c. Third Reason

113. I argue with another reason, that can be the second, I say, for this conclusion, though perhaps the third against the man [Henry], and I argue as follows. Wherever God can make some natural substance not under its natural mode, or under an opposite mode, he can make it in the same place under its own natural mode, or a mode agreeable to its nature. The proof is that his not making it under its natural mode is a twofold miracle, which is not the case with his making it under its natural mode.The twofold miracle is [in the case of the Eucharist] God making Christ’s body to be present here and God making it to be under the species of bread, or not in its natural mode. But if God can do two miracles together he can do one of them alone, namely make Christ’s body to be present here and not in the mode of bread but in its own or natural mode. ⁹ But God can make Christ’s body to be present here without converting another thing into Christ’s body; therefore he can make it to be present here under its natural mode, and present here by location in place.

114. Proof of the minor, because conversion of something else into Christ’s body is not formally the reason for its being here. The point is clear because, when the conversion is over, the term of the conversion here remains. Therefore, without contradiction, a thing’s being here can be conferred on it without any conversion of something else into it.a

And if you perhaps say that this conversion, as past, is the cause of this presence -on the contrary: God cannot by his absolute power make a past conversion of this sort not to be past; therefore he could not by his absolute power make ‘present in this way’ not to be present in this way, which is nothing.

a.a [Interpolation] Proof, because in the first way there are two miracles and in the second way one. But God, according to everyone, can make his body to be present sacramentally (that is, not under its natural mode) in diverse ‘wheres’, and make it so in fact. Therefore he can do the same in the same ‘wheres’ by way of position in place and by bodily dimensions.

     Not that it is said to be here by conversion of something else into it, because it can come to be without conversion just as with conversion, because when the conversion is over...

115. If you also say in a different way that the species of the converted thing [sc. the bread] left behind after the conversion is the reason for Christ’s body being here, and so the conversion is necessarily required for it to be here, and consequently if you posit that nothing [sc. of the bread] remains but the whole is converted into the whole, the result is that Christ’s body will not be in the place of the converted thing [sc. the bread] -on the contrary: the species is not formally in the body of Christ, therefore it is not formally the reason for the body of Christ having some quality or other, and meaning generally by ‘some quality or other’ whatever is formally existent in the body of Christ; but the body of Christ is admitted to be present here formally.

116. The above minor proposition [n.114] is proved also as follows: there can be newness in something posterior while there is no newness in something prior; therefore it is possible for such presence to be new without newness in the substantial form, which is prior to any such respect.