2), it must be said then that it begins to be there by conversion of the
substance of bread into itself.” – Aquinas, ST IIIa Q. 75, art. 4, resp.
“It is evident to sense that all the accidents of the bread and wine remain after the consecration.
And this is reasonably done by Divine providence. First of all, because it is not customary, but
horrible, for men to eat human flesh, and to drink blood. And therefore Christ's flesh and blood
are set before us to be partaken of under the species of those things which are the more
commonly used by men, namely, bread and wine. Secondly, lest this sacrament might be derided
by unbelievers, if we were to eat our Lord under His own species. Thirdly, that while we receive
our Lord's body and blood invisibly, this may redound to the merit of faith.” – Aquinas, ST IIIa
Q. 75, art. 5, resp.
“The celebration of this sacrament is called a sacrifice for two reasons. First, because, as
Augustine says (Ad Simplician. ii), "the images of things are called by the names of the things
whereof they are the images; as when we look upon a picture or a fresco, we say, 'This is Cicero
and that is Sallust.'" But, as was said above (Question 79, Article 1), the celebration of this
sacrament is an image representing Christ's Passion, which is His true sacrifice. Accordingly the
celebration of this sacrament is called Christ's sacrifice. Hence it is that Ambrose, in commenting
on Hebrews 10:1, says: "In Christ was offered up a sacrifice capable of giving eternal salvation;
what then do we do? Do we not offer it up every day in memory of His death?" Secondly it is
called a sacrifice, in respect of the effect of His Passion: because, to wit, by this sacrament, we
are made partakers of the fruit of our Lord's Passion. Hence in one of the Sunday Secrets (Ninth
Drew Johnson
Sunday after Pentecost) we say: "Whenever the commemoration of this sacrifice is celebrated,
the work of our redemption is enacted." Consequently, according to the first reason, it is true to
say that Christ was sacrificed, even in the figures of the Old Testament: hence it is stated in the
Apocalypse (13:8): "Whose names are not written in the Book of Life of the Lamb, which was
slain from the beginning of the world." But according to the second reason, it is proper to this
sacrament for Christ to be sacrificed in its celebration.” – Aquinas, ST IIIa Q. 83, art. 1, resp.
“This sacrament is both a sacrifice and a sacrament. It has the nature of a sacrifice inasmuch as it
is offered up; and it has the nature of a sacrament inasmuch as it is received. And therefore it has
the effect of a sacrament in the recipient, and the effect of a sacrifice in the offerer, or in them for
whom it is offered. If, then, it be considered as a sacrament, it produces its effect in two ways:
first of all directly through the power of the sacrament; secondly as by a kind of concomitance,
as was said above regarding what is contained in the sacrament (76, 1,2). Through the power of
the sacrament it produces directly that effect for which it was instituted. Now it was instituted
not for satisfaction, but for nourishing spiritually through union between Christ and His
members, as nourishment is united with the person nourished. But because this union is the
effect of charity, from the fervor of which man obtains forgiveness, not only of guilt but also of
punishment, hence it is that as a consequence, and by concomitance with the chief effect, man
obtains forgiveness of the punishment, not indeed of the entire punishment, but according to the
measure of his devotion and fervor. But in so far as it is a sacrifice, it has a satisfactory power.
Yet in satisfaction, the affection of the offerer is weighed rather than the quantity of the offering.
Hence our Lord says (Mark 12:43; cf. Luke 21:4) of the widow who offered "two mites" that she
"cast in more than all." Therefore, although this offering suffices of its own quantity to satisfy for
all punishment, yet it becomes satisfactory for them for whom it is offered, or even for the
offerers, according to the measure of their devotion, and not for the whole punishment.” –
“This sacrament is called a "Sacrifice" inasmuch as it represents the Passion of Christ; but it is
termed a "Host" inasmuch as it contains Christ, Who is "a host (Douay: 'sacrifice') . . . of
sweetness" (Ephesians 5:2).” – Aquinas, ST IIIa Q. 73, art. 4, ad 3
“When the bread is said to be changed into Christ's body solely by the power of the Holy Ghost,
the instrumental power which lies in the form of this sacrament is not excluded: just as when we
say that the smith alone makes a knife we do not deny the power of the hammer.” – Aquinas, ST
IIIa Q. 78, art. 4, ad 1
“Christ's body always retains the true nature of a body, nor is it ever changed into a spirit.” –
Aquinas, ST IIIa Q. 76, art. 3, obj. 3
“This argument is based on the nature of a body, arising from dimensive quantity. But it was said
