Matthäus 26:26 Kommentar

And it came to pass, when Jesus had finished all these sayings,.... Meaning either all that are recorded by this evangelist, all the sermons and discourses of Christ, delivered both to the people of the Jews, and to his disciples; his conversation with the former, and his divine instructions and prudent advice to the latter, together with all his excellent parables, which are largely related in this book; or else what is said in the two preceding chapters, concerning the destruction of Jerusalem, and the end of the world, the state of the church, and conduct of his servants to the end of time, expressed in the parables of the virgins and talents, and concerning the last judgment and final state of all men: he said unto his disciples; who now were alone with him: having finished his prophetic, and being about to enter on his priestly office, he gives his disciples some intimations of its near approach.

And he took the cup and gave thanks,.... For the Jews blessed, or gave thanks for their wine, as well as for their food, and generally did it in this form (w): "Blessed art thou, O Lord, our God, the king of the world, who hast created the "fruit of the vine". Hence the phrase, "the fruit of the vine", in Mat 26:29, not that we are to suppose, that Christ used or confined himself to this form of words: and it is to be observed, that they not only gave thanks for their wine before food, and whilst they were eating (x), but also after meat; and as this relates to the blessing of the cup after eating, or as the Apostle Paul says, "when he had supped", Co1 11:25. I shall only transcribe what the Jews say (y) concerning that: "When wine is brought to them after food, if there is but that cup there, the house of Shammai say, , "he blesses", or gives thanks "for the wine", and after that gives thanks for the food: the house of Hillell say, he gives thanks for the food, and after that gives thanks for the wine. And as this was usual at ordinary meals, to bless or give thanks for the wine, so at the passover; and which our Lord continued in his supper, and is to be practised by us. It should be further known, that the wine at the passover, and so what Christ used at his supper, was red, "Says R. Jeremiah (z) it is commanded to perform this duty, "with red wine". And elsewhere it is said (a), "that it is necessary, that there should be in it (the wine) taste and look. The gloss on it is, , "that it should be red": and which, as it most fitly represented the blood sprinkled on the door posts of the Israelites, when the Lord passed over their houses; so the blood of Christ, shed for the remission of the sins of his people. It is scarcely worth observing the measure of one of the cups, that was used at such a time: they say (b), that the four cups which were drank at this feast, held an, Italian quart of wine, so that one cup contained half a pint. More particularly, they ask how much is the measure of a cup? the answer is, two fingers square, and a finger and a half and the third part of a finger deep; or as it is elsewhere (c), the fifth part of a finger: and gave it to them, saying, drink ye all of it; for this is not to be restrained from one sort of communicants, and only partook of by another; but all are to drink of the cup, as well as eat of the bread: whether here is not an allusion to the custom of the Jews at the passover, when they obliged all to drink four cups of wine, men, women, and children, and even the poorest man in Israel, who was maintained out of the alms dish (d), may be considered, (w) Haggadah Shel Pesach. fol. 241. 1. (x) Vid. Misn. Beracot, c. 6. sect. 1. 6. (y) Ib. c. 8. sect. 8. (z) T. Hieros. Pesach. fol. 37. 3. & Sabbat, fol. 11. 1. (a) T. Bab. Pesach. fol. 108. 2. & R. Samuel ben Meir in ib. (b) T. Hieros. Sabbat, fol. 11. 1. (c) T. Bab. Pesach. fol. 109. 1. (d) Misn. Pesach. c. 10. sect. 1. T. Bab. Pesach. fol. 108. 1. Mitzvot Torah, pr. affirm. 41.

Now concerning the Thanksgiving (Eucharist), thus give thanks. First, concerning the cup: We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine of David Thy servant, which Thou madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. And concerning the broken bread: We thank Thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which Thou modest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom; for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever. But let no one eat or drink of your Thanksgiving (Eucharist), but they who have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord hath said, Give not that which is holy to the dogs. But after ye are filled, thus give thanks: We thank Thee, holy Father, for Thy holy name which Thou didst cause to tabernacle in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality, which Thou modest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. Thou, Master almighty, didst create all things for Thy name's sake; Thou gavest food and drink to men for enjoyment, that they might give thanks to Thee; but to us Thou didst freely give spiritual food and drink and life eternal through Thy Servant. Before all things we thank Thee that Thou art mighty; to Thee be the glory for ever. Remember, Lord, Thy Church, to deliver it from all evil and to make it perfect in Thy love, and gather it from the four winds, sanctified for Thy kingdom which Thou hast prepared for it; for Thine is the power and the glory for ever. Let grace come, and let this world pass away. Hosanna to the God (Son) of David! If any one is holy, let him come; if any one is not so, let him repent. Maran atha. Amen. But permit the prophets to make Thanksgiving as much as they desire.

Then we find, too, that His body is reckoned in bread: "This is my body." And so, in petitioning for "daily bread," we ask for perpetuity in Christ, and indivisibility from His body.

