Whether the Accidents of the Bread and Wine Remain in This Sacrament
After the Change?
Objection 1: It seems that the accidents of the bread and wine do not
remain in this sacrament. For when that which comes first is removed,
that which follows is also taken away. But substance is naturally
before accident, as is proved in _Metaph._ vii. Since, then, after
consecration, the substance of the bread does not remain in this
sacrament, it seems that its accidents cannot remain.
Obj. 2: Further, there ought not to be any deception in a sacrament
of truth. But we judge of substance by accidents. It seems, then,
that human judgment is deceived, if, while the accidents remain, the
substance of the bread does not. Consequently this is unbecoming to
this sacrament.
Obj. 3: Further, although our faith is not subject to reason, still
it is not contrary to reason, but above it, as was said in the
beginning of this work (I, Q. 1, A. 6, ad 2; A. 8). But our reason
has its origin in the senses. Therefore our faith ought not to be
contrary to the senses, as it is when sense judges that to be bread
which faith believes to be the substance of Christ's body. Therefore
it is not befitting this sacrament for the accidents of bread to
remain subject to the senses, and for the substance of bread not to
remain.
Obj. 4: Further, what remains after the change has taken place seems
to be the subject of change. If therefore the accidents of the bread
remain after the change has been effected, it seems that the
accidents are the subject of the change. But this is impossible; for
"an accident cannot have an accident" (Metaph. iii). Therefore the
accidents of the bread and wine ought not to remain in this sacrament.
_On the contrary,_ Augustine says in his book on the Sentences of
Prosper (Lanfranc, De Corp. et Sang. Dom. xiii): "Under the species
which we behold, of bread and wine, we honor invisible things, i.e.
flesh and blood."
_I answer that,_ It is evident to sense that all the accidents of the
bread and wine remain after the consecration. And this is reasonably
done by Divine providence. First of all, because it is not customary,
but horrible, for men to eat human flesh, and to drink blood. And
therefore Christ's flesh and blood are set before us to be partaken
of under the species of those things which are the more commonly used
by men, namely, bread and wine. Secondly, lest this sacrament might
be derided by unbelievers, if we were to eat our Lord under His own
species. Thirdly, that while we receive our Lord's body and blood
invisibly, this may redound to the merit of faith.
Reply Obj. 1: As is said in the book _De Causis,_ an effect depends
more on the first cause than on the second. And therefore by God's
power, which is the first cause of all things, it is possible for
that which follows to remain, while that which is first is taken away.
Reply Obj. 2: There is no deception in this sacrament; for the
accidents which are discerned by the senses are truly present. But
the intellect, whose proper object is substance as is said in _De
Anima_ iii, is preserved by faith from deception.
And this serves as answer to the third argument; because faith is not
contrary to the senses, but concerns things to which sense does not
reach.
Reply Obj. 4: This change has not properly a subject, as was stated
above (A. 4, ad 1); nevertheless the accidents which remain have some
resemblance of a subject.
_______________________