Matthew 26:28

The Lord having given His disciples His Body under the element of bread [marg. note: sub specie panis], well gives the cup of His Blood to them likewise; shewing what joy He has in our salvation, seeing He even shed His Blood for us.

He gave thanks to instruct us after what manner we ought to celebrate this mystery, and shewed also thereby that He came not to His Passion against His will. Also He taught us to bear whatsoever we suffer with thanksgiving, and infused into us good hopes. For if the type of this sacrifice, to wit, the offering of the paschal lamb, became the deliverance of the people from Egyptian bondage, much more shall the reality thereof be the deliverance of the world. "And gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it." That they should not be distressed at hearing this, He first drank His own blood to lead them without fear to the communion of these mysteries.

Thus then the Lord Jesus was at once guest and feast, the eater and the things eaten. [ed. note: ap. Grat. do Consecr. d. ii. 87.]

"This is my blood of the new testament;" that is, the new promise, covenant, law; for this blood was promised from of old, and this guarantees the new covenant; for as the Old Testament had the blood of sheep and goats, so the New has the Lord's Blood.

For thus it is read, "Behold the blood of the covenant which the Lord hath made with you." [Ex 24:8]

And in calling it blood, He foreshews His Passion, "My blood... which shall be shed for many." Also the purpose for which He died, adding, "For the remission of sins;" as much as to say, The blood of the lamb was shed in Egypt for the salvation of the first born of the Israelites, this My Blood is shed for the remission of sins.

And it is to be noted, that He says not, For a few, nor, For all, but, "For many;" because He came not to redeem a single nation, but many out of all nations.

Thus saying, He shews that His Passion is a mystery of the salvation of men, by which also He comforts His disciples. And as Moses said, "This shall be an ordinance to thee for ever," [Ex 12:24] so Christ speaks as Luke relates, "This do in remembrance of me." [Luke 22:19]

And He taught us to offer not bread only, but wine also, to shew that they who hungered and thirsted after righteousness were to be refreshed by these mysteries.

non occ.: As the refreshment of the body is wrought by means of meat and drink, so under the form of meat and drink the Lord has provided for us spiritual refreshment. And it was suitable that for the shewing forth the Lord's Passion this Sacrament should be instituted under both kinds. For in His Passion He shed His Blood, and so His Blood was separated from His Body. It behoved therefore, that for representation of His Passion, bread and wine should be separately set forth, which are the Sacrament of the Body and Blood. But it should be known, that under both kinds the whole of Christ is contained; under the bread is contained the Blood, together with the Body; under the wine, the Body together With the Blood. Ambrosiaster, in 1 Cor 11:26: And for this reason also in do we celebrate under both kinds, because that which we receive avails for the preservation of both body and soul.

The cup of the Lord is not water only, or wine only, but the two are mixed; so the Lord's Body cannot be either flour only, or water only, but the two are combined. [ed. note: To signify, as S. Cyprian proceeds to say, the union between Christ and His faithful people; "For if one offer wine only, the blood of Christ begins to be without us; if water only, the people begin to be without Christ." This passage of Cyprian is quoted in Gratian. de Cons ii. 7.]

If Melchisedech offered bread and wine, what means this mixing of water? Hear the reason. Moses struck the rock, and the rock gave forth abundance of water, but that rock was Christ. Also one of the soldiers with his spear pierced Christ's side, and out of His side flowed water and blood, the water to cleanse, the blood to redeem. [ed. note: ap. Gratian de Cons. d ii, 83, cf. Paschas de Corp. et Sang. 11]

For it should be known, that as John speaks, "The many waters are nations and people." [Rev 17:15] And because we ought always to abide in Christ and Christ in us, wine mixed with water is offered, to shew that the bead and the members, that is, Christ and the Church, are one body; or to shew that neither did Christ suffer without a love for our redemption, nor we can be saved without His Passion.

And having spoken of His Passion and Cross, He proceeds to speak of His resurrection, "I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth, &c." By the "kingdom" He means His resurrection. And He speaks this of His resurrection, because He would then drink with the Apostles, that none might suppose His resurrection a phantasy. Thus when they would convince any of His resurrection, they said, "We did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead." [Acts 10:41] This tells them that they shall see Him after He is risen, and that He will be again with them. That He says, "New," is plainly to be understood, after a new manner, He no longer having a passible body, or needing food. For after His resurrection He did not eat as needing food, but to evidence the reality of the resurrection. And forasmuch as there are some heretics who use water instead of wine in the sacred mysteries [ed. note: e.g. The Encratites, followers of Saturnius and Tatian in the second century. See Can. Apost. 43 and 45 of Johnson's Translation.], He shews in these words, that when He now gave them these holy mysteries, He gave them wine, and drank the like after He was risen; for He says, "Of this fruit of the vine," but the vine produces wine, and not water.