The bread which God the Word revealed to be his own body is the Word of the sustainer of souls. What was set upon the table was the Word proceeding from God the Word, bread from heavenly bread, as it is written: “You have prepared a table before me in the presence of my enemies.” And the wine which God the Word revealed to be his blood is the Word filling and wondrously inebriating the hearts of all who drink it. It is the Word contained in that chalice about which it is written: “My cup overflows.” This wine is the fruit of the true vine who said, “I am the true vine.” It is blood of grapes processed in the winepress of his Passion. Likewise the bread is the Word of Christ ground from that grain of wheat which “falls into the earth” and “bears much fruit.” It was not the visible bread that he held in his hands which God the Word called his body, but it was the Word in whose sacrament the bread was to be broken. Nor was it the visible drink that he identified as his blood, but it was the Word in whose sacrament the libation was to be poured out.

If therefore we wish to receive the bread of blessing from Jesus, who is eager to give it, we should enter the city and go into the house, prepared beforehand, where Jesus kept the Passover with his disciples. We ascend to the “large, furnished upper room” where he “took the cup” from the Father and, “when he had given thanks, he gave it to them” who had gone up there with him and said, “Drink this, for this is my blood of the new covenant.” The cup was both consumed and poured out. It was consumed by the disciples. It was “poured out for the remission of sins” committed by those who drink it. If you want to know in what sense it was poured out, compare this saying with what was written [by Paul]: “God’s love has been poured into our hearts.” If the blood of the covenant was poured into our hearts for the remission of our sins, then by the pouring of that potable blood into our hearts all the sins we have committed in the past will be remitted and wiped clean. He who took the cup and said “drink this all of you” will not depart from us who drink it but will drink it with us (since he himself is in each of us), for we are unable alone or without him either to eat of the bread or to drink of the fruit of the true vine. You should not marvel that he who is himself the bread also eats the bread with us or that he who is himself the cup of the fruit of the vine also drinks it with us. This is possible because the Word of God is omnipotent and is at once the bearer of many different names, for the multitude of his virtues are innumerable, since he is himself every virtue.

Or, The Passover was concluded by the taking the cup and breaking the bread without Judas, for he was unworthy the communion of eternal sacraments. And that he had left them we learn from thence, that he returns with a multitude.

(de Sacr. vi. 1.)d; And that we might not be shocked by the sight of blood, while it at the same time wrought the price of our redemption. (de Sacr. iv. 3.) Hence learn that the Christian mysteries were before the Jewish. Melchisedech offered bread and wine, being in all things like the Son of God, (Ps. 110:4.) to Whom it is said, Thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedech; and of Whom it is here said, Jesus took bread. (John 12:24.) (de Sacr. iv. 4.) This bread before the sacramentary words, is the bread in common use; after consecration it is made of bread Christ's flesh. And what are the words, or whose are the phrases of consecration, save those of the Lord Jesus? For if His word had power to make those things begin to be which were not, how much rather will it not be efficacious to cause them to remain what they are, while they are at the same time changed into somewhat else? For if the heavenly word has been effectual in other matters, is it ineffectual in heavenly sacraments? Therefore of the bread is made the Body of Christ, and the wine is made blood by the consecration of the heavenly word.f Dost thou enquire after the manner? Learn. The course of nature is, that a man is not born but of man and woman, but by God's will Christ was born of the Holy Spirit and a Virgin. (de Sacr. iv. 5.) Before consecration, it is bread; after Christ's words, This is my body, have been pronounced, it is Christ's Body.

Ah! how great is the blindness of the traitor! Even partaking of the mysteries, he remained the same; and admitted to the most holy table, he changed not. And this Luke shows by saying, that after this Satan entered into him, not as despising the Lord's body, but thenceforth laughing to scorn the traitor's shamelessness. For indeed his sin became greater from both causes, as well in that he came to the mysteries with such a disposition, as that having approached them, he did not become better, either from fear, or from the benefit, or from the honor. But Christ forbad him not, although He knew all things, that thou mightest learn that He omits none of the things that pertain to correction. Wherefore both before this, and after this, He continually admonished him, and checked him, both by deeds, and by words; both by fear, and by kindness; both by threatening, and by honor. But none of these things withdrew him from that grievous pest. Wherefore thenceforth He leaves him, and by the mysteries again reminds the disciples of His being slain, and in the midst of the meal His discourse is of the cross, by the continual repeating of the prediction, making His passion easy to receive. For if, when so many things had been done and foretold, they were troubled; if they had heard none of these things, what would they not have felt? "And as they were eating, He took bread, and brake it." Why can it have been that He ordained this sacrament then, at the time of the passover? That thou mightest learn from everything, both that He is the lawgiver of the Old Testament, and that the things therein are foreshadowed because of these things. Therefore, I say, where the type is, there He puts the truth. But the evening is a sure sign of the fullness of times, and that the things were now come to the very end. And He gives thanks, to teach us how we ought to celebrate this sacrament, and to show that not unwillingly doth He come to the passion, and to teach us whatever we may suffer to bear it thankfully, thence also suggesting good hopes. For if the type was a deliverance from such bondage, how much more will the truth set free the world, and will He be delivered up for the benefit of our race. Wherefore, I would add, neither did He appoint the sacrament before this, but when henceforth the rites of the law were to cease. And thus the very chief of the feasts He brings to an end, removing them to another most awful table, and He saith, "Take, eat, This is my body, Which is broken for many." And how were they not confounded at hearing this? Because He had before told unto them many and great things touching this.

