§ 115. THE EUCHARIST. 717
easier to understand than transubstantiation, for creation is out of nothing, but in the sacrament the substance of bread and wine disappear while the accidents remain.
A second statement elaborated by the Schoolmen is that the whole Christ is in the sacrament, divinity and human ity, — flesh, bones, nerves, and other constituents, — and yet the body of Christ is not there locally or in its dimensions.1
This is the so-called doctrine of concomitance, elaborated by Alexander of Hales, Thomas Aquinas, and other School men with great subtilty. According to this doctrine the divinity of Christ and his body are never separated. Wher ever the body is, there is also the divinity, whether it be in heaven or on the altar. The determination of this point was of importance because the words of institution mention only Christ's body.
A third integral part of the scholastic treatment of the eucharist was the assertion that the whole Christ is in each of the elements,2 a view which offered full justification for the withdrawal of the cup from the laity. Anselm had taken this view, that the entire Christ is in each element, but he was having no reference to the withdrawal of the cup.3
Two serious questions grew out of this definition; namely, whether the elements which our Lord blessed on the night of
1 Non solum caro sed totum corpus Christi, scilicet ossa, nervi et alia hujusmodi. Th. Aq., 76. 1, Migne, IV. 732. He lays stress upon the word "body," which is made up of constituent parts, and the "flesh" of John 6 : 56, he explains as standing for the body. Following the Aristotelian dis tinction of substance and form, Thomas Aquinas, Migne, IV. 726, and the other Schoolmen (see Schwane, p. 648) declared that the form of the bread and wine is also changed into the body and blood of Christ. The words forma and species are distinguished. The species of bread and wine remain, the forma disappears. Duns Scotus devoted much space to proving that a substance may have a variety of forms.
2 Sub utraque specie sacramenti totus est Christus. Th. Aq., 76. 2, Migne, 733. Sub utraque specie est unus Christus et totus et indivisus, scilicet cor pus, et anima, et Deus. Bonaventura, Breml. VI. 9, Peltier's ed., VII. 322.
3 In acceptatione sanguinis totum Christum, Deum et hominem, et in acceptatione corporis similiter totum accipimus. Ep. 4 : 107, Migne, vol. 159, p. 255. Anselm was making a distinction between the body and spirit of Christ, the spirit being represented by the blood and wine, and the body by the bread and flesh.
718 THE MIDDLE AGES. A.D. 1049-1294.
his betrayal were his own body and blood and what it was the disciples ate when they partook of the eucharist during the time of our Lord's burial. To the second question the reply was given that, if the disciples partook of the eucharist in that period, they partook of the real body. Here Duns Scotus brought to bear his theory that a thing may have a number of forms and that God can do what to us seems to be most unreasonable. As for the first question, Hugo of St. Victor shrank from discussing it on the sensible ground that such divine mysteries were to be venerated rather than discussed.1 The other Schoolmen boldly affirmed that Christ partook of his own body and blood and gave them to the disciples. " He had them in His hands and in His mouth." This body, according to Thomas, was " immortal and not subject to pain.''2 Thomas quoted with approval the lines : 3 —
The King, seated with the twelve at the table,
Holds Himself in His hands. He, the Food, feeds upon Himself.
This monstrous conception involved a further question. Did Judas partake of the true body and blood of the Lord ? This the Schoolmen answered in the negative. The trai tor took only natural and unblessed bread. Leaning upon St. Augustine, they make the assertion, upon a manipula tion of Luke 22 and John 13 according to which Christ distributed the bread and the wine before Judas took the sop, that the sop, or immersed morsel, was delusive. Judas was deceived.4
Another curious but far-reaching question occupied the
1 Summa, II. VIII., Migne, 176. 462, ego in ejusmodi divina secreta magis venerenda quam discutienda cerneo.
2 Summa, 81. 3, Migne, IV. 810-813. Anselm used the same words. Migne, 159. 255. Schwane agrees that this conception, that Christ ate His own body, was general among the Schoolmen, p. 645.
8 Sex sedet in ccena turba, cinctus duodena
Se tenet in manibus et cibat ipse cibus.
*So Hugo, II, 8. 4; the Lombard, XI. 8; Thomas Aquinas, 81. 2, Migne. pp. 811 sq. The delusion is called afictio, and also ''.Judas' communion.^ Synod of London, 1175. The argument is in clear contradiction to the ine»n ing of the Gospel narratives on their face.