Hoc autem conveniens est, primo quidem, perfectioni novae legis. Sacrificia enim veteris legis illud verum sacrificium passionis Christi continebant solum in figura, secundum illud Heb. X, umbram habens lex futurorum bonorum, non ipsam rerum imaginem. Et ideo oportuit ut aliquid plus haberet sacrificium novae legis a Christo institutum, ut scilicet contineret ipsum passum, non solum in significatione vel figura, sed etiam in rei veritate. Et ideo hoc sacramentum, quod ipsum Christum realiter continet, ut Dionysius dicit, III cap. Eccles. Hierar., est perfectivum omnium sacramentorum aliorum, in quibus virtus Christi participatur. Now this is suitable, first for the perfection of the New Law. For, the sacrifices of the Old Law contained only in figure that true sacrifice of Christ’s Passion, according to Heb. 10:1: For the law having a shadow of the good things to come, not the very image of the things. And therefore it was necessary that the sacrifice of the New Law instituted by Christ should have something more, namely, that it should contain Christ Himself crucified, not merely in signification or figure, but also in very truth. And therefore this sacrament which contains Christ Himself, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii), is perfective of all the other sacraments, in which Christ’s virtue is participated. Secundo, hoc competit caritati Christi, ex qua pro salute nostra corpus verum nostrae naturae assumpsit. Et quia maxime proprium amicitiae est, convivere amicis, ut philosophus dicit, IX Ethic., sui praesentiam corporalem nobis repromittit in praemium, Matth. XXIV, ubi fuerit corpus, illuc congregabuntur et aquilae. Interim tamen nec sua praesentia corporali in hac peregrinatione destituit, sed per veritatem corporis et sanguinis sui nos sibi coniungit in hoc sacramento. Unde ipse dicit, Ioan. VI, qui manducat meam carnem et bibit meum sanguinem, in me manet et ego in eo. Unde hoc sacramentum est maximae caritatis signum, et nostrae spei sublevamentum, ex tam familiari coniunctione Christi ad nos. Second, this belongs to Christ’s love, out of which for our salvation He assumed a true body of our nature. And because it is the special feature of friendship to live together with friends, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. ix), He promises us His bodily presence as a reward, saying (Matt 24:28): Where the body is, there shall the eagles be gathered together. Yet meanwhile in our pilgrimage He does not deprive us of His bodily presence; but unites us with Himself in this sacrament through the truth of His body and blood. Hence (John 6:57) he says: He that eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood, abideth in Me, and I in him. Hence this sacrament is the sign of supreme charity, and the uplifter of our hope, from such familiar union of Christ with us. Tertio, hoc competit perfectioni fidei, quae, sicut est de divinitate Christi, ita est de eius humanitate, secundum illud Ioan. XIV, creditis in Deum, et in me credite. Et quia fides est invisibilium, sicut divinitatem suam nobis exhibet Christus invisibiliter, ita et in hoc sacramento carnem suam nobis exhibet invisibili modo. Third, it belongs to the perfection of faith, which concerns His humanity just as it does His Godhead, according to John 14:1: You believe in God, believe also in Me. And since faith is of things unseen, as Christ shows us His Godhead invisibly, so also in this sacrament He shows us His flesh in an invisible manner. Quae quidam non attendentes, posuerunt corpus et sanguinem Christi non esse in hoc sacramento nisi sicut in signo. Quod est tanquam haereticum abiiciendum, utpote verbis Christi contrarium. Unde et Berengarius, qui primus inventor huius erroris fuerat, postea coactus est suum errorem revocare, et veritatem fidei confiteri. Some men accordingly, not paying heed to these things, have contended that Christ’s body and blood are not in this sacrament except as in a sign, a thing to be rejected as heretical, since it is contrary to Christ’s words. Hence Berengarius, who had been the first deviser of this heresy, was afterwards forced to withdraw his error, and to acknowledge the truth of the faith. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ex hac auctoritate praedicti haeretici occasionem errandi sumpserunt, male verba Augustini intelligentes. Cum enim Augustinus dicit, non hoc corpus quod videtis manducaturi estis, non intendit excludere veritatem corporis Christi, sed quod non erat manducandum in hac specie in qua ab eis videbatur. Per hoc autem quod subdit, sacramentum vobis aliquod commendavi, spiritualiter intellectum vivificabit vos, non intendit quod corpus Christi sit in hoc sacramento solum secundum mysticam significationem, sed spiritualiter dici, idest, invisibiliter et per virtutem spiritus. Unde, super Ioan., exponens illud quod dicitur, caro non prodest quidquam, dicit, sed, quo modo illi intellexerunt. Carnem quippe sic intellexerunt manducandam, quo modo in cadavere dilaniatur aut in macello venditur, non quo modo spiritu vegetatur. Accedat spiritus ad carnem, et prodest plurimum, nam, si caro nihil prodesset, verbum caro non fieret, ut habitaret in nobis. Reply Obj. 1: From this authority the aforesaid heretics have taken occasion to err from evilly understanding Augustine’s words. For when Augustine says: You are not to eat this body which you see, he means not to exclude the truth of Christ’s body, but that it was not to be eaten in this species in which it was seen by them. And by the words: It is a mystery that I put before you; in its spiritual sense it will quicken you, he intends not that the body of Christ is in this sacrament merely according to mystical signification, but spiritually, that is, invisibly, and by the power of the spirit. Hence (Tract. xxvii), expounding John 6:64: the flesh profiteth nothing, he says: Yea, but as they understood it, for they understood that the flesh was to be eaten as it is divided piecemeal in a dead body, or as sold in the shambles, not as it is quickened by the spirit . . . Let the spirit draw nigh to the flesh . . . then the flesh profiteth very much: for if the flesh profiteth nothing, the Word had not been made flesh, that It might dwell among us. Ad secundum dicendum quod verbum illud Augustini, et omnia similia, sunt intelligenda de corpore Christi secundum quod videtur in propria specie, secundum quod etiam ipse dominus dixit, Matth. XXVI, me autem non semper habebitis. Invisibiliter tamen sub speciebus huius sacramenti est ubicumque hoc sacramentum perficitur. Reply Obj. 2: That saying of Augustine and all others like it are to be understood of Christ’s body as it is beheld in its proper species; according as our Lord Himself says (Matt 26:11): But Me you have not always. Nevertheless He is invisibly under the species of this sacrament, wherever this sacrament is performed. Ad tertium dicendum quod corpus Christi non est eo modo in sacramento sicut corpus in loco, quod suis dimensionibus loco commensuratur, sed quodam speciali modo, qui est proprius huic sacramento. Unde dicimus quod corpus Christi est in diversis altaribus, non sicut in diversis locis, sed sicut in sacramento. Per quod non intelligimus quod Christus sit ibi solum sicut in signo, licet sacramentum sit in genere signi, sed intelligimus corpus Christi esse ibi, sicut dictum est, secundum modum proprium huic sacramento. Reply Obj. 3: Christ’s body is not in this sacrament in the same way as a body is in a place, which by its dimensions is commensurate with the place; but in a special manner which is proper to this sacrament. Hence we say that Christ’s body is upon many altars, not as in different places, but sacramentally: and thereby we do not understand that Christ is there only as in a sign, although a sacrament is a kind of sign; but that Christ’s body is here after a fashion proper to this sacrament, as stated above. Ad quartum dicendum quod ratio illa procedit de praesentia corporis Christi prout est praesens per modum corporis, idest prout est in sua specie visibili, non autem prout spiritualiter, idest invisibiliter, modo et virtute spiritus. Unde Augustinus dicit, super Ioan., si intellexisti spiritualiter verba Christi de carne sua, spiritus et vita tibi sunt, si intellexisti carnaliter, etiam spiritus et vita sunt, sed tibi non sunt. Reply Obj. 4: This argument holds good of Christ’s bodily presence, as He is present after the manner of a body, that is, as it is in its visible appearance, but not as it is spiritually, that is, invisibly, after the manner and by the virtue of the spirit. Hence Augustine (Tract. xxvii in Joan.) says: If thou hast understood Christ’s words spiritually concerning His flesh, they are spirit and life to thee; if thou hast understood them carnally, they are also spirit and life, but not to thee. Articulus 2 Article 2 Utrum in hoc sacramento remaneat substantia panis et vini post consecrationem Whether in this sacrament the substance of the bread and wine remains after the consecration? Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod in hoc sacramento remaneat substantia panis et vini post consecrationem. Dicit enim Damascenus, in libro IV, quia consuetudo est hominibus comedere panem et vinum, coniugavit eis deitatem, et fecit ea corpus et sanguinem suum. Et infra, panis communicationis non panis simplex est, sed unitus deitati. Sed coniugatio est rerum actu existentium. Ergo panis et vinum simul sunt in hoc sacramento cum corpore et sanguine Christi. Objection 1: It seems that the substance of the bread and wine does remain in this sacrament after the consecration: because Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv): Since it is customary for men to eat bread and drink wine, God has wedded his Godhead to them, and made them His body and blood: and further