When the typical Passover was concluded, and He had partaken of the Lamb with His Apostles, He comes to the true paschal sacrament; that, as Melchisedech, Priest of the most high God, had done in foreshadowing Christ, offering bread and wine (Gen. 14:18.), He also should offer the present verity of His Body and Bloodc.

(Vers. 26 seqq.) However, while they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it, he broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, 'Take, eat; this is my body.' And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, 'Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. After the symbolic Passover had been fulfilled, and he had eaten the flesh of the lamb with the apostles, he took bread, which strengthens the heart of man, and transcended to the true sacrament of Passover, so that just as in its prefiguration Melchizedek, the high priest of the Most High God, had offered bread and wine (Gen. XIV), he himself also in the truth would represent his own body and blood. In Luke, we read about two cups which Jesus gave to his disciples (Luke 22). One was for the first month, and the other for the second, so that he who could not eat the lamb among the saints in the first month would eat the goat among the repentant in the second month.

After the typical Passover meal was over and he had eaten the flesh of the lamb with his apostles, he took the bread that strengthens human hearts and moved on to the true sacrament of the Passover. Thus even as Melchizedek, the priest of the most high God, had prefigured Christ by offering bread and wine, so Jesus would exemplify this with his real body and blood.

(Ep. 120. ad Hedib.) Thus then the Lord Jesus was at once guest and feast, the eater and the things eaten.

You hold the sacraments in their order. First, after the prayer, you are admonished to lift up your hearts; this befits the members of Christ. For if you have become members of Christ, where is your head? Members have a head. If the head had not gone before, the members would not follow. Where did our head go? What did you recite in the Creed? On the third day, He rose again from the dead, He ascended into heaven, He sits at the right hand of the Father. Therefore, our head is in Heaven. Thus when it is said: Lift up your hearts, you answer: We have them with the Lord. And so that you do not attribute the fact that you have your hearts with the Lord to your own strengths, merits, or labors—for it is a gift of God to have your heart lifted up to Him—the bishop or the priest who offers the sacrifice continues and says—when the people respond: We have them with the Lord—: Let us give thanks to the Lord our God, because we have our hearts with the Lord. Let us give thanks because if he did not give it, we would have our hearts on earth. And you attest by saying: It is right and just, that we should give thanks to Him who made us have our hearts lifted up to our head. Then, after the sanctification of God's sacrifice, because he willed that we ourselves should be his sacrifice—this was shown when the first sacrifice of God was laid down and we—meaning the sign of the reality—which we are; behold where the sanctification has been accomplished, we say the Lord’s Prayer, which you have received and rendered. After it has been said: Peace be with you, and the Christians give each other a holy kiss. It is a sign of peace: as the lips show, let it be done in conscience, that is, just as your lips approach your brother’s lips, let your heart not depart from his heart. Great indeed are the sacraments and very great indeed. Do you wish to know how they are commended? The Apostle says: Whosoever shall eat of the body of Christ or drink of the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. What does it mean to receive unworthily? To receive it contemptuously, to receive it scoffingly. Do not make it seem cheap to you, because you see it. What you see passes away, but what is signified, the invisible, does not pass, but remains. Behold, it is received, eaten, consumed. Does the body of Christ perish? Does the Church of Christ perish? Do the members of Christ perish? By no means. Here they are cleansed, there they are crowned. Therefore, what is signified remains, even though that which signifies might seem to pass away.

(Ep. 54. 7.) And as they were eating, whereby it is clearly seen that at their first partaking of the Lord's Body and Blood, the disciples did not partake fasting. But are we therefore to except against the practice of the whole Church, of receiving fasting? It has seemed good to the Holy Ghost, that for the better honour of so great a Sacrament, the Lord's Body should enter the Christian's mouth before other food. For to commend more mightily the depth of this mystery, the Saviour chose this as the last thing He would imprint on the hearts and memory of His disciples, from whom He was to depart to His Passion. But He did not direct in what order it should thenceforth be taken, that He might reserve that for the Apostles by whom He would regulate His Church. (in Joan Tr. 26. 17. cf. Serm. 227. 1.) The Lord committed His Body and Blood to substances which are formed a homogeneous compound out of many. Bread is made of many grains, wine is produced out of many berries. Herein the Lord Jesus Christ signified us, and hallowed in His own table the mystery of our peace and unity. (in Joan. Tr. 59.) Peter and Judas received of the same bread, but Peter to life, Judas to death. AUGUSTINE.i And said, Take, eat; The Lord invites His servants to set before them Himself for food. But who would dare to eat his Lord? This food when eaten refreshes, but fails not; He lives after being eaten, Who rose again after being put to death. Neither when we eat Him do we divide His substance; but thus it is in this Sacrament. The faithful know how they feed on Christ's flesh, each man receives a part for himself. He is divided into parts in the Sacrament, yet He remains whole; He is all in heaven, He is all in thy heart. They are called Sacraments, because in them what is seen is one thing, what is understood is another; what is seen has a material form, what is understood has spiritual fruit. (in Joan. Tr. 27. 11.) Let us not eat Christ's flesh only in the Sacrament, for that do many wicked men, but let us eat to spiritual participation, that we may abide as members in the Lord's body, that we may be quickened by His Spirit.