above (ad 2) that Christ's body is compared with this sacrament not by reason of dimensive
quantity, but by reason of its substance, as already stated.” - Aquinas, ST IIIa Q. 76, art. 3, ad 3
“Whatever the Father can do, that also can the Son do. But after Incarnation the Father can still
assume a human nature distinct from that which the Son has assumed; for in nothing is the power
of the Father or the Son lessened by Incarnation of the Son. Therefore it seems that after
Drew Johnson
Incarnation the Son can assume another human nature distinct from the one He has assumed.” –
Aquinas, ST IIIa Q. 3, art. 7, sed contra
“What has power for one thing, and no more, has a power limited to one. Now the power of a
Divine Person is infinite, nor can it be limited by any created thing. Hence it may not be said that
a Divine Person so assumed one human nature as to be unable to assume another. For it would
seem to follow from this that the Personality of the Divine Nature was so comprehended by one
human nature as to be unable to assume another to its Personality; and this is impossible, for the
Uncreated cannot be comprehended by any creature. Hence it is plain that, whether we consider
the Divine Person in regard to His power, which is the principle of the union, or in regard to His
Personality, which is the term of the union, it has to be said that the Divine Person, over and
beyond the human nature which He has assumed, can assume another distinct human nature.” –
“The body is the means by which the spirit expresses itself. Though it has been widely held that
our Lord has only one Body, it seems that He has at least two. The Church is His Body, but not
that Body which was crucified and is now exalted to the throne of God. The bread in the
Eucharist becomes the Body of Christ; not His material Body nor His mystical Body (the
Church), but His sacramental Body, the means by which He carries out His purpose of feeding us
spiritually with His own life. We avoid many difficulties if we say that He has more than one
Body, more than one means of expression. This material Body was one means of expression.
The bread at the Last Supper was another. It has always been difficult to explain how the bread
at the Last Supper could be our Lord’s Body if He had only one Body; but if He has more than
one Body, the bread can be held to be His Body in a different sense.” – C.B. Moss, The
Christian Faith, ch. 58 (p. 358)
Drew Johnson
Theories of the Actual Presence (II): Sacramental Union (Substantial Co-Presence)
“As the Lutherans affirm the presence of the substance of Christ’s natural body and blood in the
Lord’s Supper, of that body which was born of the Virgin and suffered on the cross; and as that
body was and is material, it would seem to follow that the presence affirmed is local. It is a
presence in a definite place. The Reformed, therefore, always understood the Lutherans to assert
the local presence of the body of Christ in the Lord’s Supper. The Lutherans, however, deny that
they teach any such presence.” – Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. 3, ch. 20, sec. 18
“We believe, teach, and confess that in the Lord's Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly
and substantially present, and that they are truly distributed and taken together with the bread and
wine…The right hand of God is every where, and that Christ, in respect of his humanity, is truly
and in very deed seated thereat, and therefore as present governs, and has in his hand and under
his feet, as the Scripture saith (Eph. i. 22), all things which are in heaven and on earth. At this
right hand of God no other man, nor even any angel, but the Son of Mary alone, is seated,
whence also he is able to effect those things which we have said…God knows and has in his
power various modes in which he can be any where, and is not confined to that single one which
philosophers are wont to call local or circumscribed…We believe, teach, and confess that the
body and blood of Christ are taken with the bread and wine, not only spiritually through faith,
but also by the mouth, nevertheless not Capernaitically, but after a spiritual and heavenly
manner, by reason of the sacramental union. For to this the words of Christ clearly bear witness,
in which he enjoins us to take, to eat, to drink; and that this was done by the Apostles the
Scripture makes mention, saying (Mark xiv. 23): 'And they all drank of it.' And Paul says: 'The
bread which we break is the communion of the body of Christ;' that is, he that eats this bread eats
the body of Christ. To the same with great consent do the chief of the most ancient doctors of the
Church, Chrysostom, Cyprian, Leo the First, Gregory, Ambrose, Augustine, bear witness.” –
Formula of Concord, Art. VII, Aff. 1, 5-6
“We reject and condemn, by unanimous consent, all the erroneous articles which we will now