on: The bread of communication is not simple bread, but is united to the Godhead. But wedding together belongs to things actually existing. Therefore the bread and wine are at the same time, in this sacrament, with the body and the blood of Christ. Praeterea, inter Ecclesiae sacramenta debet esse conformitas. Sed in aliis sacramentis substantia materiae manet, sicut in Baptismo substantia aquae, et in confirmatione substantia chrismatis. Ergo et in hoc sacramento substantia panis et vini manet. Obj. 2: Further, there ought to be conformity between the sacraments. But in the other sacraments the substance of the matter remains, like the substance of water in Baptism, and the substance of chrism in Confirmation. Therefore the substance of the bread and wine remains also in this sacrament. Praeterea, panis et vinum assumitur in hoc sacramento inquantum significat ecclesiasticam unitatem, prout unus panis fit ex multis granis, et unum vinum ex multis racemis, ut Augustinus dicit, in libro de symbolo. Sed hoc pertinet ad ipsam substantiam panis et vini. Ergo substantia panis et vini remanet in hoc sacramento. Obj. 3: Further, bread and wine are made use of in this sacrament, inasmuch as they denote ecclesiastical unity, as one bread is made from many grains and wine from many grapes, as Augustine says in his book on the Creed (Tract. xxvi in Joan.). But this belongs to the substance of bread and wine. Therefore, the substance of the bread and wine remains in this sacrament. Sed contra est quod Ambrosius dicit, in libro de sacramentis, licet figura panis et vini videatur, nihil tamen aliud quam caro Christi et sanguis post consecrationem credenda sunt. On the contrary, Ambrose says (De Sacram. iv): Although the figure of the bread and wine be seen, still, after the Consecration, they are to be believed to be nothing else than the body and blood of Christ. Respondeo dicendum quod quidam posuerunt post consecrationem substantiam panis et vini in hoc sacramento remanere. Sed haec positio stare non potest. Primo quidem, quia per hanc positionem tollitur veritas huius sacramenti, ad quam pertinet ut verum corpus Christi in hoc sacramento existat. Quod quidem ibi non est ante consecrationem. Non autem aliquid potest esse alicubi ubi prius non erat, nisi per loci mutationem, vel per alterius conversionem in ipsum, sicut in domo aliqua de novo incipit esse ignis aut quod illuc defertur, aut quod ibi generatur. Manifestum est autem quod corpus Christi non incipit esse in hoc sacramento per motum localem. Primo quidem, quia sequeretur quod desineret esse in caelo, non enim quod localiter movetur, pervenit de novo ad aliquem locum, nisi deserat priorem. Secundo, quia omne corpus localiter motum pertransit omnia media, quod hic dici non potest. Tertio, quia impossibile est quod unus motus eiusdem corporis localiter moti terminetur simul ad diversa loca, cum tamen in pluribus locis corpus Christi sub hoc sacramento simul esse incipiat. Et propter hoc relinquitur quod non possit aliter corpus Christi incipere esse de novo in hoc sacramento nisi per conversionem substantiae panis in ipsum. Quod autem convertitur in aliquid, facta conversione, non manet. Unde relinquitur quod, salva veritate huius sacramenti, substantia panis post consecrationem remanere non possit. I answer that, Some have held that the substance of the bread and wine remains in this sacrament after the consecration. But this opinion cannot stand: first of all, because by such an opinion the truth of this sacrament is destroyed, to which it belongs that Christ’s true body exists in this sacrament; which indeed was not there before the consecration. Now a thing cannot be in any place, where it was not previously, except by change of place, or by the conversion of another thing into itself; just as fire begins anew to be in some house, either because it is carried thither, or because it is generated there. Now it is evident that Christ’s body does not begin to be present in this sacrament by local motion. First of all, because it would follow that it would cease to be in heaven: for what is moved locally does not come anew to some place unless it quit the former one. Second, because every body moved locally passes through all intermediary spaces, which cannot be said here. Third, because it is not possible for one movement of the same body moved locally to be terminated in different places at the one time, whereas the body of Christ under this sacrament begins at the one time to be in several places. And consequently it remains that Christ’s body cannot begin to be anew in this sacrament except by change of the substance of bread into itself. But what is changed into another thing, no longer remains after such change. Hence the conclusion is that, saving the truth of this sacrament, the substance of the bread cannot remain after the consecration. Secundo, quia haec positio contrariatur formae huius