After Judas the betrayer had gone out, the Savior revealed the saving mystery to the Eleven. Now Christ was about to be raised within a short time in order to come and appear before the Father with his own body. So that we could have his body present, he has given us his own body and blood that it might ruin the power of decay. For without the presence of Christ, salvation from death is not possible and humanity is unable to be freed from sin which dwells along with us in this life. He dwells with us in our souls through the Holy Spirit, and we become sharers in holiness, heavenly people and spiritual name bearers.

Being mindful, therefore, of those things that He endured for our sakes, we give You thanks, O God Almighty, not in such a manner as we ought, but as we are able, and fulfil His constitution: "For in the same night that He was betrayed, He took bread" [1 Corinthians 11:23] in His holy and undefiled hands, and, looking up to You His God and Father, "He broke it, and gave it to His disciples, saying, This is the mystery of the new covenant: take of it, and eat. This is my body, which is broken for many, for the remission of sins." In like manner also "He took the cup," and mixed it of wine and water, and sanctified it, and delivered it to them, saying: "Drink all of this; for this is my blood which is shed for many, for the remission of sins: do this in remembrance of me. For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you do show forth my death until I come." Being mindful, therefore, of His passion, and death, and resurrection from the dead, and return into the heavens, and His future second appearing, wherein He is to come with glory and power to judge the quick and the dead, and to recompense to every one according to his works, we offer to You, our King and our God, according to His constitution, this bread and this cup, giving You thanks, through Him, that You have thought us worthy to stand before You, and to sacrifice to You; and we beseech You that You will mercifully look down upon these gifts which are here set before You, O God, who standest in need of none of our offerings. And accept them, to the honour of Your Christ, and send down upon this sacrifice Your Holy Spirit, the Witness of the Lord Jesus' sufferings, that He may show this bread to be the body of Your Christ, and the cup to be the blood of Your Christ, that those who are partakers thereof may be strengthened for piety, may obtain the remission of their sins, may be delivered from the devil and his deceit, may be filled with the Holy Ghost, may be made worthy of Your Christ, and may obtain eternal life upon Your reconciliation to them, O Lord Almighty.

(Serm. 58, 3.) Not excluding the traitor even from this mystery, that it might be made manifest that Judas was provoked by no wrong, but that he had been foreknown in voluntary impiety.

Daniel the disciple of Arsenius used to talk also about a hermit in Scetis, saying that he was a great man but simple in the faith, and in his ignorance he thought and said that the bread which we receive is not in very truth the Body of Christ, but a symbol of His Body. Two of the monks heard what he said but because they knew of his sublime works and labours, they imagined that he had said it in innocence and simple-mindedness; and so they came to him and said unto him, ‘Abba, someone told us something that we do not believe; he said that this bread that we receive is not in very truth the Body of Christ, but a mere symbol.’ He said to them, ‘I said that.’ They begged him, saying, ‘You mustn’t say that, abba; according to what the Catholic Church has handed down to us, even so do we believe, that is to say, this bread is the Body of Christ in very truth, and is not a mere symbol. It is the same as when God took dust from the earth, and made man in His image; just as no one can say that he is not the image of God, so also with the bread of which He said, “This is My Body” is not to be regarded as a merely commemorative thing; we believe that it is indeed the Body of Christ.’ The hermit said, ‘Unless I can be convinced by the thing itself I will not listen to this.’ Then the monks said to him, ‘Let us pray to God all week about this mystery, and we believe that He will reveal the truth to us.’ The hermit agreed to this with great joy, and each went to his cell. Then the hermit prayed, saying, ‘O Lord, you know that it is not out of wickedness that I do not believe, so in order that I may not go astray through ignorance, reveal to me, Lord Jesus Christ, the truth of this mystery.’ The other two brothers prayed to God and said, ‘Lord Jesus Christ, give this hermit understanding about this mystery, and we believe that he will not be lost.’ God heard the prayer of the two monks. When the week was over they came to the church, and the three of them sat down by themselves on one seat, the hermit between the other two. The eyes of their understanding were opened, and when the time of the mysteries arrived, and the bread was laid upon the holy table, there appeared to the three of them as it were a child on the table. Then the priest stretched out his hand to break the bread, and behold the angel of the Lord came down from heaven with a knife in his hand, and he killed the child and pressed out his blood into the cup. When the priest broke off from the bread small pieces, the hermit went forward to receive communion and a piece of living flesh smeared and dripping with blood was given to him. Now when he saw this he was afraid and he cried out loudly, saying, ‘Lord, I believe that the bread is Your Body, and that the cup is Your Blood.’ At once the flesh that was in his hand became bread, and he took it and gave thanks to God. The brothers said to him, ‘God knows the nature of men, and that we are unable to eat living flesh, and so He turneth His Body into bread, and His Blood into wine for those who receive Him in faith.’ Then they gave thanks to God for the hermit, because He had not let Satan destroy him, and the three of them went back to their cells joyfully.

