IV Sententiae, d. 8, q.

1
Concerning the Eucharist
ARTICLE 2: On the prefiguration of this
sacrament.
Utrum huic sacramento figurae assignari
debeant

SUBQUESTION 1: Whether figures ought to be

assigned to this sacrament.

Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod

huic sacramento figurae assignari non
debeant.

Proceeding to the second, it seems that figures

ought not to be assigned to this sacrament.

Nihil enim disponitur per aliquid sui generis;

albedinis enim non est albedo, nec motus est
motus. Sed sacramentum est signum. Ergo
sacramento non debet aptari aliqua figura,
quia in infinitum iretur.

1. For nothing is disposed through something of

its own genus, for white is not the subject of
whiteness, nor motion of motion. But a sacrament
is a sign. Therefore a figure ought not to be
adapted to a sacrament, since this would go on to
infinity.

Praeterea, sacramenta veteris legis dicuntur

sacramentis novae legis respondere, in
quantum signant ipsa. Sacramentis autem
novae legis quae sunt maximae perfectionis
non respondebant aliqua sacramenta in
veteri lege, ut quidam dicunt. Cum ergo hoc
sacramentum sit maximae perfectionis,
videtur quod non debeant ei aliquae figurae
assignari.

2. Further, the sacraments of the old law are said

to correspond to the sacraments of the new law,
insofar as the former signify the latter. But to the
sacraments of the new law that are greatest in
perfection no sacraments of the old law
correspond, as certain ones say. Since, therefore
this sacrament is greatest in perfection, it seems
that various figures ought not to be assigned to it.

Praeterea, sicut praefigurata Eucharistia est

in agno paschali, ita et Baptismus in transitu
maris rubri, ut dicitur 1 Corinth., 10. Cum ergo
Magister non assignaverit aliquas figuras
Baptismi, videtur quod nec Eucharistiae
figuras assignare debeat.

3. Further, as the Eucharist is prefigured in the

passover lamb, so is baptism prefigured in the
crossing of the Red Sea, as is said in 1
Corinthians 10. Since therefore the Master did not
assign any figures to baptism, it seems that
neither should he have assigned figures to the
Eucharist.

Sed contra,

On the contrary:

hoc sacramentum memoriale passionis

Christi est specialiter. Sed passionem Christi
praecipue oportebat praefigurari, per quam
nos redemit, ut fides antiquorum ad
redemptorem ferretur. Ergo praecipue
oportebat hoc sacramentum figurari.

1. This sacrament is, in a special way, a memorial

of the passion of Christ. But it was necessary to
prefigure especially the passion of Christ, through
which he redeemed us, in order that the faith of
the ancients might be borne toward the
Redeemer. Therefore it was especially necessary
that this sacrament be prefigured.

Praeterea, hoc sacramentum est

dignissimum, et difficillimum ad credendum.
Sed talia maxime consueverunt praefigurari.
Ergo et cetera.

2. Further, this sacrament is the worthiest, and the

most difficult to believe in. But things of such a
kind are most of all accustomed to be prefigured.
Therefore, etc.

Respondeo

Response:

dicendum ad primam quaestionem, quod

sacramenta novae legis tripliciter se habent
ad veterem legem. Quaedam enim
essentialiter fuerunt in veteri lege, quamvis
non ut sunt sacramenta novae legis, sed
magis secundum quod sunt in officium vel
actum virtutis; sicut poenitentia, ordo, et
matrimonium. Quaedam fuerunt secundum
aliquid eis respondens non essentialiter,
sicut Baptismus et Eucharistia. Quaedam
autem nihil respondens habuerunt in veteri
lege, sicut confirmatio et extrema unctio.
Cujus ratio est, quia prima tria sacramenta
non solum sunt sacramenta; sed poenitentia
est actus virtutis; ordo autem pertinet ad
officium dispensationis sacramentorum;
matrimonium autem ad officium naturae; et
ideo in qualibet lege requiruntur. Baptismus
autem et Eucharistia sunt sacramenta tantum
gratiam continentia; et ideo ante tempus
gratiae esse non debuerunt. Sed quia sunt
sacramenta necessitatis, Baptismus quidem
quantum ad effectum, Eucharistia autem
quantum ad fidem ejus quod repraesentatur
per ipsam; ideo oportuit quod in lege Moysi
haberent aliquid respondens: sed confirmatio
et extrema unctio sunt sacramenta gratiam
conferentia; et ideo in veteri lege esse non
debuerunt. Et quia non sunt sacramenta
necessitatis, sed cujusdam superabundantis
perfectionis; ideo non oportebat quod
haberent aliquid respondens, cum non esset
tempus plenitudinis gratiae; et ideo haec duo
non fuerunt praefiguranda aliquibus
expressis figuris, similiter neque prima tria,
sed tantum duo media, scilicet Eucharistia et
Baptismus.

