Dist. 8, Part 2, Art. 2, Q. 1
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/8/q/bon-sent-IV-d8-p2-a2-q1
----------------------------------------
### Article II. *On the signification of the Sacrament of the eucharist.*

Consequently, as to the second article, inquiry is made concerning the Sacrament of the eucharist with respect to its signification, and on this point two questions are asked. First it is asked what is there the reality, and what the Sacrament. Secondly inquiry is made concerning the unity of this Sacrament.

### Question 1. *What in the eucharist is the reality, and what the Sacrament.*

It is approached thus concerning the first point. The Master says that «something is there Sacrament only, namely the visible species; and something is reality only, namely the mystical body of Christ; and something is reality-and-Sacrament, namely the true body of Christ», which is the reality of the first and the Sacrament of the third. And it seems first that the *visible species* is not the Sacrament of the body:

1. Because a Sacrament ought to have a natural likeness to the reality; but the species has no likeness, since both the true body of Christ and the mystical are wholly *heterogeneous*, whereas the species is *homogeneous*: therefore etc. — If you say that the species is composed of many grains, this is nothing, because those grains are not heterogeneous but uniform. Moreover, the species is an accident, therefore it is not composed.

2. Likewise, a Sacrament of the new law produces an effect; but the species has no operation whatsoever with respect to what is contained: therefore they are not a Sacrament.

Likewise, that the *true body of Christ* is not the Sacrament of the mystical body, it seems:

3. Because a Sacrament is a sign, and a sign is what offers itself to the senses; but the body of Christ, as it is under those species, does not offer itself to the senses: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, if it is a Sacrament, then it is a sign «signifying by institution»; but the true body of Christ is not instituted to signify the mystical, nor ought it to be instituted to do so, because it is more noble, as the head is to the whole body: therefore it is not a Sacrament.

Likewise, it is objected concerning the *mystical body*, that it is not the *reality*:

5. Because the reality of any Sacrament is some grace, since it is said «a Sacrament is the visible form of invisible grace»: therefore, since the mystical body is not grace, it is not the reality of this Sacrament.

6. Likewise, the reality of any Sacrament of the new law is its effect; but the mystical body of Christ is not the effect of this Sacrament, because an effect does not precede its cause; but the mystical body precedes the Sacrament: therefore etc.

> **Conclusion.** In the Sacrament of the eucharist the visible species is the sign of the true and mystical body of Christ; the true body is the reality of the species and the sign and cause of the mystical body; and this last is the reality of the true body and the truth of the sensible sign.

**I respond:** As the Master says, there are three things in this Sacrament: the visible species, the true body of Christ, and the mystical body. And according to what Hugh says, «the first is the sign of the second and the third; the second is the reality of the first and the sign and cause of the third; and the third is the reality of the second and the truth of the first». Hence there is found here a relation of effecting and of signifying, whence it is a true Sacrament of the new law.

*To the first.* To that which is objected, that it ought to have a likeness; it must be said that the species has a comparison to the *constituting matter*, that is, that out of which it consists, since it is from grains; and a comparison to the *effect* that follows, that is, what it gives, which is to nourish. If to the matter, then it is from purest grains united to one another: and thus it has a likeness with the mystical body, which consists of pure faithful, joined together by faith and charity. And if you object that it is of diverse operations: it does not hold, because they are united as alike in the unity of faith and charity. — But if it be compared to the *effect*, which is to nourish, then it has a likeness to the true body of Christ, which is truly food.

It can nevertheless be said that it is compared to both by reason of those things out of which it is made, since the true body of Christ is «from purest blood», and the mystical body of Christ is from pure faithful. But that a variety of members is here signified, this is incidental, namely by reason of the body of Christ which he drew from the Virgin, which is an organic body. — And if you object that the species is not composed nor nourishes; it must be said that they retain the properties of the substance which was previously there, and by reason of that they are fitting signs.

*To the second.* To that which is objected concerning causality, it must be said that that which is Sacrament only, if it be compared to the *medium*, of itself has no relation of effecting or causing anything, except when a word is joined to it, as is evident in water with respect to the character: so in the species with respect to the body. Likewise, if it be compared to the *third*, it has a relation of effecting *by means of the second*, as the outward washing with the character; likewise here the outward species by reason of the true body of Christ inwardly contained, which unites and incorporates.

*To the third and fourth.* To that which is objected concerning the true body, it must be said that of itself it has a natural aptitude for representing. But that it represents, this does not belong to it *of itself*, but as it *underlies the* visible *species* that are instituted; and as to this it is a visible sign, voluntarily instituted in another, not in itself; nor is it instituted for *signifying* in itself, but for *effecting* in itself as the more noble, and for *signifying* indeed as it is contained in another; and this in no way derogates from it.

*To the fifth and sixth.* To that which is objected concerning the mystical body, that it is not the reality; it must be said that the reality of this Sacrament is not called the mystical body by reason of its parts, but by reason of the union; and that union is the grace and effect of the Sacrament. — If you object that the effect follows the cause; it must be said that union in the mystical body can be twofold: either from the unity of the binding virtues, or from sacramental grace, according to which those who receive are more incorporated into Christ, and thus consequently are more united to one another. The first precedes and is not the reality; the second follows and is the effect and reality of this Sacrament. And so this is clear.