Articulus 3 Article 3 Utrum haec sit conveniens forma consecrationis vini, ‘hic est calix sanguinis mei,’ etc. Whether this is the proper form for the consecration of the wine: “this is the chalice of My Blood,” etc.? Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod haec non sit conveniens forma consecrationis vini, hic est calix sanguinis mei, novi et aeterni testamenti, mysterium fidei, qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. Sicut enim panis convertitur in corpus Christi ex vi consecrationis, ita et vinum in sanguinem Christi, sicut ex praedictis patet. Sed in forma consecrationis panis ponitur in recto corpus Christi, nec aliquid aliud additur. Inconvenienter ergo in hac forma ponitur sanguis Christi in obliquo, et additur calix in recto, cum dicitur, hic est calix sanguinis mei. Objection 1: It seems that this is not the proper form for the consecration of the wine. This is the chalice of My blood, of the New and Eternal Testament, the Mystery of Faith, which shall be shed for you and for many unto the forgiveness of sins. For as the bread is changed by the power of consecration into Christ’s body, so is the wine changed into Christ’s blood, as is clear from what was said above (Q. 76, AA. 1, 2, 3). But in the form of the consecration of the bread, the body of Christ is expressly mentioned, without any addition. Therefore in this form the blood of Christ is improperly expressed in the oblique case, and the chalice in the nominative, when it is said: This is the chalice of My blood. Praeterea, non sunt maioris efficaciae verba quae proferuntur in consecratione panis quam ea quae proferuntur in consecratione vini, cum utraque sint verba Christi. Sed statim dicto, hoc est corpus meum, est perfecta consecratio panis. Ergo statim cum dictum est, hic est calix sanguinis mei, est perfecta consecratio sanguinis. Et ita ea quae consequuntur non videntur esse de substantia formae, praesertim cum pertineant ad proprietates huius sacramenti. Obj. 2: Further, the words spoken in the consecration of the bread are not more efficacious than those spoken in the consecration of the wine, since both are Christ’s words. But directly the words are spoken—This is My body, there is perfect consecration of the bread. Therefore, directly these other words are uttered—This is the chalice of My blood, there is perfect consecration of the blood; and so the words which follow do not appear to be of the substance of the form, especially since they refer to the properties of this sacrament. Praeterea, testamentum novum pertinere videtur ad internam inspirationem, ut patet ex hoc quod apostolus, ad Heb. VIII, introducit verba quae habentur in Ierem. XXXI, consummabo super domum Israel testamentum novum, dando leges meas in mentibus eorum. Sacramentum autem exterius visibiliter agitur. Inconvenienter ergo in forma sacramenti dicitur, novi testamenti. Obj. 3: Further, the New Testament seems to be an internal inspiration, as is evident from the Apostle quoting the words of Jeremias (31:31): I will perfect unto the house of Israel a New Testament . . . I will give My laws into their mind (Heb 8:8). But a sacrament is an outward visible act. Therefore, in the form of the sacrament the words of the New Testament are improperly added. Praeterea, novum dicitur aliquid ex eo quod est prope principium sui esse. Aeternum autem non habet principium sui esse. Ergo inconvenienter dicitur novi et aeterni, quia videtur contradictionem implicare. Obj. 4: Further, a thing is said to be new which is near the beginning of its existence. But what is eternal has no beginning of its existence. Therefore it is incorrect to say of the New and Eternal, because it seems to savor of a contradiction. Praeterea, occasiones erroris sunt hominibus subtrahendae, secundum illud Isaiae LVII, auferte offendicula de via populi mei. Sed quidam erraverunt aestimantes mystice solum esse corpus et sanguinem Christi in hoc sacramento. Ergo in hac forma inconvenienter ponitur mysterium fidei. Obj. 5: Further, occasions of error ought to be withheld from men, according to Isa. 57:14: Take away the stumbling blocks out of the way of My people. But some have fallen into error in thinking that Christ’s body and blood are only mystically present in this sacrament. Therefore it is out of place to add the mystery of faith. Praeterea, supra dictum est quod, sicut Baptismus est sacramentum fidei, ita Eucharistia est sacramentum caritatis. Ergo in hac forma magis debuit poni caritas quam fides. Obj. 6: Further, it was said above (Q. 73, A. 3, ad 3), that as Baptism is the sacrament of faith, so is the Eucharist the sacrament of charity. Consequently, in this form the word charity ought rather to be used than faith. Praeterea, totum hoc sacramentum, et