It should be said that the sacraments of the new

law stand in a threefold relationship to the old law.
For some were essentially in the old law,
although not as they are sacraments of the new
law, but rather as they were for an office or were
the act of virtue, such as penance, order, and
marriage. There were some that corresponded,
not essentially but according to some aspect,
such as baptism and the Eucharist. Finally there
were some that had nothing corresponding to
them in the old law, such as confirmation and
extreme unction. The reason for this is that the
first three sacraments are not only sacraments,
but penance is an act of virtue, while order
pertains to the office of the dispensing of
sacraments and marriage to the office of nature;
and hence they are required in any law
whatsoever. But baptism and the Eucharist are
sacraments alone, containing grace;1 and thus
before the time of grace they ought not to have
existed. But since they are sacraments of
necessity - baptism in regard to its effect, and the
Eucharist in regard to the faith of that which is
represented by it - it was thus necessary that in
the law of Moses they should have something
corresponding to them. Finally, confirmation and
extreme unction are sacraments [alone],
conferring grace,2 and thus they ought not to have
existed in the old law. And since they are not
sacraments of necessity, but of a superabundant
perfection, it was therefore unnecessary that they
have something corresponding to them, since it
was not yet the time of the fullness of grace; and
therefore these two were not prefigured by any
express figures; nor, similarly, were the first three;
but only the middle two, namely the Eucharist and
baptism.
Replies to objections:

Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod oppositae

relationes possunt inesse eisdem respectu
diversorum, eo quod esse relativi est ad
aliquid se habere, non autem proprietates
absolutae; et ideo in relativis contingit aliquid
disponi per aliquid sui generis per accidens,
et non per se; sicut filii est filius, non
inquantum filius, sed inquantum pater; et
similiter signi potest esse signatum. In

1. To the first, therefore, it should be said that

opposite relations can exist in the same things
with respect to different things, because relative
being is to stand toward something, but absolute
characteristics cannot; and so in relations it
happens that something is disposed through
something of its own genus per accidens, as there
is a son of a son, not insofar as he is a son, but
insofar as he is a father; and similarly, there can

absolutis autem non contingit hoc; unde

be a sign of a sign. But in absolute
qualitatis non est qualitas nec per se nec per [characteristics] this cannot happen; hence there
accidens.
can be a quality of a quality neither per se nor per
accidens.
Ad secundum dicendum, quod una perfectio
dicitur alia minor dupliciter: aut simpliciter,
aut secundum statum; sicut praemium
essentiale quod aurea dicitur, est simpliciter
majus quam praemium accidentale, quod
dicitur aureola; sed aureola est major
quantum ad statum habentis, quia non
cuilibet datur, sed tantummodo illis qui sunt
in statu perfectionis. Et similiter dico, quod
perfectio Eucharistiae est simpliciter major
quam perfectio confirmationis et extremae
unctionis, sed illae sunt majores secundum
statum: quia perfectio Eucharistiae, quae est
per conjunctionem ad principium sanctitatis
est omnibus de necessitate salutis; sed
perfectio spiritus sancti ad robur quae est in
confirmatione, vel perfectio purgationis a
reliquiis peccati, quae est in extrema
unctione, non sunt omnibus necessaria; et
ideo perfectioni Eucharistiae debet aliquid
respondere in qualibet lege, non autem
perfectioni confirmationis et extremae
unctionis nisi in lege in qua est status
perfectionis, quae est lex gratiae.

