IV Sententiae, d. 8, q. 1Concerning the Eucharist

ARTICLE 2: On the prefiguration of thissacrament.

Utrum huic sacramento figurae assignaridebeant

SUBQUESTION 1: Whether figures ought to beassigned to this sacrament.

Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quodhuic sacramento figurae assignari nondebeant.

Proceeding to the second, it seems that figuresought not to be assigned to this sacrament.

Nihil enim disponitur per aliquid sui generis;albedinis enim non est albedo, nec motus estmotus. Sed sacramentum est signum. Ergosacramento non debet aptari aliqua figura,quia in infinitum iretur.

1. For nothing is disposed through something ofits own genus, for white is not the subject ofwhiteness, nor motion of motion. But a sacramentis a sign. Therefore a figure ought not to beadapted to a sacrament, since this would go on toinfinity.

Praeterea, sacramenta veteris legis dicuntursacramentis novae legis respondere, inquantum signant ipsa. Sacramentis autemnovae legis quae sunt maximae perfectionisnon respondebant aliqua sacramenta inveteri lege, ut quidam dicunt. Cum ergo hocsacramentum sit maximae perfectionis,videtur quod non debeant ei aliquae figuraeassignari.

2. Further, the sacraments of the old law are saidto correspond to the sacraments of the new law,insofar as the former signify the latter. But to thesacraments of the new law that are greatest inperfection no sacraments of the old lawcorrespond, as certain ones say. Since, thereforethis sacrament is greatest in perfection, it seemsthat various figures ought not to be assigned to it.

Praeterea, sicut praefigurata Eucharistia estin agno paschali, ita et Baptismus in transitumaris rubri, ut dicitur 1 Corinth., 10. Cum ergoMagister non assignaverit aliquas figurasBaptismi, videtur quod nec Eucharistiaefiguras assignare debeat.

3. Further, as the Eucharist is prefigured in thepassover lamb, so is baptism prefigured in thecrossing of the Red Sea, as is said in 1Corinthians 10. Since therefore the Master did notassign any figures to baptism, it seems thatneither should he have assigned figures to theEucharist.

Sed contra, On the contrary:hoc sacramentum memoriale passionisChristi est specialiter. Sed passionem Christipraecipue oportebat praefigurari, per quamnos redemit, ut fides antiquorum adredemptorem ferretur. Ergo praecipueoportebat hoc sacramentum figurari.

1. This sacrament is, in a special way, a memorialof the passion of Christ. But it was necessary toprefigure especially the passion of Christ, throughwhich he redeemed us, in order that the faith ofthe ancients might be borne toward theRedeemer. Therefore it was especially necessarythat this sacrament be prefigured.

Praeterea, hoc sacramentum estdignissimum, et difficillimum ad credendum.Sed talia maxime consueverunt praefigurari.Ergo et cetera.

2. Further, this sacrament is the worthiest, and themost difficult to believe in. But things of such akind are most of all accustomed to be prefigured.Therefore, etc.

Respondeo Response:dicendum ad primam quaestionem, quodsacramenta novae legis tripliciter se habentad veterem legem. Quaedam enimessentialiter fuerunt in veteri lege, quamvisnon ut sunt sacramenta novae legis, sedmagis secundum quod sunt in officium velactum virtutis; sicut poenitentia, ordo, etmatrimonium. Quaedam fuerunt secundumaliquid eis respondens non essentialiter,sicut Baptismus et Eucharistia. Quaedamautem nihil respondens habuerunt in veterilege, sicut confirmatio et extrema unctio.Cujus ratio est, quia prima tria sacramentanon solum sunt sacramenta; sed poenitentiaest actus virtutis; ordo autem pertinet adofficium dispensationis sacramentorum;matrimonium autem ad officium naturae; etideo in qualibet lege requiruntur. Baptismusautem et Eucharistia sunt sacramenta tantumgratiam continentia; et ideo ante tempusgratiae esse non debuerunt. Sed quia suntsacramenta necessitatis, Baptismus quidemquantum ad effectum, Eucharistia autemquantum ad fidem ejus quod repraesentaturper ipsam; ideo oportuit quod in lege Moysihaberent aliquid respondens: sed confirmatioet extrema unctio sunt sacramenta gratiamconferentia; et ideo in veteri lege esse nondebuerunt. Et quia non sunt sacramentanecessitatis, sed cujusdam superabundantisperfectionis; ideo non oportebat quodhaberent aliquid respondens, cum non essettempus plenitudinis gratiae; et ideo haec duonon fuerunt praefiguranda aliquibusexpressis figuris, similiter neque prima tria,sed tantum duo media, scilicet Eucharistia etBaptismus.

