II. To the Initial Arguments

152. As to the first argument [n.53], it is plain that the ‘this’ is a singular demonstrative of being, and not the bread or its accidents; for it is demonstrative for the moment of the complete uttering of the assertion, and that either by virtue of the words, according to the fifth and seventh conclusions [nn.116, 120], or by the intention of the speaker, according to another way [nn.139-140]. Nor is this the same as saying ‘my body is my body’, as is plain from the thirteenth conclusion [n.131]. And the fact is plain because the proposition ‘this is fire’ could be such as to convert, but not the proposition ‘fire is fire’, because what ‘this being is fire’ does is to make a certain conversion, but not so ‘fire is fire’.

153. As to the second [n.54], it is plain that the ‘for’ is put there to produce continuity in the words, so that the individual words could not there be uttered at once as distinct.

154. As to the third [n.55], I concede that it ought to be that the ‘my’, by virtue of the words, be denoted as referring to the person of Christ; but this is not the case unless mention is made first of Christ, in whose person the words are uttered; just as, if I were to say “Christ said, ‘my doctrine is not mine’,” the signification, from the truth of the proposition, would be that the ‘mine’ is referred to Christ; but not so if, without speaking previously about Christ, someone were at once to say, ‘my doctrine is not mine’.

155. As to the two arguments against the consecration of the blood [nn.56-57], the answer is plain in the body of the question [nn.72-95].