2. To the second, it should be said that one

perfection is called lesser than another in two
ways: either simply speaking, or according to
state; as the essential reward, which is called
"gold crown," is simply speaking greater than the
accidental reward, which is called the "aureole";3
but the aureole is greater with respect to the state
of the haver, because it is not given to just
anyone, but only to those who are in the state of
perfection. And similarly I say that the perfection
of Eucharist is simply speaking greater than the
perfection of confirmation and of extreme unction,
but that of those is greater according to status. For
the perfection of the Eucharist, which is by way of
union with the very source of holiness, is a matter
of necessity for everyone's salvation, while the
perfection of the Holy Spirit for strengthening,
which is given in confirmation, or the perfection of
cleansing from the remnants of sin, which is given
in extreme unction, are not necessary for
everyone; and so in the old law something ought
to correspond to the perfection of the Eucharist,
but not to the perfection of confirmation or of
extreme unction; these are reserved for the law in
which the state of perfection is found, namely, the
law of grace.

Ad tertium dicendum, quod praefiguratio

Eucharistiae erat magis necessaria quam
Baptismi, tum ratione dignitatis, tum ratione
difficultatis, tum propter necessitatem fidei
ejus quod figuratur in Eucharistia. Tamen
Magister supra aliquas figuras Baptismi
posuit, scilicet circumcisionem et Baptismum
Joannis.

3. To the third, it should be said that the

prefiguration of the Eucharist was more necessary
than that of baptism, by reason of its dignity, by
reason of its difficulty [for faith], and on account of
the necessity of faith in that [mystery] which is
figured in the Eucharist. Nevertheless, above the
Master did set down some figures of baptism,
namely circumcision and the baptism of John.
SUBQUESTION 2: Whether the Master assigns
the figures of this sacrament fittingly.

Ulterius. Videtur quod Magister

inconvenienter assignet figuras hujus
sacramenti.

Moreover, it seems that the Master assigns the

figures of this sacrament unfittingly.

Hoc enim sacramentum post Baptismum

datur. Sed agnus paschalis praecessit
transitum maris rubri, in quo Baptismus est

1. For this sacrament is given after baptism. But

the paschal lamb preceded the crossing of the
Red Sea, which crossing prefigures baptism.

praefiguratus. Ergo non est congrua figura

Therefore it [the lamb] is not a congruous figure of
hujus
sacramenti.
sacrament
[ofsacrament
the Eucharist].
Praeterea,
in hoc sacramento aliquid offertur this
2. Further,
in this
something is offered
Deo. Sed Melchisedech non legitur Deo
to God. But we do not read [in Scripture] that
obtulisse, sed homini, scilicet Abrahae, cui
Melchisadech offered something to God, but
obtulit panem et vinum, ut dicitur Gen. 14.
rather to man, namely to Abraham, to whom he
Ergo illa oblatio non est conveniens figura
offered bread and wine, as is said in Genesis 14.
hujus sacramenti.
Therefore that oblation is not a fitting figure of this
sacrament.
Praeterea, idem non est signum sui ipsius.
Sed sanguis qui consecratur in altari, est
illemet quem Christus in cruce fudit pro
nobis. Ergo ille non est signum vel figura
istius.

3. Further, the same thing is not a sign of itself.

But the Blood that is consecrated upon the altar is
the very same as that which Christ shed upon the
cross for us. Therefore the latter is not a sign or
figure of the former.

Praeterea, manna habebat in se omnem

saporis suavitatem, ut dicitur Sap. 16. Sed
hoc sacramentum non habet in se omnem
saporem spiritualem: quia sic haberet
effectus omnium sacramentorum, et alia
sacramenta superfluerent. Ergo manna non
est figura hujus sacramenti.

4. Further, manna "was having in it every

sweetness of taste," as is said in Wisdom 16. But
this sacrament does not have in it every spiritual
taste; for thus it would have the effect of every
sacrament, and the other sacraments would be
superfluous. Therefore manna is not a figure of
this sacrament.

Praeterea, nobilioris rei nobilior debet esse

figura. Sed Eucharistia est nobilius
sacramentum quam Baptismus. Cum ergo
Baptismus habuerit figuram quae praebebat
remedium ex ipso opere operato contra
originale, scilicet circumcisionem;
supradictae autem figurae non fuerunt tales;
videtur quod fuerunt incompetentes.