quantum ad corpus et quantum ad sanguinem, est memoriale dominicae passionis, secundum illud I Cor. XI, quotiescumque manducabitis panem hunc et calicem bibetis, mortem domini annuntiabitis. Non ergo magis debuit in forma consecrationis sanguinis fieri mentio de passione Christi et de eius fructu, quam in forma consecrationis corporis, praesertim cum, Luc. XXII, dominus dixerit, hoc est corpus meum, quod pro vobis tradetur. Obj. 7: Further, the whole of this sacrament, both as to body and blood, is a memorial of our Lord’s Passion, according to 1 Cor. 11:26: As often as you shall eat this bread and drink the chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord. Consequently, mention ought to be made of Christ’s Passion and its fruit rather in the form of the consecration of the blood, than in the form of the consecration of the body, especially since our Lord said: This is My body, which shall be delivered up for you (Luke 22:19). Praeterea, passio Christi, ut supra habitum est, ad sufficientiam profuit omnibus, quantum vero ad efficaciam profuit multis. Debuit ergo dici quod effundetur pro omnibus, aut pro multis, sine hoc quod adderetur pro vobis. Obj. 8: Further, as was already observed (Q. 48, A. 2; Q. 49, A. 3), Christ’s Passion sufficed for all; while as to its efficacy it was profitable for many. Therefore it ought to be said: Which shall be shed for all, or else for many, without adding, for you. Praeterea, verba quibus hoc sacramentum conficitur, efficaciam habent ex institutione Christi. Sed nullus Evangelista recitat Christum haec omnia verba dixisse. Ergo non est conveniens forma consecrationis vini. Obj. 9: Further, the words whereby this sacrament is consecrated draw their efficacy from Christ’s institution. But no Evangelist narrates that Christ spoke all these words. Therefore this is not an appropriate form for the consecration of the wine. Sed contra est quod Ecclesia, ab apostolis instructa, utitur hac forma in consecratione vini. On the contrary, The Church, instructed by the apostles, uses this form. Respondeo dicendum quod circa hanc formam est duplex opinio. Quidam enim dixerunt quod de substantia formae huius est hoc solum quod dicitur, hic est calix sanguinis mei, non autem ea quae sequuntur. Sed hoc videtur inconveniens, quia ea quae sequuntur, sunt quaedam determinationes praedicati, idest sanguinis Christi; unde pertinent ad integritatem locutionis. I answer that, There is a twofold opinion regarding this form. Some have maintained that the words This is the chalice of My blood alone belong to the substance of this form, but not those words which follow. Now this seems incorrect, because the words which follow them are determinations of the predicate, that is, of Christ’s blood. consequently they belong to the integrity of the expression. Et propter hoc sunt alii qui melius dicunt quod omnia sequentia sunt de substantia formae, usque ad hoc quod postea sequitur, hoc quotiescumque feceritis, quae pertinent ad usum huius sacramenti, unde non sunt de substantia formae. Et inde est quod sacerdos eodem ritu et modo, scilicet tenendo calicem in manibus, omnia haec verba profert. Lucae etiam XXII interponuntur verba sequentia verbis primis, cum dicitur, hic calix novum testamentum est in sanguine meo. And on this account others say more accurately that all the words which follow are of the substance of the form down to the words, As often as ye shall do this, which belong to the use of this sacrament, and consequently do not belong to the substance of the form. Hence it is that the priest pronounces all these words, under the same rite and manner, namely, holding the chalice in his hands. Moreover, in Luke 22:20, the words that follow are interposed with the preceding words: This is the chalice, the new testament in My blood. Dicendum est ergo quod omnia praedicta verba sunt de substantia formae, sed per prima verba, hic est calix sanguinis mei, significatur ipsa conversio vini in sanguinem, eo modo quo dictum est in forma consecrationis panis; per verba autem sequentia designatur virtus sanguinis effusi in passione, quae operatur in hoc sacramento. Quae quidem ad tria ordinatur. Primo quidem, et principaliter, ad adipiscendam aeternam hereditatem, secundum illud Heb. X, habemus fiduciam in introitu sanctorum per sanguinem eius. Et ad hoc designandum dicitur, novi testamenti et aeterni. Secundo, ad iustitiam gratiae, quae est per fidem, secundum illud Rom. III, quem proposuit Deus propitiatorem per fidem in sanguine eius, ut sit ipse iustus, et iustificans eum qui ex fide est Iesu Christi. Et quantum ad hoc subditur, mysterium fidei. Tertio autem, ad removendum impedimenta utriusque praedictorum, scilicet peccata, secundum illud Heb. IX, sanguis Christi emundabit