Dist. 12, Part 1, Art. 2, 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-a2-q2
----------------------------------------
### Question II. *Whether the accidents have the power of converting other [things] into the Sacrament.*

Secondly it is asked whether the accidents have the power of converting other [things] into the Sacrament, as for example if water is added to consecrated wine. And that they do, seems to be the case:

1. Because the consecration in this Sacrament is of equal, or greater, power than the blessing in [holy] water; but blessed water joined to unblessed water makes the whole to be blessed: therefore unconsecrated wine, joined to consecrated [wine], becomes consecrated: therefore it has the power of converting.

2. Likewise, when water or wine is added, those species occupy a greater place: therefore the blood of Christ is under a greater species; but the blood of Christ is not under a greater place, except because something is converted into it: therefore that which is added is converted into the blood itself: therefore the species, which is the Sacrament, converts another [thing] into the Sacrament.

3. Likewise, this is shown by *reason*, because an accident together with a substance does not occupy a greater place nor make [it] greater, just as neither does a glorified body together with a non-glorified one; but in the chalice there is nothing except the substance of the glorified blood or of the body of Christ and the accident: therefore if that which is added remains in [its] substance; it seems that it can be in the same place, so that it does not occupy a greater place; which is manifestly false, as is clear to one who looks. It remains, therefore, that that which is added is not preserved in the character of a substance, but only of a species, like the species which is there: therefore necessarily there is a conversion there.

4. Likewise, if another liquid is added, such as water in a great quantity, the whole would be converted into the substance of water, so that it truly is water: therefore by parity of reasoning, if so little is added there that the species predominates; it seems that it is converted into the true Sacrament, since the unconsecrated cannot prevail over the consecrated any more than the converse.

5. Likewise, this very thing is shown through the *impossible*: because, when wine or water is added, one surface comes to be: I ask therefore: is that surface *in a subject*, or *without a subject*? If *in a subject*: therefore

if some little [quantity] is added, it ceases to be the Sacrament. If *without a subject*: therefore the whole is the Sacrament. If *without a subject* and *in a subject*: therefore two contradictorily opposed [things] are true of the same [thing], which never happens. If you say to me that according to one part it is *in a subject*, according to another *outside a subject*; *on the contrary*: suppose that water is added, and they are mixed down to the smallest [parts]; then one cannot assign distinct parts: therefore it is necessary that at least then it be converted.

**On the contrary:** 1. Nothing is converted into blood except through transubstantiation; but the power of transubstantiating is not in the element, but in the word: therefore however much another element be added to the species, transubstantiation does not occur: therefore the substance remains together with the accidents: therefore it is not converted into the Sacrament.

2. Likewise, if it is converted; then either by the power of the *blood*, or by the power of the *wine*. Not by the power of the *blood*, because that blood is glorified, therefore it does not have the power of converting anything into itself. Likewise, not by the power of the *wine*, because wine, which is converted, is converted by reason of its *substance*, not by reason of its *properties*; and there the substance of wine is not present: therefore there is no force which could convert.

3. Likewise, water is not of its nature [able] to be converted into blood: therefore if it is added to consecrated wine, it does not pass over into blood: therefore its substance remains, and so etc.

> **Conclusion.** The accidents do not have the power of converting another substance, when added, into the Sacrament.

**I respond:** It must be said that the accidents do not have the power of converting another substance into the Sacrament. And the reason for this is that in this Sacrament there is transubstantiation; but transubstantiation does not occur without the word: therefore however much other wine be added; namely [? but] into a pure accident these accidents cannot convert that added [thing], unless its transubstantiation occurs. At least it is asked whether a little water is converted into wine by the species of wine.

[Therefore,] the element, unless the word be present, does not become the Sacrament.

And *if you object* that water is blessed by water, and oil is blessed by oil; it is answered that it is not similar: because consecration in oil and blessing in water posits only some *accident* and a certain property of sanctification; but here consecration posits a conversion *into the true substance* and the containment of the same, which is from the uncreated power alone assisting the word itself.

