Dist. 9, Art. 1, Q. 4
by St. Bonaventure
Source text: Public Domain Mark 1.0. English translation/apparatus/encoding: CC BY-NC 4.0, Wroot Press.
https://bonaventure.wrootpress.com/browse/4/d/9/q/bon-sent-IV-d9-a1-q4
----------------------------------------
### Question IV. *Whether Christ ate in both modes.*

Fourthly it is asked, whether Christ ate by any whatever of the modes mentioned above. And that he did so sacramentally, it seems:

1. Leviticus, chapter eight: *And when [Moses dipped his finger] in the blood of the ram*; the Gloss of Hesychius: « First the priest, then the sons were dipped in the blood, because Christ in the Supper first took the blood, then gave it to the disciples ». And again in the same place the Gloss says: « He drank and gave to others to drink ».

2. Likewise, it seems by reason, because he received baptism as an example: therefore if this Sacrament is more arduous, then concerning this he ought rather to give an example.

Likewise, that he ate *spiritually*, it seems:

1. Because one eats spiritually through knowledge and love: but Christ knew and loved himself in the highest degree: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, Christ was still a wayfarer, therefore he still ought to use the viaticum; but the body of Christ is spiritually the viaticum: therefore etc.

**On the contrary**, that he did not eat spiritually, it seems:

3. Because where there is spiritual eating, there is union; but where there is union, there is some diversity: therefore since the same does not differ from itself, it is plain that Christ did not eat spiritually, since he was the same as himself.

4. Likewise, where there is spiritual eating, the Sacrament has a spiritual effect; but in Christ the eating did not have such an effect: therefore etc.

Likewise, that he did not eat sacramentally, it seems:

3. Because to eat sacramentally is to eat under a veil; but Christ did not eat under a veil: therefore etc. The minor is plain, because he knew the whole thing openly.

4. Likewise, if [he ate] only sacramentally; since this is the mode owed to the wicked, but he either took in the best mode, or took in no mode; and this mode is not the best; therefore it does not befit him.

### Conclusion

> Christ took the Eucharist sacramentally, not spiritually.

**I respond:** It must be said that some have wished to say that he took it in no mode, because it did not befit him. Yet now they commonly say that Christ ate sacramentally, as Chrysostom says, that he drank first, lest the others should shrink from the drink of the blood.

But concerning the spiritual [eating] some say that he did so; for they say that there was there a union through an act of love, and the effect was not in himself, but in the members, so that, just as Christ did not merit for himself, but for us, so by the power of that eating he merited that the members of his body should be more united to himself. — But if this were true, then it would have its effect in one not eating and even in one sleeping. Furthermore, when he is baptized, others are not baptized. Finally, spiritual eating implies the intention of the union of the one eating with the one eaten, in act or in habit; neither of which was in Christ.

Therefore it must be said that, just as he received baptism only sacramentally and not the reality; so also this Sacrament; and this indeed he did as an example.

1. To that, then, which is objected, that he ate spiritually, because there was in him knowledge and love; it must be said that this does not suffice, unless there also be there incorporation, which could not be in him, because he was not diverse from that into which this eating incorporates.

2. To that which is objected, that he was a wayfarer; it must be said that it is true; but nonetheless he was the most perfect comprehensor and could in no way advance, neither in habit nor in motion of fervor. Hence granted that someone however perfect — even if not blessed — receives the Sacrament worthily; charity is intensified in him in motion, or in habit.

3. To that which is objected, that he did not eat sacramentally, because not under a veil; it must be said that for the full account of sacramental eating it is not required that the sign come as *veiling*, but it suffices that it come as *signifying*; that it veil, however, is *per accidens*, because the seeing eye is not fully illumined; whence by veiling it illumines and by illumining it veils.

4. To that which is objected, that only the wicked eat sacramentally; it must be said that someone receives only sacramentally because he is not fit for spiritual efficacy. But this can be from a twofold cause: either on account of the fullness of *grace*, and this belongs to perfection and was in Christ alone: or this is on account of his own ineptitude and unworthiness, and thus it is in sinners. And so that [text] is plain.

---