conscientias nostras ab operibus mortuis, idest a peccatis. Et quantum ad hoc subditur, qui pro vobis et pro multis aliis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. Consequently it must be said that all the aforesaid words belong to the substance of the form; but that by the first words, This is the chalice of My blood, the change of the wine into blood is denoted, as explained above (A. 2) in the form for the consecration of the bread; but by the words which come after is shown the power of the blood shed in the Passion, which power works in this sacrament, and is ordained for three purposes. First and principally for securing our eternal heritage, according to Heb. 10:19: Having confidence in the entering into the holies by the blood of Christ; and in order to denote this, we say, of the New and Eternal Testament. Second, for justifying by grace, which is by faith according to Rom. 3:25, 26: Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in His blood . . . that He Himself may be just, and the justifier of him who is of the faith of Jesus Christ: and on this account we add, The Mystery of Faith. Third, for removing sins which are the impediments to both of these things, according to Heb. 9:14: The blood of Christ . . . shall cleanse our conscience from dead works, that is, from sins; and on this account, we say, which shall be shed for you and for many unto the forgiveness of sins. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, cum dicitur, hic est calix sanguinis mei, est locutio figurativa, et potest dupliciter intelligi. Uno modo, secundum metonymiam, quia ponitur continens pro contento, ut sit sensus, hic est sanguis meus contentus in calice. De quo fit hic mentio, quia sanguis Christi in hoc sacramento consecratur inquantum est potus fidelium, quod non importatur in ratione sanguinis, et ideo oportuit hic designari per vas huic usui accommodatum. Reply Obj. 1: The expression This is the chalice of My blood is a figure of speech, which can be understood in two ways. First, as a figure of metonymy; because the container is put for the contained, so that the meaning is: This is My blood contained in the chalice; of which mention is now made, because Christ’s blood is consecrated in this sacrament, inasmuch as it is the drink of the faithful, which is not implied under the notion of blood; consequently this had to be denoted by the vessel adapted for such usage. Alio modo potest intelligi secundum metaphoram, prout per calicem similitudinarie intelligitur passio Christi, quae ad similitudinem calicis inebriat, secundum illud Thren. III, replevit me amaritudinibus, inebriavit me absynthio, unde et ipse dominus passionem suam calicem nominat, Matth. XXVI, dicens, transeat a me calix iste; ut sit sensus, hic est calix passionis meae. De qua fit mentio in sanguine seorsum a corpore consecrato, quia separatio sanguinis a corpore fuit per passionem. Second, it can be taken by way of metaphor, so that Christ’s Passion is understood by the chalice by way of comparison, because, like a cup, it inebriates, according to Lam. 3:15: He hath filled me with bitterness, he hath inebriated me with wormwood: hence our Lord Himself spoke of His Passion as a chalice, when He said (Matt 26:39): Let this chalice pass away from Me: so that the meaning is: This is the chalice of My Passion. This is denoted by the blood being consecrated apart from the body; because it was by the Passion that the blood was separated from the body. Ad secundum dicendum quod quia, ut dictum est, sanguis seorsum consecratus expresse passionem Christi repraesentat, ideo potius in consecratione sanguinis fit mentio de effectu passionis quam in consecratione corporis, quod est passionis subiectum. Quod etiam designatur in hoc quod dominus dicit, quod pro vobis tradetur, quasi dicat, quod pro vobis passioni subiicietur. Reply Obj. 2: As was said above (ad 1; Q. 76, A. 2, ad 1), the blood consecrated apart expressly represents Christ’s Passion, and therefore mention is made of the fruits of the Passion in the consecration of the blood rather than in that of the body, since the body is the subject of the Passion. This is also pointed out in our Lord’s saying, which shall be delivered up for you, as if to say, which shall undergo the Passion for you. Ad tertium dicendum quod testamentum est dispositio hereditatis. Hereditatem autem caelestem Deus disposuit hominibus dandam per virtutem sanguinis Iesu Christi, quia, ut dicitur Heb. IX, ubi est testamentum, mors necesse est intercedat testatoris. Sanguis autem Christi dupliciter est hominibus exhibitus. Primo quidem, in figura, quod pertinet ad vetus testamentum. Et ideo apostolus ibidem concludit, unde nec primum testamentum sine sanguine dedicatum est, quod patet ex hoc