There is also another reason: because blessed water is wholly reached, and according to the whole that it has in itself, is commingled with the supervening water, and blessed oil with [unblessed] oil; but the contained blood is commingled with no liquid there, because it is not diffused there, but is glorified blood, contained within the veins, and therefore is reached by no liquid; and therefore nothing can be converted into it through commixture or contact. If therefore anything is converted, it is necessary that it be converted through transubstantiation and a new consecration.

It must therefore be conceded that the species of wine joined to another liquid does not convert [it] into the Sacrament.

1. And the response to the first objection is clear, that it is not similar both by reason of the fact that here there is a conversion into a substance, and because the mixture is not such nor so great as in blessed water.

To the objection that a little water is converted by the species of wine; it is answered in a twofold way according to various [authors]: in one way, that it is not converted, so that the *substantial form* of the water *is dissolved*, but to be *converted* there is only to be *altered*, because the taste and color and smell are changed, and it participates in the properties of wine; and therefore as far as our senses [are concerned] it is converted. And such a conversion disposes toward conversion into the Sacrament, if the word were present; but since it is not present, it is not converted, but the substance remains, having the property of wine through the *act and power* of that species. — The other way of speaking is that the water is converted into wine, and this by the power of those species; not, I say, into wine which is wine according to *species*, but it is wine only according to *matter*, just as flesh according to *species* converts [it] into flesh according to *matter*. — And if you object that «nothing gives what it does not have»; this is true according to *substance*, or according to *power*; but those species, although they do not have the *substance* of wine, nevertheless have its *power* and operation: and therefore, just as true wine would dissolve the species of a little water and convert it according to truth, so it must be understood in the matter at hand. — Each way of speaking is sufficiently probable, and in whichever of these ways it be stated, it does not follow that water joined to wine becomes the Sacrament and is consecrated.

2. To the objection that the body of Christ is under a greater species; it must be said that it is not under a greater species because something is added to the species, so that it be *in it*; but because that species is more diffused; just as if the species of wine, which is in a deep chalice, were put in a wider chalice, the species is more dilated. So it must be understood in the matter at hand: because, when another liquid is mixed in, the parts of that species are more diffused, especially if that liquid penetrates and divides and separates the parts of the species from one another.

3. To the objection that an accident does not occupy a greater place together with a substance; it must be said that this is true of an accident according to its natural *existence*; for such an accident is in a subject and does not add to the number together with it. But just as a dimension in those species has a natural place, because there is there not only a *mathematical* but also a *natural* dimension, although it be above nature apart from a subject; just as it occupies a place, so together with another dimension it occupies a greater place than by itself alone, not through the nature of the *substance*, but of the *natural dimension*.

4. To the objection that another liquid can bring it about that it is not the Sacrament; it must be said that it is not similar, because «it is easier to destroy than to construct». For a mouse and anything else eating [it] can bring it about that the Sacrament ceases; but no one can bring it about that it exists, unless the word and the priestly ministry be present.

5. To the objection that one surface comes to be; it must be said that the added liquid, although it does not

make one *substance*, nevertheless the dimension is continuous with the [other] dimension, and so there comes to be *one dimension* and one quantity.

*If therefore you ask* whether it is *in a subject*, or *apart from a subject*; I respond: You do not divide sufficiently, because partly it is *in a subject*, partly *outside a subject*; and that is not unfitting: just as one part of a surface can be black, and another white; so it must be understood in the matter at hand, that the consecrated part of the species is *without a subject*, but the remaining [part] is *in a subject*. — *And if you object*: suppose that it is perfectly mixed, since the mixture is down to the smallest [parts]; then there follows the unfitting [consequence] that the same is *in a subject* and *apart from a subject*; it must be said that the mixture of liquid with liquid is not down to the smallest [parts] according to *quantity*, but is understood according to *power*, because so it is in other mixtures; and he objects that it is down to the smallest [parts] according to *quantity*. — But if the mixture were such that there occurred in the species a *universal alteration*, or even that those species of wine were transfused into a *similar* but *predominating* liquid, so that there were no distinction such that here there were a consecrated species, and there a non-consecrated one, neither according to *nature*, nor according to *power*, as is the case in a natural mixture; then I say that it would cease to be the Sacrament, just as it ceases through another transmutation, and the whole would be one body and would be one surface according to its parts, and the whole existing in a single subject. But when this occurs, it is difficult to discern.