Or otherwise; From carnal things the Lord passes to spiritual. Holy Scripture speaks of the people of Israel as of a vine brought up out of Egypt; [marg. note: Ps 80:8, Jer 2:21] of this vine it is then that the Lord says He will drink no more except in His Father's kingdom. His Father's kingdom I suppose to mean the faith of the believers. When then the Jews shall receive His Father's kingdom, then the Lord will drink of their vine. Observe that He says, "Of my Father," not, Of God, for to name the Father is to name the Son. As much as to say, When they shall have believed on God the Father, and He has brought them to the Son.

Or otherwise; "I will not drink of the fruit of this vine," i.e. I will no longer take pleasure in the carnal oblations of the Synagogue, among which the immolation of the Paschal lamb held an eminent place. But the time of My resurrection is at hand, and the day in which exalted in the Father's kingdom, that is, raised in immortal glory, "I shall drink it new with you," i.e. I shall rejoice as with a new joy in the salvation of that people then renewed by the water of baptism.

Or otherwise; When He says, "I shall drink it new with you," He gives us to understand that this is old. Seeing then that He took body of the race of Adam, who is called the old man, and was to give up to death that Body in His Passion, (whence also He gave us His Blood in the sacrament of wine,) what else can we understand by the new wine than the immortality of renewed bodies? In saying, "I will drink it with you," He promises to them likewise a resurrection of their bodies for the putting on of immortality. "With you" is not to be understood of time, but of a like renewal, as the Apostle speaks, that "we are risen with Christ," the hope of the future bringing a present joy. That which He shall drink new shall also be "of this fruit of the vine," signifies that the very same bodies shall rise after the heavenly renewal, which shall now die after the earthly decay.

It seems from this that Judas had not drunk with Him, because He was not to drink hereafter in the kingdom; but He promises to all who partook at this time of this fruit of the vine that they should drink with Him hereafter.

non occ.: But in support of the opinion of other saints, that Judas did receive the sacraments from Christ, it is to be said, that the words "with you" may refer to the greater part of them, and not necessarily to the whole.

Then, again, when we encounter the question (as to the veracity of those five senses which we learn with our alphabet; since from this source even there arises some support for our heretics. They are the faculties of seeing, and hearing, and smelling, and tasting, and touching. The fidelity of these senses is impugned with too much severity by the Platonists, and according to some by Heraclitus also, and Diocles, and Empedocles; at any rate, Plato, in the Timæus , declares the operations of the senses to be irrational, and vitiated by our opinions or beliefs. …

9. Nor is there need of very many arguments, dearest brother, to prove that baptism is always indicated by the appellation of water, and that thus we ought to understand it, since the Lord, when He came, manifested the truth of baptism and the cup in commanding that that faithful water, the water of life eternal, should be given to believers in baptism, but, teaching by the example of His own authority, that the cup should be mingled with a union of wine and water. For, taking the cup on the eve of His passion, He blessed it, and gave it to His disciples, saying, “Drink ye all of this; for this is my blood of the New Testament, which shall be shed for many, for the remission of sins. …

10. I then returned to the argument used in my former letter, in which I laboured to show that it was not right either for us to reproach them with atrocities of which some of their party had been guilty, or for them to reproach us if any such deeds were found by them to have been done on our side. For I granted that no example could be produced from the New Testament of a righteous man putting any one to death; but I insisted that by the example of our Lord Himself, it could be proved that the wicked had been tolerated by the innocent. For His own betrayer, who had already received the price of His blood, He suffered to remain undistinguished from the innocent who were with Him, even up to that last kiss of peace. …

15. It is a question among the students of the sacred Scriptures, whether the faith in Christ before His passion and resurrection, which the righteous men of old learned by revelation or gathered from prophecy, had the same efficacy as faith has now that Christ has suffered and risen; or whether the actual shedding of the blood of the Lamb of God, which was, as He Himself says, for many for the remission of sins, conferred any benefit in the way of purifying or adding to the purity of those who looked forward in faith to the death of Christ, but left the world before it took place; whether, in fact, Christ’s death reached to the dead, so as to effect their liberation. To discuss this question here, or to prove what has been ascertained on the subject, would take too long, besides being foreign from our present purpose.