It should be said that the sacraments of the newlaw 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 newlaw, but rather as they were for an office or werethe act of virtue, such as penance, order, andmarriage. There were some that corresponded,not essentially but according to some aspect,such as baptism and the Eucharist. Finally therewere some that had nothing corresponding tothem in the old law, such as confirmation andextreme unction. The reason for this is that thefirst three sacraments are not only sacraments,but penance is an act of virtue, while orderpertains to the office of the dispensing ofsacraments and marriage to the office of nature;and hence they are required in any lawwhatsoever. But baptism and the Eucharist aresacraments alone, containing grace;1 and thusbefore the time of grace they ought not to haveexisted. But since they are sacraments ofnecessity - baptism in regard to its effect, and theEucharist in regard to the faith of that which isrepresented by it - it was thus necessary that inthe law of Moses they should have somethingcorresponding to them. Finally, confirmation andextreme unction are sacraments [alone],conferring grace,2 and thus they ought not to haveexisted in the old law. And since they are notsacraments of necessity, but of a superabundantperfection, it was therefore unnecessary that theyhave something corresponding to them, since itwas not yet the time of the fullness of grace; andtherefore these two were not prefigured by anyexpress figures; nor, similarly, were the first three;but only the middle two, namely the Eucharist andbaptism.

Replies to objections:Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod oppositaerelationes possunt inesse eisdem respectudiversorum, eo quod esse relativi est adaliquid se habere, non autem proprietatesabsolutae; et ideo in relativis contingit aliquiddisponi per aliquid sui generis per accidens,et non per se; sicut filii est filius, noninquantum filius, sed inquantum pater; etsimiliter signi potest esse signatum. In

1. To the first, therefore, it should be said thatopposite relations can exist in the same thingswith respect to different things, because relativebeing is to stand toward something, but absolutecharacteristics cannot; and so in relations ithappens that something is disposed throughsomething of its own genus per accidens, as thereis a son of a son, not insofar as he is a son, butinsofar as he is a father; and similarly, there can

absolutis autem non contingit hoc; undequalitatis non est qualitas nec per se nec peraccidens.

be a sign of a sign. But in absolute[characteristics] this cannot happen; hence therecan be a quality of a quality neither per se nor peraccidens.

Ad secundum dicendum, quod una perfectiodicitur alia minor dupliciter: aut simpliciter,aut secundum statum; sicut praemiumessentiale quod aurea dicitur, est simplicitermajus quam praemium accidentale, quoddicitur aureola; sed aureola est majorquantum ad statum habentis, quia noncuilibet datur, sed tantummodo illis qui suntin statu perfectionis. Et similiter dico, quodperfectio Eucharistiae est simpliciter majorquam perfectio confirmationis et extremaeunctionis, sed illae sunt majores secundumstatum: quia perfectio Eucharistiae, quae estper conjunctionem ad principium sanctitatisest omnibus de necessitate salutis; sedperfectio spiritus sancti ad robur quae est inconfirmatione, vel perfectio purgationis areliquiis peccati, quae est in extremaunctione, non sunt omnibus necessaria; etideo perfectioni Eucharistiae debet aliquidrespondere in qualibet lege, non autemperfectioni confirmationis et extremaeunctionis nisi in lege in qua est statusperfectionis, quae est lex gratiae.

