naturales proprietates remanere: paneitatem, quæ satiando famem expellit et vineitatem, quæ satiando sitim expellit.

• Thomas Aquinas (Summ. P. iii. Qu. 75, Art. 6, and 7, Qu. 76, Art. 3) made the assertion, that the body is broken only secundum speciem sacramentalem, but is itself incorruptibile et impassibile: see the passages quoted by Münscher, edit. by von Cölln, pp. 253, 254. [Aquinas argues, in Art. 6, against those who maintained, that the forma substantialis of the bread remained; for, 1. if the substantial form remains, the mere matter alone is changed, and not the form, whereas the words of institution say, This is my body. 2. Because this substantial form remained, it must be either in, or separate from the matter; both of which are in the case impossible, etc. Qu. 77, Art. 1: Relinquitur quod accidentia in hoc sacramento maneat sine subjecto, quod quidem virtute divina fieri potest. Baur, p. 267: Aquinas says, transubstantiation is neither an annihilation nor a continuance of the substance; if the accidents abide without the substance, this is like the case of all miracles, a working of the first cause without the second causes. The whole Christ was conceived as being in each part of the species; and to explain how this could be, how a body of greater quantity could be in a smaller, not dimensive, but as a substantial quantity, the scholastics made distinction, which at last run out into this-that existence in space does not belong to the essence of things that appear in space. Aquinas, Dist. 76, Art. 4.] Christ is whole and undivided in every particle of the host. In the same way the consecrated wine, though other liquids may be added, remains the blood of Christ as long as it does not cease to be wine. Fortunately these subtile definitions required only a fides implicita, but not explicita; see Cramer, vii. pp. 728, 729. The theory of Thomas is more fully developed by Engelhardt, Dogmengeschichte, ii. p. 214, ss., note; Ebrard, i. 487. [Hampden's Bampton Lectures, Lect. vii.]

17

* Peter Lombard, started this question, Sent. Lib. iv. Dist. 13, A., and decided: Illud sane dici potest, quod a brutis animalibus corpus Christi non sumitur, etsi videatur. Quid ergo sumit mus vel quid manducat! Deus novit hoc.-Alexander Hales, however, who lived about a century later, pretended to a better knowledge respecting this point (Summa P. iv. Qu. 45, Membr. 1, Art. 1 and 2). He took the affirmative side of the question, in support of which he asserted, that, if a sinner could receive the body of Christ, the same might be supposed, with much more propriety, in the case of an innocent animal: on the other hand, he professed to be aware that God abhors only the sin of the sinner, but not his human nature, which alone is susceptible of the beneficial effects of the sacrament. Nevertheless he was compelled to admit, that if a dog or a pig swallowed the unbroken host, the body of our Lord entered into the belly of the animal.—Thomas Aquinas held similar views, P. iii. Qu. 80, Art. 3: Etiamsi mus vel canis hostiam consecratam manducet, substantia corporis Christi non desinit esse sub speciebus, quamdiu species illæ manent, hoc est quamdiu substantia panis maneret; sicut etiam si projiceretur in lutum.-On the other hand, Bonaventura expressed himself with more propriety (after he had stated all that might be said for and against the doctrine) in Comment. ad. Sent. iv. Dist. 13, Art. 2, Qu. 1; Quantumcunque hæc opinio muniatur, nunquam

tamen ita munitur, quamquam aures piæ hoc abhorreant audire, quod in ventre muris vel in cloaca sit corpus Christi, quamdiu species ibi subsistunt. Propter hæc est alia opinio, quod corpus Christi nullo modo descendit in ventrem muris. . . . . . .Et hæc opinio communior est, et certe honestior et rationabilior. Nevertheless this more appropriate and rational view was determined by the Synod of Paris, A. D. 1300, to be one of those articles, in quibus Magister Sententiarum non tenetur (Münscher, edit. by von Cölln, p. 255).—Thomas Aquinas, however, held, that an animal can partake of the body of Christ only accidentaliter, but not sacramentaliter: and Pope Innocent III. endeavored (De Myst. Missæ iv. 21,) to get rid of all difficulties by supposing that the body of our Lord left the host in the same miraculous way in which it had entered it (reconversio.) Compare Wilhelm Holder's satire: Mus exenteratus, etc., published in the sixteenth century, in Meiners and Splitters Neues Götting. historisches Magazin, Vol. ii. p. 716-734, where some other curiosities are collected.