(Eccl. Hier. 3. in fin.) In this is also shown, that the one and uncompounded Word of God came to us compounded and visible by taking human nature upon Him, and drawing to Himself our society, made us partakers of the spiritual goods which He distributed, as it follows, And gave to his disciples.

Fittingly also did He offer fruit of the earth, to show there by that He came to take away the curse wherewith the earth was cursed for the sin of the first man. Also He bade be offered the produce of the earth, and the things for which men chiefly toil, that there might be no difficulty in procuring them, and that men might offer sacrifice to God of the work of their hands. Hereby He showed also that He together with the Father and the Holy Spirit has filled human nature with the grace of His divine power, and enriched it with the boon of immortality. And to show that His Body was not subject to passion but of His own will, it is added, And brake. In so doing He left an example to the Church, that it should sever no one from its fellowship, or from the communion of the Body and Blood of the Lord, but for some notorious and public crime,

(non occ.) It has given trouble to divers persons, that in the Church some offer unleavened and others leavened bread. The Roman Church offers unleavened, because the Lord took flesh without any pollution; other Churches offer leavened bread, because the Word of the Father took flesh upon Him, and is Very God, and Very Man; and so the leaven is mingled with the flour. But whether we receive leavened or unleavened, we are made one body of the Lord our Saviour.

This might have been so said by Judas, and answered by the Lord as not to be overheard by the rest.

As then real flesh was created by the Holy Spirit without sexual union, so by the same Holy Spirit the substance of bread and wine are consecrated into the Body and Blood of Christ. And because this consecration is made by the Lord's word, it is added, He blessed.

And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and gave thanks, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is My Body. Matthew added the words "as they were eating," to reveal the cruelty of Judas. For worse than a beast, Judas did not become more meek when he partook of the common meal. Not even when reproved did he listen, but he went so far as to taste of the Lord's Body, and still did not repent. But some say that Christ did not give the Mysteries to the other disciples until Judas had left. So we too should do the same and withhold the Mysteries from those who are evil. When He is about to break the bread He gives thanks, teaching us also to offer the Bread with thanksgiving. At the same time He also shows by this that He gladly accepts as if it were a gift the breaking of His own Body, that is, His death, and that He is not displeased as if it were something that He is unwilling to accept, so that we too, in the same manner, might gladly accept martyrdom as a gift. By saying, "This is My Body," He shows that the bread which is sanctified on the altar is the Lord's Body Itself, and not a symbolic type. For He did not say, "This is a type," but "This is My Body." By an ineffable action it is changed, although it may appear to us as bread. Since we are weak and could not endure to eat raw meat, much less human flesh, it appears as bread to us although it is indeed flesh.

When the host is broken, when the blood is poured from the cup into the mouth of the faithful, what else is denoted but the offering of the Lord's Body on the cross, and the shedding of His Blood out of His side?

(non occ.) Christ delivered to us His Flesh and Blood under another kind, and ordained them to be thenceforth so received, that faith might have its merit, which is of things that are not seen. (non occ.) Thise we must understand to be wheat bread, for the Lord compared Himself to a grain of wheat, saying, Except a corn fall into the ground &c. Such bread also is suitable for the Sacrament, because it is in common use; bread of other kinds being only made when this fails. But for as much as Christ up to the very last day, to use the words of Chrysostom as above, (p. 886.) showed that He did nothing contrary to the Law, and the Law commanded that unleavened bread should be eaten in the evening when the Passover was slain, and that all leavened should be put away, it is manifest that the bread which the Lord took and gave to His disciples was unleavened.