2. To the second, it should be said that oneperfection is called lesser than another in twoways: either simply speaking, or according tostate; as the essential reward, which is called"gold crown," is simply speaking greater than theaccidental reward, which is called the "aureole";3but the aureole is greater with respect to the stateof the haver, because it is not given to justanyone, but only to those who are in the state ofperfection. And similarly I say that the perfectionof Eucharist is simply speaking greater than theperfection of confirmation and of extreme unction,but that of those is greater according to status. Forthe perfection of the Eucharist, which is by way ofunion with the very source of holiness, is a matterof necessity for everyone's salvation, while theperfection of the Holy Spirit for strengthening,which is given in confirmation, or the perfection ofcleansing from the remnants of sin, which is givenin extreme unction, are not necessary foreveryone; and so in the old law something oughtto correspond to the perfection of the Eucharist,but not to the perfection of confirmation or ofextreme unction; these are reserved for the law inwhich the state of perfection is found, namely, thelaw of grace.

Ad tertium dicendum, quod praefiguratioEucharistiae erat magis necessaria quamBaptismi, tum ratione dignitatis, tum rationedifficultatis, tum propter necessitatem fideiejus quod figuratur in Eucharistia. TamenMagister supra aliquas figuras Baptismiposuit, scilicet circumcisionem et BaptismumJoannis.

3. To the third, it should be said that theprefiguration of the Eucharist was more necessarythan that of baptism, by reason of its dignity, byreason of its difficulty [for faith], and on account ofthe necessity of faith in that [mystery] which isfigured in the Eucharist. Nevertheless, above theMaster did set down some figures of baptism,namely circumcision and the baptism of John.

SUBQUESTION 2: Whether the Master assignsthe figures of this sacrament fittingly.

Ulterius. Videtur quod Magisterinconvenienter assignet figuras hujussacramenti.

Moreover, it seems that the Master assigns thefigures of this sacrament unfittingly.

Hoc enim sacramentum post Baptismumdatur. Sed agnus paschalis praecessittransitum maris rubri, in quo Baptismus est

1. For this sacrament is given after baptism. Butthe paschal lamb preceded the crossing of theRed Sea, which crossing prefigures baptism.

praefiguratus. Ergo non est congrua figurahujus sacramenti.

Therefore it [the lamb] is not a congruous figure ofthis sacrament [of the Eucharist].Praeterea, in hoc sacramento aliquid offertur

Deo. Sed Melchisedech non legitur Deoobtulisse, sed homini, scilicet Abrahae, cuiobtulit panem et vinum, ut dicitur Gen. 14.Ergo illa oblatio non est conveniens figurahujus sacramenti.

2. Further, in this sacrament something is offeredto God. But we do not read [in Scripture] thatMelchisadech offered something to God, butrather to man, namely to Abraham, to whom heoffered bread and wine, as is said in Genesis 14.Therefore that oblation is not a fitting figure of thissacrament.

Praeterea, idem non est signum sui ipsius.Sed sanguis qui consecratur in altari, estillemet quem Christus in cruce fudit pronobis. Ergo ille non est signum vel figuraistius.

3. Further, the same thing is not a sign of itself.But the Blood that is consecrated upon the altar isthe very same as that which Christ shed upon thecross for us. Therefore the latter is not a sign orfigure of the former.

Praeterea, manna habebat in se omnemsaporis suavitatem, ut dicitur Sap. 16. Sedhoc sacramentum non habet in se omnemsaporem spiritualem: quia sic habereteffectus omnium sacramentorum, et aliasacramenta superfluerent. Ergo manna nonest figura hujus sacramenti.

4. Further, manna "was having in it everysweetness of taste," as is said in Wisdom 16. Butthis sacrament does not have in it every spiritualtaste; for thus it would have the effect of everysacrament, and the other sacraments would besuperfluous. Therefore manna is not a figure ofthis sacrament.

