e. Proof of the Fifth Conclusion

326. The fifth conclusion is proved by the proof that was set down about absolute form, in both the first question and the second question of this part [nn.247, 279]: because an absolute is not varied by variation in an extrinsic respect, nor does it cease to be because of a new respect coming from outside. And there is the same reasoning about an absolute in being as about an absolute in coming to be.

327. This conclusion can be proved in particular by running through the changes that are changes to absolute form.

First then about alteration, because if the body is primarily hot in its natural existence it is concomitantly hot in the sacrament, according to what everyone concedes.

328. Likewise about increase and decrease, because if a part of quantity were to come to the body or depart from the body in its natural existence, it would similarly come to it and depart from it in the Eucharist, because the body has the same parts in one mode of existing as it has in another, from the first question of this part [nn.246-247].

329. Likewise about nutrition, because nutrition is the addition of a part to the whole thing to be nourished, but no part can be added here that is not added there.

330. In the same way about the diminution and corruption opposite to nutrition; if a part is lost from the body in its natural existence, it does not remain a part of the body in the sacrament, nor conversely. And yet I do not say that, if the body were corrupted in its natural existence, it would for this reason be corrupted in the Eucharist. Here one must note that corruption is properly speaking separation of the form from the matter, which matter remains afterwards in a state of privation of form.

331. But if the body were corrupted in its natural existence it would not remain as matter without form in the Eucharist.

332. I explain this as follows, that the soul first perfects what is first perfectible by it, namely the whole organic body; but the soul only perfects the parts of the body because they are some part of what is first perfectible; therefore, when the form of the whole organic body ceases, nothing is formed by the soul.

333. In the same way universally, when something belongs first to a whole and to a part only because it belongs to the whole, then with the destruction of the whole in its ordering to this something, the part does not have the same ordering to it. But now the first thing signified by the Eucharist is the body composed of matter and form (whether body includes the blood or not, I do not care; this was touched on in question one of this part [nn.215-217]). Therefore, when any whole under the idea of what is first signified no longer remains, nothing of what it is as per se signified remains.

334. But when the form is separated from the matter in its natural existence, that which is first signified does not remain in the Eucharist, because then the matter would have and not have the form at the same time. Therefore, at that moment nothing at all of the thing signified remains. For the matter does not remain under the form, because this would be a contradiction. Nor does the matter remain without any form, because it is not contained here save because it is part of a whole. Nor does matter under any other form remain, because it would have and not have that other form at the same time.

335. On the contrary: it was conceded before, in question one of this part [nn.223-235], that the thing of the Eucharist could remain although the body would nowhere have its natural existence; indeed when it is posited that it would be corrupted in its natural existence. Therefore, although the body would be corrupted in that natural existence, it does not follow that it could not remain truly the same as it is the thing of the Eucharist.

336. I reply that the ceasing to be of the body in its natural existence can be whole and total, as if there were annihilation; and there would truly be annihilation if the body were not anywhere; however, the same whole would remain here in another mode of existence. But if there is corruption there, it is partial destruction, namely separation of part from remaining part, and the separation cannot be there without the existence of a like separation everywhere; nor can the separation stand here with the fact that something of the body is in the sacrament, because nothing of the body is in the sacrament save as it is part of the whole. But a material part, separated from a formal part or from a natural form, is not part of the whole; therefore this inference does not hold, ‘if it can cease to be there without ceasing to be here, then it can be corrupted there and not be corrupted here’, because the first includes no contradiction; for it only posits that one respect remains in something absolute while the other respect does not; but the second does posit a contradiction, namely that the same absolute form is informing and not informing the same thing, when only a variation in relation has been posited.

337. But if you say that in both places the form does not inform the matter, on the contrary: because it is against the truth of this sacrament that a part of the body is contained in it unless the whole body be first contained in it; and so the matter without form will in no way be contained here, nor consequently will it be able to be corrupted as it is here, although the whole could be corrupted as it is here, because the matter cannot be changed as it is here from form to privation, which change is what is meant by corruption; rather ‘matter ceasing to have form’ is its ceasing to be part of the whole, and consequently ceasing to be as it is here.A proof of the sixth conclusion is not offered because the conclusion is already plain from what was said in proof of the first and second conclusions [nn.313-314], and will be plain from the response to the fourth initial argument [n.345]. ¹⁵