Above, the Evangelist set forth the celebration of the old Passover; here is set forth the institution of the sacrament of the altar. And first, the sacrament is instituted; second, the future scandal of the disciples is foretold, at then Jesus said to them: all you shall be scandalized in me. First he does two things. First, the paschal sacrament is instituted; second, the hymn of thanksgiving, at and a hymn being said, they went out unto Mount Olivet. And concerning the first he does two things. First, the institution of the sacrament is set forth under the species of bread; second, under the species of wine, at and taking the chalice, he gave thanks etc. Concerning the first, he first treats of the actions of Christ; second, the words, at take and eat; this is my body. In the actions, five things are to be noted. First, the time is set forth; second, the matter is designated; third, the blessing; fourth, the breaking; fifth, the communication, or distribution. The time is indicated when he says and whilst they were at supper etc., i.e., while they were at the meal, i.e., while they were dining. And why did he institute this at the supper itself, and not before? There is a twofold reason. Because the Lord willed that this should succeed the old sacrament, as truth succeeds figure; therefore after the institution of the old sacrament he instituted the new; Lev. 26:10: you shall cast aside the old things when the new shall come upon you. Likewise for another reason, because he willed that it should be fixed in memory: for those things which are heard last are fixed more deeply in the memory. Lam. 3:19: remember my poverty, and my transgression, the wormwood and the gall. Why then did the Church institute that men should receive this sacrament fasting? It must be said that this is out of reverence for the sacrament: for it is fitting that it be taken before other food. And this is to be understood of the same day. For since the day begins at midnight, one ought not to receive anything from midnight until the reception of this sacrament. But some have asked whether anything that enters the mouth breaks the fast for the reception of the sacrament, as for instance if someone drinks water. It is to be understood that there is a twofold fast, namely the fast of the Church and the fast of nature. The fast of the Church is not broken by drinking water, but the fast of nature is broken; because even though water does not of itself nourish, together with other things it does nourish. And you should understand that one who receives water and drink, if someone washes his mouth and accidentally swallows a single drop, he should not on that account refrain from receiving; rather, it is reckoned together with the saliva. Similarly I say regarding food, that if someone ate anise in the evening, and something remained between his teeth, if he accidentally swallows it, he should not on that account refrain from receiving. Likewise, some make it a matter of conscience that if they do not sleep, they should not receive. This has no basis, because it was not part of the institution of the Church. Hence it makes no difference whether one sleeps or does not sleep. Jesus took bread etc. Here the matter is indicated. It should be noted that this sacrament in a certain respect pertains to the old sacrament, as truth to figure. That sacrament was taken as food, because the command was that they should eat the lamb: and this one, which is taken in place of it, ought to be taken as food. And just as that was truly food, so also is this lamb; John 6:56: my flesh is meat indeed. Hence that opinion is false which held that Christ was present there only under a sign, because if it were so, what more would this sign have than that one? But that one was a sign only; this, however, is both figure and reality. But is it not irreverent that someone should eat the body of the Lord? It must be said that this food differs from other foods, because other foods are converted into our body: hence if Christ were so converted, it would be irreverent. But it is not so; rather, the converse, as Augustine says: you will not change me into yourself, but you will be changed into me. Hence this sacrament is the end and perfection of all the sacraments. And the reason is that being which exists by its essence is the end and perfection of those things which exist by participation: for the other sacraments contain Christ by participation, but in this one Christ is present according to his substance. Therefore Dionysius says that there is no sacrament that is not perfected in the Eucharist. Hence if an adult is baptized, the Eucharist ought to be given to him. Therefore it ought to be taken as food, so that the truth may correspond to the figure. And why not under its proper species? One reason is on account of the merit of faith, because faith does not have merit where human reason furnishes proof. Likewise, so as to spare those who receive, because it is not customary for human flesh to be eaten. Likewise, so as to protect it from the derision of unbelievers. And why under such a species? Because he willed that it be celebrated by all everywhere in the world: therefore he willed to give them a matter that is common to all. Now the common food is bread, and the common drink of men is wine: hence bread and wine are the principal food, while other things are rather accompaniments. Likewise, in the other sacraments, in anointing, not just any oil is used, but common oil, which is called oil from many olives; thus the unity of the Church comes from the multitude of the faithful. And so it is clear that our sacraments are more ancient than the sacraments of the old law; because the sacraments of the old law had their beginning from Moses and Aaron, but the sacraments of the new law from Melchizedek, who offered Abraham bread and wine. Therefore Christ is said to have been made a priest according to the order of Melchizedek, Ps. 109:4. Consequently, the blessing is treated; and this blessing is referred to three things. To the matter, because he blessed the fruit of the earth, in which is signified that the curse of Adam was revoked through Christ, when he said to him, Gen. 3:17: cursed is the earth in thy work, (...) thorns and thistles shall it bring forth to thee. Likewise, it is referred to that which was contained therein, namely Christ; above at 21:9: blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord. Likewise, to the fruit of the sacrament, because through it the faithful are blessed, and it passes from the head to the members; Prov. 10:6: the blessing of the Lord is upon the head of the just. Then the breaking is indicated: and he broke it: and it signifies three things. First, it signifies the mystery of the future passion, because in the passion his members were pierced, according to Ps. 21:17: they have dug my hands and feet, they have numbered all my bones. And this was done because he himself willed it; Isa. 53:7: he was offered because it was his own will. Likewise, it signifies that it is broken from unity into multiplicity, and hence it signifies the incarnation: because, although the Word of God itself was simple, it came into this multiplicity without abandoning its simplicity. Likewise, it signifies the effect which he brought upon diverse persons; because, according to the Apostle, 1 Cor. 12:4, there are diversities of graces, but the same Spirit. Likewise, the distribution is set forth: he gave to his disciples; Ecclus. 29:33: from those things which are in thy hand, feed each one. And he says his disciples, because to no one who is not baptized should such a sacrament be given. Just as a priest would not confect unless he were consecrated, so it should not be administered to anyone who is not baptized. Likewise, it is not to be given except to the faithful; indeed, unbelievers ought not to be admitted to seeing this sacrament: hence in the early Church, when there were many catechumens, they were received into the Church up until the Gospel, and then they were expelled. Likewise, since he says his disciples, it is asked whether Judas was there. All say that he gave to all together, and also to Judas, and this so that by his kindness he might recall him from sin. Likewise, so that he might give the Church a precedent that as long as a sinner was hidden, he should not be prohibited from receiving this sacrament: for men do not have the authority to judge hidden things. Hilary says here that Judas was not present, because he had already gone out. And he wants to prove this from what is said in John 13:25, when the disciples asked: who is it that shall betray thee? To whom he said: he it is to whom I shall reach bread dipped. Therefore he shows that he had already gone out. But the view of the others is to be held more firmly. And he said: take, and eat; this is my body. Here the words are set forth: and in these words he does three things. First, he exhorts them to receive; second, to eat; third, he declares the truth. He says take and eat. And what he says, take, ought to be referred to spiritual reception, because it ought not to be received except in faith and charity; John 6:55: he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. Likewise, he induces them to eat, eat, not only spiritually, but also sacramentally; Song 5:1: eat, O friends, and drink. Likewise, he designates the truth: this is my body. The form of the sacrament is contained in these words, which are the words of the Lord, because the sacrament is confected by the words of the Lord. Hence if the word of Elijah had such power that it made fire descend from heaven, much more can the word of God transmute one body into another. Then it is asked whether there is power in the words. And there is no doubt that there is. Hence it is said in Ps. 67:34: he gave to his voice the voice of power; Eccles. 