8 See the next section.

• The elements are, properly speaking, changed only into the body and blood of Christ, but his soul is united to his body, and his divine nature to his soul; see Thomas Aquinas, P. iii. Qu. 76, Art. 1. On the controversy which took place in the kingdom of Valencia, A. D. 1382 (respecting the transubstantiation of the bread into the whole Trinity), see Baluze, Notæ ad Vitas Paparum Avenionensis, T. i. p. 1368, ss. (from an ancient MS.); and Schröckh, xxxiii. p. 325.

10 The transubstantiation takes place in instanti, not successive. Comp. Alex. Hales, P. iv. Qu. 10, Memb. 5, Art. 4. Thom. Aquinas, P. iii. Qu. 75, Art. 7. Albertus Magnus, Sentent. iv. Dist. 10, Art. 3. (Klee, Dogmengeschichte, ii. p. 204.)

11 Thus Anselm said, 1. c. P. ii. c. 4: Sic ergo constat, in diversis locis uno horæ momento esse posse corpus Christi, sed lege creatricis naturæ, non creatæ. The other scholastics adopted the same opinion. Similar views were also entertained by the mystics. Compare Ruysbroek, Specul. æternæ Salutis c. 8, and Engelhardt's monograph. p. 261: “All the bread which our Lord himself consecrated for his body (at the institution of the Lord's Supper),* as well as the bread which the priests now everywhere consecrate, is, according to its true nature, only one bread (only one bread in its nature.) In the act of consecration all the hosts, by means of the secret intention of the priest, and the enunciation of the words of consecration, are united into one matter, and one substance, and what was formerly bread, now becomes entirely the body of Christ.... Every bit of bread, every drop of wine, contains the whole Christ, who is in heaven, but not confined to any particular place, as the one undivided soul is equally diffused throughout the body.... The body of Christ is present in all countries, places, and churches; hence we may preserve it in various ways, and keep it in various places; we may

*It was thought that Christ himself partook, by way of accommodation, of his own body, at the institution of the sacrament in question; see Thomas Aquinas, 1. c. Qu. 81, Scrhöckh, xxxix. p. 163. On a chalice at Hildesheim is inscribed: Rex sedet in cœna, turba cinctus duodena, se tenet in manibus, se cibat ipse cibus. Comp. Riemer, Mittheilungen über Göthe, ii. 704.

have it, receive it, and give it in the casket. But as he exists in heaven having his hands, his feet, and all his members, and is seen by the angels and the redeemed in all his glory, he does not change his abode, and is ever present." -In illustration of such things, the instance was adduced of a mirror composed of many pieces in which a single image is variously reflected; see Klee, ii. p. 211.*

12

Respecting the institution of this festival (whether in consequence of a revelation to Juliana of Liege?), see Gieseler, ii. § 77, notes 15 and 16. 13 The idea of a sacrifice is intimately connected with that of transubstantiation. Peter Lombard, Sent. Lib. iv. Dist. 12, g.: Breviter dici potest, illud quod offertur et consecratur a sacerdote vocari sacrificium et oblationem, quia memoria est et repræsentatio veri sacrificii et sanctæ immolationis factæ in ara crucis. Et semel Christus mortuus in cruce est ibique immolatus est in semetipso (Heb. vii. 27), quotidie autem immolatur in sacramento, quia in sacramento recordatio fit illius quod factum est semel. Thomas Aquinas entered into more lengthened discussions, Summ. P. iii. Qu. 83, Art. 1, ss. quoted by Münscher, edit. by von Cölln, pp. 270, 271. [Aquinas, after giving the aspects under which it can not be called an immolatio, says: duplici ratione celebratio hujus sacramenti dicitur immolatio Christi. Primo quidem quia.... imago quædam est repræsentativa passionis Christi, quæ est vera ejus immolatio.... Alio modo quantum ad effectum passionis Christi, quia scilicet per hoc sacramentum participes efficimur fructus Dominicæ passionis.] The mystical theory was, that Christ is both priest and sacrifice at the same time; see Conc. Lateran. IV. can. 1, note 4. Concerning the usual canon of the mass, the various kinds of mass (missæ solitaræ) etc., comp. the archeological and liturgical works of Calixt (Dissert. de Pontificio Missæ Sacrificio Francof. 1644, and de Missis Solitariis. Helmst. 1647-8); Buddeus (Dissert, de Origine Missæ Pontificia, in Miscell. Sacra, Jen., 1727, T. i. p. 1-63); and Augusti (Archæologie, vol. iv. and viii).-On the adoration of the host during the mass, as well as at other times (e. g. when it was carried to the sick, etc.), which may be dated from the thirteenth century, see Cæsarius of Heisterbach, De Miraculis et Visionibus sui Temporis Dialog. lib. ix. c. 51, quoted by Gieseler, ii. p. 485, § 77, note 14; and C. de Lith., de Adoratione Panis consecrati et Interdictione sacri Calicis in Eucharistia. 1753-8. Decret. Gregorii IX. Lib. iii. Tit. 41, c. 10, (quoted by Münscher, edit. by von Cölln, p. 262): Sacerdos vero quilibet frequenter doceat plebem suam, ut, cum in celebratione missarum elevatur hostia salutaris, quilibet se reverenter inclinet, idem faciens cum eam defert presbyter ad infirmum.

