Dist. 8, Part 2, 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/8/q/bon-sent-IV-d8-p2-a2-q2
----------------------------------------
### Question II. *On the unity of the Sacrament of the eucharist.*

Second, it is asked about the unity of this Sacrament. And that it is one Sacrament is proved:

1. Because Ambrose says that the Sacrament is simple; but this is a Sacrament: therefore it is simple, therefore one.

2. Likewise, it seems so by reason: because this Sacrament is the cause of one effect and is ordered to one thing: therefore it is one, and not many.

3. Likewise, there are only seven Sacraments; but if this were not one, there would be more than seven Sacraments: therefore etc.

**On the contrary:**

1. In the Collect: « May the Sacraments which we have received purify us, we beseech thee, O Lord », and in many other places: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, the things signified in this Sacrament are several, namely the *true* body of Christ and the *mystical* body of Christ, which have an entirely different unity — for the *true* body of Christ is one by the unity of *integrity*, but the *mystical* body is one by the unity of *the form of aggregation* — therefore etc. — *If you say* that they are *ordered to one another*, so that the one is through the other; *it is objected* that the things signified are several immediately and equally, as the body and the blood. — *If you say* that they are *annexed*; this does not solve it, because according to the truth of the Sacrament they are not as annexed.

3. Likewise, a Sacrament is essentially a sign; but when the superior is multiplied, the inferior is multiplied; but in the eucharist there are several signs: therefore also several Sacraments. *If you say* that there are several signs by reason of the species, but one thing signified, and therefore one Sacrament; *on the contrary*: in a name there is the utterance and the thing signified, just as in a Sacrament; but *Marcus* and *Tullius*, even though they signify the same thing, are nonetheless different names: therefore also in this Sacrament, even though the reality be the same, they ought nonetheless to be called several Sacraments.

4. Likewise, these two constitute the Sacrament: the word and the element, and the element in the character of the *material*, the word in the character of the *formal*: therefore where there are several words and elements, there are several Sacraments; but so it is in the case at hand. — *If you say* that they are ordered to one thing, and therefore are one; *on the contrary*: a universal cause and a particular cause are ordered to one effect, and yet they are not one, but several causes: therefore etc.

### Conclusion.

> The Sacrament of the eucharist is not one by the unity of *simplicity*, but of *integrity* and in *comparison*, because a sign is ordered to one thing by reason of nature and institution.

**I respond:** It must be said that the unity of the Sacrament is not the unity of *simplicity* — for it is constituted of word and element — but of *integrity*; and not of absolute integrity, but in *comparison*, because they are not united in a third thing as in a *form*, but as in a sign. Therefore, since this Sacrament, although it contain two signs and two words, yet because

from these there results a *perfect* sign *ordered to one thing*, namely to the union of the *mystical* body; therefore it is one Sacrament.

Now the ground of such *integrity* and *ordination* to one thing comes dispositively from *nature* — because neither bread by itself fully refreshes nor wine, but both together; for one full refreshment in nature comes from both, and so they are disposed to signify one refreshment — but it comes completively from the divine *institution*, which by one institution ordered these two signs to signify one perfect refreshment; and therefore it is one Sacrament by reason of *nature* and *divine institution*. Hence, because it is integrated out of several things, therefore Gregory, speaking materially, says *Sacraments*; but because it is *ordered* by one ordination, therefore he straightway says: « and grant that this thy Sacrament » etc.

**Solution of the objections:**

1. And thus that saying of Gregory is clear.

2. To that which is objected first, that the things signified are several; it must be said that the one is on account of the other and through the other, because the *true* body signifies the *mystical*. — And to that which is objected concerning the blood, it must be said that they are *annexed*. Hence just as the offering of the lamb and of its blood are not two offerings or sacrifices; so it is to be understood in the case at hand. — And if that does not suffice, it must be said that they are ordered to one ultimate thing signified.

3. To that which is objected, that there are several signs; it must be said that, speaking integrally and materially, it is true, because there are several species; but nonetheless there is one integral sign, as has been shown. It is not so that diverse utterances are one name; rather they have diverse grounds of becoming known and diverse institutions, therefore several names: but if they had one institution, there would be one name, as this name *Bonaventura* or this name *Bonushomo*.

4. To the other the answer is likewise clear: because, although there be two words and elements, yet they are one Sacrament, because the word and the element do not come together into one Sacrament except by reason of the institution ordering them to one thing; therefore since here is that institution, ordering several things to one, therefore it is one Sacrament. — Through this it is clear that the case is not the same as that of the universal cause; because the universal cause is ordered not only to the one effect of the particular cause, but to many others; whereas these two are ordered to one perfect Sacrament — perfect, I say, with respect to signification, because in neither is the character of a perfect natural refreshment preserved by itself, but in both together, as has been touched upon.

---