recount, as being opposite to the above-stated godly doctrine, to the simplicity of faith, and to the
sound confession concerning the Supper of the Lord: The papistical transubstantiation, when, to
wit, in the Papal Church it is taught that the bread and wine in the holy Supper lose their
substance and natural essence, and are thus annihilated, and those elements so transmuted into
the body of Christ, that, except the outward species, nothing remains of them.” – Formula of
Concord, Art. VII, Contr. 1
“We confess that we believe, that in the Lord's Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and
substantially present, and are truly tendered, with those things which are seen, bread and wine, to
those who receive the Sacrament.” – Philip Melanchthon, Defense of the Augsburg Confession,
Art. 10
Drew Johnson
Theories of the Actual Presence (III): Instrumentalism (Non-Substantial Co-Presence)
“The real presence of Christ’s most blessed body and blood is not therefore to be sought for in
the sacrament, but in the worthy receiver of the sacrament.” – Richard Hooker, Laws of
Ecclesiastical Polity, Bk. V, ch. 67, sec. 6
“It is on all sides plainly confessed, first that this sacrament is a true and real participation of
Christ, who thereby imparteth himself even his whole entire Person as a mystical Head unto
every soul that receiveth him, and that every such receiver doth thereby incorporate or unite
himself unto Christ as a mystical member of him, yea of them also whom he acknowledgeth to be
his own; secondly that to whom the person of Christ is thus communicated, to them he giveth by
the same sacrament his Holy Spirit to sanctify them as it sanctifieth him which is their head.” –
Richard Hooker, Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, Bk. V, ch. 67, sec. 7 (emphasis in the original)
“Again as evident it is how they [i.e., the Church Fathers] teach that Christ is personally there
present, yea present whole, albeit a part of Christ be corporally absent from thence; that Christ
assisting this heavenly banquet with his personal and true presence doth by his own divine power
add to the natural substance thereof supernatural efficacy, which addition to the nature of those
consecrated elements changeth them and maketh them that unto us which otherwise they could
not be; that to us they are thereby made such instruments as mystically yet truly, invisibly yet
really work our communion or fellowship with the person of Jesus Christ as well in that he is
man as God, our participation also in the fruit, grace and efficacy of his body and blood,
whereupon there ensueth a kind of transubstantiation in us, a true change both of soul and body,
an alteration from death to life.” – Richard Hooker, Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, Bk. V, ch. 67,
sec. 11
“I am not satisfied with the view of those who, while acknowledging that we have some kind
of communion with Christ, only make us partakers of the Spirit, omitting all mention of flesh and
blood. As if it were said to no purpose at all, that his flesh is meat indeed, and his blood is drink
indeed; that we have no life unless we eat that flesh and drink that blood; and so forth. Therefore,
if it is evident that full communion with Christ goes beyond their description, which is too
confined, I will attempt briefly to show how far it extends, before proceeding to speak of the
contrary vice of excess. For I shall have a longer discussion with these hyperbolical doctors,
who, according to their gross ideas, fabricate an absurd mode of eating and drinking, and
transfigure Christ, after divesting him of his flesh, into a phantom: if, indeed, it be lawful to put
this great mystery into words, a mystery which I feel, and therefore freely confess that I am
unable to comprehend with my mind, so far am I from wishing any one to measure its sublimity
by my feeble capacity. Nay, I rather exhort my readers not to confine their apprehension within
those too narrow limits, but to attempt to rise much higher than I can guide them. For whenever
this subject is considered, after I have done my utmost, I feel that I have spoken far beneath its
dignity. And though the mind is more powerful in thought than the tongue in expression, it too is
overcome and overwhelmed by the magnitude of the subject. All then that remains is to break
forth in admiration of the mystery, which it is plain that the mind is inadequate to comprehend,
or the tongue to express. I will, however, give a summary of my view as I best can, not doubting
Drew Johnson
its truth, and therefore trusting that it will not be disapproved by pious breasts.” – John Calvin,
Inst., IV.17.7
“The flesh of Christ, however, has not such power in itself as to make us live, seeing that by
its own first condition it was subject to mortality, and even now, when endued with immortality,
lives not by itself. Still it is properly said to be life-giving, as it is pervaded with the fulness of
