C. To the Third Argument

299. To the third argument [181] I say that the proposition from On Generation that ‘agent and patient must have the matter in common’ can be understood of aptitudinal or actual commonness; but the separated accidents are of a nature [sc. are aptitudinally fit] to have the matter of the subject in common with the passive object.

300. Or in another way, it could be said that the proposition is only true of a univocal agent, for God and the heaven do not have matter in common with these things down here.

301. But this [n.300] is not a solution, because action of this sort on a contrary is univocal action.

302. Therefore the first response [n.299] is better, because from the fact that the form here [sc. in the Eucharist] is of the same idea as the form that is the term [sc. the form as in a substance], it follows that just as the form that is the term is in matter, so it is of a nature to be in matter; but it is not necessary that it be in act in matter as the former is, because to act belongs to a form that is maximally a per se being, but to be received or produced only belongs to the form in some susceptive subject.