Praeterea, nobilioris rei nobilior debet essefigura. Sed Eucharistia est nobiliussacramentum quam Baptismus. Cum ergoBaptismus habuerit figuram quae praebebatremedium ex ipso opere operato contraoriginale, scilicet circumcisionem;supradictae autem figurae non fuerunt tales;videtur quod fuerunt incompetentes.

5. Further, the nobler a thing, the nobler its figureought to be. But the Eucharist is a noblersacrament than baptism. Since therefore baptismhad a figure that provided a remedy againstoriginal sin by the very fact of its beingaccomplished [ex opere operato], namelycircumcision, yet the aforesaid figures [of theEucharist] were not such [in power], it seems thatthey were inadequate [as figures].

Praeterea, in canone Missae fit mentio desacrificio Abrahae et Abel; et similiter omniasacrificia legalia hujus veri sacrificii figurafuerunt. Ergo insufficienter posuit Magisterfiguras hujus sacramenti.

6. Further, in the Canon of the Mass mention ismade of the sacrifice of Abraham and Abel; and inlike manner all the legal sacrifices were figures ofthis true sacrifice. Therefore [having omittedsuch,] the Master set down the figures of thissacrament unfittingly.

Response:Ad secundam quaestionem dicendum, quodaliquid potest figurari dupliciter. Uno modoper id quod est signum et causa: et hoc modoeffusio sanguinis et aquae ex latere Christifuit figura hujus sacramenti. Alio modo per idquod est signum tantum; et sic quantum ad idquod est sacramentum tantum in Eucharistia,fuit figura ejus oblatio Melchisedech;quantum autem ad id quod est res etsacramentum, scilicet ipsum Christumpassum, fuit figura agnus paschalis; quantum

It should be said that something can berepresented by a figure in two ways. In one way,through that which is [both] sign and cause; and inthis way the outpouring of blood and water fromthe 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 sacramentonly [sacramentum tantum] in the Eucharist, theoblation of Melchisadech was its figure; as far asthat which is both sacrament and reality, namelythe very Christ who suffered [for us], the paschal

autem ad id quod est res tantum, scilicetgratiam, fuit signum manna, quod reficiebat,omnem saporem suavitatis habens.

lamb was the figure; and as far as that which isreality alone [res tantum], namely grace, themanna that refreshed, having every sweetness oftaste, was the figure.

Replies to objections:Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod ratio illavaleret, si Baptismi et Eucharistiae tantumesset una figura: sunt autem plures; et ideonon est inconveniens quod aliquam figuramBaptismi praecedat aliqua figuraEucharistiae, et ab aliqua praecedatur; sicutpraecedit agnus paschalis transitum marisrubri, et sequitur circumcisionem.

1. To the first, therefore, it should be said that thatargument would prevail if there were but a singlefigure of baptism and the Eucharist. There are,however, many; and so it it is not unfitting thatsome figure of baptism should precede somefigure of the Eucharist, and be preceded by some[other]; even as the paschal lamb precedes thecrossing of the Red Sea, but follows circumcision.

Ad secundum dicendum, quod Eucharistiaoffertur Deo in sanctificatione hostiae, etoffertur populo in ipsius sumptione; et hocsignificatum fuit in oblatione Melchisedech,qui obtulit Abrahae panem et vinum, etbenedixit Deo excelso.

2. To the second, it should be said that theEucharist is offered to God in the consecration ofthe host, and is offered to the people in theconsumption of the same; and this was signifiedin the oblation of Melchisadech, who offered toAbraham bread and wine, and blessed God in thehighest.

Ad tertium dicendum, quod nihil sub eademspecie manens est signum sui ipsius; sedaliquid secundum quod est in una specie,potest esse signum sui secundum quod estsub alia specie; et similiter est in propositodicendum, quod aqua fluens de latere Christifigurabat populum, qui ejus sanguineredimendus et reficiendus erat; et ideosignificabat aqua sanguini admixta hujussacramenti usum.