life for the purpose of transmitting it to us. In this sense I understand our Saviour’s words as
Cyril interprets them, “As the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life
in himself” (John 5:26). For there properly he is speaking not of the properties which he
possessed with the Father from the beginning, but of those with which he was invested in the
flesh in which he appeared. Accordingly, he shows that in his humanity also fulness of life
resides, so that every one who communicates in his flesh and blood, at the same time enjoys the
participation of life. The nature of this may be explained by a familiar example. As water is at
one time drunk out of the fountain, at another drawn, at another led away by conduits to irrigate
the fields, and yet does not flow forth of itself for all these uses, but is taken from its source,
which, with perennial flow, ever and anon sends forth a new and sufficient supply; so the flesh of
Christ is like a rich and inexhaustible fountain, which transfuses into us the life flowing forth
from the Godhead into itself. Now, who sees not that the communion of the flesh and blood of
Christ is necessary to all who aspire to the heavenly life? Hence those passages of the apostle:
The Church is the “body” of Christ; his “fulness.” He is “the head,” “from whence the whole
body fitly joined together, and compacted by that which every joint supplieth,” “maketh increase
of the body” (Eph. 1:23; 4:15,16). Our bodies are the “members of Christ” (1 Cor. 6:15). We
perceive that all these things cannot possibly take place unless he adheres to us wholly in body
and spirit. But the very close connection which unites us to his flesh, he illustrated with still
more splendid epithets, when he said that we “are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his
bones” (Eph. 5:30). At length, to testify that the matter is too high for utterance, he concludes
with exclaiming, “This is a great mystery” (Eph. 5:32). It were, therefore, extreme infatuation
not to acknowledge the communion of believers with the body and blood of the Lord, a
communion which the apostle declares to be so great, that he chooses rather to marvel at it than
to explain it.” – John Calvin, Inst., IV.17.9
“They [i.e., the Lutherans and Roman Catholics] are greatly mistaken in imagining that there is
no presence of the flesh of Christ in the Supper, unless it be placed in the bread. They thus leave
nothing for the secret operation of the Spirit, which unites Christ himself to us. Christ does not
seem to them to be present unless he descends to us, as if we did not equally gain his presence
when he raises us to himself. The only question, therefore, is as to the mode, they placing Christ
in the bread, while we deem it unlawful to draw him down from heaven. Which of the two is
more correct, let the reader judge. Only have done with the calumny that Christ is withdrawn
from his Supper if he lurk not under the covering of bread. For seeing this mystery is heavenly,
there is no necessity to bring Christ on the earth that he may be connected with us. Now, should
any one ask me as to the mode, I will not be ashamed to confess that it is too high a mystery
either for my mind to comprehend or my words to express; and to speak more plainly, I rather
feel than understand it. The truth of God, therefore, in which I can safely rest, I here embrace
without controversy. He declares that his flesh is the meat, his blood the drink, of my soul; I give
my soul to him to be fed with such food. In his sacred Supper he bids me take, eat, and drink his
body and blood under the symbols of bread and wine. I have no doubt that he will truly give and
Drew Johnson
I receive. Only, I reject the absurdities which appear to be unworthy of the heavenly majesty of
Christ, and are inconsistent with the reality of his human nature. Since they must also be
repugnant to the word of God, which teaches both that Christ was received into the glory of the
heavenly kingdom, so as to be exalted above all the circumstances of the world (Luke 24:26),
and no less carefully ascribes to him the properties belonging to a true human nature. This ought
not to seem incredible or contradictory to reason (Iren. Lib. 4 cap. 34); because, as the whole
kingdom of Christ is spiritual, so whatever he does in his Church is not to be tested by the
wisdom of this world; or, to use the words of Augustine, “this mystery is performed by man like
the others, but in a divine manner, and on earth, but in a heavenly manner.” Such, I say, is the
corporeal presence which the nature of the sacrament requires, and which we say is here
displayed in such power and efficacy, that it not only gives our minds undoubted assurance of
eternal life, but also secures the immortality of our flesh, since it is now quickened by his
immortal flesh, and in a manner shines in his immortality. Those who are carried beyond this
