Chapter 66 — Solution of the objections on the part of action and passion

Having made these observations, we come to deal with the fourth objection. In some ways, it presents no difficulty: in one respect, however, the solution is not quite so easy.

From what we have already said, it is surely fitting that, in this sacrament, we should observe the same action [of the elements] after [the consecration] as was to be noticed before in the substance of bread and wine: for instance, that it affects the senses (or the surrounding air or anything else) in the same way by its odor or color. We said, in fact, (Ch. 63.) that the accidents of bread and wine remain in this sacrament; among those accidents are the sensible qualities, which are the principles of these actions.

Again, as regards certain passions (that is, alterations in these accidents), there is no great difficulty, so long as we bear in mind what has already been said. We stated that the dimensions are the subject of the other accidents, and consequently these other accidents must be considered to be subject to alteration in the same way as though the substance [of bread and wine] were actually present. Thus, for instance, the wine would be subject to heating, or cooling, or a change of taste, and so on.

A greater difficulty, however, is presented by the generation and corruption which are observed to happen in this sacrament. Thus, were a man to partake of the sacramental food in any quantity, he could be nourished, and he could even be made drunk with the wine, according to the saying of the Apostle: One is hungry and another is drunk (1 Cor 11:21). Now these things would be impossible unless flesh and blood were produced by this sacrament, since nourishment is changed into the substance of the body nourished. It is true that some reply that this sacrament cannot nourish a man, but can only strengthen and refresh him, as the smell of wine stimulates him. But refreshment only lasts for a time and does not suffice to nourish him if he remains for a long time without food, and it is easy to prove by experiment that it is possible for a man to be nourished with this sacramental food for a considerable time.

Moreover, it is astonishing that they should deny that a man can be nourished with the sacramental elements through refusing to admit that they can be changed into flesh and blood, for it is apparent to the senses that by putrefaction or burning they are changed into another substance, namely ashes and dust.

And yet this would seem difficult, since apparently it is impossible for accidents to be transformed into substance, and it is unbelievable that Christ’s body, which is impassible, be changed into another substance.

Perhaps someone will say that, as the bread is changed miraculously into Christ’s body, so are the accidents miraculously changed into a substance. But, in the first place, it would seem inconsistent with the miraculous that this sacrament should putrefy or be destroyed by burning. Second, the putrefaction and burning that happen to this sacrament observe the ordinary course of nature, which is out of keeping with the course of miraculous effects.

Accordingly, to solve this difficulty a well-known explanation has been devised, which finds favor with many. They say that when this sacrament is changed into flesh or blood by the process of nutrition, or into ashes by burning or putrefaction, neither the accidents nor the substance of Christ’s body are changed into another substance, but, by a divine miracle, the substance of the bread that was there before, returns, and from that are generated the things into which this sacrament is observed to be changed. But this is utterly impossible.

We have already proved (Ch. 63.) that the substance of the bread is changed into the substance of Christ’s body. Now that which has been changed into something else cannot return unless this other thing be changed back again into it. Hence, if the substance of bread returns, it follows that the substance of Christ’s body is changed into bread. This is absurd.

Again. If the substance of bread returns, it follows that it returns either while the appearances of bread are still there, or after they have disappeared. But as long as the appearances of bread are there, the substance of bread cannot return, since as long as they remain, the substance of Christ’s body remains present under them; thus it would follow that the substance of bread and the substance of Christ’s body are both there at the same time. Yet neither can the substance of bread return after the appearances of bread have disappeared. This is both because the substance of bread must have its proper appearances, and because after the appearances of bread have disappeared, there is already another substance generated there, the generation of which was supposed to involve the return of the bread’s substance.

Therefore, it would seem better to say that just as the substance of the bread is miraculously changed into Christ’s body in the consecration, so by a miracle the accidents are made to subsist, which is proper to a substance. Consequently, they produce all the effects and undergo all the changes, which the substance would produce or undergo, if it were present. Therefore, without any further miracle they can inebriate, nourish, be reduced to ashes or dust, in the same way and order as though the substance of bread and wine were present.