3. To the third, it should be said that nothing, aslong as it remains under the same appearance, isa sign of itself; but something, according as it is inone appearance, can be a sign of itself accordingas it is under another appearance. And somethingsimilar should be said of the case at hand, for thewater flowing from the side of Christ was a figureof the people that was to be redeemed andrefreshed by his blood; and so the water admixedwith blood signified the use of this sacrament.4

Ad quartum dicendum, quod sacramentumhabet omnem suavitatem, inquantum continetfontem omnis gratiae, quamvis non ordineturejus usus ad omnes effectus sacramentalisgratiae. Vel dicendum, quod etiam quantumad effectum habet omnem suavitatis effectumin reficiendo, quia hoc solum sacramentumper modum refectionis operatur. Veldicendum, secundum Dionysium, quodomnium sacramentorum effectus huicsacramento possunt ascribi, inquantumperfectio est omnis sacramenti, habens quasiin capitulo et summa omnia quae aliasacramenta continent singillatim.

4. To the fourth, it should be said that thesacrament has every sweetness, insofar as itcontains the source of all grace, although its useis not ordered to every effect of sacramentalgrace. Or it should be said that even with regardto effect it has every sweetness of effect in termsof refreshing, because this sacrament aloneoperates in the manner of refreshment. Or itshould be said, following Dionysius, that the effectof all sacraments may be ascribed to thissacrament, inasmuch as it is the perfection ofevery sacrament, having in principle and intotality, as it were, all that the other sacramentscontain one by one.

Ad quintum dicendum, quod Baptismus estsacramentum necessitatis quantum adeffectum, quia delet peccatum originale, quo

5. To the fifth, it should be said that baptism is thesacrament of necessity as regards its effect,because it wipes away original sin, the remaining

manente non est salus; et ideo oportebatquod in veteri lege responderet sibi aliquafigura, quae contra originale remediumpraeberet, scilicet circumcisio. SedEucharistia est sacramentum necessitatisquantum ad fidem ejus quod repraesentat,scilicet opus nostrae redemptionis; et ideonon oportuit quod haberet figuras remediumpraebentes, sed signantes tantum.

of which bars salvation; and therefore it wasnecessary that in the Old Law there shouldcorrespond to it some figure that was provided asa remedy against original sin, namelycircumcision. But the Eucharist is a sacrament ofnecessity as regards faith in that which itrepresents, namely the work of our redemption;and therefore it was not necessary that thereshould have been figures providing a remedy, butrather [that there be figures] serving exclusively assigns [of the redemption to come].

Ad sextum dicendum, quod quamvis in veterilege fuerint figurae plures materialiter, tamenomnes ad has reducuntur: quia in omnibussacrificiis et oblationibus antiquorumsignificabatur illud quod est res etsacramentum in Eucharistia, quod etiamsignificatur per agnum paschalem, scilicetipse Christus qui obtulit se Deo patri pronobis oblationem et hostiam. Vel dicendum,quod istae figurae repraesentant corpusChristi secundum quod est in usu fideliumper esum, quod patet de oblationeMelchisedech, qui panem et vinum edendumobtulit Abrahae; et similiter agnus paschalisedendus a populo occidebatur; et etiammanna ad esum populi a Deo providebatur:aqua etiam sanguini admixta in passioneChristi populum significat Christi sanguinecommunicantem. Non autem ita est in aliissacrificiis; et ideo quamvis sint figurae Christipassi, non tamen sunt propriae figurae hujussacramenti. Fit autem in canone Missaementio de oblatione Abrahae et Abel magispropter devotionem offerentium quam propterfiguram rei oblatae.

