Dist. 11, Part 1, Art. 1, Q. 3
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/11/q/bon-sent-IV-d11-p1-a1-q3
----------------------------------------
### Question III. *Whether this conversion is an annihilation.*

Thirdly it is asked whether this conversion is an annihilation. And that it is, seems to be the case:

1. Because everything that is so changed that nothing of it remains is annihilated; but it is so with the substance of the bread in the matter at hand: therefore it is an annihilation.

2. Likewise, a succeeding generation does not take away the preceding corruption: therefore a succeeding conversion does not take away the preceding corruption; but here the matter and the form are corrupted, and so the whole: therefore whatever succeeds, the bread is nonetheless annihilated.

3. Likewise, suppose that by an equal power the whole universe were converted into the body of Christ, it would be annihilated. *Proof:* with the whole universe ceasing into nothing, Christ alone remaining, no less remains than if the whole were converted into Christ, since Christ alone exists: therefore if there were annihilation there, [there is] also here.

4. Likewise, this argument is necessary: A is not B, nor a part of B, nor anything of it, nor anything else; and it existed: therefore it is annihilated. But the bread is not Christ, nor a part of Christ, nor anything else: therefore etc.

**On the contrary:** 1. Nothing that is converted into a thing more worthy than itself is annihilated; but the bread is converted into a thing much more worthy than itself: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, an action is named from its term; therefore, since annihilation is named from this, that it is nothing, also by annihilation nothing comes to be; but nothing has nothing of good: therefore neither does annihilation. But no action is from the highest Good except a good one: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, from the highest Good never does that which is good become evil: therefore by a similar [reasoning] never does that which is being become non-being or nothing.

4. Likewise, Augustine: «The Founder of nature does nothing against nature»; but every nature desires to be, as the Philosopher says: «We say that nature desires what is better, and to be is better than not to be».

5. Likewise, in the Sacrament the character of a sign or a fitting signification ought to be preserved; but this Sacrament is not corruptive, but conservative and meliorative: therefore in it there ought not to be annihilation.

> **Conclusion.** Transubstantiation is not annihilation, but a change into a better substance.

**I respond:** It must be said that, as the Master touches upon in the text, the position of certain men was that there is an annihilation of the bread, since nothing of it remains, or because it seemed unworthy to say that something foreign should pass over into the body of Christ; hence it seemed more reasonable to them that the bread should yield to the body of Christ, not by changing place, but by ceasing to be, and that Christ's body should supervene. — But this position cannot stand, since this does not befit God to do, who is the whole cause in this conversion, nor does so vile a work befit the Sacrament.

Therefore all commonly hold that it is not an annihilation of the bread, but rather a change into a better substance; and therefore such a conversion is *transubstantiation*, not annihilation, and ought to be so called. Furthermore, if the bread were not converted into the body of Christ, it would not be [possible] to understand how the body of Christ could begin to be on the altar without a change of itself, as was shown before; on account of which it is to be called a conversion of the bread, not an annihilation.

1. To the objection therefore: Nothing remains of the bread, therefore it is annihilated; it must be said that this does not follow, because annihilation is not only that nothing of a thing remains, but that it ceases into nothing; but here it does not cease into nothing, but rather into something better.

2. To the objection that a posterior generation does not take away the prior corruption, etc.; it must be said that this is true, because the form is corrupted which does not yield into a contrary form; but if that form were converted into a contrary one, it would not be said to be corrupted altogether, but to pass into another thing.

3. To the objection from the universe, it must be said that on this account it is not annihilated altogether. — As to what it objects: No more things remain than if [there were] nothing; it is true that no more things [remain], but nevertheless Christ comes to be in several places and under all the species and supplies the place of all the substances, and those accidents, from the presence of the Lord's body, have the operation which the substance would have, as will be made clear below. And when some operation fitting to the species is destroyed, by the same miracle the form of the bread and its matter return, as will be made clearer below; therefore nothing perishes on this account in nature, but in a certain way ceases for a time.

4. To the last objection, it must be said

that that division is insufficient, because it does not follow that it is annihilated if it is neither this nor that; because this [proposition] has two grounds of truth: it is neither this nor that — either because it ceased into nothing, or because it passes into another thing; and by reason of this it is true, and this is not to be annihilated.