quod, sicut dicitur Exod. XXIV, lecto omni mandato legis a Moyse, omnem populum aspersit, dicens, hic est sanguis testamenti quod mandavit ad vos Deus. Reply Obj. 3: A testament is the disposal of a heritage. But God disposed of a heavenly heritage to men, to be bestowed through the virtue of the blood of Jesus Christ; because, according to Heb. 9:16: Where there is a testament the death of the testator must of necessity come in. Now Christ’s blood was exhibited to men in two ways. First of all in figure, and this belongs to the Old Testament; consequently the Apostle concludes (Heb 9:16): Whereupon neither was the first indeed dedicated without blood, which is evident from this, that as related in Ex. 24:7, 8, when every commandment of the law had been read by Moses, he sprinkled all the people saying: This is the blood of the testament which the Lord hath enjoined unto you. Secundo autem est exhibitus in rei veritate, quod pertinet ad novum testamentum. Et hoc est quod apostolus ibidem praemittit, dicens, ideo novi testamenti mediator est Christus, ut, morte intercedente, repromissionem accipiant qui vocati sunt aeternae hereditatis. Dicitur ergo hic sanguis novi testamenti, quia iam non in figura, sed in veritate exhibetur. Unde subditur, qui pro vobis effundetur. Interna autem inspiratio ex sanguinis virtute procedit secundum quod passione Christi iustificamur. Second, it was shown in very truth; and this belongs to the New Testament. This is what the Apostle premises when he says (Rom 9:15): Therefore He is the Mediator of the New Testament, that by means of His death . . . they that are called may receive the promise of eternal inheritance. Consequently, we say here, The blood of the New Testament, because it is shown now not in figure but in truth; and therefore we add, which shall be shed for you. But the internal inspiration has its origin in the power of this blood, according as we are justified by Christ’s Passion. Ad quartum dicendum quod hoc testamentum est novum ratione exhibitionis. Dicitur autem aeternum, tam ratione aeternae Dei praeordinationis; quam etiam ratione aeternae hereditatis, quae per hoc testamentum disponitur. Ipsa etiam persona Christi, cuius sanguine testamentum disponitur, est aeterna. Reply Obj. 4: This Testament is a new one by reason of its showing forth: yet it is called eternal both on account of God’s eternal pre-ordination, as well as on account of the eternal heritage which is prepared by this testament. Moreover, Christ’s Person is eternal, in Whose blood this testament is appointed. Ad quintum dicendum quod mysterium hic ponitur, non quidem ad excludendum rei veritatem, sed ad ostendendum occultationem. Quia et ipse sanguis Christi occulto modo est in hoc sacramento; et ipsa passio Christi occulte fuit figurata in veteri testamento. Reply Obj. 5: The word mystery is inserted, not in order to exclude reality, but to show that the reality is hidden, because Christ’s blood is in this sacrament in a hidden manner, and His Passion was dimly foreshadowed in the Old Testament. Ad sextum dicendum quod dicitur sacramentum fidei, quasi fidei obiectum, quia quod sanguis Christi secundum rei veritatem sit in hoc sacramento, sola fide tenetur. Ipsa etiam passio Christi per fidem iustificat. Baptismus autem dicitur sacramentum fidei quia est quaedam fidei protestatio. Hoc autem est sacramentum caritatis quasi figurativum et effectivum. Reply Obj. 6: It is called the Sacrament of Faith, as being an object of faith: because by faith alone do we hold the presence of Christ’s blood in this sacrament. Moreover Christ’s Passion justifies by faith. Baptism is called the Sacrament of Faith because it is a profession of faith. This is called the Sacrament of Charity, as being figurative and effective thereof. Ad septimum dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, sanguis seorsum consecratus a corpore expressius repraesentat passionem Christi. Et ideo in consecratione sanguinis fit mentio de passione Christi et fructu ipsius, potius quam in consecratione corporis. Reply Obj. 7: As stated above (ad 2), the blood consecrated apart represents Christ’s blood more expressively; and therefore mention is made of Christ’s Passion and its fruits, in the consecration of the blood rather than in that of the body. Ad octavum dicendum quod sanguis passionis Christi non solum habet efficaciam in Iudaeis electis, quibus exhibitus est sanguis veteris testamenti, sed etiam in gentilibus; nec solum in sacerdotibus, qui hoc efficiunt sacramentum, vel aliis qui sumunt, sed etiam in illis pro quibus offertur. Et ideo signanter dicit, pro vobis Iudaeis, et pro multis, scilicet gentilibus, vel, pro vobis manducantibus, et pro multis pro quibus offertur. Reply Obj. 8: The blood of Christ’s