II. To the Initial Arguments

294. To the first argument [n.268] I say that all sensation of the same object that is in Christ’s senses as he is in heaven, is in the same senses in the Eucharist, as was proved in the first conclusion through the three ways [nn.279, 286-287].

To the proof for the opposite [n.269] I say that an object present in due proportion is only required for an act of sensing when the object is in some way cause of sensation, and cause of it as it first comes to be.

295. To the second [n.270] I say that the organ is truly a quantum here just as in heaven, and consequently it can receive sensation notwithstanding the fact that sensation is only received in a quantum; but it does not have here a quantitative mode, that is, coextension with the quantum to which it is present, nor does it fill place. And therefore sensation cannot be in it first as it is here. For this quantitative mode is required in the eye for sensation to be in it first. But it is not required for sensation to be in it, or come to be in it, concomitantly, because this sort of quantitative mode is not necessary for receiving sensation, but it is only a required condition by reference to the first transmuting agent.

296. To the third proof [n.271] I say (and it is plain from the same point that has already been made [nn.294-295]) that the obstacle is only an obstacle to sensation coming to be or being present first.

297. As to the fourth argument [n.272] I deny the consequence, for the antecedent is true from the second conclusion of the solution [n.277], but the consequent is false from the first conclusion [n.276]. The reason the consequence fails is plain from what has been said, that in order to sense the things here sensation would have to be in the eye first as it is here; for the sensation cannot be in the eye first as it is in heaven, because the sensible object is not present to the eye as it is in heave. But for sensation of some object to be concomitantly in the eye as it is here, it is sufficient that the same thing be proportionally present to the eye as it is somewhere, and that it be able to be first present to it as it is there. And such is how it is with objects that Christ’s senses perceive as he is in heaven.