5. Further, the nobler a thing, the nobler its figure

ought to be. But the Eucharist is a nobler
sacrament than baptism. Since therefore baptism
had a figure that provided a remedy against
original sin by the very fact of its being
accomplished [ex opere operato], namely
circumcision, yet the aforesaid figures [of the
Eucharist] were not such [in power], it seems that
they were inadequate [as figures].

Praeterea, in canone Missae fit mentio de

sacrificio Abrahae et Abel; et similiter omnia
sacrificia legalia hujus veri sacrificii figura
fuerunt. Ergo insufficienter posuit Magister
figuras hujus sacramenti.

6. Further, in the Canon of the Mass mention is

made of the sacrifice of Abraham and Abel; and in
like manner all the legal sacrifices were figures of
this true sacrifice. Therefore [having omitted
such,] the Master set down the figures of this
sacrament unfittingly.
Response:

Ad secundam quaestionem dicendum, quod

aliquid potest figurari dupliciter. Uno modo
per id quod est signum et causa: et hoc modo
effusio sanguinis et aquae ex latere Christi
fuit figura hujus sacramenti. Alio modo per id
quod est signum tantum; et sic quantum ad id
quod est sacramentum tantum in Eucharistia,
fuit figura ejus oblatio Melchisedech;
quantum autem ad id quod est res et
sacramentum, scilicet ipsum Christum
passum, fuit figura agnus paschalis; quantum

It should be said that something can be

represented by a figure in two ways. In one way,
through that which is [both] sign and cause; and in
this way the outpouring of blood and water from
the side of Christ was a figure of this sacrament.
In another way, through that which is sign alone;
and in that way, as far as that which is sacrament
only [sacramentum tantum] in the Eucharist, the
oblation of Melchisadech was its figure; as far as
that which is both sacrament and reality, namely
the very Christ who suffered [for us], the paschal

autem ad id quod est res tantum, scilicet

gratiam, fuit signum manna, quod reficiebat,
omnem saporem suavitatis habens.

lamb was the figure; and as far as that which is

reality alone [res tantum], namely grace, the
manna that refreshed, having every sweetness of
taste, was the figure.
Replies to objections:

Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod ratio illa

valeret, si Baptismi et Eucharistiae tantum
esset una figura: sunt autem plures; et ideo
non est inconveniens quod aliquam figuram
Baptismi praecedat aliqua figura
Eucharistiae, et ab aliqua praecedatur; sicut
praecedit agnus paschalis transitum maris
rubri, et sequitur circumcisionem.

1. To the first, therefore, it should be said that that

argument would prevail if there were but a single
figure of baptism and the Eucharist. There are,
however, many; and so it it is not unfitting that
some figure of baptism should precede some
figure of the Eucharist, and be preceded by some
[other]; even as the paschal lamb precedes the
crossing of the Red Sea, but follows circumcision.

Ad secundum dicendum, quod Eucharistia

offertur Deo in sanctificatione hostiae, et
offertur populo in ipsius sumptione; et hoc
significatum fuit in oblatione Melchisedech,
qui obtulit Abrahae panem et vinum, et
benedixit Deo excelso.

2. To the second, it should be said that the

Eucharist is offered to God in the consecration of
the host, and is offered to the people in the
consumption of the same; and this was signified
in the oblation of Melchisadech, who offered to
Abraham bread and wine, and blessed God in the
highest.

Ad tertium dicendum, quod nihil sub eadem

specie manens est signum sui ipsius; sed
aliquid secundum quod est in una specie,
potest esse signum sui secundum quod est
sub alia specie; et similiter est in proposito
dicendum, quod aqua fluens de latere Christi
figurabat populum, qui ejus sanguine
redimendus et reficiendus erat; et ideo
significabat aqua sanguini admixta hujus
sacramenti usum.