sacramenti, in qua dicitur, hoc est corpus meum. Quod non esset verum si substantia panis ibi remaneret, nunquam enim substantia panis est corpus Christi. Sed potius esset dicendum, hic est corpus meum. Second, because this position is contrary to the form of this sacrament, in which it is said: This is My body, which would not be true if the substance of the bread were to remain there; for the substance of bread never is the body of Christ. Rather should one say in that case: Here is My body. Tertio, quia contrariaretur venerationi huius sacramenti, si aliqua substantia esset ibi quae non posset adorari adoratione latriae. Third, because it would be opposed to the veneration of this sacrament, if any substance were there, which could not be adored with adoration of latria. Quarto, quia contrariaretur ritui Ecclesiae, secundum quem post corporalem cibum non licet sumere corpus Christi, cum tamen post unam hostiam consecratam liceat sumere aliam. Unde haec positio vitanda est tanquam haeretica. Fourth, because it is contrary to the rite of the Church, according to which it is not lawful to take the body of Christ after bodily food, while it is nevertheless lawful to take one consecrated host after another. Hence this opinion is to be avoided as heretical. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Deus coniugavit divinitatem suam, idest divinam virtutem, pani et vino, non ut remaneant in hoc sacramento, sed ut faciat inde corpus et sanguinem suum. Reply Obj. 1: God wedded His Godhead, i.e., His Divine power, to the bread and wine, not that these may remain in this sacrament, but in order that He may make from them His body and blood. Ad secundum dicendum quod in aliis sacramentis non est ipse Christus realiter, sicut in hoc sacramento. Et ideo in sacramentis aliis manet substantia materiae, non autem in isto. Reply Obj. 2: Christ is not really present in the other sacraments, as in this; and therefore the substance of the matter remains in the other sacraments, but not in this. Ad tertium dicendum quod species quae remanent in hoc sacramento, ut infra dicetur, sufficiunt ad significationem huius sacramenti, nam per accidentia cognoscitur ratio substantiae. Reply Obj. 3: The species which remain in this sacrament, as shall be said later (A. 5), suffice for its signification; because the nature of the substance is known by its accidents. Articulus 3 Article 3 Utrum substantia panis, post consecrationem huius sacramenti, annihiletur, aut in pristinam materiam resolvatur Whether the substance of the bread or wine is annihilated after the consecration of this sacrament, or dissolved into their original matter? Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod substantia panis, post consecrationem huius sacramenti, annihiletur, aut in pristinam materiam resolvatur. Quod enim est aliquid corporale, oportet alicubi esse. Sed substantia panis, quae est quiddam corporale, non manet in hoc sacramento, ut dictum est, nec etiam est dare aliquem locum ubi sit. Ergo non est aliquid post consecrationem. Igitur aut est annihilata, aut in praeiacentem materiam resoluta. Objection 1: It seems that the substance of the bread is annihilated after the consecration of this sacrament, or dissolved into its original matter. For whatever is corporeal must be somewhere. But the substance of bread, which is something corporeal, does not remain, in this sacrament, as stated above (A. 2); nor can we assign any place where it may be. Consequently it is nothing after the consecration. Therefore, it is either annihilated, or dissolved into its original matter. Praeterea, illud quod est terminus a quo in qualibet mutatione, non remanet, nisi forte in potentia materiae, sicut, quando ex aere fit ignis, forma aeris non manet nisi in potentia materiae; et similiter quando ex albo fit nigrum. Sed in hoc sacramento substantia panis et vini se habet sicut terminus a quo corpus autem vel sanguis Christi sicut terminus ad quem, dicit enim Ambrosius, in libro de officiis, ante benedictionem alia species nominatur, post benedictionem corpus significatur. Ergo, facta consecratione, substantia panis vel vini non manet, nisi forte resoluta in suam materiam. Obj. 2: Further, what is the term wherefrom in every change exists no longer, except in the potentiality of matter; e.g., when air is changed into fire, the form of the air remains only in the potentiality of matter; and in like fashion when what is white becomes black. But in this sacrament the substance of the bread or of the wine is the term wherefrom, while the body or the blood of Christ is the term whereunto: for Ambrose says in De Officiis (De Myster. ix): Before the blessing it is called another species, after the blessing the body of Christ is signified. Therefore, when the consecration takes place, the substance of the bread or wine no longer remains, unless perchance dissolved into its (original) matter. Praeterea, oportet alterum contradictoriorum esse verum. Sed haec est falsa, facta consecratione, substantia panis vel vini est aliquid. Ergo haec est vera, substantia panis vel vini est nihil. Obj. 3: Further, one of two contradictories must be true. But this proposition is false: After the consecration the substance of the bread or wine is something. Consequently, this is true: The substance of the bread or wine is nothing. Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, in libro octogintatrium quaestionum, Deus non est causa tendendi in non esse. Sed hoc sacramentum divina virtute perficitur. Ergo in hoc sacramento non annihilatur substantia panis aut vini. On the contrary, Augustine says (Q. 83): God is not the cause of tending to nothing. But this sacrament is wrought by Divine power. Therefore, in this sacrament the substance of the bread or wine is not annihilated. Respondeo dicendum quod, quia substantia panis vel vini non manet in hoc sacramento, quidam, impossibile reputantes quod substantia panis vel vini in corpus vel sanguinem Christi convertatur, posuerunt quod per consecrationem substantia panis vel vini vel resolvitur in praeiacentem materiam, vel quod annihiletur. I answer that, Because the substance of the bread and wine does not remain in this sacrament, some, deeming that it is impossible for the substance of the bread and wine to be changed into Christ’s flesh and blood, have maintained that by the consecration, the substance of the bread and wine is either dissolved into the original matter, or that it is annihilated. Praeiacens autem materia in quam corpora mixta resolvi possunt, sunt quatuor elementa, non enim potest fieri resolutio in materiam primam, ita quod sine forma existat, quia materia sine forma esse non potest. Cum autem post consecrationem nihil sub speciebus sacramenti remaneat nisi corpus et sanguis, oportebit dicere quod elementa in quae resoluta est substantia panis et vini, inde discedant per motum localem. Quod sensu perciperetur. Similiter etiam substantia panis vel vini manet usque ad ultimum instans consecrationis. In ultimo autem instanti consecrationis iam est ibi substantia vel corporis vel sanguinis Christi, sicut in ultimo instanti generationis iam inest forma. Unde non erit dare aliquod instans in quo sit ibi praeiacens materia. Non enim potest dici quod paulatim substantia panis vel vini resolvatur in praeiacentem materiam, vel successive egrediatur de loco specierum. Quia, si hoc inciperet fieri in ultimo instanti suae consecrationis, simul sub aliqua parte hostiae esset corpus Christi cum substantia panis, quod est contra praedicta. Si vero incipiat fieri ante consecrationem, erit dare aliquod tempus in quo sub aliqua parte hostiae neque erit substantia panis, neque erit corpus Christi, quod est inconveniens. Et hoc ipsimet perpendisse videntur. Unde posuerunt aliud sub disiunctione, scilicet quod annihiletur. Sed nec hoc potest esse. Quia non erit dare aliquem modum quo corpus Christi verum incipiat esse in hoc sacramento, nisi per conversionem substantiae panis in ipsum, quae quidem conversio tollitur, posita vel annihilatione panis, vel resolutione in praeiacentem materiam. Similiter etiam non est dare unde talis resolutio vel annihilatio in hoc sacramento causetur, cum effectus sacramenti significetur per formam; neutrum autem horum significatur per haec verba formae, hoc est corpus meum. Unde patet praedictam positionem esse falsam. Now the original matter into which mixed bodies can be dissolved is the four elements. For dissolution cannot be made into primary matter, so that a subject can exist without a form, since matter cannot exist without a form. But since after the consecration nothing remains under the sacramental species except the body and the blood of Christ, it will be necessary to say that the elements into which the substance of the bread and wine is dissolved, depart from thence by local motion, which would be perceived by the senses. In like manner also the substance of the bread or wine remains until the last instant of the consecration; but in the last instant of the consecration there is already present there the substance of the body or blood of Christ, just as the form is already present in the last instant of generation. Hence no instant can be assigned in which the original matter can be there. For it cannot be said that the substance of the bread or wine is dissolved gradually into the original matter, or that it successively quits the species, for if this began to be done in the last instant of its consecration, then at the one time under part of the host there would be the body of Christ together with the substance of bread, which is contrary to what has been said above (A. 2). But if this begin to come to pass before the consecration, there will then be a time in which under one part of the host there will be neither the substance of bread nor the body of Christ, which is not fitting. They seem indeed to have taken this into careful consideration, wherefore they formulated their proposition with an alternative, viz. that (the substance) may be annihilated. But even this cannot stand, because no way can be assigned whereby Christ’s true body can begin to be in this sacrament, except by the change of the substance of bread into it, which change is excluded the moment we admit either annihilation of the substance of the bread, or dissolution into the original matter. Likewise no cause can be assigned for such dissolution or annihilation, since the effect of the sacrament is signified by the form: This is My body. Hence it is clear that the aforesaid opinion is false. