Dist. 12, Part 1, Art. 1, Q. 2
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/12/q/bon-sent-IV-d12-p1-a1-q2
----------------------------------------
### Question II. *Whether in the sacrament of the Eucharist it is fitting that the species exist without a subject.*

Secondly it is asked, whether it is fitting that in this Sacrament there be species without a subject. And that it is not unfitting, but rather fitting, is clear:

1. Because, if there were a subject there, in no way would there be so great a dependence of the species on what is contained, as there is; and so it would never be a sign so leading [to the thing signified].

**On the contrary:** 1. It is less unfitting that a non-glorified body be at the same time with a glorified one, than that an accident be without a subject: if therefore a glorified body were at the same time with the bread, it would be much less unfitting than that the accidents be without a subject, and more credible: therefore it was more fitting that the accidents remain in a subject than be separated.

2. Likewise, those accidents lead to the understanding that there is the substance of bread there, since they are the proper accidents of bread and signs of the substance: therefore in this Sacrament, since there is no substance, there is some falsity; but it is not seemly that there be falsity in the Sacrament of truth: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, by the work of a miracle prejudice ought not to be done to the nature of a thing; but when a thing is placed in a location which does not befit its nature, although it be nobler, nevertheless prejudice is done to it, as if a worm were placed in heaven, or a foot on the shoulders: therefore likewise, when a property is given to it which does not befit its nature. But to be without a subject is a property in no way befitting the nature of an accident: therefore it is not fitting that this be given to it by a miracle.

4. Likewise, the intellect is weaker for believing the contrary of what it perceives, than the sense is for receiving something horrible to it — for the sense can do this without grace, as is clear in one who takes medicine, but the intellect cannot — but nothing ought to be done as a comfort to the lesser weakness, which is done to the prejudice of the greater: if therefore the veiling of the accidents conceals from the intellect what is there, in no way ought the accidents to have remained there.

> **Conclusion.** It is fitting that in the Eucharist the accidents remain, and indeed without a subject.

**I respond:** It must be said that it is fitting that the accidents remain there; because they are, as Hugh says, for the comfort of sense and for the merit of faith. For while the true body of flesh is veiled, both faith merits more by believing what it does not see, and the sense more willingly receives.

But it is fitting that they alone remain without a subject: on account of a *more efficacious signification*, because they lead more efficaciously and more perfectly into what is signified, since they do not have there anything stabilizing them by nature. — On account of *fitting nourishment*; for since this food is spiritual, therefore the soul must be lifted up from the carnality of sense through faith, and from carnal delight through charity; and therefore material bread ought not to have remained there. — On account of the *promotion of faith*; for while the intellect is lifted up to understand what is above nature, namely that the accidents are without a subject, it becomes more apt to believe what is above itself, that the whole Christ is in so small a host. — The fourth reason, on account of the *perfection of the divine works*, which ought to be found in this Sacrament, since it is most perfect. And a twofold perfection is observed in this Sacrament: the first is in this, that the accidents receive a most noble mode of being, namely to be through themselves; and in this, that that substance which was underneath, since it was material and corruptible, is transubstantiated into a substance, that is, into a body spiritual and incorruptible and into a body joined to the Divinity and glorious.

1. To the objection therefore which is raised, that it is less unfitting; it must be said that this is not unfitting to this Sacrament, but rather very fitting.

2. To the objection which is raised concerning falsity, it must be said that one must not assent to sense, but to faith; and therefore there is nothing at all of falsity there, but of truth.

3. To the objection which is raised, that prejudice ought not to be done to the nature of a thing; it must be said that there is a twofold order of things, one namely universal, the other particular, which is owed to this thing or that. I say therefore that by a miracle nothing ought to be done to the prejudice of the universal order; for if the foot were in the head, it would be to the prejudice of the whole body; likewise neither [ought there be done] anything that would be to the prejudice of the whole universe. But although the nature of some thing be bettered and receive a state of greater nobility than befits its nature, provided that a fitting ordering be made, it comes about fittingly according to the order of the universe; and so in the case at hand, because these things are ordered to the utility of man. — Or it must be said that it befits the nature of each thing to obey the Creator, and that is befitting to its nature which the Creator has commanded, [a thing] which, if it is not befitting before, afterward becomes befitting.

4. To the objection which is raised concerning the weakness of the intellect, it must be said that this would be true, unless another medicine were given to it; and this is the grace of faith, by which the intellect is strengthened to believe without doubt what it does not see.

---