8:4: because his word is full of power. Hence the priest acts in the person of Christ, and does not use words in his own person, but in the person of Christ. But what is this power? How is it so great a power? Therefore some say that there is no power there, but the power of Christ alone, which is present there. And this does not seem correct, because the sacraments of the new law bring about what they signify. But what power do they have? It must be said that there is a principal efficient cause, and this has a power remaining in itself; likewise, an instrumental cause, and this does not operate through a power remaining in itself, but one passing from another: hence the sacraments are causes, not as principal causes, but as instrumental causes with power passing from another. But then it is asked what is the actual case: whether take and eat etc. belongs to the form of the sacrament. And it must be said that only this is my body belongs to the form of the sacrament. Hence it is to be understood that the case is different with this sacrament than with the other sacraments, because the consecration of the matter is sometimes necessary for the sacrament, and sometimes not; as in Baptism the consecration of the matter is not necessary for Baptism, but in the anointings, no anointing takes place unless the oil is blessed. In the other sacraments also, the sacrament is not received in the blessing, but in the pouring; because oil and water, since they are inanimate, do not contain grace: hence since grace is the end of the sacrament, it cannot be conferred except through the reception of the sacrament. But in this sacrament is contained he who is the fullness of grace; therefore it is not perfected in us, but in the consecration of the matter. Hence even if no one were to receive, it would be no less a sacrament: hence the use is consequent and is not of necessity. Hence in the other sacraments, that belongs to the form which pertains to the use: but this does not pertain to the use, but to the holiness of the matter. Hence what is said, take and eat, which pertains to the use, does not belong to the form. Likewise, there is usually a question whether the Lord confected under these words. And it seems that he did not: because it says there, he took bread and blessed. Therefore it seems that he consecrated in the blessing. Therefore some said that he did not consecrate first by words, but by a spiritual power. And this he could do on account of his power of excellence, because he could impart the reality of the sacrament without the sacrament, since he had not bound his power to the sacraments: hence he could do this through the power of excellence. Others say that he first said the words in secret, and afterwards in public. It is better said that he said them once, and not twice, and in these words he consecrated. Hence it should be read thus: what is said, he said: take and eat, is to be referred to the preceding, so that, by saying this, he said this is my body. Here it is asked what this pronoun this demonstrates. Some said that it demonstrates not to the sense, but to the intellect, because it refers only to the substance of bread, and only for the purpose of signifying. Hence the meaning is: this is my body, i.e., what is signified by this is my body. And this cannot stand, because the sacraments of the new law bring about what they signify, and therefore it does nothing other than what it signifies: and it signifies the body of Christ, and so it would only be the body of Christ under a sign. Others say that this demonstrates the very substance of the body. But how is this? Is it immediately the body of Christ when he says this? It is clear that it is not, because if the priest were to die, it would not be consecrated unless he completed the words. Therefore others say that this delays its signification, and demonstrates what will be after the utterance of this word my. This also is not fitting, because then it would seem to say the same thing as if he were saying: my body is my body; and this is not fitting for God. Others say that the words are uttered materially, not significatively. And this cannot stand, because Augustine says: the word is joined to the element, and the sacrament is made. What then? It must be said that they are said recitatively, and at the same time recitatively and significatively. Why? Because the priest speaks in the person of Christ, and acts as if Christ were present: otherwise the words would not apply to the proper matter. What then? It must be said that it is otherwise with sacramental words than with other human words: because a human word is only significative, but the divine word is significative and effective. Hence sacramental words have their power from the divine power. Hence he simultaneously says and by divine power makes. Therefore this word is not only significative, but also effective. And first it makes, then it signifies. For in material making it is the case that something common pre-exists in every transmutation, and that common thing is under one term of the transmutation, and at the end under another. For example, suppose that from black, white is made; in this transmutation there was a body, but at the beginning it was under blackness, and afterwards under whiteness. Hence in a certain respect there is a likeness, namely insofar as there is something common; but a difference, because not in the same way; because in other material transmutations the common element is the subject, and the differing element is the form; but here it is the contrary, because the common element is the accident, and the differing element is the substance. Hence the substance is transmuted, while the common accident remains. What then does this demonstrate? It must be said that the meaning is: this is my body, i.e., what is contained under the accident is my body. Or, this comes to be: that what is contained under the accidents is my body. Hence at the end he placed a noun, but at the beginning a pronoun, which signifies an indeterminate substance; but through the noun, a determinate form. Hence at the beginning there is no form, but at the end. But how is the body of Christ there? There was one opinion that together with the body of Christ the substance of the bread remained. Hence what he says, this is my body, is referred to the body alone. Others say that the substance of the bread passes into pre-existing matter, and the body of Christ comes to be there, without the substance of the bread passing into the body of Christ. But this is disproved as follows. Because thus it seems that something begins to be where it was not before, which cannot happen unless either it is changed according to place, or something is converted into it. Just as if it be said: here there is no fire; that fire should then be there afterwards, this cannot happen unless either fire is brought there from elsewhere, or something that is there is changed into fire. But according to this opinion, the mode of conversion is removed; therefore there would be nothing but local change. But it is impossible for the same body to be in diverse places; and so on. Therefore it must be said otherwise: that the body begins to be there, not through local motion, but through the conversion of another into it; and in this the form remains, and the subject passes. Hence the subject is changed into a subject, which is the principle of individuation, not because the body of Christ exists together with the substance of the bread, or the substance of the bread is annihilated, but because it is transmuted through conversion into it. But how can it be in so small a place? It must be said that something is there by the power of the sacrament, and this is principally there; but something is there by concomitance. That is there by the power of the sacrament into which the conversion terminates. And because the bread is converted into the body of Christ, what is signified is the body of Christ, and it is not without the soul, nor without the divinity: yet the bread is not converted into the soul, or the divinity, but these are there by concomitance. Hence if someone had celebrated during the three days when the soul was separated from the body, the soul would not have been there. For in bread there are two things: substance and accidents; the accidents remain, the substance passes. Therefore that is principally there into which the transmutation terminates; but it terminates in the substance; therefore the substance is there principally, but the accidents by concomitance: and dimensions are accidents. Nor is the body of Christ in the sacrament related to place through its own dimensions, but through the pre-existing dimensions of the bread. Likewise, he broke it. But is the whole body in each part? I say that it is. And you should understand that it is said to be in a place otherwise than a located thing is in a place; because a located thing is related to a place under its own dimensions, but it is not so here. Therefore it should be noted that wherever there is some difference of quantity, it does not make a difference in the substance; but if there is something consequent upon quantity, it is divided according to quantity. But the soul does not have its totality from quantity, but has its totality in each part: hence the body of Christ is not related to that body according to quantity, but only according to substance. Therefore, just as the soul is in each part of the body, so Christ is in each part of the host. What then will happen with these accidents? It must be said that they remain without a subject by divine power. And how can this be, since accidents depend on substance? It must be said that God is the principle of being; hence he can produce an effect separated from a subject and without its principles; therefore, since the function of substance is to preserve accidents in being, God can preserve them without their principles. If you ask whether this is true of all accidents, it must be said that all accidents are referred to substance through the mediation of dimensions, and hence are in a certain way individuated; therefore the dimensions are without a subject, but quality is in the dimensions as in a subject. Hence the meaning is: this, i.e., what is contained under these accidents, which accidents remain in the dimensions, because the substance which first underlay these accidents is changed into the body of Christ.

