b. Again, from the Statements of Him who Holds the Opinion

356. Argument secondly against this opinion from the statements of him who holds it. For he says that substance is individual formally through quantity; therefore, this bread is formally this bread through this quantity; therefore, when this quantity is corrupted, this bread no longer remains here, but a different singular bread does. Therefore, in any case of rarefaction the whole prior substance is corrupted and a new one generated.

357. This seems sufficiently improbable and against reason, because that such an alteration necessarily at once requires a new substance is to say that there cannot be variation as to the posterior if there is not variation as to the prior; and not a posterior in some way or other, but what is neither a proper passion nor consequent necessarily to the prior - which seems manifestly unacceptable.