Passion has its efficacy not merely in the elect among the Jews, to whom the blood of the Old Testament was exhibited, but also in the Gentiles; nor only in priests who consecrate this sacrament, and in those others who partake of it; but likewise in those for whom it is offered. And therefore He says expressly, for you, the Jews, and for many, namely the Gentiles; or, for you who eat of it, and for many, for whom it is offered. Ad nonum dicendum quod Evangelistae non intendebant tradere formas sacramentorum, quas in primitiva Ecclesia oportebat esse occultas, ut dicit Dionysius, in fine ecclesiasticae hierarchiae. Sed intenderunt historiam de Christo texere. Et tamen omnia haec verba fere ex diversis Scripturae locis accipi possunt. Nam quod dicitur, hic est calix, habetur Luc. XXII et I Cor. XI. Matthaei autem XXVI dicitur, hic est sanguis meus novi testamenti, qui pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. Quod autem additur, aeterni, et iterum, mysterium fidei, ex traditione domini habetur, quae ad Ecclesiam per apostolos pervenit, secundum illud I Cor. XI, ego accepi a domino quod et tradidi vobis. Reply Obj. 9: The Evangelists did not intend to hand down the forms of the sacraments, which in the primitive Church had to be kept concealed, as Dionysius observes at the close of his book on the ecclesiastical hierarchy; their object was to write the story of Christ. Nevertheless nearly all these words can be culled from various passages of the Scriptures. Because the words, This is the chalice, are found in Luke 22:20, and 1 Cor. 11:25, while Matthew says in chapter 26:28: This is My blood of the New Testament, which shall be shed for many unto the remission of sins. The words added, namely, eternal and mystery of faith, were handed down to the Church by the apostles, who received them from our Lord, according to 1 Cor. 11:23: I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you. Articulus 4 Article 4 Utrum praedictis verbis formarum insit aliqua vis creata effectiva consecrationis Whether in the aforesaid words of the forms there be any created power which causes the consecration? Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod praedictis verbis formarum non insit aliqua vis creata effectiva consecrationis. Dicit enim Damascenus, in IV libro, sola virtute spiritus sancti fit conversio panis in corpus Christi. Sed virtus spiritus sancti est virtus increata. Ergo nulla virtute creata horum verborum conficitur sacramentum hoc. Objection 1: It seems that in the aforesaid words of the forms there is no created power which causes the consecration. Because Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv): The change of the bread into Christ’s body is caused solely by the power of the Holy Spirit. But the power of the Holy Spirit is uncreated. Therefore this sacrament is not caused by any created power of those words. Praeterea, opera miraculosa non fiunt aliqua virtute creata, sed sola virtute divina, ut in prima parte habitum est. Sed conversio panis et vini in corpus et sanguinem Christi est opus non minus miraculosum quam creatio rerum, vel etiam formatio corporis Christi in utero virginali, quae quidem nulla virtute creata fieri potuerunt. Ergo neque hoc sacramentum consecratur virtute creata aliqua dictorum verborum. Obj. 2: Further, miraculous works are wrought not by any created power, but solely by Divine power, as was stated in the First Part (Q. 110, A. 4). But the change of the bread and wine into Christ’s body and blood is a work not less miraculous than the creation of things, or than the formation of Christ’s body in the womb of a virgin: which things could not be done by any created power. Therefore, neither is this sacrament consecrated by any created power of the aforesaid words. Praeterea, praedicta verba non sunt simplicia, sed ex multis composita; nec simul, sed successive proferuntur. Conversio autem praedicta, ut supra dictum est, fit in instanti, unde oportet quod fiat per simplicem virtutem. Non ergo fit per virtutem horum verborum. Obj. 3: Further, the aforesaid words are not simple, but composed of many; nor are they uttered simultaneously, but successively. But, as stated above (Q. 75, A. 7), this change is wrought instantaneously. Hence it must be done by a simple power. Therefore it is not effected by the power of those words. Sed contra est quod Ambrosius dicit, in libro de sacramentis, si tanta est vis in sermone domini Iesu ut inciperet esse quod non erat, quanto magis operativus est ut sint quae erant, et in aliud commutentur? Et sic quod erat panis ante consecrationem, iam corpus Christi est post consecrationem, quia sermo Christi creaturam mutat. On the contrary, Ambrose says (De Sacram. iv): If there be such might in the word of the Lord