Dist. 12, Part 1, Art. 2, 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/12/q/bon-sent-IV-d12-p1-a2-q3
----------------------------------------
### Question III. *Whether those accidents have their operations by nature or by miracle.*

Thirdly it is asked concerning the operations which those accidents have, whether they have them by nature or by miracle. And it is asked first about the operation of altering [the senses], which belongs to those species, whether it is natural or miraculous. And that it is natural, seems to be the case:

1. Because what belongs to something *per se* belongs to it not only when joined to matter, but also when abstracted and separated; but to move the senses belongs *per se* to sensible things: therefore it belongs *per se* to those [species] separated from matter; but the things that belong *per se* belong naturally: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, a substantial form never moves the sense when separated from accidental forms: therefore the substantial form does nothing, deprives of nothing, but that the accidents should move the sense, provided the accidents have being: therefore they move by nature.

3. Likewise, the sense is receptive of species apart from matter, yet under material conditions, here and now: if therefore there is some sensible species without matter, yet having material conditions, that one most of all is apt to move the sense: therefore since these species are of this kind, it is clear etc.

4. Likewise, this is clear by a similar [case]: if an image were left in a mirror, the opposed body being removed, it would move the sight, and yet the image in the mirror has spiritual being: therefore it seems that those species, since they are left there without matter, that they alter [the sense] naturally.

5. Likewise, if a ship were raised into the air by a miracle, although the existence of the ship in the air would be miraculous, nevertheless the existence of the sailor in the ship would be natural, and the operations consequent upon that existence would be natural: since therefore the accidents are founded in quantity, and quantity in matter; the raising of quantity from matter is miraculous; but the existence of the other accidents is natural: therefore the operation upon the senses consequent upon that existence is natural.

**On the contrary:** 1. The Philosopher in the first [book] *On the Soul*: «A straight [line], insofar as it is straight, happens to touch a bronze sphere at a point, but it never touches a separated [thing]», because a bronze sphere is not apt to be touched except by a natural [thing]: if therefore a separated straight [line] touched a bronze sphere, this would be above nature, or against [it]. Since therefore the particular sense is not apt to be altered except by a species existing in matter; if it be altered by a separated [species], that alteration is not natural.

2. Likewise, as the interior sense is related to a species without matter, so the exterior to a species in matter; and conversely, as the interior to a species in matter, so the exterior to a species without matter; but the interior never naturally apprehends a species in matter, but [only] an abstracted one: therefore neither does the exterior [apprehend] a species separated from matter.

3. Likewise, it belongs to a form to be here and now by reason of matter; but by that nature by which it is here and now, it is apt to move the sense: therefore since this is from matter, it therefore moves naturally: therefore if a separation from matter occurs, it will no longer move naturally.

4. Likewise, that species that moves the sense has a threefold relation, namely to the subject, to the medium, and to the organ, and these relations are ordered: therefore, the first being destroyed, the others are consequently destroyed: therefore if that species has the two following relations without the first, it does not [act] naturally, but miraculously.

Secondly it is asked concerning the work of transmutation and especially of putrefaction, namely whether it is natural. And that it is, seems to be the case:

1. Because what belongs to something naturally, the nature being preserved, still belongs to it; but to those species it belongs naturally to be corrupted and to fail because of the defect of natural power, and because they are caused by contrary qualities; and it is established that those species are preserved in the same nature: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, corruption through contrariety is natural — this is clear; but those species existing there have truly the nature of contrariety: therefore they are corruptible naturally. The minor is shown thus: where contraries exist according to spiritual being, they can be at once in the same [thing] and according to the same [respect], as in the same medium, as in the sense and in the intellect contrary colors [exist]: since therefore here contrary colors or savors cannot exist at once, but rather mutually expel each other: they therefore have the nature of true contrariety.

3. Likewise, where there are species according to spiritual being, the excellence of such a species is not corruptive: if therefore in the sacramental species the excellence of the sensibles distresses the sense: therefore there is there a species having the nature of true contrariety. But what is thus corruptible is so naturally: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, Anselm, *On the Virginal Conception*, distinguishes a threefold course: the natural, the voluntary, and the miraculous, and says that the miraculous is administered immediately by God: since therefore God corrupts nothing immediately, that corruption or putrefaction, since it is not from God immediately: therefore it is not miraculous, therefore it is natural or voluntary; but it is not voluntary: therefore it is natural.

**On the contrary:** 1. «A form by its own nature consists in a simple and invariable essence»: if therefore variation should befall it, this is through matter: therefore separated from matter it is invariable by nature. If therefore it be varied, this is above nature: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, three principles concur in a physical transmutation, namely the subject and two contraries: therefore where matter is lacking, a physical change cannot be understood; but this is the case in species of this kind: therefore that putrefaction is not physical.