6. To the sixth, it should be said that although inthe Old Law there were many figures materially[considered], nevertheless all of them are ledback to these [that the Master mentions]: since inall sacrifices and oblations of old, there wassignified that which is the reality and sacrament inthe Eucharist, which indeed was signified by thepaschal lamb, namely the very Christ who offeredhimself an oblation and victim to God the Fatheron our behalf. Or it should be said that thosefigures represent the body of Christ according asit 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 thepurpose of eating it; and in like manner thepaschal lamb was slain in order to be eaten bythe people; and the manna, too, was provided byGod with a view to the feeding of the people. Thewater, too, mixed with blood in the Passion ofChrist signifies the people sharing in the blood ofChrist. But it is not so in other sacrifices; andtherefore although they are figures of the Christwho suffered, they are not appropriate figures ofthis sacrament. In the Canon of the Mass mentionis made of the oblation of Abraham and Abel,however, more on account of the devotion of theones offering than on account of the figurativenature of the thing offered.

SUBQUESTION 3: Whether this sacrifice wasmore expressly prefigured in the law of Mosesthan in the law of nature

Ulterius. Videtur quod in lege Moysiexpressius fuit figuratum hoc sacrificiumquam in lege naturae.

Moreover, it seems that this sacrifice was moreexpressly prefigured in the law of Moses than inthe law of nature.

Quia, secundum Hugonem, quanto magisappropinquavit passio salvatoris, tanto signa

1. For, according to Hugh [of St. Victor], the morethe Passion of the Savior drew near, the more

fuerunt evidentiora. Sed ea quae fuerunt inlege Moysis, fuerunt propinquiora. Ergoexpressiora.

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 fiebatsanguinis effusio. Sed oblatio Melchisedechfuit sanguinis sine effusione. Ergo legaliasacrificia expressius figurabant sacramentumpassionis Christi quam oblatio Melchisedech.

2. Further, in the sacrifices of the law of Mosesthere occurred the shedding of blood. But theoblation of Melchisadech was of blood without theshedding [of blood]. Therefore the legal sacrificesmore expressly prefigured the sacrament of thepassion of Christ than the oblation ofMelchisadech.

Sed contra, On the contrary:Christus dicitur sacerdos secundum ordinemMelchisedech, non autem secundumsacerdotium legis Moysi, quod estsacerdotium leviticum, ut patet Hebr. 7. Ergooblatio Melchisedech magis convenit cumsacrificio Christi quam sacrificium legisMoysi.

Christ is called a priest "according to the order ofMelchisadech" - not according to the priesthood ofthe Mosaic law, which is the levitical priesthood,as is clear from Hebrews 7. Therefore the oblationof Melchisadech has more in common with thesacrifice of Christ than a sacrifice of the Mosaiclaw.

Response:Ad tertiam quaestionem dicendum, quodquantum ad id quod est signum tantum in hocsacramento, expressior figura hujussacramenti fuit oblatio Melchisedech quamfigurae legis Moysi; sed quantum ad id quodest res et sacramentum; expressior fuit figuralegis Mosaicae, qua expressius Christuspassus significabatur. Et quia ritussacramenti consistit in signis exterioribus;ideo sacerdotium Christi quantum ad ritummagis convenit cum sacerdotioMelchisedech quam cum sacerdotio levitico;et etiam quantum ad alias conditionesMelchisedech, quas apostolus pleniusprosequitur.

It should be said that as far as that which is signalone in this sacrament, the oblation ofMelchisadech was the more express figure of thissacrament than the figures of the law of Moses;but as far as that which is both reality andsacrament, the more express was the figure of thelaw of Moses, by which the Christ who sufferedwas more expressly signified. And because therite of the sacrament consists in exterior signs,therefore the priesthood of Christ as regards therite has more in common with the priesthood ofMelchisadech than it has with the leviticalpriesthood - and also as regards other aspects ofMelchisadech, which the Apostle describes morefully [in that letter to the Hebrews].

Et per hoc patet solutio ad objecta. And through this [response] the solution to theobjections becomes clear.

Endnotes

1. tantum gratiam continentia (return to text)

2. gratiam conferentia. What Thomas seems to be saying is that confirmation and extremeunction 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 threecategories here: the sacraments that are sacraments as well as something else; the puresacraments 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 ofaurea, "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)