14 This is the more cheering aspect of the history of the doctrine in question, which has too often been overlooked in works on the history of doctrines. Thus Anselm said, De Sacram. Altaris P. ii. c. 8 (p. 75): Cum ergo de carne

* Since every host contains the body of Christ, and one priest may lift up one host at the same time when another priest lowers down another, it follows, according to W. Occam, that a body may move at one and the same time in two different directions: Aristotle indeed makes the opposite assertion, yet this is because he looked at the matter merely from the natural point of view: see Centiloq. conclus. 27. Rettberg in the Studien und Kritiken, 1839, part 1, p. 76.

sua amandi se tantam ingerit materiam, magnum et mirificam animabus nostris vitæ alimoniam ministrat, quam tunc avidis faucibus sumimus, cum dulciter recolligimus et in ventre memoriæ recondimus, quæcunque pro nobis fecit et passus est Christus. Hoc est convivium de carne Jesu et sanguine, qui cum communicat, habet vitam in se manentem. Tunc enim communicamus, cum fide ardente, quæ per dilectionem operatur, reposuimus in mensa Domini, qualia ipsi sumsimus, videlicet, ut, sicut ille totum se præbuit pro salute nostra nulla sua necessitate, sic nos totos fidei ejus et charitati exhibeamus necessitate salutis nostræ. In hoc convivio quicunque saginatur, nescit panem suum otiosus comedere, sed solicite cum muliere ejus ardet de nocte hujus seculi consurgere ad lucernam verbi Dei, ut labores manuum suarum manducet, et bene sit ei. Sique in Christo manet bonus conviva Christi propriæ dilectionis affectu, habetque Christum in se manentum per sanctæ operationis effectum. Quod cum utrumque donum Dei sit, totum accrescit magis ac magis ad cumulum amoris in illum, quem perfecte amare est perfecte bonum esse. Hunc autem cibum plus manducat, qui amplius amat, et plus amando rursus qui plus et plus manducat, et plus et plus amat. Licet hujus amoris in hac vita non nisi pignus quoddam accipiamus, plenitudinem ejus, in præmium, in futuro seculo expectantes. Et ecce hoc est manducare illam carnem, de qua dicit Jesus [John, vi.]: Qui manducat carnem meam, in me manet et ego in eo.—Similar language was used by Hugo of St. Victor, who here again, "combined the dialectic prudence of the scholastics with the warmth and depth of the mystics." He expressed himself as follows (Lib. i. P. viii. c. 5) :—“ He who eats without being united to Christ, has the sacrament indeed, but he has not the essence of the sacrament. On the contrary, he who eats and is united to our Lord, has the essence of the sacrament, because he has faith and love. Even suppose he could neither take nor eat, yet he would be far more esteemed by our Lord than he who takes and eats, but neither believes nor loves, or he who believes, but does not love." (Liebner, p. 435.) Comp. Bonaventura, Sent. iv. Dist. x. P. 1, Qu. 1, Art. 1, quoted by Klee, Dogmengesch. ii. p. 190. [B. says: "As many we need union, as pilgrims we need food, as sinners, a daily sacrifice: that which unites, feeds and purifies, can only be God, or what is joined to God, that is, the body of Christ." He further shows how faith, hope, and love, and humility were nourished by this sacrament.] Comp. Breviloq. vi. 9, Centiloq. iii. 50.—Tauler, 4 Predigten auf unsers Herrn Frohnleichnamstag (vol. ii. p. 178, ss.); 2 Predigten von dem heiligen Sacrament (ibid. p. 294, ss., comp. p. 333, ss.) Ruysbroek, 1. c.—Gerson, Sermo de Eucharistia in Festo Corporis Domini; Opp. P. i. p. 1284-92. His illustrations are all pervaded by the spirit of mysticism; thus he says, p. 1219: Est panis angelorum, qui factus fuit et formatus in pretioso ventre Virginis gloriosæ et decoctus in fornace ardente dilectionis, in arbore crucis, qui manducari debet cum baculo spei, cum boni exempli califactorio, cum acetosis lachrymis bonæ patientiæ, velociter recordando finem nostrum, in una domo per unitatem integre, per veram credulitatem, tostus per ignem charitatis, etc.-Suso calls the Lord's Supper the sacrament of love, and celebrated in it the mystic union of the soul with God; see his Ewige Weisheit, fol. (in Schmidt, loc. cit. 51; Diepenbroek, 350).—In like manner Thomas à Kempis, De Imit.