3. To the third, it should be said that nothing, as

long as it remains under the same appearance, is
a sign of itself; but something, according as it is in
one appearance, can be a sign of itself according
as it is under another appearance. And something
similar should be said of the case at hand, for the
water flowing from the side of Christ was a figure
of the people that was to be redeemed and
refreshed by his blood; and so the water admixed
with blood signified the use of this sacrament.4

Ad quartum dicendum, quod sacramentum

4. To the fourth, it should be said that the
habet omnem suavitatem, inquantum continet sacrament has every sweetness, insofar as it
fontem omnis gratiae, quamvis non ordinetur contains the source of all grace, although its use
ejus usus ad omnes effectus sacramentalis is not ordered to every effect of sacramental
gratiae. Vel dicendum, quod etiam quantum grace. Or it should be said that even with regard
ad effectum habet omnem suavitatis effectum to effect it has every sweetness of effect in terms
in reficiendo, quia hoc solum sacramentum of refreshing, because this sacrament alone
per modum refectionis operatur. Vel
operates in the manner of refreshment. Or it
dicendum, secundum Dionysium, quod
should be said, following Dionysius, that the effect
omnium sacramentorum effectus huic
of all sacraments may be ascribed to this
sacramento possunt ascribi, inquantum
sacrament, inasmuch as it is the perfection of
perfectio est omnis sacramenti, habens quasi every sacrament, having in principle and in
in capitulo et summa omnia quae alia
totality, as it were, all that the other sacraments
sacramenta continent singillatim.
contain one by one.
Ad quintum dicendum, quod Baptismus est 5. To the fifth, it should be said that baptism is the
sacramentum necessitatis quantum ad
sacrament of necessity as regards its effect,
effectum, quia delet peccatum originale, quo because it wipes away original sin, the remaining

manente non est salus; et ideo oportebat

quod in veteri lege responderet sibi aliqua
figura, quae contra originale remedium
praeberet, scilicet circumcisio. Sed
Eucharistia est sacramentum necessitatis
quantum ad fidem ejus quod repraesentat,
scilicet opus nostrae redemptionis; et ideo
non oportuit quod haberet figuras remedium
praebentes, sed signantes tantum.

Ad sextum dicendum, quod quamvis in veteri

lege fuerint figurae plures materialiter, tamen
omnes ad has reducuntur: quia in omnibus
sacrificiis et oblationibus antiquorum
significabatur illud quod est res et
sacramentum in Eucharistia, quod etiam
significatur per agnum paschalem, scilicet
ipse Christus qui obtulit se Deo patri pro
nobis oblationem et hostiam. Vel dicendum,
quod istae figurae repraesentant corpus
Christi secundum quod est in usu fidelium
per esum, quod patet de oblatione
Melchisedech, qui panem et vinum edendum
obtulit Abrahae; et similiter agnus paschalis
edendus a populo occidebatur; et etiam
manna ad esum populi a Deo providebatur:
aqua etiam sanguini admixta in passione
Christi populum significat Christi sanguine
communicantem. Non autem ita est in aliis
sacrificiis; et ideo quamvis sint figurae Christi
passi, non tamen sunt propriae figurae hujus
sacramenti. Fit autem in canone Missae
mentio de oblatione Abrahae et Abel magis
propter devotionem offerentium quam propter
figuram rei oblatae.

of which bars salvation; and therefore it was

necessary that in the Old Law there should
correspond to it some figure that was provided as
a remedy against original sin, namely
circumcision. But the Eucharist is a sacrament of
necessity as regards faith in that which it
represents, namely the work of our redemption;
and therefore it was not necessary that there
should have been figures providing a remedy, but
rather [that there be figures] serving exclusively as
signs [of the redemption to come].
6. To the sixth, it should be said that although in
the Old Law there were many figures materially
[considered], nevertheless all of them are led
back to these [that the Master mentions]: since in
all sacrifices and oblations of old, there was
signified that which is the reality and sacrament in
the Eucharist, which indeed was signified by the
paschal lamb, namely the very Christ who offered
himself an oblation and victim to God the Father
on our behalf. Or it should be said that those
figures represent the body of Christ according as
it is for the use of the faithful by way of eating,
which is evident in the offering of Melchisadech,
who offered Abraham bread and wine for the
purpose of eating it; and in like manner the
paschal lamb was slain in order to be eaten by
the people; and the manna, too, was provided by
God with a view to the feeding of the people. The
water, too, mixed with blood in the Passion of
Christ signifies the people sharing in the blood of
Christ. But it is not so in other sacrifices; and
therefore although they are figures of the Christ
who suffered, they are not appropriate figures of
this sacrament. In the Canon of the Mass mention
is made of the oblation of Abraham and Abel,
however, more on account of the devotion of the
ones offering than on account of the figurative
nature of the thing offered.
SUBQUESTION 3: Whether this sacrifice was
more expressly prefigured in the law of Moses
than in the law of nature

Ulterius. Videtur quod in lege Moysi

expressius fuit figuratum hoc sacrificium
quam in lege naturae.