Chapter 50. 98. It is indeed worth while to consider the whole of the passage in the aforesaid letter to Magnus, which he has put together as follows: "Not dwelling," he says, "in the house of God, that is to say, in the Church of Christ, in which none dwell save those that are of one heart and of one mind, as the Holy Spirit says in the Psalms, speaking of ‘God that maketh men to be of one mind in an house.’ Finally, the very sacrifices of the Lord declare that Christians are united among themselves by a firm and inseparable love for one another. …

The Christians of Carthage have an excellent name for the sacraments, when they say that baptism is nothing else than “salvation,” and the sacrament of the body of Christ nothing else than “life.” Whence, however, was this derived, but from that primitive, as I suppose, and apostolic tradition, by which the Churches of Christ maintain it to be an inherent principle, that without baptism and partaking of the supper of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and everlasting life? So much also does Scripture testify, according to the words which we already quoted. …

They therefore who say, “If through the sin of the first man it was brought about that we must die, by the coming of Christ it should be brought about that, believing in Him, we shall not die;” and they add what they deem a reason, saying, “For the sin of the first transgressor could not possibly have injured us more than the incarnation or redemption of the Saviour has benefited us.” But why do they not rather give an attentive ear, and an unhesitating belief, to that which the apostle has stated so unambiguously: “Since by man came death, by Man came also the resurrection of the dead; for as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive?” For it is of nothing else than of the resurrection of the body that he was speaking. …

But whatever opinion he may entertain about the shame-causing concupiscence of the flesh, I must request your attention to what he has said respecting infants (and it is in their behalf that we labour), as to their being supposed to need a Saviour, if they are not to die without salvation. I repeat his words once more: “You assert,” says he to me, “that they, indeed, who have not been ever born might possibly have been good; those, however, who have peopled the world, and for whom Christ died , you decide to be the work of the devil, born in a disordered state, and guilty from the very beginning.” Would that he only solved the entire controversy as he unties the knot of this question! For will he pretend to say that he merely spoke of adults in this passage? Why, the subject in hand is about infants, about human beings at their birth; and it is about these that he raises odium against us …

5. If then it was “the likeness of flesh of sin,” not flesh of sin, how, “That by sin He might condemn sin in the flesh”? So a likeness is wont to receive the name of that thing of which it is a likeness. The word man is used for a real man; but if you show a man painted on the wall, and enquire what it is, it is answered, “A man.” So then Flesh having the likeness of flesh of sin, that it might be a sacrifice for sin, is called “sin.” The same Apostle says in another place, “He made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin.” “Him who knew no sin:” Who is He who knew no sin, but He That said, “Behold the prince of the world cometh, and shall find nothing in me? Him who knew no sin, made He sin for us;” even Christ Himself, who knew no sin, God made sin for us. …

4. But since you call to mind many who were offended and went astray, how many of the disciples do you suppose were offended at the time of the crucifixion? One betrayed Him, the others took to flight, one denied Him, and when all had abandoned Him He was led away bound without companions. How many then think you who had lately seen Him working His miracles, raising the dead, cleansing lepers, casting out devils, multiplying loaves, and doing all other kinds of wonderful deeds, were offended at that season, when they beheld Him led away and bound, surrounded by common soldiers, and followed by Jewish priests making a tumult and uproar; alone in the midst hemmed in by all his enemies, and the traitor standing by and exulting in his deed? And what was the effect think you when He was being scourged? and probably a vast multitude was present. …

[4.] Ver. 21, 22 . “Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry. And almost all things are by the law purged with blood, and without shedding of blood is no remission.” Why the “almost”? why did he qualify it? Because those [ordinances] were not a perfect purification, nor a perfect remission, but half-complete and in a very small degree. But in this case He says, “This is the blood of the New Testament, which is shed for you, for the remission of sins.” ( Matt. xxvi. 28 .)

Orth. You have spoken as a lover of truth should speak, for when the Lord had taken the symbol, He did not say “this is my godhead,” but “this is my body;” and again “this is my blood” and in another place “the bread that I will give is my flesh which I will give for the life of the world.”