XI

The Sentences of Peter Lombard, the “Master of the sentences,” who became Bishop of Paris in 1158 and died in 1160, was one of the most famous and one of the most influential of mediæval works. It bears the marks of a conviction that, while authority must decide as to matters of faith, Christian theology is able, if rightly considered, to approve itself to the deeper instincts of human reason; and that objections to it and difficulties in the way of accepting it are matters for discussion and argument. Concerning the Eucharist, Peter Lombard carried further and gave the support of his influence to the attempt, found among writers of the Church from the time of Lanfranc downwards, to use “the realistic distinction between the substance—the impalpable universal which was held to inhere in every particular included under it—and the accidents or sensible properties which came into existence when the pure Form clothed itself in Matter,” in the interests of a doctrine which should at the same time maintain the traditional teaching that the consecrated elements are the body and blood of Christ and avoid carnal notions which tended to impair the spiritual character of the presence thus affirmed. Apart from the direct quotations from the fathers which form a large part of his work, much which he says reproduces the thought and the language of earlier writers already referred to; but his special importance justifies a brief statement as to the whole of his teaching in regard to the Eucharist. The Eucharist, he says, “gives spiritual refreshment”; in it “He who is the fount and source of all grace is wholly taken”; “this heavenly food leads to heaven the faithful who are passing through the desert of this world, and is rightly called food for the journey (viaticum) because it refreshes us on the way and brings us to our country”. At the recital of the words “This is My body,” “This is My blood,” “the conversion of the bread and wine into the substance of the body and blood of Christ takes place”. “The thing which is signified and contained is the flesh of Christ, which He took from the Virgin, and the blood which He shed for us,” as distinct from “the thing which is signified and not contained,” namely, “the unity of the Church”; and a distinction must be made between “the Sacrament and not the thing,” that is, “the visible species of bread and wine,” “the Sacrament and the thing,” that is, “Christ’s own flesh and blood,” and “the thing and not the Sacrament,” that is, “the mystical flesh of Christ”. There are “two ways of eating” the Sacrament, the “sacramental,” by which both good and bad partake, and the “spiritual,” by which only the good partake; so that “the flesh of Christ which was taken from the Virgin, and the blood which was shed for us, are taken by the good not only sacramentally but also spiritually, while they are taken by the bad only sacramentally, that is, under the Sacrament, that is, under the visible species”; and “it is clear that the body of Christ is taken by good and bad, but by the good to salvation, by the bad to destruction”. Peter Lombard emphatically condemns the view that “on the altar there is not the body of Christ or His blood, and that the substance of the bread and wine is not converted into the substance of flesh and blood,” and that “the body of Christ is there only by way of Sacrament, that is, by way of sign, and is eaten by us only by way of sign”. “The body of Christ is in one place,” that is, “in heaven,” “visibly in human form”; “His reality, that is, His divinity, is everywhere”; “His reality, that is, His real body, is on every altar where the Sacrament is celebrated”. “The real body and blood of Christ are on the altar, or rather the whole Christ is there under each species; and the substance of the bread is converted into the body, and the substance of the wine into the blood.” Whether the conversion at the consecration is “formal” or “substantial” or “of some other kind” Peter Lombard says that he is unable to define, but that he cannot regard it as “formal” since the species remain, and that the teaching of authority seems to point to it being “substantial”. He rejects the views that “the bread passes into the body of Christ” in such a way that “the substance of bread and wine” “is resolved into pre-existing matter or is reduced to nothing,” and that “the substance of the bread and wine remain” so that it is there as well as the substance of the body and blood of Christ; on the contrary, after consecration “there is no substance there except that of the body and blood of Christ,” “though the species remain”. The reason why, when Christ is wholly received under either kind, the Sacrament is taken in two kinds is as a sign that He “took the whole of human nature in order to redeem the whole; for bread is related to flesh, and wine to the soul, because wine makes blood, in which the scientists say is the seat of the soul”; “though Christ is received whole in either kind, yet the conversion of the bread is only into flesh, and the conversion of the wine is only into blood”. At the institution of the Sacrament our Lord gave to His disciples “such a body as He then had, that is, mortal and possible; but it is now taken by us immortal and impassible”. In considering the question in what subject the accidents, which remain after the consecration, are, Peter Lombard inclines to the opinion that “they exist without a subject rather than that they are in a subject”. He regards it as a misunderstanding of the declaration imposed on Berengar to suppose that the body of Christ itself is broken and divided; the fraction is real and not apparent only, but is of the species of bread not of the substance of the body of Christ, “since the body of Christ is incorruptible”. In the mystical significance of the ceremonies of the rite “the fraction is a representation of the passion and death of Christ”. Evil priests validly consecrate, because “the consecration is effected not by the merit of the consecrator but by the word of the Creator”; but Peter Lombard differs from the opinion that has been usual in saying, like Hugh of St. Victor, that an excommunicate or avowedly heretical priest cannot validly consecrate; like Hugh of St. Victor again he alludes to the use of the plural number “we offer” not the singular “I offer” as marking that the priest consecrates “in the person of the Church”. He holds it a possible view that, if the Sacrament is eaten by an irrational animal, “the body of Christ is not taken,” though he can only answer the inquiry as to what in that case is taken and eaten by saying “God knows”. It may be well to quote the passage in which, in addition to the brief reference to the mystical commemoration of the passion in the ceremonies of the rite already mentioned, Peter Lombard treats of the sacrifice in the Eucharist:—

“It is next inquired whether that which the priest does is properly called a sacrifice or offering, and whether Christ is daily offered or has been offered once only. To this it can be said shortly that what is presented and consecrated by the priest is called a sacrifice and an oblation, because it is the memorial and representation of the real sacrifice and holy offering which was made on the altar of the cross. On the cross Christ died once, and there was He offered in Himself; in the Sacrament He is offered daily, because in the Sacrament there is the commemoration of that which was done once.… This commemoration is not repeated for the sake of His weakness, for He perfects human nature, but for the sake of ours, because we sin daily. Hence it is gathered that what is done on the altar is and is called a sacrifice; and that Christ has been offered once and is offered daily, but in one way at that time, in another way now. And also it is shown what is the virtue of this Sacrament, namely the remission of venial sins and the perfecting of virtues.”

It is important to notice that, though thus preserving the teaching that the Eucharistic sacrifice is a commemoration of the passion of Christ, Peter Lombard does not refer to the commemoration mentioned by many writers of our Lord’s whole incarnate life including His resurrection and ascension or to the connection of the Eucharist with His heavenly offering.