Moreover, it seems that this sacrifice was more

expressly prefigured in the law of Moses than in
the law of nature.

Quia, secundum Hugonem, quanto magis

1. For, according to Hugh [of St. Victor], the more
appropinquavit passio salvatoris, tanto signa the Passion of the Savior drew near, the more

fuerunt evidentiora. Sed ea quae fuerunt in

lege Moysis, fuerunt propinquiora. Ergo
expressiora.

evident were the signs. But the things that were

[contained] in the law of Moses were nearer.
Therefore they were more express.

Praeterea, in sacrificiis legis Moysi fiebat

2. Further, in the sacrifices of the law of Moses
sanguinis effusio. Sed oblatio Melchisedech there occurred the shedding of blood. But the
fuit sanguinis sine effusione. Ergo legalia
oblation of Melchisadech was of blood without the
sacrificia expressius figurabant sacramentum shedding [of blood]. Therefore the legal sacrifices
passionis Christi quam oblatio Melchisedech. more expressly prefigured the sacrament of the
passion of Christ than the oblation of
Melchisadech.
Sed contra,

On the contrary:

Christus dicitur sacerdos secundum ordinem

Melchisedech, non autem secundum
sacerdotium legis Moysi, quod est
sacerdotium leviticum, ut patet Hebr. 7. Ergo
oblatio Melchisedech magis convenit cum
sacrificio Christi quam sacrificium legis
Moysi.

Christ is called a priest "according to the order of

Melchisadech" - not according to the priesthood of
the Mosaic law, which is the levitical priesthood,
as is clear from Hebrews 7. Therefore the oblation
of Melchisadech has more in common with the
sacrifice of Christ than a sacrifice of the Mosaic
law.
Response:

Ad tertiam quaestionem dicendum, quod

It should be said that as far as that which is sign
quantum ad id quod est signum tantum in hoc alone in this sacrament, the oblation of
sacramento, expressior figura hujus
Melchisadech was the more express figure of this
sacramenti fuit oblatio Melchisedech quam sacrament than the figures of the law of Moses;
figurae legis Moysi; sed quantum ad id quod but as far as that which is both reality and
est res et sacramentum; expressior fuit figura sacrament, the more express was the figure of the
legis Mosaicae, qua expressius Christus
law of Moses, by which the Christ who suffered
passus significabatur. Et quia ritus
was more expressly signified. And because the
sacramenti consistit in signis exterioribus;
rite of the sacrament consists in exterior signs,
ideo sacerdotium Christi quantum ad ritum
therefore the priesthood of Christ as regards the
magis convenit cum sacerdotio
rite has more in common with the priesthood of
Melchisedech quam cum sacerdotio levitico; Melchisadech than it has with the levitical
et etiam quantum ad alias conditiones
priesthood - and also as regards other aspects of
Melchisedech, quas apostolus plenius
Melchisadech, which the Apostle describes more
prosequitur.
fully [in that letter to the Hebrews].
Et per hoc patet solutio ad objecta.

And through this [response] the solution to the

objections becomes clear.

Endnotes
1. tantum gratiam continentia (return to text)
2. gratiam conferentia. What Thomas seems to be saying is that confirmation and extreme
unction add to grace already possessed, whereas one receives grace for the first time in baptism,
and Christ who is the fullness of grace is present in the Eucharist. Hence there are three
categories here: the sacraments that are sacraments as well as something else; the pure
sacraments that contain grace as in its root; and the pure sacraments that confer additional grace.
(return to text)

3. Note that aureola, which is almost impossible to translate ("crownlet"?), is a diminutive form of
aurea, "gold crown." (return to text)
4. That is, the blood shed physically on the cross, and mixed with water from Christ's side,
signified the nourishment of the Church with Christ's blood present in the Eucharist. (return to text)

Peter Kwasniewski
(pak@wyomingcatholiccollege.com)
My thanks to Joseph Bolin for his careful review of an earlier draft of this translation
The Aquinas Translation Project
(http://www4.desales.edu/~philtheo/loughlin/ATP/index.html)