Jesus that things non-existent came into being, how much more efficacious is it to make things existing to continue, and to be changed into something else? And so, what was bread before consecration is now the body of Christ after consecration, because Christ’s word changes a creature into something different. Respondeo dicendum quod quidam dixerunt nullam virtutem creatam esse nec in praedictis verbis ad transubstantiationem faciendam, nec etiam in aliis sacramentorum formis, vel etiam in ipsis sacramentis ad inducendos sacramentorum effectus. Quod, sicut supra dictum est, et dictis sanctorum repugnat, et derogat dignitati sacramentorum novae legis. Unde, cum hoc sacramentum sit prae ceteris dignius, sicut supra dictum est, consequens est quod in verbis formalibus huius sacramenti sit quaedam virtus creata ad conversionem huius sacramenti faciendam, instrumentalis tamen, sicut et in aliis sacramentis, sicut supra dictum est. Cum enim haec verba ex persona Christi proferantur, ex eius mandato consequuntur virtutem instrumentalem a Christo, sicut et cetera eius facta vel dicta habent instrumentaliter salutiferam virtutem, ut supra habitum est. I answer that, Some have maintained that neither in the above words is there any created power for causing the transubstantiation, nor in the other forms of the sacraments, or even in the sacraments themselves, for producing the sacramental effects. This, as was shown above (Q. 62, A. 1), is both contrary to the teachings of the saints, and detracts from the dignity of the sacraments of the New Law. Hence, since this sacrament is of greater worth than the others, as stated above (Q. 65, A. 3), the result is that there is in the words of the form of this sacrament a created power which causes the change to be wrought in it: instrumental, however, as in the other sacraments, as stated above (Q. 62, AA. 3, 4). For since these words are uttered in the person of Christ, it is from His command that they receive their instrumental power from Him, just as His other deeds and sayings derive their salutary power instrumentally, as was observed above (Q. 48, A. 6; Q. 56, A. 1, ad 3). Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, cum dicitur sola virtute spiritus sancti panem in corpus Christi converti, non excluditur virtus instrumentalis quae est in forma huius sacramenti, sicut, cum dicitur quod solus faber facit cultellum, non excluditur virtus martelli. Reply Obj. 1: When the bread is said to be changed into Christ’s body solely by the power of the Holy Spirit, the instrumental power which lies in the form of this sacrament is not excluded: just as when we say that the smith alone makes a knife we do not deny the power of the hammer. Ad secundum dicendum quod opera miraculosa nulla creatura potest facere quasi agens principale, potest tamen ea facere instrumentaliter, sicut ipse tactus manus Christi sanavit leprosum. Et per hunc modum verba eius convertunt panem in corpus Christi. Quod quidem non potuit in conceptione corporis Christi, qua corpus Christi formabatur, ut aliquid a corpore Christi procedens haberet instrumentalem virtutem ad ipsius corporis formationem. In creatione etiam non fuit aliquod extremum in quod instrumentalis actio creaturae posset terminari. Unde non est simile. Reply Obj. 2: No creature can work miracles as the chief agent. Yet it can do so instrumentally, just as the touch of Christ’s hand healed the leper. And in this fashion Christ’s words change the bread into His body. But in Christ’s conception, whereby His body was fashioned, it was impossible for anything derived from His body to have the instrumental power of forming that very body. Likewise in creation there was no term wherein the instrumental action of a creature could be received. Consequently there is no comparison. Ad tertium dicendum quod praedicta verba quibus fit consecratio, sacramentaliter operantur. Unde vis conversiva quae est in formis horum sacramentorum, sequitur significationem, quae in prolatione ultimae dictionis terminatur. Et ideo in ultimo instanti prolationis verborum praedicta verba consequuntur hanc virtutem, in ordine tamen ad praecedentia. Et haec virtus est simplex ratione significati, licet in ipsis verbis exterius prolatis fit quaedam compositio. Reply Obj. 3: The aforesaid words, which work the consecration, operate sacramentally. Consequently, the converting power latent under the forms of these sacraments follows the meaning, which is terminated in the uttering of the last word. And therefore the aforesaid words have this power in the last instant of their being uttered, taken in conjunction with those uttered before. And this power is simple by reason of the thing signified, although there be composition in the words uttered outwardly.