3. Likewise, «as acting is from form, so undergoing is from matter»; but it does not happen [for anything] to act physically except through form: therefore neither to undergo except through matter: therefore where matter is lacking, it is manifest that there is no physical undergoing: therefore neither transmutation.

4. Likewise, there is no true contrariety without a subject; but prime matter is the subject of all corporeal contrariety: therefore where prime matter is lacking, there is no true contrariety. But natural action is through true contrariety: therefore etc. Similarly it could be argued concerning contact, which is of form in matter, and action and passion [occur] through contact.

Thirdly it is asked concerning the work of nutrition, whether it is natural or supernatural.

> **Conclusion.** By a twofold way it is proved that the operations of alteration, of transmutation, and of nutrition are partly natural, partly miraculous.

**I respond:** It must be said, for the understanding of the foregoing, according to one fairly probable manner of speaking, from the comparison of the power to the operations

issuing from the power. For operations have to be regulated according to the potencies and powers from which they issue.

On account of which it must be noted that sometimes there is given to someone a power conformable to his nature; and the issuance from that potency is natural, as when the power of seeing is restored to a blind man. — Sometimes there is given to someone a power partly conformable to nature and partly above nature; and then the issuing act is in a certain way natural, in a certain way above nature, as for a blind man to see by night. — Sometimes, however, there is given a power wholly above nature; and then the act issuing from that potency is miraculous simply and above nature, as the power of giving birth was given to the Virgin.

It must be considered therefore that in this Sacrament all these are to be found. For first, quantity naturally has it to underlie the other accidents, and the other accidents naturally to be sustained by it. If therefore there is given to quantity the power of sustaining the other accidents, their existence in the quantity is natural, and the consequent operation has a natural potency. Hence I say that the operations of those species upon the senses are natural, because in the quantity they have a being suited to the alteration of the senses.

All the reasons therefore showing this are to be conceded.

To the opposing [arguments] the reply is manifest: because quantity is there in place of matter, and through it [the accidents] are here and now and have material being suited to the alteration of the senses, and the accidents are first in quantity; and this can be sufficiently seen by the example of the ship set forth above. — But as to what is further given to that quantity, namely the power of sustaining the transmutations of those forms; such a power is partly conformable to nature, partly above nature. It is conformable as regards the subsistence of contrariety, because contraries belong *per se* to quantity; but it is above [nature] as regards this, that it remains the same in itself when fracture has occurred: for this is proper to substance alone, and so above the nature of quantity.

To the question therefore which is asked concerning transmutation, whether it is natural or miraculous; it must be said that by reason of the natures of those species, which have the nature of contrariety, that transmutation is natural, but by reason of what sustains [them] it is on this account above nature; and so partly natural, partly above nature.

The reasons therefore made for the opposing part in the second problem run according to these two ways. For those which prove that they are natural are taken from the nature of the contrariety of those forms; but those which prove that they are above nature proceed according to the way of what sustains [them]. — And thus the second question concerning transmutation is clear. But if there is given to those accidents the power of being converted into the substance, when they cease to be, and when the body of Christ ceases to be there; such a power is wholly above nature, and therefore such an act is wholly above nature and miraculous.

To the question which is asked concerning nutrition, it must be said that there is a threefold operation there. The first is that those species are transmuted through the action of the acting power; and this is partly natural, partly above nature. — The second is that at the end of the transmutation they pass into the substance, so that they are converted into it, just as the substance of bread would be converted, if it were present; and this is miraculous. — The third is that that substance is afterward converted into flesh; and this is simply natural.

But although this manner of speaking can probably be maintained, it can be said otherwise, both more safely and more briefly, that the operations of the accidents, or the operating power, has to be compared both to that from which it issues and to that upon which it operates. If we speak by comparison to that from which [it issues]; thus I say that, since by nature every operating power is either substantial or at least depends upon and is regulated by it [substance]; [it follows] that a substance being removed, if an accident should further operate, it is as much a miracle that it operates *per se* as it is a miracle that it remains *per se*; and so every operation is miraculous. — But if we speak by comparison to the object, whether it be an organ of sense, or any other body, thus I say that the accidents have there many natural operations; hence that whiteness moves the sight and savor the taste, this is not above nature nor

against [it], but according to nature. Since therefore whiteness is not there separated so as to have mathematical being, but its natural and singular being is preserved; therefore those operations which inhered in whiteness and the other accidents still inhere naturally.

It must be conceded therefore that alteration and transmutation are in a certain way natural in relation to the object, because the nature of the accidents is there preserved; in a certain way they are above nature in comparison to the subject, because the accidents act *per se*. — And according to this the reasons brought forward for the opposing parts run [their course].