with their hyperboles, do nothing more by their extravagancies than obscure the plain and simple
truth. If any one is not yet satisfied, I would have him here to consider with himself that we are
speaking of the sacrament, every part of which ought to have reference to faith. Now by
participation of the body, as we have explained, we nourish faith not less richly and abundantly
than do those who drag Christ himself from heaven. Still I am free to confess that that mixture or
transfusion of the flesh of Christ with our soul, which they teach, I repudiate, because it is
enough for us that Christ, out of the substance of his flesh, breathes life into our souls, nay,
diffuses his own life into us, though the real flesh of Christ does not enter us. I may add, that
there can be no doubt that the analogy of faith by which Paul enjoins us to test every
interpretation of Scripture, is clearly with us in this matter. Let those who oppose a truth so clear,
consider to what standard of faith they conform themselves: “Ever spirit that confesseth not that
Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God” (1 John 4:3); 2 John ver. 7). These men, though
they disguise the fact, or perceive it not, rob him of his flesh. The same view must be taken of
communion, which, according to them, has no existence unless they swallow the flesh of Christ
under the bread. But no slight insult is offered to the Spirit if we refuse to believe that it is by his
incomprehensible agency that we communicate in the body and blood of Christ. Nay, if the
nature of the mystery, as delivered to us, and known to the ancient Church for four hundred
years, had been considered as it deserves, there was more than enough to satisfy us; the door
would have been shut against many disgraceful errors. These have kindled up fearful
dissensions, by which the Church, both anciently and in our own times, has been miserably
vexed; curious men insisting on an extravagant mode of presence to which Scripture gives no
countenance. And for a matter thus foolishly and rashly devised they keep up a turmoil, as if the
including of Christ under the bread were, so to speak, the beginning and end of piety. It was of
primary importance to know how the body of Christ once delivered to us becomes ours, and how
we become partakers of his shed blood, because this is to possess the whole of Christ crucified,
so as to enjoy all his blessings. But overlooking these points, in which there was so much
importance, nay, neglecting and almost suppressing them, they occupy themselves only with this
one perplexing question, how is the body of Christ hidden under the bread, or under the
appearance of bread? They falsely pretend that all which we teach concerning spiritual eating is
opposed to true and what they call real eating, since we have respect only to the mode of eating.
This, according to them, is carnal, since they include Christ under the bread, but according to us
is spiritual, inasmuch as the sacred agency of the Spirit is the bond of our union with Christ. Not
better founded is the other objection, that we attend only to the fruit or effect which believers
Drew Johnson
receive from eating the flesh of Christ. We formerly said, that Christ himself is the matter of the
Supper, and that the effect follows from this, that by the sacrifice of his death our sins are
expiated, by his blood we are washed, and by his resurrection we are raised to the hope of life in
heaven. But a foolish imagination, of which Lombard was the author, perverts their minds, while
they think that the sacrament is the eating of the flesh of Christ. His words are, “The sacrament
and not the thing are the forms of bread and wine; the sacrament and the thing are the flesh and
blood of Christ; the thing and not the sacrament is his mystical flesh” (Lombard, Lib. 4 Dist. 8).
Again a little after, “The thing signified and contained is the proper flesh of Christ; the thing
signified and not contained is his mystical body.” To his distinction between the flesh of Christ
and the power of nourishing which it possesses, I assent; but his maintaining it to be a sacrament,
and a sacrament contained under the bread, is an error not to be tolerated. Hence has arisen that
false interpretation of sacramental eating, because it was imagined that even the wicked and
profane, however much alienated from Christ, eat his body. But the very flesh of Christ in the
mystery of the Supper is no less a spiritual matter than eternal salvation. Whence we infer, that
all who are devoid of the Spirit of Christ can no more eat the flesh of Christ than drink wine that
has no savour. Certainly Christ is shamefully lacerated, when his body, as lifeless and without
any vigour, is prostituted to unbelievers. This is clearly repugnant to his words, “He that eateth
my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him” (John 6:56). They object that he