Christi Lib. iv. 4: Ecce, unde dilectio procedit, qualis dignatio illucescit ! quam magnæ gratiarum actiones et laudes tibi pro his debentur! O quam salutare et utile consilium tuum, cum istud instituisti ! quam suave et jucundum convivium, cum te ipsum in cibum donasti! O quam admirabilis operatio tua, Domine! quam potens virtus tua, quam ineffabilis veritas tua! Dixisti enim, et facta sunt omnia, et hoc factum est, quod ipse jussisti. 5: Mira res et fide digna, ac humanum vincens intellectum, quod tu, Domine Deus meus, verus Deus et homo, sub modica specie panis et vini integer contineris, et sine consumtione a sumente manducaris. Tu Domine universorum, qui nullius habes indigentiam, voluisti per Sacramentum tuum habitare in nobis: conserva cor meum et corpus immaculatum, ut læta et pura conscientia sæpius tua valeam celebrare mysteria, et ad meam perpetuam accipere salutem, quæ ad tuum præcique honorem et memoriale perenne sanxisti et instituisti.—6: Lætare, anima mea, et gratias age Deo pro tam nobili munere et solatio singulari in hac lacrymarum valle tibi relicto. Nam quoties hoc mysterium recolis et Christi corpus accipis, toties tuæ redemtionis opus agis, et particeps omnium meritorum Christi efficeris. Charitas enim Christi nunquam minuitur et magnitudo propitiationis ejus nunquam exhauritur. Ideo nova semper mentis renovatione ad hoc disponere te debes, et magnum salutis mysterium attenta consideratione pensare. Ita magnum, novum et jucundum tibi videri debet, cum celebras aut Missam audis, ac si eodem die Christus primum in uterum Virginis descendens homo factus esset, aut si in cruce pendens pro salute hominum pateretur et moretur.- Wessel entertained similar views (though he somewhat differed from the ecclesiastieal doctrine, see § 196, note 7), comp. De Orat. viii. 6, p. 148; de Sacrament. Eucharist. C. 26, p. 699, quoted by Ullmann, p. 329: “The bread set before believers, is the purest and most perfect mirror of love, lifted up on the hills, that all may see it, and none hide himself from its warming beams," etc.

§ 195.

THE WITHHOLDING OF THE CUP FROM THE LAITY. CONCOMITANCE.

*Spittler, Geschichte des Kelches im Abendmahl. Lemgo, 1780.

In the Western Church the custom was gradually adopted of administering to the laity only the consecrated host, while the priests alone partook of the cup.' In defence of such a practice, theologians advanced the doctrine of concomitance, developed about the same time, according to which Christ exists wholly in each of the elements, so that those who receive the consecrated host, partake of his blood no less than of his body. Robert Pulleyn is said to have been the first who claimed the participation of the cup as the prerogative of the clergy. Alexander Hales, Bonaventura, and Thomas Aquinas, followed him. But Albertus Magnus, while conceding that the blood of Christ was also present in the body,

3

2