1. A Possible Opinion

115. As to the second article [n.17] it would seem that this conversion could belong to some creature as principal agent.

116. The reason is that an action belonging to God through a principle of acting that is not formally infinite can belong to a creature. For an action whose sufficient principle is something finite, or non-infinite, is not repugnant to a creature; but God produces creatures through a will that is not formally infinite;     therefore etc     . The proof of the minor is that if the will of God were formally infinite, it would include every perfection intrinsic to God (for no addition can be made to something infinite), and then the will would be ‘a sea of infinite substance’ - which is not true because this is proper to the essence itself, according to Damascene ch.9, “‘He who is has sent me     etc .’, for since he comprehends the whole within himself, he has being like an infinite and unending sea;” and so Damascene says there that the name ‘He who is’ seems the more principal of the names that are said of God. A confirmation is that the will does not formally include relations in itself; but without these the total intrinsic divine perfection is not present; therefore      infinity is not present either.

117. Again, a natural agent can alter the species in question [sc. of bread and wine] and eventually generate a substance from them, as is plain in the case of mixing a lot of water with the species of wine and in nutrition and in other generations that arise from those species; therefore created power can totally convert them into a preexisting substance [sc. changing bread and wine into Christ’s body and blood], for no greater power is required in the latter case than in the former.