is not there speaking of sacramental eating; this I admit, provided they will not ever and anon
stumble on this stone, that his flesh itself is eaten without any benefit. I should like to know how
they confine it after they have eaten. Here, in my opinion, they will find no outlet. But they
object, that the ingratitude of man cannot in any respect detract from, or interfere with, faith in
the promises of God. I admit and hold that the power of the sacrament remains entire, however
the wicked may labour with all their might to annihilate it. Still, it is one thing to be offered,
another to be received. Christ gives this spiritual food and holds forth this spiritual drink to all.
Some eat eagerly, others superciliously reject it. Will their rejection cause the meat and drink to
lose their nature? They will say that this similitude supports their opinion—viz. that the flesh of
Christ, though it be without taste, is still flesh. But I deny that it can be eaten without the taste of
faith, or (if it is more agreeable to speak with Augustine), I deny that men carry away more from
the sacrament than they collect in the vessel of faith. Thus nothing is detracted from the
sacrament, nay, its reality and efficacy remain unimpaired, although the wicked, after externally
partaking of it, go away empty. If, again, they object, that it derogates from the expression, “This
is my body,” if the wicked receive corruptible bread and nothing besides, it is easy to answer,
that God wills not that his truth should be recognised in the mere reception, but in the constancy
of his goodness, while he is prepared to perform, nay, liberally offers to the unworthy what they
reject. The integrity of the sacrament, an integrity which the whole world cannot violate, lies
here, that the flesh and blood of Christ are not less truly given to the unworthy than to the elect
believers of God; and yet it is true, that just as the rain falling on the hard rock runs away
because it cannot penetrate, so the wicked by their hardness repel the grace of God, and prevent
it from reaching them. We may add, that it is no more possible to receive Christ without faith,
than it is for seed to germinate in the fire. They ask how Christ can have come for the
condemnation of some, unless they unworthily receive him; but this is absurd, since we nowhere
read that they bring death upon themselves by receiving Christ unworthily, but by rejecting him.
They are not aided by the parable in which Christ says, that the seed which fell among thorns
sprung up, but was afterwards choked (Mt. 13:7), because he is there speaking of the effect of a
temporary faith, a faith which those who place Judas in this respect on a footing with Peter, do
Drew Johnson
not think necessary to the eating of the flesh and the drinking of the blood of Christ. Nay, their
error is refuted by the same parable, when Christ says that some seed fell upon the wayside, and
some on stony ground, and yet neither took root. Hence it follows that the hardness of believers
is an obstacle which prevents Christ from reaching them. All who would have our salvation to be
promoted by this sacrament, will find nothing more appropriate than to conduct believers to the
fountain, that they may draw life from the Son of God. The dignity is amply enough commended
when we hold, that it is a help by which we may be ingrafted into the body of Christ, or, already
ingrafted, may be more and more united to him, until the union is completed in heaven. They
object, that Paul could not have made them guilty of the body and blood of the Lord if they had
not partaken of them (1 Cor. 11:7); I answer, that they were not condemned for having eaten, but
only for having profaned the ordinance by trampling under foot the pledge, which they ought to
have reverently received, the pledge of sacred union with God.” – John Calvin, Inst., IV.17.31-
33

Quotations On The Eucharist

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Quotations On The Eucharist

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Drew Johnson

Quotations on the Eucharist 1

“Wherefore it is needful in all respects to be vigilant, for indeed no small punishment is

That the Humanity of Christ is the “Bridge” to his Divinity

On the Nature of a Body

On How the Soul Draws Near to God

On the Spiritual Nature of the Presence of Christ’s Body in the Sacrament

On the Meaning of Definitive and Circumscriptive Location

• the circumscriptive, and

The Necessity of Faith

What Faith Requires Us to Believe

The Necessity of Grace

The Necessity of the Sacraments as Means of Grace

Theories of the Actual Presence (I): Transubstantiation (Total Substantial Presence)

Theories of the Actual Presence (II): Sacramental Union (Substantial Co-Presence)

Theories of the Actual Presence (III): Instrumentalism (Non-Substantial Co-Presence)

Potrebbero piacerti anche