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod substantia panis vel vini, facta consecratione, neque sub speciebus sacramenti manet, neque alibi. Non tamen sequitur quod annihiletur, convertitur enim in corpus Christi. Sicut non sequitur, si aer ex quo generatus est ignis, non sit ibi vel alibi, quod sit annihilatus. Reply Obj. 1: The substance of the bread or wine, after the consecration, remains neither under the sacramental species, nor elsewhere; yet it does not follow that it is annihilated; for it is changed into the body of Christ; just as if the air, from which fire is generated, be not there or elsewhere, it does not follow that it is annihilated. Ad secundum dicendum quod forma quae est terminus a quo, non convertitur in aliam formam, sed una forma succedit alteri in subiecto, et ideo prima forma non remanet nisi in potentia materiae. Sed hic substantia panis convertitur in corpus Christi, ut supra dictum est. Unde ratio non sequitur. Reply Obj. 2: The form, which is the term wherefrom, is not changed into another form; but one form succeeds another in the subject; and therefore the first form remains only in the potentiality of matter. But here the substance of the bread is changed into the body of Christ, as stated above. Hence the conclusion does not follow. Ad tertium dicendum quod, licet post consecrationem haec sit falsa substantia panis est aliquid; id tamen in quod substantia panis conversa est, est aliquid. Et ideo substantia panis non est annihilata. Reply Obj. 3: Although after the consecration this proposition is false: The substance of the bread is something, still that into which the substance of the bread is changed, is something, and consequently the substance of the bread is not annihilated. Articulus 4 Article 4 Utrum panis possit converti in corpus Christi Whether bread can be converted into the body of Christ? Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod panis non possit converti in corpus Christi. Conversio enim quaedam mutatio est. Sed in omni mutatione oportet esse aliquod subiectum, quod prius est in potentia et postea est in actu, ut enim dicitur in III Physic., motus est actus existentis in potentia. Non est autem dare aliquod subiectum substantiae panis et corporis Christi, quia de ratione substantiae est quod non sit in subiecto, ut dicitur in praedicamentis. Non ergo potest esse quod tota substantia panis convertatur in corpus Christi. Objection 1: It seems that bread cannot be converted into the body of Christ. For conversion is a kind of change. But in every change there must be some subject, which from being previously in potentiality is now in act, because as is said in Phys. iii: motion is the act of a thing existing in potentiality. But no subject can be assigned for the substance of the bread and of the body of Christ, because it is of the very nature of substance for it not to be in a subject, as it is said in Praedic. iii. Therefore it is not possible for the whole substance of the bread to be converted into the body of Christ. Praeterea, forma illius in quod aliquid convertitur, de novo incipit esse in materia eius quod in ipsum convertitur, sicut, cum aer convertitur in ignem prius non existentem, forma ignis incipit de novo esse in materia aeris; et similiter, cum cibus convertitur in hominem prius non existentem, forma hominis incipit esse de novo in materia cibi. Si ergo panis convertitur in corpus Christi, necesse est quod forma corporis Christi de novo incipiat esse in materia panis, quod est falsum. Non ergo panis convertitur in substantiam corporis Christi. Obj. 2: Further, the form of the thing into which another is converted, begins anew to inhere in the matter of the thing converted into it: as when air is changed into fire not already existing, the form of fire begins anew to be in the matter of the air; and in like manner when food is converted into non-pre-existing man, the form of the man begins to be anew in the matter of the food. Therefore, if bread be changed into the body of Christ, the form of Christ’s body must necessarily begin to be in the matter of the bread, which is false. Consequently, the bread is not changed into the substance of Christ’s body.