GLORIOUS ANGELIC ANNOUNCEMENT ON THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK, THAT CHRIST IS RISEN--HIS APPEARANCE TO THE WOMEN--THE GUARDS BRIBED TO GIVE A FALSE ACCOUNT OF THE RESURRECTION. ( = Mar 16:1-8; Luk 24:1-8; Joh 20:1). (Mat 28:1-15) In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn--after the Sabbath, as it grew toward daylight. toward the first day of the week--Luke (Luk 24:1) has it, "very early in the morning"--properly, "at the first appearance of daybreak"; and corresponding with this, John (Joh 20:1) says, "when it was yet dark." See on Mar 16:2. Not an hour, it would seem, was lost by those dear lovers of the Lord Jesus. came Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary--"the mother of James and Joses" (see on Mat 27:56; Mat 27:61). to see the sepulchre--with a view to the anointing of the body, for which they had made all their preparations. (See on Mar 16:1-2). And, behold, there was--that is, there had been, before the arrival of the women. a great earthquake; for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, &c.--And this was the state of things when the women drew near. Some judicious critics think all this was transacted while the women were approaching; but the view we have given, which is the prevalent one, seems the more natural. All this august preparation--recorded by Matthew alone--bespoke the grandeur of the exit which was to follow. The angel sat upon the huge stone, to overawe, with the lightning--luster that darted from him, the Roman guard, and do honor to his rising Lord.